From Your (Wo)manInWashington blog

From the New York Times about Kim Clijsters winning the Women's Singles US Open Championship after having a baby 18 months ago:
 
The Clijsters narrative is not just about an underdog’s comeback, but about the dreamy, irresistible illusion the 1970s wrought: the fantasy that women can be all things, the idealized mother and the brilliant professional at the height of her game. 
 
Oh, please.  Puh-leeeze.
 
I admit I was not politically active in the 1970's, but I was dimly aware of the women's liberation movement.  It was hardly dreamy or illusory.  The ideal at issue was the ability of women to pursue any field or occupation they desired and not be restricted to a few due to their gender alone.  Also under debate was the right to be compensated fairly for the work they did. 
 
Decades later, the range of feminine achievement is vast, thanks to an enormous amount of effort and sacrifice and suffering.  While pay equity cases are still being litigated, at least women are earning the same prize money insome  professional sporting competitions.  It is really no surprise that women can achieve great things both before and after bearing children.  Kind of just like.....men.
 
It's hard to idealize motherhood if you've ever actually so much as dipped your big toe into it.  I can't think of any other condition which involves the 24/7 confrontation of bodily functions and fluids to a similar extent.  Addressing big issues (education? special needs?) and small (latex or silicone?  thumb or pacifier?), motherhood is a full body contact, multi-media interdisciplinary, cross-cultural-lollapalooza of a lifetime career.  Upon which the future of civilization as we know it is wholly reliant. 
 
It's also very time-consuming.  Not so much the procreating part, but the years afterwards of constant vigilance and attention.  What's remarkable about Ms. Clijsters is not that she had a baby and is still an athlete, but that she apparently has the time and opportunity to show up at practice and work out and travel, which professional tennis requires.  Doing that and being a mother, I grant you unreservedly, takes a good bit of work, and likely the active participation of a number of other adults.
 
I don't aspire to being the ideal mother.  In fact, I think it's a myth that we use to bash each other over the head with, and it's best to put it away.  I don't aspire to being a brilliant professional either.  I would happily settle for competently being able to avoid economic dependency and poverty after bearing, and while raising, my children.  That alone will take a good bit of work, and will certainly involve the active participation of a number of other adults, even though I will never bring home a big ol' whomping trophy like Kim Clijsters.
 
The "Clijsters narrative" the NYT extols isn't a fairy tale, and it isn't about a woman who wants "to be all things".  It's about a woman with a child who likes her work and pursues as full and fulfilling a life as anybody else.  For this she deserves credit.   If we made it possible for more women to have children and live their hopes with a full range of possibilities, it wouldn't seem like such a dream.  In fact, it shouldn't seem like such a dream.

Click here to read more from Your (Wo)man in Washington.