Goodman and Motherhood

In her typical fashion, Ellen Goodman continues her mission of corrupting the culture. In this article, she alerts young women to the dangers of becoming a homemaker. It seems that Goodman's main reason not to become a stay-at-home mother is preparation for the inevitable divorce. Goodman's column focuses on Terry Hekker, an author and former promoter of the joys of housewifery, who is now divorced without a satisfactory employment:

Once, she had sniped at the idea that ''the only work worth doing is that for which you get paid." Now, she acknowledged the harsh reality that ''the work for which you do get paid is the only work that will keep you afloat."

What is noticably missing from this article is any mention of children (other than Linda Hirschman's advice to "have no more than one child."). In our individualistic society, children are appently not relevant in the discussion on whether a mother should stay home or get a job. Even if one finds merit in Goodman's rationale of preparing for divorce, one must still examine if this outweighs any benefits of choosing the noble role of housewife. For example, Goodman is not concerned with whether staying at home made life better for Hekker's five children and whether Hekker experienced joy that she would have missed out on if she had not been at home with her children. Please understand that I am not saying anything against working mothers. However, I don't understand how Goodman can write an article on any aspect of motherhood without discussing children.

Why doesn't Goodman discuss children in this article? I think it is because she does not believe that the parental role is very important. Goodman writes that "Life is long. Hands-on parenting is relatively short." It seems that to her, parenting is a phase in people's life, a distraction that one must endure for a few years until the children are ready for school (where they can be properly raised by the state). Without going into to much discussion, I wanted to mention a few of the duties of parents from the Catechism of the Catholic Church as an example of the distortions of her individualistic view of the world:

2221 The fecundity of conjugal love cannot be reduced solely to the procreation of children, but must extend to their moral education and their spiritual formation. "The role of parents in education is of such importance that it is almost impossible to provide an adequate substitute." The right and the duty of parents to educate their children are primordial and inalienable.

2223 Parents have the first responsibility for the education of their children. They bear witness to this responsibility first by creating a home where tenderness, forgiveness, respect, fidelity, and disinterested service are the rule. The home is well suited for education in the virtues. This requires an apprenticeship in self-denial, sound judgment, and self-mastery - the preconditions of all true freedom. . . .

2224 The home is the natural environment for initiating a human being into solidarity and communal responsibilities. Parents should teach children to avoid the compromising and degrading influences which threaten human societies.

2228 Parents' respect and affection are expressed by the care and attention they devote to bringing up their young children and providing for their physical and piritual needs. . . .

I'm pretty sure Goodman is not Catholic (if my memory serves me right she wrote a recent column in which offered a tongue-in-cheek comment about her druid religion), so I'm sure she would not give credence to those sections of the Catechism quoted above. Furthermore, the Catechism does not say that a mother must stay at home (pros and cons may be debated elsewhere). However, even a modern agnostic, atheist, or druid writing a column on such an important family decision should be aware that (by definition) a mother has children, and they most certainly play some part in this decision.