As many have said (e.g., Daniel Gilbert) people often need to validate their choices by saying that those choices make them happy - whereas research shows that it's not necessarily so. Perhaps in the same way, some mothers, completely overwhelmed with motherhood (a very time and energy consuming task), choose to surrender their entire selves to the task of being a mother... and then, how can they say anything other than that it is the most rewarding and fulfilling thing to do?

A 1980 United Nations report states that women constitute half the world’s population, perform nearly two-thirds of its work hours, yet receive one-tenth of the world’s income and own less than one-hundredth of the world’s property. The impact of the women’s movement upon the church is being heralded as a Second Reformation. Women are now being ordained as priests, pastors and ministers, while patriarchal references to the Almighty as "Father" are replaced with the gender-neutral "Parent." Jesus Christ is designated the "Child of God." The words of scripture—perhaps, more accurately, the words of the apostle Paul—on this subject are seen today not as a divine revelation, but rather as an embarrassment from centuries past:

"Let the women keep silent in the churches, for they are not allowed to speak. Instead, they must, as the Law says, be in subordination. If they wish to learn something, let them inquire of their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church...let a woman learn quietly with complete submission. I do not allow a woman to teach, neither to domineer over a man; instead she is to keep still. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman, since she was deceived, experienced the transgression. She will, however, be kept safe through the child-bearing, if with self-control she continues in faith and love and consecration." (I Corinthians 14:34-35; I Timothy 2:11-15)

Many churches now claim these instructions were merely temporary frameworks used to build churches in the first century pagan world—they are not to be taken as universal absolutes for all eternity. If churches, scripture and Christianity can adapt and be redefined or reinterpreted in a changing world to end injustices towards women, they can certainly do the same towards animals.

The International Network for Religion and Animals (INRA) was founded in 1985 by Virginia Bouraquardez. Its educational and religious programs are meant to "bring religious principles to bear upon humanity’s attitude towards the treatment of our animal kin...and, through leadership, materials, and programs, to successfully interact with clergy and laity from many religious traditions."

According to the INRA:

"Religion counsels the powerful to be merciful and kind to those weaker than themselves, and most of humankind is at least nominally religious. But there is a ghastly paradox. Far from showing mercy, humanity uses its dominion over other animal species to pen them in cruel close confinement; to trap, club, and harpoon them; to poison, mutilate, and shock them in the name of science; to kill them by the billions; and even to blind them in excruciating pain to test cosmetics.

"Some of these abuses are due to mistaken understandings of religious principles; others, to a failure to apply those principles. scriptures need to be fully researched concerning the relationship of humans to nonhuman animals, and to the entire ecological structure of Nature. Misinterpretations of scripture taken out of context, or based upon questionable theological assumptions need to be re-examined."

In the winter of 1990, INRA’s Executive Director, the Reverend Dr. Marc A. Wessels wrote: "As a Christian clergyman who speaks of having compassion for other creatures and who actively declares the need for humans to develop an ethic that gives reverence for all of life, I hope that others will open their eyes, hearts and minds to the responsibility of loving care for God’s creatures."

In a pamphlet entitled "The Spiritual Link Between Humans and Animals," Reverend Wessels writes: "We recognize that many animal rights activists and ecologists are highly critical of Christians because of our relative failure thus far adequately to defend animals and to preserve the natural environment. Yet there are positive signs of a growing movement of Christian activists and theologians who are committed to the process of ecological stewardship and animal liberation.

"Individual Christians and groups on a variety of levels, including denominational, ecumenical, national and international, have begun the delayed process of seriously considering and practically addressing the question of Christian responsibility for animals. Because of the debate surrounding the ‘rights’ of animals, some Christians are considering the tenets of their faith in search for an appropriate ethical response."

According to Reverend Wessels, "The most important teaching which Jesus shared was the need for people to love God with their whole self and to love their neighbor as they loved themselves. Jesus expanded the concept of neighbor to include those who were normally excluded, and it is therefore not too farfetched for us to consider the animals as our neighbors.

"To think about animals as our brothers and sisters is not a new or radical idea. By extending the idea of neighbor, the love of neighbor includes love of, compassion for, and advocacy of animals. There are many historical examples of Christians who thought along those lines, besides the familiar illustration of St. Francis. An abbreviated listing of some of those individuals worthy of study and emulation includes Saint Blaise, Saint Comgall, Saint Cuthbert, Saint Gerasimus, Saint Giles, and Saint Jerome, to name but a few."

A growing number of Christian theologians, clergy and activists are beginning to take a stand in favor of animal rights. In a pamphlet entitled "Christian Considerations on Laboratory Animals," Reverend Marc Wessels notes that in laboratories animals cease to be persons and become "tools of research." He cites William French of Loyala University as having made the same observation at a gathering of Christian ethicists at Duke University—a conference entitled "Good News for Animals?"

On Earth Day, 1990, Reverend Wessels observed: "It is a fact that no significant social reform has yet taken place in this country without the voice of the religious community being heard. The endeavors of the abolition of slavery; the women’s suffrage movement; the emergence of the pacifist tradition during World War I; the struggles to support civil rights, labor unions, and migrant farm workers; and the anti-nuclear and peace movements have all succeeded in part because of the power and support of organized religion. Such authority and energy is required by individual Christians and the institutional church today if the liberation of animals is to become a reality."

Why does being a mother and being a feminist have to be mutually exclusive? My daughter's middle name is Simone after Simone de Beauvoir...very sad we are at square 1 again...I would have rated myself even if I had never had a child, a daughter but I'm glad that I spent all that time, energy and love raising her and was that dedicated to another female without the aid of a man or the government. Back in the day, stay at home mothers felt isolated and disparaged (is this a cycle of self-defeat?)...what should be bonding us is that we are all female regardless of religion, race, political views, marital status, etc. Of course, I didn't stay at home - I had to work to support us and my daughter went to daycare from the time she was an infant...in the beginning it was very tough but I was determined and became a stronger and more independent woman...we need to get over this pendulum swing of either/or to truly find and establish a feminist ethic of equality - I refuse to let anybody oppress me for being female or anything else that I am...that is the legacy I am giving to my daughter, a biracial young woman who is now successfully in a field that is predominantly male. We have to believe in ourselves first and be able to honor not only what we value and believe but also recognize what is important to our sisters even if they want to stay home and raise their child...not seeing much of that in the young women here in Maine because of the economy and I know a lot of young mothers from frequenting the gym - they work outside of the home. We can only go forward and hopefully with the legacy that those like Simone and Alice have given us while we are examples for the next generation of women...RATED for thought provoking - Congrats on cover and EP!!

Well-put.

Rated for being thought-provoking, though you don't read the best mommy blogs, which are nothing like the ones you are objecting to. Women will continue to be oppressed until they start supporting one another. The feminist/mother dichotomy reinforces the patriarachy.

I don't see this as a new thing. I saw it when my daughter was small, and that was a long time ago. Ever since women started working outside the home in significant numbers there have been vocal groups of smug "ultra-mommies" who seem to feel it is their mission to pass judgment on women who need to work. Before there were "mommy bloggers" there were mommy commentators on the radio, and before that were women who wrote mommy columns in the newspaper, like Erma Bombeck, who more or less closed the era of non-controversial mommyism.

Every mommyist writer thinks she is writing down thoughts that have never been felt or expressed before.

Mommyists see themselves as victims, under persecution by working women, when in fact working women rarely have time to pay attention and only react when they themselves are being attacked.

I had thought that maybe this had passed, but more likely I stopped noticing when my daughter grew older.

I see these as women who are beyond insecure with the choices that they have made with their own lives. They need to justify that what only fulfills part of their lives is still the best thing for everyone, and the easiest way to do this is by demonizing other women who have gone down the path not taken. Demonizing women is socially acceptable, and it is definitely not anything new under the sun.

What is done cannot be undone. They can never go back and change the path they have chosen for themselves.

The louder and more shrilly people scream about how happy they are, the less likely it is that they really are happy.

Don't forget the influence of the right wing in this. For many women who grew up in deeply conservative families, to choose anything different from marriage followed by full-time mommyism would have been considered unacceptable. Being suspicious about people who are not like you and demonizing them is a hallmark of right-wing conservatism.

The inconvenient fact is that children of working mothers grow up at least as well as those of full-time mommies. They can't change the fact, so they need to try to drown it out.

Infuriating to watch other women destroy themselves and each other. We service the patriarchy when we divide ourselves.

Yep, it's pretty amazing that sisters can attack one another based on whether or not we're in a mommy role. And it's discouraging to consider that our very own gender may be hindering the progress we made as women having choices.

I read the mommy blogger's entry and was appalled at her tone, her attitude and, well, just her as a person. Throughout my 20s, I never wanted children because I thought motherhood would turn me into someone like her. In my 30s, I realized it's my own choice what kind of mother I would be. I haven't had children yet and I'm beginning to be okay with it, because unlike mommy blogger, the value of my very being is not defined by whether or not I have children.

Thanks for writing such an eye-opening piece!

Thank you for a thought-provoking post.

I feel part of the issue is the need for certain women to make themselves feel safe and unthreatening by the opposite sex. They detest feminists and promote themselves by being what they feel all men want - a stay at home little woman who would never ever compete with those manly men in their lives. Phyllis Shlafley falls into this category, nicely.

Of course, feminists have worked very hard at striving for equality within the home as well. It's the feminists who push for longer maternity and paternity leave. The stay-at-home crowd successfully closed down some church-run daycares entirely to get mothers to quit working outside the home. Unfortunately, they worked against the common good of the family. When either sex has the freedom to stay at home or work, less guilt gets spread around.

Thank you! If I see one more internet handle that's "MadisonsMommy" or something along those lines, I'm gonna barf.

For God's sakes, it's not psychologically healthy for any adult to be primarily identifying and defining his or herself by his or her relationship to someone else.

Many of my under-30 friends and acquaintances have got the "mommy" personality going on...they have (willingly) re-defined themselves as "mommies", and it is literally all many of them talk about. it is not something i was prepared for, at all, from my generation.

The more things change, etc.

It breaks my heart to see how all these young women so take for granted the things that women of my boomer generation and previously, sweated blood over.

We can have kids, or not--and choose the option of completing the pregnancy, or not. We can have careers, educations, or not. Yet so many young girls live lives that are so accidental that they squander those choices--treating them, to quote another author whose name I wish I knew, "like a crazy woman w/a diamond."

These are such gifts, but they'll never know it til they're gone--as they will be, as we retreat back into the cave. Mostly helped along by women themselves.

So sad--and such wasted opportunities...

I had never heard of Alice Rossi either and I thank you for bringing her to my attention. I've written on this topic before, but for now I am just going to concur with what Angela and Ren Lady said. Wise words.

I hope we all realize that referring to women whose wombs we did not inhabit as mommy or mommies is revoltingly sexist.

"While it was largely men who held women back in the 1960s, . . . ."

Bullshit female sexism.

I was an adult in the 1960s, and it was then -- as now -- women who set the agenda/rules for both sexes: men either egree with those rules, or are told to "get lost".

Women were no less oppressive of themselves than they were of everyone within their reach -- then as now. That oppression takes its most offensive form as the constant blaming of everyone else for one's situation in life.

Want to UNDERSTAND OPPRESSION, child? Try being eligible for the draft during war time -- a life-halting life-or-death reality imposed exclusively on MALES.

The monomanic unidirectionality of female irresponsibility in these matters -- it's always someone else's fault -- is itself oppressive; as is the pretense that only males are/can be sexist.

"Demonizing women is socially acceptable, and it is definitely not anything new under the sun."

Perhaps when demonized by women. But if a male dares criticize a female, he is demonized as "mysoginist" -- hateful, unreasoning personal attack.

And then there's this instance of the social acceptability of demonizing women -- so accepted it gets no notice or comment:

"While it was largely men who held women back in the 1960s, . . . ."

I was for equal rights for women for some five years before women caught wind of the issue. Until, that it, women saw it as being to their advantage to adopt that position against the "oppression" of choosing who could best butter their side of the bread.

And some five years before "feminism" emerged, at which time it was a fairly unified view. It began to splinter almost immediately, however, when women -- middle-class white women especially -- caught wind of several of the planks in the platform:

"Want to be really independent, sister? Then get off his wallet."

That is: the intent to repeal all alimony and child support laws. (Granted, the feministis who proposed that were independently wealthy as result of inhereting fortunes accumulated by their male parent.)

"Oh, no!" said the largest percentage of women: "I'll not surrender that advantage! But I'll also do as I damned well please, and call that "independent".

I've been a stay-at-home mom while my husband worked, I've been a working mother while my husband stayed home. We've both stayed home, right now we both work.

Personally I would like feminism to take the "via media:" to not be dismissed as unenlightened, unmotivated and anti-feminist if we choose to stay home and raise kids; to not judged selfish and un-feminine if we choose to work. We should be able to celebrate that either path has merits and contributes to society, and work to see that both paths are valued by men and women alike.

Alice Rossi was my professor in the late 60s. I will never forget her lectures...she trembled with the passion of her arguments and I remember a lecture hall full of young women standing up and cheering, yelling, applauding and hollering... Standing ovation lectures.

Standing ovation life. Thank you, Alice.

Mary Joan has a very good point. Of course there's nothing wrong with being a mother, or being a stay-at-home mother, or being called "Mommy" by the children you raised (I'd extend her distinction to also cover adoptive mothers;).

It's when "Mommy" is the be-all sum total that women are supposed to be that it becomes a problem.

With both parents having to work in many households in this economy, it has almost become a status symbol for a woman to stay at home. I've done both. When I was married, I stayed at home and while my child was at school I painted, I had my own time.It was more relaxed. Now I'm a working single parent. I'm tired all the time. However I like the financial independence. I'm just glad I have the freedom to choose. If the mommies you're talking about, are scolding the working women then they simply have too much time on their hands.

I agree that if your kids are your only focus, you are going to have a lot of trouble when they grow up and go (but if the econmy still sucks, we will have lots of people who have to stay). Even though there are an unfortunate number of people who pretend that procreating gives them a special right or insight, I do know plenty of folks who just take it in stride. I think the ones who pretend to feel most blessed and think they have to list it as an accomplishment are covering up for insecurity. That said, some 'childfree' people think that this is a special state, too. It does seem that more people are choosing to be 'childfree,' so this may be why some of those that have kids feel defensive.

Here are some statistics:
http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/fertility/cps2006.html

I am very disturbed by both sides of the so-called "Mommy wars". I fought for free choice, and that means either choice. For what it's worth, I am childless by choice. In my profession, I meet new people all the time, and form personal relationships that often get to that question "Do you have kids?" My answer is always "No, I am childless by choice". In 30 years, no person, man or woman, has questioned my choice, so when you rant on all those women who chose to not work but raise children and manage a household full-time instead, I simply do not have any personal experience with that.

I also do not read blogs centered on a lifestyle I do not live. I TRY not to read these women-on-women bashing sessions from either side, but sometimes the headlines get me. As yours did.

I honestly do not understand why women of either ilk feel any need whatsoever to denigrate those who made the different choice. Having said that, your tag sounds like you didn't really have the choice, and I'm sorry if that's a burden for you. Why even read the fluff like that "Moms at Work" site?

Thanks for the comments, everyone. Great discussion.

I wanted to address a few points. This post was not meant to be a “rant” but rather a provocative observation. The overwhelmingly disproportionate share of voice of self-described “mommies” is hard to miss in today’s society -- not to mention the “bump watches” and mainstream media fascination with pregnancy and parenting stories. Just as a gut check I pinged my 70-year-old mother who, after college, was (to use the term of her day) a full-time homemaker. She worked part-time once her four kids we were into junior high school. She views today’s mom-centricity as off-putting and at a level she doesn’t recall ever seeing before.

We share fascination at the pendulum swing from highlighting women and their overall contributions to women who identify first and foremost as moms. As Leandra said, “it’s not psychologically healthy for any adult to be primarily identifying and defining his or herself by his or her relationship to someone else.” While I was unable to conceive I don’t use my endometriosis-riddled uterus as my avatar just as I would not have inserted my child in my profile picture or as my avatar. I am not simply childless/childfree, I am a writer, friend, Michigan Wolverine, and left-handed Californian, among other things.

Kellylark: To be clear, I don’t go out of my way to read blogs by moms. Given my experience with infertility, I do my best to avoid them. I stumbled across this particular Moms At Work post by accident, but I can testify to similarly self-important mom commentary in other women’s online communities. The mom-centricity I reference is not the sole domain of SAHM either. I’ve observed “as a mom…” self-importance from mothers in the workplace, too. Equal opportunity momming you could say. I suppose that’s progress? While there are certainly equally opinionated childfree by choice types they are generally drowned out by, you guessed it, moms.

Seems I recall not so many years ago that professional women looked derisively upon their "mommy track" compatriots. Maybe this is just backlash.