[Link]

THE MATERNAL BOND

1992 (c) Anne P. Mitchell, Stanford Law School

Published in: American Journal of Family Law, Volume 9, Number 3, Fall, 1995

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Maternal Bond

Bond \'bnd\ noun: 1: something that binds or restrains;

2: a binding agreement;
3: a band or cord used to tie something;
4: a material or device for binding;
5: an obligation made binding by a money
forfeit;
6: (adj.) bound in slavery 1

One often hears about the bond between mother and child. The phrases
"maternal bond" and "the mother-child bond" are fairly commonplace in
today's jargon. Moreover, one hears these phrases most often in a positive
context...the mother-child bond being considered a special and somehow
magical connection which transcends mere relationship. It is, somehow, an
inseverable umbilicus, something not to be tampered or interfered with,
something sacred. It is The Mother-Child Bond.

This bond is one proclaimed not just by women, but by men, who have
come to believe that there exists a bond between mother and child which
fathers can never hope to approximate with their children. It is also
relied upon by the family law system, and by society in general, in order
to perpetuate women's role as, first and foremost, caretakers of children.

I. The Dilemma
As suggested by the definition with which this paper opens, a bond is
not just a special sort of magical relationship. Even where that exists, a
parent-child bond is at minimum an enormous responsibility. Therefore to
place upon a mother's shoulder the mantle of a unique and inevitable
mother-child bond is to also place upon a mother's wrists the shackles of
responsibility for that bond, and that child.

Where a mother has become so intimately and inextricably bound, she

may have little ability to break free to pursue other objectives. This is
true even where there is a father present and willing to assume the
childcare responsibilities. In attempting to take on the responsibilities
of childcare, the father may find it nearly impossible to disentangle
mother and child of the binds that tie them together, and his attempts will
be unavailing. In part this may be due to the father's own perception of
how revered the mother-child bond is, and a belief that as a father he is
bereft of parent-child bonding ability. This in turn is linked to
society's perception of the same, which the father may well have
internalized. In other words, fathers too have come to believe that a
child belongs with its mother, as that is where the parent-child bond is.

The father, having bought into these perceptions, may be less willing
to assert a claim to time with his children, believing it to be meddling
with the mother-child relationship; this may be particularly true in the
case of custody/visitation issues. Society then indicts the father for not
wanting to be involved with his children, imputes an inversely proportional
desire on the part of the mother who is caring for the children, and thus
the cycle is complete, with the mother in perpetual maternal bondage.

It is also true, however, that there is quite simply an unwillingness

on the part of mothers to allow fathers to take over the primary caretaking

1 Source: Webster's OED Dictionary.

function, for mothers too have internalized the general societal view of
the sacredness of the mother-child bond. This is particularly true in
custody contests, but is also true within an intact two-parent family
structure, where a mother may allow a father to help with the children, but
will rarely be seen relinquishing the larger share of childcare to the
father. As Erica Jong has observed, "We long for men to share [parenting]
tasks with us equally...but we probably do not want to relinquish them. We
are as attached to our children as ever. Liberation has not severed the
umbilical cord - nor would we want it to."2

II. The Women

Traditionally, the force which coerces a woman into choosing between
child and career has been identified as the patriarchal and male-dominated
society. As Kathleen Gerson explains, the theory is that there are ways in
which "social institutions created and controlled by men shape women's
options and thus coerce their behavior. It begins with the assumption that

1 of 8 4/9/10 6:37 PM
 [Link]

men as a group dominate women as a group; there may be isolated individual

exceptions to the rule of male dominations, but these anomalies do not
invalidate the general principle. Given this generally indisputable
assumption, the [theory] posits that women's behavior results from male
domination."3

There is a growing body of evidence, however, which suggests that the

above assumption is, in fact, disputable with respect to current times, and
that it is women themselves, both as mothers making choices, and as
feminists advocating policy, who are holding women within the confines of
the maternal bond.

In a day and age where the feminist movement is strong and where
sexual equality is demanded, the area of primary childcare and custody
appears to have been exempted from the feminist insistence on equality and
parity with men. As Jong points out, women don't want the umbilical cord
to be severed. Women don't want to allow men the opportunity to achieve
parity with women in terms of child-rearing and custody.4

One reason for this may be that women currently have a great
advantage in the area of custody, as there exists in the family law system
a very strong bias in favor of awarding custody to mothers over fathers.
This gives a power to women the likes of which they have in very few, if
any, other areas of their lives. In a world where women have been
dominated and suppressed by the male institution at every turn, the ability
to wield absolute power over the man one is divorcing, and to use his own
institution against him by depriving him of free access to his children, is
a great temptation indeed. Even though equality is arguably the ideal of
the feminist movement, it is understandable that women may not want to lose
this very powerful, and rare, upper hand.

This refusal to allow men sexual equality in terms of childrearing and

2 Victor Fuchs quoting Erica Jong in "Women's Quest for Economic

Equality", Harvard University Press, 1988.

3 "Hard Choices: How Women Decide about Work, Career, and

Motherhood", University of California Press, Berkeley (1985); p.24.

4 Note that this paper does not address the undeniable sexual
difference of childbearing, as pre-birth biological differences have, or
should have, little bearing on post-birth childcare options. As Herma Hill
Kay points out in her work, Equality and Difference: A Perspective on No-
Fault Divorce and Its Aftermath, 56 [Link]. 1, 1987, "by
emphasizing the bright line that separates the unique female tasks of
pregnancy and childbirth from the common male and female responsibility for
childrearing, ...analysis suggests that, when both parents are available,
neither should become the primary nurturing parent."

custody decisions5 is reinforced by proclaiming the sanctity of the

mother-child bond. The modern dogma which supports and perpetuates the
myth of an exclusively maternal parent-child bond is contributed to by the
works of such noted feminist authors as Nancy Chodorow6, Susan Contratto,
Carol Gilligan, and Lillian Rubin. As Chodorow admits, the assumption
"apparent in recent feminist literature is that mother and child are an
isolated dyad. Mother and child are seen as both physically and
psychologically apart from the world, existing within a magic (or cursed)
circle."7

One might do well to question the motives of the authors of such

writings. It seems just a tad too convenient that the feminist movement,
now making serious inroads in the fight to convince society that men and
women are equals, has suddenly discovered that this equality does not
extend to men in the area of parenting and custody.

Faye Crosby does question the writings which further this philosophy
in her book, Juggling. Crosby notes that some feminist authors, such as
Chodorow and Rubin, advance a theory of sex-based differences which holds
that women are selfless and other-oriented, the guardians of relations,
while men are viewed as very self-oriented, and not terribly good at
relationships. Crosby refers to this as the "new sexism". As she
describes it, "[t]he new sexism seems as potentially crippling as the old
sexism. If we accept the view that men and women differ in their need to
attach themselves to others and in their skill at relationships, we have
only a tiny distance to go before we decide that mothers make the best
parents. ...And, after all, who do we want raising our children - someone
who is detached and uncaring or someone who is tuned-in, emotionally
available, and sensitive?"8

Interestingly enough, this "new sexism" isn't new at all. It is the

very breed of thinking which put women into maternal bondage in the first
place. And ironically, these are the very bonds which the fledgling
woman's movement first sought to cast off. What is new about it is the
number of women who have jumped on the bandwagon.

Back in the nineteenth century, the industrial revolution caused a

5 Some men's rights advocates refer to this equality as one where

women are as likely to lose custody as men. The author finds this a rather
negative categorization, and prefers to think of it as both sexes having an
equal right of access to their children.

6 Nancy Chodorow's book, "The Reproduction of Mothering:

Psychoanalysis and the Sociology of Gender", University of California
Press, Berkeley (1978), deals with the theory that women are more nurturing
and other-oriented because women were little girls who were themselves
raised by mothers, mothers who were women, and thus more nurturing and

2 of 8 4/9/10 6:37 PM
 [Link]

other-oriented. The flip side of this, she argues, is that little boys do
not receive the same "mothering" from their mothers, and model themselves
on fathers, who as men are generally self-oriented, and not other-oriented
and nurturing. While Chodorow suggests that a way to alleviate this
perceived difference is to have equal parenting by both mothers and
fathers, so that the positive abilities of each parent will thus be
perpetuated in their children (and presumably then generations of boys and
girls to come), her own work perpetuates the vision of a maternal persona
which is the essence of all that is good and nurturing - the repository of
the parent-child bond.

7 "The Fantasy of the Perfect Mother", Nancy Chodorow & Susan

Contratto, 1980. But see Footnote 5.

8 Juggling: The Unexpected Advantages of Balancing Career and Home

for Women and Their Families, Faye J. Crosby, The Free Press, New York
(1991); p.121.

shift in the complexion of American family life. Where before fathers and
older children had been home working their fields or their trade, with
mothers tending to myriad domestic chores, the industrial revolution pushed
them out the door and into production houses. This left mothers at home
with their infants and younger children. At the same time, various
technological advances worked to considerably lighten a mother's domestic
task load. As June Carbone and Margaret Brinig9 explain it, women who
remained in the home during this age of industrial enlightenment found
their domestic contributions recast and redefined. Thus motherhood was
redefined as the nurturing which was necessary to the well-being of infants
and young children.

This redefinition was played out in the courts as well. Carbone and
Brinig explain:
"With the growing maternal involvement in childrearing,
custody presumptions also changed. At the beginning of
the nineteenth century, courts favored fathers over
mothers in custody disputes in the belief that fathers
were in a better position to provide for their
children. As the new ideology celebrated the traits
that only mothers could bring to the young, the
paternal presumption changed in favor of a maternal
one. The courts protected, and thereby encouraged, the
increasing maternal investment in childrearing."

Thus women in the nineteenth and early twentieth century were

relegated to child care, and little more. It is these very limiting
definitions of womanhood which the first twentieth century feminists fought
to change, and which the newer feminists, with their "new sexism", seek to
reinstate.

Carbone and Brinig's work demonstrates that the new feminism, along with
contemporary divorce law trends such as the institution of "no-fault
divorce", have conspired to set women back to an age where they are only
free to be whatever they want so long as they can do it within the confines
of maternal bondage. According to Carbone and Brinig the new feminist
ideals operate to "encourage women to choose both to stay within the labor
force and to value childrearing above career pursuits."10 [Emphasis
added].

The maternal custody preference, and the exalted status accorded the
maternal bond in general, are factors which can coerce today's "liberated"
women into becoming or remaining fully responsible for raising the children
of our society.

By championing these mothercare ideals, women themselves, including

certain members of the feminist elite, are in fact helping to force into
maternal bondage those mothers who might genuinely prefer to be the
noncustodial parent, or to release a child for adoption, but for the strong
stigma attached to such decisions. A stigma which is perpetuated not only
by the maternal preference, but by that feminist literature which casts
mothers as the repository of all that is nurturing, and the fathers to whom
these mothers might wish to relinquish custody as the antithesis of that
ideal.

Another area of feminist thrust which has contributed to the incidence

of women being coerced into primary caretaker status is the push for a

9 "Rethinking Marriage: Feminist Ideology, Economic Change, and

Divorce Reforms", June R. Carbone & Margaret F. Brinig, 65 Tul. L. Rev.
953, May 1991.

10 65 [Link]. 953; 959.

greater maternal subsidy.11 Rather than encouraging and helping women to

become self-sufficient and autonomous, the current feminist catechism
teaches that women must be financially kept by men, and absent a man, by
the state as a patriarchal substitute. This keeping comes in the form of
spousal support, child support, and welfare. This is not to say that there
are not women who are needy, there are. But consider these words from a
collection of feminist writings which is, ironically enough, titled
America's Working Women: "One way of looking at [the incidence of women on
welfare] might be this: welfare could be the salary women receive for
raising children."12

For women who haven't been coopted into the welfare system, there is
the "salary" of child and spousal support. Brinig and Carbone, for
example, support a fault-based theory of spousal support which has the man

3 of 8 4/9/10 6:37 PM
 [Link]

subsidizing the woman regardless of who is "at fault", excepting perhaps

those situations where the woman earns more than the man. Where the man is
at fault "the award to the woman should maintain the standard of living she
enjoyed during the marriage even if it is a hardship on him." Where she is
at fault, she must be compensated for lost career opportunities. Where
neither party is at fault, Brinig and Carbone come to the inexplicable
conclusion that the woman should be subsidized so as to "encourage her self
sufficiency".

Child support awards are designed, in theory, to underwrite the cost

of raising a child, and to allow the child to share in their father's
income and lifestyle.13 Nearly all states14 now have statutory
formulas which give the custodial mother15 a specific percentage of the
father's income, often at least 17% of his gross income for one child, and
25% of his income for two or more. While it is true that collection of
support is a problem, nobody has suggested that the formula amounts are
artificially inflated to compensate for non-payment, nor indeed that there

11 The "maternal subsidy" is used here to mean any amount of support

which is greater than one-half the actual cost of providing for each child.
This definition carries with it the implicit belief that in a society where
both sexes are viewed equal to and equally responsible for the
responsibilities of parenting, a non-custodial parent of either sex would
not and should not be expected, nor required, to contribute more than one
half of the cost to raise the child.

12 America's Working Women, Baxandall, Gordon & Reverby; Vintage

Press, New York (1976).

13 While all political and feminist rhetoric insists that any amount
of child support awarded above subsistence level is to allow the child to
enjoy in their father's income and lifestyle, a child can only wear so many
pairs of shoes, and eat so much food. Nearly all other "lifestyle" perks
which might occur as the result of the added support will accrue to the
custodial parent, and to anyone else in the custodial household, as well as
to the child.

14 States which have specific statutory criteria for the calculation

of child support awards include: Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California,
Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois,
Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota,
Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New
Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon,
Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas,
Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming.
(Source: Family Law Quarterly, Volume XXV, Number 4, Winter 1992).

15 While it is true that these state formulas are written in a gender

neutral manner, studies have shown that in those rare instances where
support is ordered of a noncustodial mother, it is often well below the
formula amount.

is any nexus at all between the percentage of child support awards which
are not kept current, and the formula driven award amounts.

Aggressive feminist lobbying has no doubt played a part in the new

awareness in our Federal and state legislatures as to the plight of the
single mother. Hence the new and "improved" child support formulas, and
modern theories of spousal support. However, by trying to throw money at
the problem they are encouraging the single mother to stay subordinated to
the maternal bond, rather than helping her to truly make a place for
herself in the world, and to be autonomous and self-supporting.

One feminist author, Herma Hill Kay, admits of the problems inherent
in a system of maternal subsidy. Kay argues that women will be unable to
achieve true societal and economic equality so long as they have to
continue making choices which are "economically disabling for women,
thereby perpetuating their traditional financial dependence upon men and
contributing to their inequality with men at divorce."16 Kay further
argues that one of the fundamental reasons that there is ongoing inequality
between the sexes is that women are still relegated to the status of
primary caretaker, and that this can be remedied by encouraging a sharing
of childcare responsibilities between men and women, and by perpetuating
that balance of responsibility beyond divorce through the use of joint
custody.

Brinig and Carbone criticize Kay for suggesting that "the appropriate
response to women's dependence on their husbands' incomes is less, not
more, financial support upon divorce. In order to dismantle the gendered
division of labor within the family, Kay argues that the marital bargain,
at least the traditional one that exchanges male support for female
services, should not be enforceable. Her analysis further implies that
compensation for lost career opportunities, at least for modern women who
make choices that are "economically disabling," should also be limited. In
states that preclude consideration of fault, lost career opportunities are
emerging as the primary basis for spousal support. Compensation for those
lost opportunities, however, sanctions the very choices of which Kay so
strongly disapproves: namely, decisions by modern women to forego
substantial career opportunities in order to contribute to the care of
their children or their husband's careers. Kay issues no call for a
reduction in divorce awards, but such a call is unnecessary. Her
endorsement, albeit qualified, of the present divorce system, which Lenore
Weitzman depicts as a system of transitional awards that falls far short of
compensating the career sacrifices modern women are continuing to make, has
much the same effect. Kay's central premise is that in order to achieve
equality, men and women need to make the same choices. Women need to join
men in the pursuit of careers; men need to join women in caring for their
children."

4 of 8 4/9/10 6:37 PM
 [Link]

While it may well be true that the present divorce system does not
"adequately" compensate a woman for choosing to be unemployed or
underemployed, one needs to ask oneself if our system of divorce should in
fact be subsidizing such choices. As should be obvious by now, the author
believes that the answer to that question must be "no" if ever women are to
achieve true parity. Brinig and Carbone seem to ignore that it was the
right to make these choices, to get out of the nursery, and to be treated
equally in the work force, which was fundamental to the original women's
movement. Given that countless contemporary women have proven that women
are in fact capable of sustaining a career as well as having children, to
define women back into dependency on the very actors who have for
generations oppressed them, namely men and the State, is nothing short of
heresy.

Furthermore, to raise a hue and cry, as Brinig and Carbone do, that

16 "Equality and Difference: A Perspective on No-Fault Divorce and

its Aftermath", 56 [Link]. 1 (1987).

such a reform would lead to a decrease in the instances of divorce is

alarmist and ignores the alternative reality which Kay suggests. If women
knew going into marriage that they would need to be self-sufficient in the
event of divorce, they would be more likely to resist the subordinated
position of being an unemployed or underemployed primary caretaker.

It is likely true, as Kay concludes, that if women were able to make

unfettered choices, such as pursuing a fulltime career, then women would
find themselves able to be self-sufficient, and relying on nobody for
financial support. But before any of this can happen we must stop
enslaving women with their "virtues", and damning them for their choices.

III. The Men

The Stanford Child Custody Study, a recent study of nearly 1000
divorcing couples in California, revealed that while more than two-thirds
of the fathers wanted some form of physical custody, nearly one third of
them requested less custody then they actually wanted. Thus even fathers
who want custody, and who might otherwise alleviate mothers of the
restrictions and burdens of fulltime parenting, are finding their desire to
take on childcare responsibilities overcome by other factors. What are
these other factors?

The researchers involved in the Stanford Child Custody Study

hypothesize that it may simply be that fathers in some way feel less
strongly about custody then do mothers.17 However this theory is based
on responses to a "1 to 10" response option question asking the respondents
to rate how they felt about custody, with 1 being someone who didn't really
care what custody arrangements were made, and 10 being someone who was
determined to get the exact custody they wanted. On average, mothers and
fathers alike rated their feelings about custody to be between an 8 and a
9, with the women averaging an 8.8, and the men averaging an 8.4. Even the
researchers concede that this is a small difference indeed.

A much more likely account for the discrepancy between what fathers
truly want in terms of custody, and what they ask for, is that men too have
come to believe in the tradition of the sacred mother-child bond, and
therefore they believe that they are incapable of providing that somehow
unique form of nurturing required by their children. Hence they conclude
that the children belong with the mother. In otherwords, much as these
fathers might genuinely want their children to live with them, they believe
they would be hurting their children by removing them from their mother.

It is little wonder that fathers doubt their capacity to nurture their

children, given that this is the message provided to them every turn. It
is the subtext of the maternal bond doctrine, as well an implicit
assumption upon which is based the message that "good" fathers are those
who provide a maternal subsidy so that their children may remain with their
mothers.

Some authors go so far in spreading the word as to misquote

authorities who have in reality not bought into the maternal bond doctrine.
An example of this is Joanne Curry O'Connell's response to Burton White's
article "Should You Stay Home with Your Baby?" Ms. Curry tells us that in
his article White advocates "that women, with few exceptions, should not
work outside the home while their children are young."18 [Emphasis added]

17 "Private Ordering Revisited: What Custodial Arrangements are

Parents Negotiating?", Mnookin, Maccoby, Albiston and Depner, Stanford
University (1991).

18 It may be that O'Connell's primary aim was to refute Burton's

assertion that there should be some fulltime primary caretaker, as opposed
to placing an infant in daycare. But to disingenuously ignore Burton's
suggestion of alternative primary caretakers such as fathers and
grandparents, and to reduce the thrust of the argument to "mother as
primary caretaker at home" versus "mother as primary caretaker,
supplemented with daycare" is to intentionally ignore that mothers do not
have a monopoly in the child bonding business.

O'Connell then goes on to a lengthy discourse to assure mothers that

putting a child in daycare will not disrupt the maternal/child bond (as
opposed to a non-gender based primary caretaker/child bond). The message
is clear that the bond exists only between mother and child, and that if as
a mother you can't stay home with your child, daycare is the acceptable
alternative. In fact, however, Burton makes a very clear statement on
behalf of non-mother primary caretakers. In a section entitled "Fathers
and Grandparents Make Good 'Mothers' Too" he asserts that "[n]o study

5 of 8 4/9/10 6:37 PM
 [Link]

anywhere has indicated that mothers are the only people capable of raising
young babies. We have observed many fathers and grandparents who seem
perfectly suited to the task, and are willing or eager to share the job....
These people comprise an enormous underused resource."19

But Burton's voice for non-mother primary caretaking is but one voice
crying in a wilderness which has become overrun with the weedlike rhetoric
of those who defend the bonds of motherhood. And so long as women insist
that only women are capable of nurturing children, they will remain bound
to the attendant responsibilities of primary caretaking.

IV. The Family Law System

A survey of almost 700 of the divorcing couples in the Stanford Child
Custody Study found that in 12.8% of the cases where both the mother and
father indicated that they wanted the father to have custody of the
children, the court still awarded custody of the children to the
mother.20

This one statistic speaks volumes about the role that women have been
relegated to play in our society. For all the advances women have made, in
a time when women have won the Nobel Peace Prize, gone up in space, and are
being admitted to professional schools in large numbers, our family law
system still operates on the premise that a woman's place, first and
foremost, is taking care of the children. In the Stanford Child Custody
Study alone there were nearly 100 women who chose to be the non-custodial
parent. It is probably safe to assume that at least some of these women
made this choice based on a desire to pursue their career, or to avoid the
constant tension between the rigors of a particularly demanding career and
the responsibility of being the primary caretaker (or indeed to avoid
subjecting their children to the same). These are choices which are, or
should be, a woman's right to exercise as a free and equal member of
society. For the family court to determine that the woman must be the
primary caretaker, against her wishes, and at odds with her career, is
indefensible.

This is one example of how the family law system coopts women into
maternal bondage. It is a rather blatant example, given that the mother
had expressed her desire not be burdened with primary caretaker
responsibility, and the father had expressed his willingness to take on the
responsibility of custody.

More insidious, and more prevalent, is a subtle coercion which

foreshadows almost all contested custody cases, in almost all
jurisdictions.

Women who are going through a divorce or other legal custody dispute

19 "Should You Stay Home with Your Baby", Burton L. White, 1981, as
reprinted in The Psychology of Women: Ongoing Debates, Walsh, Yale
University Press @ p.364.

20 "Dividing the Child", id.

find themselves confronted with a stark economic reality: if they get

custody, they get more money. Almost all states21 have in place a child
support formula which guarantees the mother a percentage of the father's
gross income, per capita, for child support. In many states this figure
works out to at minimum 20%-25% of the father's gross income for 1 to 2
children.

There is no need to rehash the theory of maternal subsidy at this

juncture, however it is important to consider the economic consequence of
it. Women, having already been subordinated to a role in which they are
unable to achieve self-sufficiency, often face the divorce process from a
position of under- or unemployment. Depending on a woman's educational
background, and the prevailing job market, her prospects of recouping or
achieving self-sufficiency may be quite bleak. Faced with the choice of
treading into an unclear employment situation, or continuing to provide
primary caretaking services while receiving a maternal subsidy, it is
understandable that many women opt for the latter.

But so long as the maternal subsidy exists, women will continue to

allow themselves to be pushed into the subordinated role of caregiver,
giving up their own careers, and believing that they have somehow protected
their autonomy and independence with the insurance of future child and
spousal support should divorce occur. Unfortunately this "protection" is
one more link in the chains of the maternal bond. Rather than being
protected they are being overprotected, and to no good end, not unlike when
a weak child is "protected" by an overprotective parent. Both do the
recipient more harm than good, as neither woman nor child will be allowed
to develop into an independent and responsible member of society, capable
of taking care of themself. Instead, they will always be dependent upon
their provider.

V. Society
The radio commercial starts off with the lilting strains of a fife,
and then the announcer's smooth masculine voice begins: "It's morning, and
another day. There are kids to get dressed, breakfast to be made. The bus
is coming. As usual, just a few minutes sooner than it should. But for a
few moments between the sound of your alarm clock and the first shout of a
waking child, you have a little time to sit with a cup of MJB, and think of
what this is all about. What it's about is what it's always been about.
Big people helping little people to be big themselves one day. It's not
easy. It never has been. But then your mother managed to live through it,
didn't she? Besides, when you really think about it, what else could you
possibly do that could ever be so important?"22

This commercial exemplifies the message that our society sends both
tacitly, and not so tacitly, to women. Mothering is the most important
thing you can do. Even if it isn't easy, even if you don't want to do

6 of 8 4/9/10 6:37 PM
 [Link]

it...your mother did it, and so should you. Nothing else you might aspire
to could possibly be as important as raising children.23

This message can be so pervasive as to completely undermine a woman's

desire to pursue a career and financial independence. It is a subtle form
of subterfuge which can coerce a woman into "voluntarily" abandoning her
career path, instead "choosing" to devote her personal resources to
fulltime parenting. And women receive this message from all corners of
society: the media, school, the press, and even from their own friends and

21 See Footnote 14.

22 MJB radio spot, courtesy McCann-Erickson Advertising and KKSF

radio, San Francisco.

23 Lest the reader be misled by the apparent gender-neutrality of this

radio spot, the companion television commercial with identical voiceover
features a woman, with no man in sight.

families. Kathleen Gerson explains that among other factors, lack of

parental and social support may force a woman to abandon her hopes of
joining a male-dominated profession.

It is these same societal, social and familial pressures which keep a

woman trapped in the maternal bonds once there. Perhaps nowhere is this
more obvious then in the area of custody. The stigma associated with not
having custody, as a woman, can be unbearable. There is a nearly universal
assumption that if one is a single mother without custody, one must have
been the worst kind of mother imaginable, either to have lost custody
against such stacked odds, or to have voluntarily given up one's child.
After all, everyone knows that the maternal bond is natural and ever-
present. To act inconsistently is to be aberrant indeed.

Mothers Without Custody, a support group for non-custodial mothers,

speaks eloquently to the problems facing their members in our society:

"REACH - outward, upward, but never backward, for

looking back is filled with "woulda, coulda,
shoulda's", none of which were possible back then.
Looking forward allows us the opportunity to grow, to
move ahead in our lives, to take control of our
futures. Reach out to other non-custodial mothers so
they can learn from both the pain of our experiences,
as well as from the lessons we have learned.

TEACH - others about the issues facing the non-

custodial mothers. Educate the public at every
opportunity to help break through the stigma faced by
MWOC's. Teach not with anger but with integrity and
information.

LEARN - more about yourself, what you want for

yourself, where you want to be in the future. Learn
more about non-custodial parenting so that you can be
the best possible mother to your child(ren) given your
own set of circumstances. Learn so that you can share
your information with others.

LOVE - unconditionally. Let go of your self-guilt and

work towards building your own self-esteem. Give
yourself permission to love yourself so that you can be
free to love (and even forgive) others. Give your
child(ren) the gift of your unconditional love so they
can give it to themselves and others."24

Why is it that there is such a strong stigma attached to mothers who

don't have custody of their children, while there is no such stigma
directed towards non-custodial fathers? This is a direct result of
maternal bondage, of the myth that mothers, and only mothers, are supposed
to be nurturing and 'maternal'. A myth which has been perpetuated in our
society, to the detriment of women, for far too long.

VI. Conclusion
The birth of a wanted child is a wondrous and joyful event. Being a
parent can be a very fulfilling and rewarding experience. So can closing a
big business deal, arguing a case successfully, and being on the receiving
end of delivering a baby. With the exception of the act of birth, both men
and women can take part in any, or all, of these activities to an equal
degree.

24 "Mother to Mother: the Newsletter of Mothers Without Custody", Vol

12, No. 2, 1.

Unfortunately, many factors have conspired to place the burden of

childcare squarely on the shoulders of women, while at the same time
subverting their ability to pursue an education, a career, or some other
life goal. These factors share a common origin: the continued elevation
of the mother-child bond to an almost deified status.

For generations women have fought for the right to make choices about
the paths which they will take, and to throw off the mantle of oppression
which relegated women to the kitchen and the nursery. Slowly, but surely,
men have started to come around. But now a new breed of maternalists, many
of them feminists of note, have come forward to take their place, and women

7 of 8 4/9/10 6:37 PM
 [Link]

are once again finding themselves choosing between a career and fulltime
motherhood. This choice is a non-choice, both because it is coerced and
not a choice made by free will, and because it binds women back into the
very dependency on men which they fought for so long to be free of.

Only by freeing women of their maternal bonds, and allowing them to

provide for their children in their own way, according to their own balance
of career and caretaking, will they be able to become truly independent and
self-sufficient. And only then will women be able to avoid post-divorce
poverty, and achieve economic freedom.

8 of 8 4/9/10 6:37 PM