Women subsumed into their children

[Xenia]

We certainly must guard against woman as only mother and nothing else

www.ft.com/cms/s/2/0bf95f3c-f234-11e1-bba3-00144feabdc0.html#axzz25Ieiea9E

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

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 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 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!

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

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.

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!

I think 30% of the world will be muslim by 2013
www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/28/muslim-population-country-projection-2030

If they all require their women to cover up then indeed women will disappear. If we add in women who really are nothing more than servants to the home and children and don't work we may well find women do indeed disappear. Instead if each mumsnetter ensures she keeps a public profile which is not purely domestic. seeks to lead at work, succeeds and the like then women will not disappear.

" , 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

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.

"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

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!

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.

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

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.

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.

Xenia Mon 03-Sep-12 22:02:55
I think 30% of the world will be muslim by 2013
www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/28/muslim-population-country-projection-2030

If they all require their women to cover up then indeed women will disappear. If we add in women who really are nothing more than servants to the home and children and don't work we may well find women do indeed disappear. Instead if each mumsnetter ensures she keeps a public profile which is not purely domestic. seeks to lead at work, succeeds and the like then women will not disappear.

ffs really? Do you have muslim women on your fb? I have plenty and some of them have themselves as profile pics, some have anime avatars, some flyers of events, some their kids etc just like everyone else! lol.

and since when is wearing hijab equal to disappearing? firstly out of the proportion of muslim women in the world how many ocver in abayah and niqaab? secondly Muslim women work, volunteer etc, going back to my fb I have quite a few volontary organisations run by Muslim women, domestic violence one, a homestart sort of one, a counselling one, I have an archery school and a wrestling club and a gym run by muslim women, i have muslim women with pictures of themselves at demos in London outside Bangladeshi embassy and encouraging other Muslim women to come to demos, i have muslim women who run magazines such as sisters magazine, Lauren Booth is on my fb (tony Blairs sis in law who converted to Islam and works for press tv) .

I have my kids as my avatars, so what, people recognise me by my kids, my dh has our kids as his avatar and cover page thingy as well, would you accuse him of reducing himself to "only" a dad?

sometimes i post stuff about my kids, yeah i guess i thought thats what fb was about, an easy way for my family and friends and my dad etc around the world to keep in touch, see pics of my kids, when i was a kid i had my school photo sent around the world what is the difference?

sometimes I also post about politics, I am not really in to these i woke up and had a cup of tea type things, i post about world events, funny memes, stuff thats happening in our community like lectures, fairs etc,

and what is this "Only" a mum thing anyway? is that not demeaning a sahm's role? being a mum is not enough? you have to prove yourself by being something more? even if you are happy raising your children you are not good enough or woman enough or whatever if you are "only" a mum?

my latest link from my timeline, posted by the author, who is a muslim woman with a pic of the cover of the magazine she runs as her avatar, wortha read thestrengthofawoman

nailak's post.

I don't get why people put their child's face up where their own face is supposed to go either. I post pictures of my family to share with my wider family frequently (I no longer live in the UK) but not as my profile picture because that's not the purpose of the profile picture. My children are not my avatar, they are themselves (and lovely and gorgeous too, just not me). When you post a new set of pictures they get shared with all your friends (and whoever else you choose) so no need to put them as your profile picture.

I quite like silly photos/images as temporary profile pics, like the seasonal names here, for a bit of fun, but I think that's a bit different. I am quite anal with my facebook stuff though, and have it totally locked down. ds has just turned 13 and his facebook (for sharing with cousins only) is completely anonymous.

Ok so i regularly have photos of my dc not because im hiding but a bit like my name on i like to be able to change regularly.

Here are some of tge photos ive had recently;
Today it's a picture of me
topper from my friends cake
Apub sign
The queen
The dc
Me as a child
Dd
The scream
A UFO chocolate from m&s
A snowman made by dd
Me and ds
Ds

And that is the last year. All for personal reasons to me, analysise it however you like from a x number of people hide behind there dc, but that is too simplistic. I use it as a reflection of whatever I want to share certainly not what I want to hide.

Ps my first nn her had mummy in it . I've also had sweary, seasonal and piss take ones [shrugs]

A Santa hat
Me and my bro as children
Dc
Wear your poppy
Pumpkin
Choc muffin
Ds

Some of the posts on here are quite disturbing IMO.

What I find odd is when under 'employment' there's 'slave to my litter master,' or 'full time nappy changer!'

Yes, those are both (IMO) real examples from my FB. I get putting SAHM mum or whatever but the first example in particular is...Kinda creepy. Maybe I just have a dirty mind