Women subsumed into their children

I prefer profile pictures with the actual person in (with or without DCs) or a boat or whatever, only cos if there's some sweary comments on a post it looks odd next to a toddler pic!

I agree there's probably a similar number of men and women using a straight DC pic in my FB, but most have got themselves in the pic somewhere,
Of course people post about their DCs as a lot of status updates are "things I'm doing" which tends to include the family unit a fair bit as most don't see FB as a place to post about work.

Why are you a Stepford wife if you post about your child? Or your day with the children? If you ONLY ever talk about/ post about your child then I suppose that's a bit boring but so is anyone who only ever talks/posts about one thing be it their job or their dinner. Being called a Stepford Wife suggests something derogatory, so would you call someone who posts about their high flying career all the time (to the extent that they don't seem to have anything else in their life) something derogatory? If not, why is special villification reserved for the subject of children?

I do object to women who look after children or who do domestic chores being referred to as "servants" as lf they are a lesser breed of person. Feminism is about supporting women in all their choices and valuing all the work that they do. And how do you know that women who look after children or clean their own homes don't have a public profile? They could be involved in community activities, they could belong to a local church or sports team or about a hundred other things. To say that women or men only have a valid identity if they do paid work is quite ridiculous and, frankly, a bit sinister.

being a parent doesn't define me,and it's not most important role I'll ever do
it's multifaceted im capable of many roles all concurrent
and I had kids because I wanted to,not to identify myself as mutha or vicariously live life via them
the mummy martyr thing is risible,don't have children unless it's your most important role...yeah?says who

The economic realities have always meant competing.

Maybe this kind of bragging always happened, facebook just makes it more obvious. What do men boast about using photos on facebook? Their children, their own sports achievements, nights out with friends. I've never noticed stepford wife style status updates from men.

The thing is when comparing books and children as a topic of conversation, it is more likely that parents will have more in common discussing their children than discussing their current reading. I have friends with children, I am quite certain few of my friends read the same books as me!

"Many of them are in book clubs" God, that's a weak line isn't it ? Nothing against book clubs at all, but if we happen to find our child more interesting to talk about than the latest book we're reading I don't see why that subject should be out of bounds to us !

I think, if we talk about our children more now, it's because we can.

My mother was a primary teacher in the 70's and 80's and told me recently that she rarely mentioned us in the staff room as she didn't want to appear un-professional. How sad is that ?! And ridiculous too, especially amongst so many other mothers.

Unfortunately elements of that attitude seem to linger on surprisingly tenaciously

As the author says "Many of these women work. Many of them are in book clubs. Many of them are involved in causes, or have interests that take them out of the house" so women are more conspicuous in the outside world than previous generations, devoting less time to home and children. I think that is perversely one of the reasons why in a social context women seem to be projecting the idea of devoted motherhood and child rearing.

Why might we do this? because whilst laws have changed regarding equality of education and work opportunities we are socially conditioned and biologically driven to "mother" our children. Is mothering a competitive sport. Yes, perhaps more now than ever before because the economic realities of our lives are so competitive.

" , and it struck me that on the most insidious things is the use of ones DC by women. They're used as an accessory and a means to build an entirely fictional and one dimensional life."

I sometimes wonder if old friends have become Stepford wives. All the incredible competitive chirpiness. Facebook as bragbook for those without careers.

The rest are showing off on LinkedIn and Twitter. Which is healthier, I think, because they are about professional and personal identities. On facebook you are defined by your relationships, by your family and friends. I don't think dc benefit from having their mother's life subsumed into theirs, being her sole raison d'etre

My FB pic is of me (but looking younger/more glam than I usually do )

DH's FB pic is of DS2.

Kids I get. But people who have their pet/horse as their FB pic..now there is a whole 'nother thread!

Sorry, ladies, I have not read the whole thread, but read the article. I started reading it, thinking that this may be an interesting piece of sociological polemic. However, by the end I was almost in stitches. The last paragraph was the neil in the coffin:

"What if Facebook pages are only the beginning? What if passports and driver?s licences are next? What if suddenly the faces of a generation were to disappear, and in their places were beaming toddlers?"

Oh no, women-posting-toddlers-as-their-profile-photos are leading us to armageddon (clutches pearls)! This rather seems to be a bit of an overreaction. Where is this disappearing generation? Who counted them? People I have as friends on FB post all sorts of stuff as their profile images, including robots, hamsters and abstract paintings. A few post toddlers. And why the hell not? Why is liking toddlers worse than liking goth skulls?

Smells of patriarchy to me. Yet again, somebody telling silly women what to do.

It does irk me when a profile pic is anything other than the person in question. It's all very well saying 'I want to share that photo with people', but you can upload photos to Facebook without making them your profile picture! Your profile picture goes next to your name, to represent YOU. Ergo, it should be a photo of you, surely? It's more the misuse of purpose than anything else to me, but then I am extremely anally retentive about these things

I do see the point of the article, beause of the above too; it's supposed to represent you, and you are now/should not be solely defined by your children.

On the informed consent issue, an aquaintance of mine posts photos of her 1-year-old DS on Facebook, naked, all the time. If anyone says anything to her about it she basically tells them they've got issues and are sexualising her child and explodes at them. MY problem with it, however, is only that it's his body and he has a right to privacy which she is not respecting. I hate the photos of me naked as a child, and my mum doesn't even show them to anybody, she just has them. If I knew they'd been on Facebook... Well, it doesn't bear thinking about.

Just my thoughts

I guess putting a picture up of one's Rolls Royce, one's Rolex or one's island says a lot about the person....but maybe not quite what they want to convey!

I don't do FB.
It seems to me to be quite the most pointless exercise.

I once spnet six weeks checking it as part of research for a piece I was writing, and it struck me that on the most insidious things is the use of ones DC by women. They're used as an accessory and a means to build an entirely fictional and one dimensional life.

I agree with rosabud - feminism needs to celebrate motherhood, not vilify it. I completely agree with the notion of women smashing the glass ceiling, making huge progress in science etc, but not at the expense of nurture. The idea that as a woman you somehow have to choose between a career or motherhood is just wrong. (& that you have failed as a woman in choosing motherhood for whatever timespan)

Xenia, maybe you are trying to be inspirational but I don't feel you actally make people think on this site, you just make them defensive, thereby failing to get across any fulfilling message.

I have a picture of myself as a cute blonde toddler as my profile pic, not sure what that says about me?

I have a picture of ds2 eating an ice cream as my profile picture on facebook. I always use pictures of the boys (sometimes with me in aswell) and all the pictures I post are of them. This is because I want to share those pictures with family and friends. I'd never thought of the profile picture as representing me as a person, more as a way of showing an especially nice or current photo. Perhaps I've been missing the point. .

I've just had a quick look at my friends' pictures. Approximately the same proportion of male and female friends have profile pictures which include their children. All the children are young; I've never seen anyone use a picture of a teenager or adult child in their profile.

Surely it depends what you use facebook for. I would never post about work; it would be unnecessary and unprofessional.

I think Roiphe is mixing various issues.

The parent who did not stop her child squeaking around in her shoes has nothing really to do with feminism or women being subsumed. It's to do with parents of both genders not wishing to upset / discipline their children. There's a term for it in French 'enfant roi'.

I have read this with mild curious interest and overall felt ,. and agree it is making a mountain of of a mole hill.
It's the kind of thing that bugs me about 'feminism'.

I have a massive mixed bag of friends on FB, but it is generally a nattering site not a 'bare my soul and reveal who I really am site.

If I say a profile pic of someone and it is their child, it doesn't even register as an 'issue'.

A mate I went to Uni with talks constantly about her 1st DC, (much, much wanted)
I think no less of her because of it.
And I wonder at the thinking of women who assume that because someone is totally enamoured by their DC's it makes them a less fulfilled human being.

Maybe people would be better off generally if they stopped over analysing other people's life choices and just got on with their own.

I never post pictures of my daughter on FB, as she is adopted and it's better to be careful. For the same reason I only ever put very occasional, very veiled comments about her in my status updates. I suspect I notice more than most those people who only ever seem to post that Hugo has done his first wee in the potty or Delilah has just grazed her knee etc. Boring and unnecessary!

I think the wider point is that FB pictures etc are symptomatic of those women who somehow cease to exist when they have children, who used to ve able to discuss films and books, but now only know about Postman Pat and the Gruffalo. it's quite easy to become like this, though. I suspect I have been this person on occasion...

I don't post pics of my children online. I also don't put my own picture up. If we are friends on fb then you already know what I look like, at least what I looked like at that time. I will probably look older and more broken in, but substantially the same.

If you do not already know what I look like, why would you need to know? Such curiosity about strangers is unseemly

hence my profile pic is never me, but is always something like me. Recently it was a cat wearing a limepeel cap. I admired its air of disgruntled dignity.

it is kind of funny to try and make meaningful inferences about other people's profile pics