Page 1 of 2

Get Your Kid Off Your Facebook Page

Posted: 2009-05-14 22:06
by Knowing
That said, I use my cat's picture as my profile on facebook.
http://www.doublex.com/section/life/get ... ebook-page

If Betty Friedan were to review the Facebook habits of the over-30 set, she would turn over in her grave. By this I mean specifically the trend of women using photographs of their children instead of themselves as the main picture on their Facebook profiles. You click on a friend's name and what comes into focus is not a photograph of her face, but a sleeping blond four-year-old, or a sun-hatted baby running on the beach. Here, harmlessly embedded in one of our favorite methods of procrastination, is a potent symbol for the new century. Where have all of these women gone? What, some future historian may very well ask, do all of these babies on our Facebook pages say about the construction of women’s identity at this particular moment in time?

Many of these women work. Many of them are in book clubs. Many of them are involved in causes. But this is how they choose to represent themselves. The choice may seem trivial, but the whole idea behind Facebook is to create a social persona, an image of who you are projected into hundreds of bedrooms and cafes and offices across the country. Why would that image be of someone else, however closely bound they are to your life, genetically and otherwise? The choice seems to constitute a retreat to an older form of identity, to a time when women were called Mrs. John Smith, to a time when fresh scrubbed Vassar girls were losing their minds amidst vacuum cleaners and sandboxes. Which is not to say that I don’t understand the temptation to put a photograph of your beautiful child on Facebook, because I do. After all, it frees you of the burden of looking halfway decent for a picture, and of the whole excruciating business of being yourself. Your three-year-old likes being in front of the camera. But still.

These Facebook photos signal a larger and more ominous self-effacement, a narrowing of our worlds. Think of a dinner party you just attended, and your friend, who wrote her senior thesis in college on Proust, who used to stay out drinking till five in the morning in her twenties, a brilliant and accomplished woman. Think about how throughout the entire dinner party, from olives to chocolate mousse, she talks about nothing but her kids. You waited, and because you love this woman, you want her to talk about…what?…a book? A movie? A news story? True, her talk about her children is very detailed, very impressive in the rigor and analytical depth she brings to the subject; she could, you couldn’t help but think, be writing an entire dissertation on the precise effect of a certain teacher’s pedagogical style on her four-year-old. But still. You notice at another, livelier corner of the table that the men are not talking about models of strollers. This could in fact be a 19th-century novel where the men have retired to a different room to drink brandy and talk about news and politics. You turn back to the conversation and the woman is talking about what she packs for lunch for her child. Are we all sometimes that woman? A little kid talk is fine, of course, but wasn’t there a time when we were interested, also, in something else?

The mystery here is that the woman with the baby on her Facebook page has surely read The Feminine Mystique in college, and The Second Sex, and The Beauty Myth. She is no stranger to the smart talk of whatever wave of feminism we are on, and yet this style of effacement, this voluntary loss of self, comes naturally to her. Here is my pretty family, she seems to be saying, I don’t matter anymore.

I have a friend whose daughter for a very long time wore squeaky sneakers. These sneakers emitted what was to adult ears an unbelievably annoying squeak with every single step she took. I asked my friend once why she put up with the sneakers, and she said, “Because she likes them!” Imagine being in this new generation, discovering with every joyous squeak of your sneakers, that Galileo was wrong, and the sun is not the center of the universe, you are!

Our parents, I can’t help thinking, would never have tolerated the squeaky sneakers, or conversations revolving entirely around children. They loved us as much as we love our children, but they had their own lives, as I remember it, and we played around the margins. They did not plan weekend days solely around children’s concerts and art lessons and piano lessons and birthday parties. Why, many of us wonder, don’t our children play on their own? Why do they lack the inner resources that we seem to remember, dimly, from our own childhoods? The answer seems clear: because with all good intentions we have over-devoted ourselves to our children’s education and entertainment and general formation. Because we have chipped away at the idea of independent adult life, of letting children dream up a place for themselves, in their rooms, on the carpets, in our gardens, on their own.

Facebook, of course, traffics in exhibitionism: it is a way of presenting your life, at least those sides of it you cherry pick for the outside world, for show. One’s children are of course an important achievement, and arguably one’s most important achievement, but that doesn’t mean that they are who you are. It could, of course, be argued that the vanity of a younger generation, with their status postings on what kind of tea they are drinking, is a worse kind of narcissism. But this particular form of narcissism, these cherubs trotted out to create a picture of self is to me more disturbing for the truth it tells. The subliminal equation is clear: I am my children. And perhaps for their health and yours and ours, you should be other things as well.

Facebook was pioneered for a younger generation, of course. It lends itself naturally to strangers who meet at parties and flirtations struck up in bars. Part of what is disturbing about this substitution is how clearly and deliberately it subverts that purpose: this generation leaches itself of sexuality by putting the innocent face of a child in the place of an attractive mother. It telegraphs a discomfort with even a minimal level of vanity. Like wearing sneakers every day or forgetting to cut your hair, it is a way of being dowdy and invisible, and it mirrors a certain mommy culture in which its almost a point of pride how little remains of the healthy, worldly, engaged, and preening self.

What if Facebook pages are only the beginning? What if next are passports and drivers’ licenses? What if suddenly the faces of a generation were to disappear, and in their places beaming toddlers? Who will mourn these vanished ladies and when will Betty Friedan rest in peace?

Posted: 2009-05-14 22:14
by 幻儿
成功男士需要trophy wife,成功女士需要trophy babies :mrgreen:

其实也有很多父亲把小孩照片当profile pic或者桌面背景。我大学时候的系主任说,他从前特别烦别人把桌面设置成自己小孩照片,可是他有了孩子之后就完全理解了,并且他的桌面和facebook也全都换了。

Posted: 2009-05-14 22:19
by Knowing
一粒女朋友在facebook上引用了该文,马上有人评论“比躲在孩子后面更可悲的是躲在狗后面!”我象被针扎了一下,赶紧把profile picture 换成了自己得意的风景作品。 :mrgreen: 当然作品就相当于我的宠物和孩子。

Posted: 2009-05-14 22:34
by tiffany
哼,真是赤果果的歧视有孩儿妇女!

不过说真的,我对所有敢于在网上贴自己照片儿的人的勇气表景仰!

Posted: 2009-05-14 22:46
by 豪情
Our parents, I can’t help thinking, would never have tolerated the squeaky sneakers, or conversations revolving entirely around children. They loved us as much as we love our children, but they had their own lives, as I remember it, and we played around the margins. They did not plan weekend days solely around children’s concerts and art lessons and piano lessons and birthday parties. Why, many of us wonder, don’t our children play on their own? Why do they lack the inner resources that we seem to remember, dimly, from our own childhoods? The answer seems clear: because with all good intentions we have over-devoted ourselves to our children’s education and entertainment and general formation. Because we have chipped away at the idea of independent adult life, of letting children dream up a place for themselves, in their rooms, on the carpets, in our gardens, on their own.
然后孩子们长大了就抱怨童年心理创伤. :mrgreen:
.
this generation leaches itself of sexuality by putting the innocent face of a child in the place of an attractive mother. "
我没看出为什么贴一张性感诱人的自照一定比贴孩子的照片更解放独立. 虽然我也不用孩子做自己头像的说. 但是贴宠物心爱的玩具也什么区别. 过度解读了.
不过这文章有一点说对了, 不要对不感兴趣的人说妈经/爸经.

Posted: 2009-05-14 22:51
by tiffany
其实自己孩子的照片儿最好也不要贴哎。你们都知道那个著名的小胖儿吧?就是班级活动一张照片儿给流传到网上去了,被诸多高手PS,然后就成了名人了!虽然是没啥恶意的玩笑吧,但也还是挺刺激的呀。

Posted: 2009-05-14 22:54
by 豪情
我觉得很小的时候还好, 大了就不好了. 这也是很多人在网上宁可贴孩子/宠物不贴自照的缘故吧.
我大胆猜想这是个COSMO GIRL写的.

Posted: 2009-05-14 23:03
by tiffany
应该不是吧,我觉得就是个没几个有孩儿朋友,时钟还没响的工作女性。

我忍了半天追加一句说,就是这个调子给女权主义坏名声啦。

Posted: 2009-05-14 23:04
by 豪情
tiffany wrote:其实自己孩子的照片儿最好也不要贴哎。你们都知道那个著名的小胖儿吧?就是班级活动一张照片儿给流传到网上去了,被诸多高手PS,然后就成了名人了!虽然是没啥恶意的玩笑吧,但也还是挺刺激的呀。
这个也防不胜防啊, 没准走在路上就遇到工作/练习的摄影镜头. 毕业照啥的也保不住别人不贴.

Posted: 2009-05-14 23:05
by tiffany
其实让小k拍拍还不错,效果挺好!

Posted: 2009-05-14 23:08
by 豪情
而且不乱贴 :lol:

Posted: 2009-05-14 23:38
by 笑嘻嘻
不止对孩子的态度这一代与上一代不同了(我原来的德州同事在我某次发表医疗保险高见的时候,很不屑地说,“我小时候一次医院也没去过,生了病自己就好了”),连对宠物都是。我记得有一期新鲜空气采访,写书的那个人说他去宠物墓地看,30年前的墓碑一般是“最忠实的仆人xx”,xx通常不是人名而是一看就是宠物名儿,然后是“最好的朋友”,越到最近墓碑的题字都是“最爱的宝贝yy”,“我的孩子yy”,这个yy 都是汤姆杰克这样的人名儿了。

Posted: 2009-05-14 23:58
by 豪情
我去翻了一下作者何许人也.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katie_Roiphe看来小白的猜想是对的. 我一定是SATC看多了 :lol:
很有意思的是她妈妈是更著名的女权运动者""a free-thinking welter of contradictions, a never-say-die feminist who's absolutely nuts about children.""

Posted: 2009-05-15 0:10
by 笑嘻嘻
这个调子也没给女权主义坏名声啦。这个是非常早期的女权主义的一个基本思想吧:你除了是什么人的太太,什么人的妈,什么家的主妇,你还是你自己。(比如《廊桥遗梦》能够在主妇中流行就是有这个思想在背后支撑着)作者只是痛心疾首怎么转了几十年,又回去了。

Posted: 2009-05-15 0:22
by 豪情
我只觉得她口袋里标签太多. 她的逻辑可以归结为"你要是你自己,就不能是什么人的太太,什么孩子的妈,什么家的主妇". 所以COMMENT里有人说她才是性别歧视.
不过早年没有激进派, 大概也没有今天.
原来廊桥遗梦是宣传妇女解放, 我居然没看出来. :roll:

Posted: 2009-05-15 0:40
by dropby
我的第一反应也是作者肯定不是当妈的。另外不当妈是很难理解怎么会心心念念都在宝宝身上。
我觉得facebook帖自己照片是很难让我理解的事情。那么贴孩子或者宠物照片不是很自然吗?你见谁办公桌上放一张自个的大头照?
不过我一定程度也同意现在有点太过分围绕孩子转了。虽然我自己觉得自己比较后妈,三天两头被确认的确是后妈感觉也挺差的。

Posted: 2009-05-15 6:15
by 森林的火焰
过度诠释上纲上线要不得啊。
虽然我已婚无孩儿,但是别人谈话的时候,我觉得开口就讲政治的比开口就讲小孩的要讨厌得多,尤其是那些爱讲红朝秘史,避之不及。小孩儿总有可爱的地方,政治是一点都没有。何况特别好讲的一般都没什么高见,一点点可笑的观点翻来复去的炒,真不如育儿经有知识性。

Posted: 2009-05-15 7:29
by 火星狗
我觉得贴自己小孩照片这件事情,同好之间在封闭的论坛上分享是件很高兴的事情。但是如果在某个论坛上,知道贴自己的照片不妥当,也知道贴大一点的孩子的照片不妥当,但是又觉得贴小一点的孩子没问题,言下之意不就是“小孩子不懂事”,“小孩子什么都不知道”,或者说,没意识到这么小的小孩也拥有和大人一样的隐私权,而保护这种隐私权是妈妈的责任?

猫猫狗狗随便贴,我欢迎, :mrgreen: 猫猫狗狗和人类是不平等的。 :mrgreen:

其实……爱躲在啥后面躲在啥后面,除了小孩有点不妥。

Posted: 2009-05-15 8:06
by 豪情
小一点的孩子没关系是因为他们都长一个样. :mrgreen:

我也同意现在比上一代要围着孩子转, 好的呢, 更尊重孩子了. 坏的呢, 大人很辛苦. 但是这对父母都一样, 不能直接推出女性走回头路.

拿孩子照片做桌面贴办公室的反而不见得和孩子在一起的时候多, 多半是不大见得到孩子才用照片的. 我的同事里这样做的都是男的.

Posted: 2009-05-15 8:41
by tiffany
笑嘻嘻 wrote:这个调子也没给女权主义坏名声啦。这个是非常早期的女权主义的一个基本思想吧:你除了是什么人的太太,什么人的妈,什么家的主妇,你还是你自己。(比如《廊桥遗梦》能够在主妇中流行就是有这个思想在背后支撑着)作者只是痛心疾首怎么转了几十年,又回去了。
我觉得她那个调子太生硬了,一下子就把广大当妈的给得罪了。我要是她,肯定痛心疾首命运大手,怎么捏着捏着就把一个本来兴趣挺广泛的女性给捏成了一个纯妈了呢?不过说道这个基本思想,实践起来也满有具体障碍的。好比幼儿园老师都称我为阿土仔妈,有时候直接叫mommy,我也不好坚持人家记住我老的名字,显得我老那么各硬别扭,是吧。

其实一个人本来就是多重身份的啊,我老上班是老板雇员,跟老公出去是老公的老婆,跟爹娘出去是爹娘姑娘,带阿土仔出去是阿土仔妈,跟自己朋友出去玩儿是人家兄弟,在网上玩儿以前是大名鼎鼎白金镶钻现在是鼎鼎大名tiffany...... 我倒是很理解并赞同该文作者说人需要有独立的人格,不过这个人格是否独立跟这个人有多少身份也不是直接相关的吧。

===================我是反对在公共场合贴小朋友照片的分界线===============

有的真的很过分哪,洗澡照片儿都贴出来了。想想小家伙长大以后,忽然知道原来这些叔叔阿姨看见过自己光扭扭照片儿,多别扭啊!

而且照片儿贴出来,难免招人品头论足,何必贴给非亲友团看呢。

Posted: 2009-05-15 8:48
by tiffany
Knowing wrote:一粒女朋友在facebook上引用了该文,马上有人评论“比躲在孩子后面更可悲的是躲在狗后面!”我象被针扎了一下,赶紧把profile picture 换成了自己得意的风景作品。 :mrgreen: 当然作品就相当于我的宠物和孩子。
贴出来给我们看看!钦此!

刚看见这句话的说。

Posted: 2009-05-15 10:33
by 豪情
:mrgreen:
我看了一下这人的背景, 是理论大于实践, 论点大于论据的那种. 她出的第一本书
Writing for the The New Yorker, Katha Pollitt delivered a scathing review of The Morning After, writing, "It is a careless and irresponsible performance, poorly argued and full of misrepresentations, slapdash research, and gossip. She may be, as she implies, the rare grad student who has actually read "Clarissa," but when it comes to rape and harassment she has not done her homework."
就是个写大字报的, 不是做社会科学研究的.

Posted: 2009-05-15 11:51
by 豪情
tiffany wrote:
Knowing wrote:一粒女朋友在facebook上引用了该文,马上有人评论“比躲在孩子后面更可悲的是躲在狗后面!”我象被针扎了一下,赶紧把profile picture 换成了自己得意的风景作品。 :mrgreen: 当然作品就相当于我的宠物和孩子。
贴出来给我们看看!钦此!

刚看见这句话的说。
人家不想给非亲友团看么. :mrgreen:

Posted: 2009-05-15 12:01
by putaopi
我是严重反对贴孩子照片的,孩子也有隐私,咱得尊重尊重。妈经呢,同样,小时候奶粉尿布之类的共同问题大家互相探讨一下也可以,孩子大了些,涉及个人性格成长的问题还是跟其他家长或老师谈谈,不好公开说。

这一代的妇女因为受教育好,更容易把专业技巧和训练应用在养孩子上,无所不尽其极。

Posted: 2009-05-15 12:19
by Knowing
你们搞什么激将法。就是回国玩儿拍的风景照。

早期女权主义主张“你首先是你自己,然后才是什么人的太太,什么人的妈,什么家的主妇”,也是有时代背景的。那时侯两者简直不能兼得,女性受的一贯教育是先人后己,要先满足丈夫孩子公婆的要求。资源有限,要做自己就得牺牲当完美主妇的时间精力。其实到今天也不能兼得。精力有限,有几个上班的女性回家还能弄出完全家做的晚餐,床单被套熨平整每周都换,衣服袜子带太阳的香味,处处一尘不染,自己还头发打着卷儿薄施粉脂带笑迎接丈夫孩子。那时侯整个社会是这么要求妇女的,如果出去工作,回家在家务上马虎了可得不到原谅。现在工作的妇女就没人敢拿这么高的标准要求你了。要说attentive, 工作妈妈不可能象全职妈妈那么周到的。但是女性工作是justified 的,而且你可以说:工作不但带来收入,而且带来良好的自我感觉。如果我快乐,孩子也会快乐。没人会说你自私,把自己放在孩子前面。

这个当时革命性的statement 拿到现在当然就没有革命性了,还显得有点生硬。因为女性过了需要争取”做自己“的阶段,已经可以从容的把”母亲“的角色包括在”自己“里了。

这篇文章有点意思一是我觉得她代表一种很典型的革命前辈看后辈的眼光,觉的后辈完全不珍惜前辈拼命跟社会偏见斗争来的成果。二是说的也有点道理。当母亲是个很overwhelming 的事情,带来的快乐和责任很容易一下就把人整个占据掉了,就好像。。。刚进青春期的少女谈恋爱比天还大。。。一下就觉得其他事情都不重要,自己的其他方面都无所谓,只要对方喜欢就好,这是挺容易迷失原来的自我的。

Posted: 2009-05-15 12:24
by 豪情
说的没错.

但是她算啥革命前辈啊. 68年生的. 自居革命前辈接班人还差不多. 母亲是革命前辈, 自己是贵族女校培养出来的, 写写大字报就可以出书当教授. 我不信她吃过多少歧视的苦. 对她来说写大字报是她的信仰和职业, 不用联系实际和社会现状, 所以看着那么生硬.

Posted: 2009-05-15 12:26
by Knowing
她精神上接的是那一代的班 :mrgreen:

Posted: 2009-05-15 12:28
by tiffany
Knowing wrote:这篇文章有点意思一是我觉得她代表一种很典型的革命前辈看后辈的眼光,觉的后辈完全不珍惜前辈拼命跟社会偏见斗争来的成果。二是说的也有点道理。当母亲是个很overwhelming 的事情,带来的快乐和责任很容易一下就把人整个占据掉了,就好像。。。刚进青春期的少女谈恋爱比天还大。。。一下就觉得其他事情都不重要,自己的其他方面都无所谓,只要对方喜欢就好,这是挺容易迷失原来的自我的。
我推卸责任说,还不是自然母亲为了保证人类延续折腾出来的激素闹的!其实自然母亲对人类挺不友好的,你看小人儿得多大才能达到生活自理啊;你看人小猫小狗儿!不用一个月大就知道自己用砂盆儿了!

不过说实在的,全职母亲这个工作非常苦闷,跟阿土仔在家混了4天,俩人都闷得落泪的说。

Posted: 2009-05-15 12:30
by 豪情
知道有回来上班的选择是多么好了吧. :mrgreen:

不过我理解也有人喜欢, 我个人觉得挺抓狂的.

Posted: 2009-05-15 12:32
by tiffany
所以还是得饮水不忘挖井人,谨记女性革命前辈的教导啊!

Posted: 2009-05-15 12:36
by 豪情
原来革命前辈的身份也是可以象遗产一样往下传的. 我尊重革命前辈, 自认生不逢时, 无用武之地, 希望每二十年再来一次大革命的根正苗红的红小兵就算了.

Posted: 2009-05-15 12:45
by 火星狗
革命前辈其实……社会是靠极端分子推动的,我们这些温水里的青蛙就享受享受吧。 :love019:

Posted: 2009-05-15 12:48
by 笑嘻嘻
我想明白一件事儿。作者在说facebook 的头像问题。大家在说公开网络上的言论问题。facebook 通常很多人不把他当成公开网络,那个是人在现实社交生活的虚拟化,比如我的facebook 上都是原来的旧同事,德州的苏州的,大家靠这个保持一点远距离联系。(当然我们在linkedin上也连着,但是哪个是专业方面的。)大家都贴自己的照片,当然有母亲贴孩子照片,那是给亲戚看的,但除此之外还有很多其他旅游和自己的照片,用孩子头像作为自己的头像的,我很少见到,当然我同事里本来女的就非常少。这个虚拟小社交基本是现实社交的映射。比如我有个德州同事天天在facebooK 上发表有趣言论,当然他一直都是个 funny guy,不过这下大家不在一起工作了,凸现我们这些人无趣,另一个也是原先的funny guy 终于忍不住了,在他墙上写你难道不用工作吗?我现在的老板根本就把facebook 当成他们大家庭亲戚间旅行比拼,谁去过什么地方了她都从facebook 上看。虽然理论上你可以把facebook 当成公开网络认识陌生人,但最多的还是跟现实世界更像。

Posted: 2009-05-15 13:12
by putaopi
不只是facebook, 很多人的MSN也用孩子的头像。我自己呢,很享受看别人家的花猫胖宝宝,贴自己的就有心理障碍了。

转回来说,妇女贴孩子头像,也说明她们不在乎外界的评价,算是self-expression的一种。娱乐周刊小报上也都是女明星大肚子或是抱着可爱宝宝的照片,倒退个十年八年,都是难以想象的。我觉得应该算是时代的进步。

Posted: 2009-05-15 13:12
by tiffany
1?这样啊!我说呢,我认识的人里面只有印度小娘在搞facebook,时常给我展示一下儿她的朋友们爬体照片儿。说起来,这些小娘们真上照啊!当然活人也漂亮了.....

Posted: 2009-05-15 13:26
by 豪情
转回来说,妇女贴孩子头像,也说明她们不在乎外界的评价,算是self-expression的一种。娱乐周刊小报上也都是女明星大肚子或是抱着可爱宝宝的照片,倒退个十年八年,都是难以想象的。我觉得应该算是时代的进步。
是, STEROTYPE和歧视孩子妈也是歧视. 给父母生育假,补贴DAYCARE, 也是保护工作女性做妈的权利或者说妈做工作女性的权利, 也是时代进步. 当年女性争取不婚不生育做自己的选择是革命, 现在还这样要求所有女性要不婚不生育才能做自己, 我觉得是倒退. 拾前人牙会是多么容易的事, 她要是主张社会福利补贴DAYCARE, 或DAYCARE免税, 我会尊重她是个革命者. 8)

选择多了, 不可兼得也是烦恼. 不过是不一样的烦恼.

Posted: 2009-05-15 13:39
by tiffany
呃,她也没有要求大家都不婚不育做自己吧?就是希望婚了育了,尤其育了以后,话题不要限制于妈经吧。这个哈,老被人念妈经确实让人受不太了,虽然我也是个伟大母亲,但还是对别人家孩子吃喝拉撒兴趣有限......

Posted: 2009-05-15 13:41
by putaopi
说起这个不可兼得的烦恼,我有几个做妈妈的女友,周末简直比上班累多了.什么都不想错过:早晨看儿童展览,中午去birthday party, 下午听family concert,上图画课,晚上还有朋友聚会。我劝她说,这些family concert每年都有好几次,不必非赶着去,但她就是不愿错过。我也就不劝了,希望她是乐在其中。 

Posted: 2009-05-15 13:44
by 豪情
没什么, 就觉得这人站着说话不腰疼而已, 而且走在时代前面才叫革命者, 她算什么.
要做点有意义的, 应该去鼓吹LOBBY减少MARRIAGE PENALTY, DAYCARE免税或者社会补贴.

Posted: 2009-05-15 13:45
by putaopi
tiffany wrote:呃,她也没有要求大家都不婚不育做自己吧?就是希望婚了育了,尤其育了以后,话题不要限制于妈经吧。这个哈,老被人念妈经确实让人受不太了,虽然我也是个伟大母亲,但还是对别人家孩子吃喝拉撒兴趣有限......
其实就是对不同的听众,谈不同的话题的技巧。猫经,狗经,食经也不是什么时候都合适谈的。问题是像小K说的那样,很多做妈的跟热恋少女一样,被荷尔蒙支撑着,完全看不到别人的脸色。

Posted: 2009-05-15 13:47
by tiffany
嘻嘻,猫经我啥时候都有兴趣听,我叶公好龙的说。

Posted: 2009-05-15 13:49
by 笑嘻嘻
是啊,她甚至在文中没有提工作什么的,没有说要工作不要生育。她所讲到的都是传统社交方面的一些想法而已。

Posted: 2009-05-15 13:53
by silkworm
前阵子新鲜空气有个女作家来访谈,她新写了memoir叫Bad Mother。
(http://www.amazon.com/Bad-Mother-Chroni ... 171&sr=1-1)

Good Food母亲节的那一集里,是Gourmet杂志总编辑讲她的新书Not Becoming My Mother。
http://www.amazon.com/Not-Becoming-My-M ... 30&sr=11-1

这个女性革命的问题,以及母女薪火相传的问题,真是普遍啊。

Posted: 2009-05-15 13:53
by 豪情
恋爱中的少女也挺爱倾诉的, 怎不见人批评?
不过恋爱好象算比较私人的事情, 不那么拿到外面来讨论. 其实养育孩子也挺私人的.

Posted: 2009-05-15 14:01
by Knowing
啊,我就觉得恋爱中或者失恋中的少女老讲男朋友挺烦的。除了闺蜜没人有耐心听。不过那个人人都知道烦人。

Posted: 2009-05-15 14:11
by putaopi
妈经呢,看在小朋友份上,大家不好意思直说请闭嘴。最要命的是怀孕的时候,去聚会上,人人都过来问你的生理感受,有的男人也津津乐道地分享他老婆怀孕经验。一方面挺温馨的,另一方面,做为受关注者,也很尴尬。

Posted: 2009-05-15 14:16
by tiffany
天哪,那时侯我就假装是事业女性,为这个马上到来的事业间断十分懊恼来着......

Posted: 2009-05-15 14:22
by dropby
她说那个吱吱响的拖鞋,我心想真该问一下她妈她小时候是啥样的。在非父母的眼里,基本上除了乖乖的那几分钟,小把戏都是无法容忍的存在,都会奇怪父母们怎么受得了。当了妈以后,宝宝连续十几个小时哭闹不睡觉,父母首先想的不是我受不了啦,而是担心宝宝是生病了还是出什么问题了。总之我觉得当父母之前和之后基本上是两种人类。

或者我比较适合作传统妇女?十个月了还没抓狂。我觉得我很享受全心全意和宝宝在一起一年。

我可喜欢看宝宝照片了,虽然我不会帖。我觉得小小宝宝和小猫小狗花儿朵儿在审美上是同等意义的存在。

Posted: 2009-05-15 14:37
by 森林的火焰
我在开心网上的头像就是我最得意的中微子照片,本来想掩面下一下儿的。

Posted: 2009-05-15 14:37
by 豪情
她妈妈作为革命前辈, 据说是恨小孩子的. 8) 难道她有童年心理创伤?

小美你是足够SECURE, 知道做妈不会影响你的自我定位, 所以没有这种SELF-DOUBT的需要. 而且做个好妈妈或者做个好职业女性也有天分和个体差异, 没法强求.