The 70’s seemed to bring change for women. Choices. Marriage followed by reproduction was penultimate rather than ultimate. Many still reproduced (without partners, with female partners…) but more than every before, women produced (art, leadership, inventions, and so on). Even more revolutionary, women were choosing not to reproduce. For a brief time, there was a successful striving towards social, civic, educational, and professional equality with male peers. But, recently, there has been a strange reversion to revelling in being a “mom”. When did women start referring to themselves as ‘moms’ rather than mothers, or better yet as women?There is an entire ‘mom’ culture setting the standards for modern motherhood. On the extreme side there are the women who quit jobs to stay at home and make their own organic baby food and discuss the merits of inoculating their children against infectious disease. On the less extreme side, there are those who keep their careers but revel more in the “mom” role (and try to keep up with the stay-at-homes). In practice, the aggressive cultism in this “mom” culture doesn’t allow women to express doubts and fears. There is no room for a woman to be honest about herself, to make mistakes, to be imperfect, or to ask for help. No one wants to hear that she is flailing or that her child isn’t developmentally average or better than average. There is no room for variation. She is the 1950s housewise but often with a career and a new, improved, insurmountable set of expectations to meet. Somewhere along the way, women lost the point. Rather than being liberated, are women more oppressed than ever by modern reproduction?

On the professional side of things, females must grapple with the issue of reproduction on a deeper level than males because women are the biological bearers of children and that directly interferes with one’s life. That biological burden comes with a social responsibility that has to be balanced against any other choices made in life. Websites, career sites, professional organization forums, and women’s magazines (not to mention the surfeit of smug celebrity mother examples) all cater to this reproductive issue. Yes, it is an important one because it affects women more than men. But, must it come at the cost of other issues that are equally important such as equal pay, education, development, and mentoring. In fact, the more women use reproduction in the same breath as career, the more detrimental it is to equality. Detrimental because women market themselves as ‘moms’ rather than peers. I thought women’s liberation was about narrowing the gap, if not closing it, by showcasing our abilities and successes. Yet, reproduction is increasingly inseparable from the definition of modern women. Why does this have to define us?

Women choosing not to reproduce (or marry, for that matter) are viewed suspiciously by society, and most probingly questioned other her peers, other females. Women who have not married “just haven’t met the right person yet.” Women who have not reproduced either “haven’t felt the biological clock yet“ or “just aren’t ready yet.” Why are these excuses made rather than acknowledging and accepting the value and personal nature of choice (reproduction or not, marriage or not).

Even in an recent Chronicle Careers column, the issue is inescapable despite the author starting with a powerful message about the under-representation of women in the sciences. She was one of 6 female judges out of 180 at a high school science fair. The high school teachers were all women. She very soon worked her way into having babies on the tenure clock. Her co-writers have addressed this issue very well in other columns. So, I was disappointed that a women without children allowed herself to be diverted from a meaningful contemplation on how to inspire young females to science careers. (I normally like these columns written by a group of likable and intelligent female biologists who write insightfully about being female (sometimes grappling reproduction issues) in a male-driven profession.)

Despite what I have written, I admire the courage and self-sacrifice required to have children–just as much as I admire other difficult choices that women make. But being a parent isn’t limited to women and men don’t define themselves as fathers. The offspring of men, their fathering ability, their “dadness” (is there a ‘dad’ culture?) is only mentioned incidentally, if at all. Powerful and fatherhood aren’t not coupled intricately together even though men are biological reproducers too, and even though it costs them (not hardly as much as women initially though).

Helen Reddy’s anthem, I am Woman inspired me from an early age. When I first really listened to it, I thought, yes, of course, women are powerful. I am powerful.There are wonderful examples of women with and without children who are inspirations and not defined by their reproduction. I wish more women celebrated their own power separate and apart from reproduction. Collectively, that example of personal celebration of strength and invincibility can only inspire ALL female children to work at making our global community a hospitable environment that allows women to follow any path in life without restraint.