If Shakespeare Had a Mom
One of the most famous essays regarding art and feminism is Virginia Woolf’s A Room of One’s Own. In it, Woolf ponders what might have happened if Shakespeare had had a sister.
You’ve probably read it in school, but I’ll sum it up: in order to live a creative life, women needed two things that men had, but women lacked until well into the 20th century – independent income not contingent on the whims of a man, and their own private space. Woolf imagines Shakespeare’s sister, Judith, setting out to make her way in the world as her brother Will did before her, and meeting a far less happy end.
It’s a great essay. I read it as a teenager and as a spoiled American brat who always had my own personal space, I didn’t fully understand it, but I understand it now.
I’ve been thinking a lot lately about Shakespeare’s sister. There’s certainly something romantic about the notion, a young desperate girl brimming over with creative juice, seeking a sliver of sky under which she can scribble down those words that come burbling out of her.
As you may have noticed I’ve been MIA for a few weeks, and that’s been because I was terribly busy. I am, as they say, a Working Mom. I have two jobs, five children, a house I’m meant to keep up to a certain standard, food to cook, chickens to tend, a garden to water, elderly parents who need attention, and a husband who – as I suspect has been the case for a good many women throughout history – generally requires the most effort of all. I don’t have a dishwasher and my clothes dryer works so badly I dry most of my clothes flung over the furniture. According to conventional wisdom, in addition to managing all these things, I’m supposed to dress neatly, wear makeup and keep my fingernails painted and my hair brushed, and exercise for my cardiovascular health. Unfortunately, I have to sleep, even though I’d really rather not. And in the midst of all this, someone found an orphaned kitten that I’ve been raising by feeding it milk from an eyedropper around the clock, that kind of ridiculously insane project moms lovingly undertake when they’re asked to.
All this leaves very little time for creative burbling.
So my question of late has been, what about Shakespeare’s mom?
What about her, you may ask? Wasn’t Woolf really talking about the creative needs of ALL women, mothers included? But I’ve read through the essay several times now and I don’t see it. If mothers are in there, they’re an afterthought and not considered a creative force unto themselves.
There’s an underlying premise in Woolf’s essay I take issue with – that it’s the saddest thing ever for a young person with their life ahead of them to have their promise prematurely snuffed because youthful promise snuffed is eternal. Once young Mary Arden became Mary Shakespeare, she was no longer worthy of deeper consideration. Her curtain had fallen. The exciting part of her life was over. The interesting part of her life was over. Mary Arden Shakespeare had to get dinner onto the table; she had nothing more to say. Her daughter Judith was now the star of the show.
I don’t like that premise. Accepting that premise means embracing the concept that once a woman pushes a child out of her body, that’s it. It’s over for her. She’s something else, something no longer quite human. Mothers are regarded as more like comforting sentient robots than people and they certainly cannot be both mother and artist. Judith Shakepseare’s career was salvageable if she’d only had a room, but Shakespeare’s mother was nothing more than a footnote of history, having fulfilled her destiny of birthing The Bard.
Even for Virginia Woolf, once a woman had a child she became something different. Not an artist. Not any more. Because art and motherhood cannot comfortably coexist.
While I sit here trying to write this stupid essay I’ve had in my heart for weeks, my three younger children are having lunch that I made them as fast as I possibly could with my mind a million miles away and they are snapping their fingers along to the song I have blaring in my ears to try and drown out the sounds of their precious voices. I swear to you they are the most wonderful, loving children who have walked the planet. If I had to make the choice I’d walk away from my computer and never write another word. But thankfully I don’t have to make that choice, and right now I would very much like to throttle all three of them.
They have a right to snap, of course. What do I have a right to?
Wait. Why can’t art and motherhood coexist, anyway? In her essay What Do We Do With The Art of Monstrous Men – a fantastic essay about many things which you should drop what you’re doing and read immediately – Claire Dederer examines the essential selfishness of being an artist. Dederer claims – and I have no reason to disagree with her – that in order to make yourself a slave to your art, a true slave, which is what greatness requires, you have to be willing to put the art first, and putting the art first is a euphemism for putting yourself first.
Jesus, why are they snapping? They’ve literally never snapped like this before. Are they doing it to irritate me?
Motherhood done properly, I’m told, is an act of supreme selflessness. If art is an act of selfishness, and Dederer makes a damn fine case that it is, is it any wonder motherhood can’t always, or even usually peacefully coexist with art? Something has to give, corners must be cut somewhere, and cuts hurt even when they’re small.
Does this mean that Shakespeare’s mother was just plain out of luck? She was needed to churn the butter and dry the tears and keep those little people alive, and there was no time for anything beyond that?
Forget about space and money, Virginia, if you have no time you have no art.
There, now I’ve yelled at them for the snapping. Are you happy? What do you want from me, anyway?
The thing is, men do it. They pull off the balancing act. Men have children and families and even full time jobs and they still make art and write books and shoot movies and strum guitars at the same time. Are they just that much better at scheduling than I am?
I recently wrote a bit about the artist’s muse and whether or not they can be male. But it occurs to me that aside from muses, male artists have other humans around them that influence their creativity, humans that are most often female. Artists have companions, caretakers. A support staff. If you look at the life of pretty much every male artist, there is some longsuffering woman – mother, lover, sister, housekeeper – who quietly put up with his affairs and ignored his rages and brought him glasses of whiskey and cups of coffee and sharpened his pencils and reminded him to sleep when he’d stayed up too long. But I am both the artist and the longsuffering woman (thankfully, without the affairs). While I do think a muse can be a man, I’m not sure a caretaker can be.
I think the biggest burden of caretaking comes with that second X chromosome; even if it’s nothing more than a social construct, humans are social creatures. It’s awfully tough to be an artist without someone to attend to the mundane details, if for no other reason than the ever-loving TIME it all takes.
My husband takes care of more than his fair share of details because I, like all super creative people with one foot in the real world and the other in a perpetual dreamland, am a f*cking disaster. But only slightly more than his fair share, and not without resentment. He hates me writing. He never says it, but I know he does. I hear it in his voice when he notices there is no food in the cat dish and the dishes weren’t washed, even though there is usually food in the cat dish and the dishes are washed often enough. Because writing takes time and he sees that time as time I really should spend doing the work of a wife and mother. I know it makes him unhappy that I’m not doing my job properly, that I’m breaking the promises I made to everyone in order to keep the promises I made to myself. When he married me I suspect on some level he believed he was taking on a full time employee and by full time that meant 24-7. When I married him I believed marriage meant something different than it actually does.
I work when I must and I write when I can. It’s too much work and too little writing. I crave time like a junkie craves their next fix. I’d rather have time than a whole lot of other fairly important stuff. I repeatedly gamble the most important things in my life for a little time. Every time I take a day and sit at a computer rather than scrubbing something I fear I’m risking my marriage. I’m only writing now because I decided I would rather get divorced than not write.
But would I rather have no children? That is the question raised by Shakespeare’s Mom, politely and unobtrusively, from behind her dust cloth.
For me, and I think most other creative women too, the answer is that I would pick the children. I would always pick the children, it’s not a contest. But I wouldn’t be happy about it. During that year when I wasn’t writing I wasn’t alive. I was a sentient robot. And I was still writing anyway, just in my head instead of with my fingers. I still had one foot in that other world because that’s just how I’m made. I was still distracted, still aloof, still messy – plus I was miserable. So I try to walk two tightropes simultaneously and there’s no net and someone seems to be moving those ropes further and further apart and I’m pretty much doing the splits here. I don’t think my children get enough from me but many times I just don’t have anything left to give. I’ve already left it all on the field, in the laundry room, on the page.
It may very well be that the requirements of Shakespeare’s sister were money and space, but Shakespeare’s mom just needs some time. Shakespeare’s mom learned a long time ago to be always writing, even in a room full of children snapping. Shakespeare’s mom doesn’t even know what it is to have money that isn’t controlled at least in part by the whims of a man and devoured by the endless needs of a family*. And yet she writes on, reciting dialogue over the pot she’s stirring, turning away from the sink of dishes for a moment to fit in another word or two.
I’m just letting them soak, I promise.
As I sit here now with almost 50 years of life under my belt, this much I know: youthful promise snuffed is NOT eternal. The things I have to say now are so much deeper and broader and wiser than I had to say back then. And yet when people think of a mother who is a writer, it seems like a joke, like she is a figure worthy of pity. “Oh, poor thing, look at her still trying! Doesn’t she know that ship sailed long ago?” Even Virginia Woolf thought once a woman becomes a mother she’s no longer no longer capable of creativity. But Shakespeare’s mom matters too. Shakespeare’s mom is capable too. A woman is more than just the children she gave birth to.
Someday the children will be gone and the house will be quiet and I’ll have all the time I need. And I will hate that too, in a different way, I’m very certain. But I cannot wait till then – by which I mean I feel incapable of waiting, incapable of seeing the hours tick by on the clock and the pages fly by on the calendar, waiting for some future that may not ever come to pass while I worry about greasy residue on my dishes and lime scale in my coffee maker and mildew spreading across my grout and ring around the collar and the location of the mates of 30,000 lonely single socks. I could wait, and I would wait if I was a better person.
But I think I’m better at being a better artist than I am a better person.
For even if that future came to pass, even if I keep my health and my mind and I don’t have to get some other job or take on other responsibilities that burn up all my time with a different set of mundane tasks, I won’t be the person I am now. I’ll be someone else with different concerns and the things I have to say here and now will be forever lost.
It isn’t just youthful promise snuffed that’s sad. It’s any promise, snuffed. And saddest of all is when you snuff it yourself.
Maybe someday my kids can forgive me for not being Shakespeare’s mom, for not being satisfied with being a secondary character in someone else’s biography, for continuing to write my own story even as their stories unfolded. Or maybe they won’t, and that first chapter of their lives will be a bittersweet vignette of a distracted mother who never quite gave them what they needed.
But their story is their story and I’m just one chapter in that saga. I have my own tale to tell.
*Virginia, I hate to break it to you, but all of us, regardless of the genitals we sport, are brutally hamstrung by lack of funds, male artists as well as female. There are any number of poor creative men, any number of Shakespeare-Twos and New-and-Improved-Shakespeares, who lived and died having to work all day at various demeaning soulsucking drudgeries rather than being able to indulge their artistic natures to the fullest, or any extent. The need for money is like gravity, it sucks us all down. Art is a privilege, and being denied the chance to exercise that privilege isn’t a necessarily a crime against humanity. It’s part of the human condition, regardless of one’s gender.
Reading this brightened up my morning no end, Kristen. Thanks for writing and posting it.
Re the final point… The future of writing comes up regularly over at Charlie Stross’s blog. The consensus there is that professional novel writing in particular will become the domain of (a) the relative handful of authors who are commercially successful early and can give up their day job, (b) kept people (which, in practice, is pretty much limited to the well-to-do), and (c) pensioners. The real pessimists there tend towards the “eventually it will only be pensioners” school of thought.Report
I agree. And this is yet one more reason I support UBI.
Thing is, we used to have more leisure. Wallace Stevens worked as an insurance executive all day long then came home and wrote poetry in the evenings. I guess his job paid well enough that he could pay people to do the other stuff.Report
Or his wife did it. 🙂Report
Yep.Report
If everyone gets UBI and becomes a leisured writer, how are any of them going to get any food, since the only thing the economy will be producing is novels? Shouldn’t UBI be somehow means tested so that there’s still a large cadre of people laboring away on farms and in factories to support the novelists? Or perhaps the novelists could just eat the non-novelists, similar to the Eloi and Morlocks. Someone should write a book about that.
Anyway, I’m pretty sure Shakespeare’s mom didn’t write plays because she hated drama. Lot’s of people hate drama. So is the creation of more drama something society should reward? Isn’t the creation of more drama pretty much the opposite of what the UBI proposals are trying to foster, which is stress-free and struggle-free peace, harmony, and leisure?
Indeed, the proven way to create great novels isn’t UBI, it’s gulags. We need to foster more writers like Solzhenitsyn producing more works like Gulag Archipelago instead of some UBI recipient pounding out 101 More Uses for a Dead Cat.
Thankfully, the system is self-correcting and attempts to create a UBI utopia always end up with gulags, and then we get the great novels.
Anyway, great post Kristin!Report
“Indeed, the proven way to create great novels isn’t UBI, it’s gulags.”
Just imagine the great novels that will be appearing in about a decade.Report
They’re already here!
The best book about the opiate epidemic, and indeed, perhaps the best American novel in decades, was written in a Kentucky prison. Cherry, by Nico Walker, was a Hemingway Award finalist. The New Yorker said it was one of the best books of the year. The Washington Post said
You see, a prison is just like UBI. You get food, a bed, plenty of time to kill, and a place to write. Not only that, it’s a place where you can interact with a wide range of seasoned dramatis personae for inspiration. And most of all, no kids!
Now I’m not saying that all writers should be locked up, but yeah, lock ’em all up – either to advance the art or as punishment for the last season of Game of Thrones.Report
I’m friends with some people who sell ebooks via Amazon; they’re making a run at it. But I do tend to agree with you that in the modern world it’s not a career choice many will be able to make a living at.Report
The arts in the internet age, it seems to me, are regressing/changing to an earlier model.
Once upon a time artists were either travelling itinerant devotees of their craft who lived hand to mouth for their art or they were kept individuals supported by wealthy patrons.
Mass media changed that a lot. Suddenly a small number of artists could become fabulously wealthy if they were good enough and/or connected enough to get past the gate keepers.
The internet has slayed a lot of those gate keepers and opened a vast audience up to anyone who wants to be an artist. But with the ongoing demise of the gate keepers the concept of the wealthy artist seems to be diffusing away again. Now a much larger number of artists exist and a much larger number of them can access a large audience but they do it by… travelling a lot and living hand to mouth or depending on the largess of wealthy patrons.
Maybe’re returning to the era of troubadours, albeit ones who’re much better off than their early age compatriots.Report
It’s interesting you say this because I’ve often rolled my eyes against the industry of art-for-profit rather than the love of it, which has given us the endless streams of rebooted movies and “Robert Ludlum” books that came out a decade after the guy had died. Maybe it’s some sort of natural cycle – poor artists who are motivated from love of craft slowly becoming a guild gatekept by a chosen few who were motivated more for profit and now we’re seeing the pendulum swing the other way again.
Troubadors, as you say. Thanks for commenting!Report
So much I want to say but can’t find the words. Thank you for writing this Kristin. I understand, and I love the part of you that refuses to feel guilty for prioritizing your needs.Report
Thank you for reading! So glad you liked it.Report
Yep. I have the money to do most of what I want, but the time… And earning that money takes up time. And Bug takes up time (and money).
Someday soon Bug is going to be less of a time sink and more of an asset. I was about his age when I started helping dad fix things around the house.Report
Yes, I’m ~maybe~ getting to that point now and can assign chores and stuff. Thanks for reading!Report
In 2015, Micheal Wood presented a documentary about Shakespeare’s mom for the BBC. You can watch it for free on YouTube.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kmpiY5kssU4Report
thank you! that’s awesome!Report
“Someday the children will be gone and the house will be quiet and I’ll have all the time I need.”
We became empty nesters last year at the ripe old age of 43. Having kids at 19 (me) and 23 (my wife) was a huge hassle from a monetary perspective, but surprisingly there isn’t a whole lot else that is bad about it. You have lots of youthful energy and while you feel pangs of jealousy that your friends can still do certain young people things while you are helping with homework, we cultivated a network of babysitters that still allowed for a social life.
I was never worried about how it would feel to have the kids gone. I knew I would love every minute of it and I have. My wife is still adjusting, but that is because she had no hobbies to lean on. Luckily she had a job scare this past spring that resolved itself but it lit a fire under her. Suddenly she has taken a keen interest in padding her resume and making herself a more valuable employee for the next scare and it’s been fun to watch her find her footing and excel.
Your day will come Kristin.Report
We had our first two at 21 and 25. Then years later I had baby fever and we had the three little ones. So our oldest is 27 and our youngest is almost 7. I don’t regret it (and I personally have enjoyed parenting a lot more in many ways this second time around, since we’re both better equipped emotionally) but it does eat into the time. I feel much more urgency now with writing than I did when my older two were young, and than I did when we were deciding to add the younger three. I would still make the same decisions, but this urgency I feel now wasn’t present when I was making them, if that makes sense.Report
Oh sure…everyone makes choices based on priorities and I certainly don’t fault you for yours. You’ll just get your day a bit later than me 😉Report
About your footnote.
I think that Woolf understood that a lack of funds impacts most artists. The problem at the time (1929) was that women rarely had the opportunity to earn an income that afforded time for creativity without the permission of a man.
Also, the “starving artist” concept, a creator that lives like a vagabond, suffering for his art is a theme. Even today, however, many view a man suffering for his art to be brave, bold and noble. A woman that lived an insecure life would be seen by many as a failure regardless of her aspirations. Society is still far more willing to let a man live his life his way. Women are expected to conform.Report
I’m not exactly sure if your last sentence is true. Some men are allowed to live their own way and live a life of self-indulgence. For other men, “being a real man” seems to be an act of perpetual self-sacrifice of their own desires for somebody else’s greater good. This manifests in a constant pressure not to reject women for being single mothers among other things. Men who don’t want to step into the role of “instant family, just add daddy” are treated as vile.
I think this plays out a lot when it comes to expressions of late blooming romance and sexuality. When you have a woman who is going on a relatively late life voyage of sexuality, it is perceived as a beautiful and just thing. With a man, it is at best seen as big joke and possibly even dangerous and pathetic. Compare How Stella Got Her Grove Back to the 40 Year Old Virgin or how pop culture treats women in their thirties and forties with young men, yeah awesome, and men in their late thirties with women in their twenties, eww eww. There might be an exception if the man is seen as having high status.Report
This is why I added the footnote. It sucks to be a guy and to hear that all women’s problems are due to men, even the problems that both men and women both experience (like struggling to earn a living and not being able to indulge your creative urges to the fullest.) And men do tons of amazing and self-sacrificing things for the greater good of others all the time, many of which have been incredibly devalued/belittled.
I will quibble with you about the “voyage of sexual discovery” because while there are a few stories like Stella, they exist alongside dozens, if not hundreds of similar tales in which a middle aged man is renewed and rejuvenated by a sexual experience. I still think our society is much harder on older women with younger men than the other way around too.Report
I think it depends on the status of a man. Men who have or are seen as having high social status; well-groomed, tall, full head of hair, and looks economically successful at least are generally seen as not that bad when there is a wide age discrepancy. Men who aren’t high status get the “eww eww” treatment. It might also be based on your social quarters. In more left-leaning ones, there is likely to be more hostility to older men with much younger women for a variety of reasons.Report
I agree, and used the “Virginia” as a cohesive choice and not because I ~really~ thought she was deliberately leaving that out. I hope she forgives me.
The thing is, in a good many pieces of this nature, cultural/economic forces that affect both men and women are put forth as something men are doing TO women, deliberately and maliciously and I don’t think that’s entirely fair.
I didn’t want to do that in this piece, and so I added the footnote to point that out.
Thanks for reading and commenting!Report
I’m pretty sure Shakespeare had a mom, even if her last name was “Bacon”.Report
Homer Simpson voice: “bacon…ughlahlgjalhlahghh”Report
I’m glad you wrote this because I’ve been thinking a lot lately about how (when Western Civilization is working) women are lauded precisely because they give up their bodies and lives for the care of others. A whole lot of energy has been devoted (since well before I was born) to convincing women that this sacrifice was both too much (arguably) and trivial—think of “only a housewife/mother/homemaker”, which is a sentiment that is practically the default these days.
It’s an issue for me now because my middle daughter is 18, and she wants that life. She’s also an amazing artist and working hard to improve her skills. My hope is she’ll be able excel at both.
The thing is: Mom is irreplaceable. Dad is important, for sure—we’ve seen plenty of damage from absentee dads. But they are a distant second to Mom. (See iahp.org for more info on that.)
But there is this insanity that emerges where everyone else suddenly becomes helpless if Mom isn’t available 24-7. And one of the things she has to do is make everyone a.little more self-sufficient. Children will squawk, but it’s vital for them growing up.
Husbands are a different problem. I’ve seen husbands get positively wounded because their wife takes 90 minutes out of a week to play basketball. But everybody needs a chance to switch up their games, and every husband knows that he himself takes breaks from whatever his “job” is to do something else—and it makes him better at that job. Wives and mothers are no different: If they can step away for a moment, they come back happier and more focused. It’s not even subtle.
It’s so obvious only a human could miss seeing it.Report
Yeah, my mom bailed when I was 13, after a long period of disengagement. And I was raised by my dad, who knew how important he was. I have known many men who have raised the children by themselves and many others who have jumped in when life has left a missing father. Have some dropped ours? Sure, and so have women. Do I know where she is? Somewhere in Africa, maybe. Maybe dead, as I haven’t heard from her in a while. Last time my brother saw her, he laid into her about the adventures she craved, the business she started.
Anyone is replaceable. It’s so obvious only a human could miss seeing it.Report
Yes it’s very strange how mixed the messages are.
I am coming to realize that people embrace mixed messages because it always gives them the higher ground. I’ve been criticized for not being a good enough homemaker and not working outside the home by the very same people in the exact same conversation. It’s a tactic people use to control each other, and unfortunately a lot of women are really susceptible to that. WE seem to think that if we get it “right” no one will ever criticize us, and it’s an important step towards adulthood to finally learn that some people just like to criticize for their own reasons and will find any basis on which to do it.
It’s very interesting about children and learning self-sufficiency. My mom worked and was super busy and I did more than my fair share of the chores growing up. It really did help me to learn skills I needed to be a successful adult. My older two sons, while I did give them some chores and stuff, it was nothing like what I had, and as adults they aren’t anywhere near as capable of taking care of their home (or maybe they’re just unwilling). Now, is it because I had so much responsibility? IDK but I don’t feel too awfully bad about making my younger three take on more chores than their big brothers had.
There’s a version of the Legend of the Selkie where a man marries a woman from the sea, and she can stay on land and be human but had to go back into the water once a year to renew herself. One year the husband keeps putting her off and putting her off until she finally starts to disintegrate and only then he realized what he was doing to her. Women need some time to themselves that isn’t being scheduled constantly by the needs of other people.Report
Great piece Kristen!Report
Thanks Aaron!Report
I don’t buy Dederer’s claim about artists and selfishness. I’ve read quite a bit about the great classical composers, and some of them were art monsters, but some weren’t. Probably a distribution of monstrosity comparable to any other profession. Commitment isn’t unique to the artist; every field of endeavor requires some level of commitment, and commitment doesn’t necessarily correlate with success.Report
The level of commitment I have for writing surpasses the level of commitment my husband has for driving a garbage truck, though. While there are certainly workaholics in any number of fields people have passions and then they have careers and for most creative people the art is a passion that can flare out of control, while a career is easier to keep in perspective IMO.Report
Yeah, I sorta think the “selfishness” thing is more of an excuse for bad behavior. People are always using art to excuse bad behavior. (Genuinely bad behavior, not mere disagreement.)Report
That was her point really – that men have the luxury of using “art” to excuse all manner of bad behavior and yet women feel we can’t even cut a few corners here and there because we’re so worried we’re being too “selfish”. But ~some~ selfishness is required to make art at all.Report
I think I get it, but I also think the scare quotes are vital to the use of the word “selfish” here. (And I’m sure you know this better than I.) Often when a woman is told she’s being “selfish”, the intended message is “you didn’t do what I wanted you to do” or “you are not fully self-abnegating”.
I could make an argument that art is inherently UNselfish but that’s a whole ‘nother can o’ worms.Report
I remember years ago at an anarchist book fair, fledermaus remarking that there were lots of books, zines, and discussions, about avoiding conception, obtaining abortions, etc., but nothing about choosing conception, childbirth, or parenting.
Like parenting was somehow incompatible with the very expansive definitions of radicalism or anarchism that qualified for inclusion at the zine tables – or was at best orthogonal to it, like parents could continue to write about prison abolition or whatever, but their home life ceased to be material for a contribution, became something that had to be taken care of so they could contribute one some other topic.
I’m not sure how much that was down to a lack of such publications, vs to their not appealing to the few people who had tables at the fair.Report
There aren’t a lot of articles about walking on the earth, waking up in the morning or sleeping at night either. Left to their own devices conception, childbirth and parenting do kind of happen as a matter of course (assuming you’ve found someone you like and are doing what normally happens when one finds such a person). Getting up to the activities one does with that special someone and NOT conceiving, having children and being a parent? That takes somewhat special care.Report
I guess. but this was an anarchist bookfair. There were zines about, I dunno, deconstructing gender in the context of kitchen work, of one’s romantic relationships, etc. etc. – but not in the context of one’s parenting. About supporting one another in mental health, various aspects of physical health – but not in preparation for childbirth. And so on.Report
Frankly I’m shocked there wasn’t an extensive section on natural birth and midwifing.Report
I spend 40 hours a week getting paid to help people conceive. It’s not as easy as many people think. And parenting books are a juggernaut industry unto themselves. IDK I definitely felt a negative attitude from leftist friends when I had a baby at 21. Much more available in Christian circles at that point in time.Report
That has also been my experience although that may have changed some since I was that leftist. Having kids was decidedly outre when I was 18-22ish among leftists.Report
I really liked this OP and before I read the comments, I want to emphasize something that’s a tangent to your main point, but that also jumped out at me. In part, it has to to with this:
“What about her, you may ask? Wasn’t Woolf really talking about the creative needs of ALL women, mothers included? But I’ve read through the essay several times now and I don’t see it. If mothers are in there, they’re an afterthought and not considered a creative force unto themselves.”
My answer is no, she wasn’t talking about ALL women, she was talking about “middle class” women who enjoyed the prerogatives and privileges of what counted as “middle class” and higher when she lived. She doesn’t seem to have cared much for the members of the working class. (I’ll say that I read her essay for the first time just now, because you linked to it….I’ll also add that other than this essay, I’ve never read anything, except a small, one- to four-paragraph excerpt I read as an undergrad.) This all speaks a little bit to your asterisked footnote/aside, too, with which I agree.
I’m also inclined to critique her rendering of the history of women, although my critique is anachronistic and uncharitable to the situation in which Woolf is writing. Legally, women of course suffered all the difficulties she described, but she fails to account for the ways things (probably) worked in practice. Lower class women sometimes/often/usually had a lot more agency and power than Woolf gives them credit for.
Finally–and here I’m straying particularly far from the point you’re making, so I apologize–what about all the women who aren’t artistically inclined. Don’t they have a right to the earth and to consideration as human beings? Maybe it’s not just the artistically talented to who deserve respect. As I said, I’ve read (for the most part) only this essay and nothing else by her. But if the essay represents her approach, I’m not a fan.
Again, though, I really appreciated your OP. Thanks for writing it!
Again, though,Report
Yes that’s one of the criticisms of Woolf’s original essay – that working class people and minorities were at so much greater a disadvantage that looking at it through our lens in the here and now, it almost seems a bit self-indulgent for a wealthy woman to have written it.
I agree I suspect that upper class women had a fair bit of leisure time for creative pursuits (based on my understanding of the times) and lower class women may have had more freedom than we suspect.
Someone pointed that out to me on Twitter – everyone deserves time for self-care regardless of whether or not they’re creative and I absolutely agree. There is definitely an air of classism and intellectual superiority about the essay (hopefully not present in mine, but it may be) that is offputting.Report