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?
Get Your Kid Off Your Facebook Page
Get Your Kid Off Your Facebook Page
That said, I use my cat's picture as my profile on facebook.
有事找我请发站内消息
然后孩子们长大了就抱怨童年心理创伤.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.
.
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.this generation leaches itself of sexuality by putting the innocent face of a child in the place of an attractive mother. "
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.
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 
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.""
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.""
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。
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。
http://harps.yculblog.com
搬家了搬家了
搬家了搬家了
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。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。
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。
乡音无改鬓毛衰
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
就是个写大字报的, 不是做社会科学研究的.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."
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。
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。
有事找我请发站内消息
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！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。
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。
乡音无改鬓毛衰
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。
云浆未饮结成冰
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.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。
选择多了, 不可兼得也是烦恼. 不过是不一样的烦恼.
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。
(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。