"Feminism on Facebook: Are Moms Undermining Themselves with Pics of Kiddos?"

Last week, I took down a random picture of myself and replaced it with a picture of my daughter on my Facebook profile page. It was an innocent gesture prompted simply by boredom and the fact that an update seemed fitting.

But if you ask Katie Rolphe, author of a feminist missive in Slate's new doubleX, Get Your Kid Off Your Facebook Page there was nothing innocent about the switch. By choosing to represent my online persona with my kid's picture instead of my own, I was revealing something very unsettling about myself and the state of modern womanhood at large: I was subjugating my personal identity as a woman by putting my mommy face front and center. That means, says Katie, that I feel "I am only my children." She didn't stop there. She also went on to claim that I was one of many women "hiding behind my kid" by having her picture represent me, signaling something ominous for the modern woman that would leave Betty Friedan rolling in her Feminine Mystique-lined grave. My photo selection apparently was a way to appear "dowdy and invisible" reinforcing that "we are a mommy culture in which it's almost a point of pride how little remains of the healthy, worldly, engaged and preening self."

Despite Rolphe's interesting and well-written thesis she offers a very flimsy, myopic argument. It's built on the far-reaching initial presumption that facebook is the pinnacle of online identity, neglecting the myriad reasons why, how, when and where we choose to create our digital social persona. But, Katie, give a girl some credit: A facebook profile does not a women make. I read (see Goodreads). I work (see LinkedIn). I shop for myself (see ThisNext). I talk about my work (see Twitter). I am civic-minded (see MomsRising or Huffington Post). And if you want to read some of my secret thoughts about what motherhood really means, visit truuMOMconfessions.

Furthermore, Rolphe's description of the role of "mother" is framed through a dusty "feminist" lens in which she depicts it as a wholly undermining job that is mutually exclusive to being smart, engaged, productive and satisfying. Because, you know, if you don't put your own picture up that means you're essentially saying: Better you, you cute little coiffed child of mine, than me, who is standing in the background with unwashed hair, mom jeans and a shirt stained with pureed baby food.

"These facebook photos signal a larger and more ominous self-effacement, a narrowing of our worlds. Think of a dinner party you just attended, and your friend, who wrote her senior thesis in college on Proust, who used to stay out drinking till five in the morning in her twenties, a brilliant and accomplished woman. Think about how throughout the entire dinner party, from olives to chocolate mousse, she talks about nothing but her kids. You waited, and because you love this woman, you want her to talk about...what?...a book? A movie? A news story? ... You notice at another, livelier corner of the table that the men are not talking about models of strollers. This could in fact be a 19th-century novel where the men have retired to a different room to drink brandy and talk about news and politics. You turn back to the conversation and the woman is talking about what she packs for lunch for her child."

Hmmm. Let's set aside the obvious conversation about why what anyone packs for lunch is now appropriate fodder for a status update. Rolphe seems to have missed several nuances about online communities. Foremost, one can't isolate a single post -- such as a profile pic of one's child -- and extrapolate on it when it is a part of a living, changing representation of one's life, activities and ideas. What happens to this argument if tomorrow I put up a profile picture of myself on ABC news discussing society's unrealistic expectations for working mothers?

She also seems to miss the point that men are not posting in some segregated cigar smoke-filled chat room defining our political discourse while mommies debate the merits of Goldfish vs. Cheez-Its as an after school snack. For proof, Rolphe may want to confer with her Slate colleague, chief political correspondent John Dickerson, and ask why he represents himself to 480,000+ Twitter followers with a picture of his son and frequently mentions him in updates.

Finally, she presumes that facebook is "pioneered for a younger generation, of course. It lends itself naturally to strangers who meet at parties and flirtations struck up in bars." Clearly she hasn't read data that the fastest growing group of facebook users is women over the age of 50. Or noted the thousands of common interest groups, movements for social change, event invitations, reunions of long-lost pals and coworkers, shared news articles, or corporate profiles used by men and women in the facebook community on a daily basis. People of all ages use facebook for a variety of purposes, and heaven forbid a mom might want that old high school boyfriend she made out with under the football bleachers to see how happily married with a great kid she is now when he sends her that out-of-the-blue friend request.

While making strident sweeping statements about women, facebook and photographs, Katie's piece doesn't leave any room for other reasons women might as she says, "hide behind photos of their kids." Such as being proud of them or sharing their progress with interested friends and family. As I would do with this same collection of facebook "friends" in a group offline, I shamelessly share photos, updates on my emotional state and mundane details about my kids. So yes, one aspect of my identity is a boring housewife who *gasp* bakes cookies and sets up lemonade stands with her kids. (Should I mention that the little ones set up the lemonade stand in order to donate the proceeds to Barack Obama's presidential campaign?)

Perhaps now that I know being a strong woman means I can't post my kid's picture on my profile I can stick with something less offensive, like a picture of our family's golden retriever? But then I fear observers like Katie might jump to the conclusion that we women have gone to the dogs.

*Or worse, think I'm a dumb bitch.

Comments

[neurophyre]

"I was subjugating my personal identity as a woman by putting my mommy face front and center."

You're setting up a straw man here which you then proceed to handily take down. In point of fact, you're subjugating your personal identity by putting your KID'S face front and center.

You are not your kid.

What's particularly creepy are women who replace themselves on the profile pic with an -ultrasound- image.

[Lynn Harris 1]

I am inspired to change my profile picture to one of my stepchildren, my dogs, my husband and my boss. I am happy to be stepmom, owner, wife and bitch. Its up to you all to pick which label matches which pic!

[SelenesMom]

For the purposes of this discussion, I guess it's only fair to disclose/remind that Selene is a dachshund. I'm 45. Several fancy degrees.

What about the kid? Who cares really that your friend wrote her thesis at Reed/Princ­eton/Oxfor­d on Proust/Bal­zac/Sartre in the original? Lots of us have. The real question is, does your kid want her photo on your Facebook page and what will she think when (not if) she finds out you stuck it there? Not to mention, what if it gets pulled away from the page and used in ways that neither of you would want? Control-C downloads most images.

When your kid is a few years older, are you going to like it if she just plops pix of herself all over the Internet? I didn't think so.

[Kessei]

"who wrote her senior thesis in college on Proust, who used to stay out drinking till five in the morning in her twenties, a brilliant and accomplished woman"

Is it just me, or is that "who used to stay out drinking till five in the morning in her twenties" bizarrely out of place with the remainder of the description?

Are we so absorbed in the "party-youth culture" now that binge hedonism is conflated with being "brilliant and accomplished"?

Since I spent my twenties *gasp* rarely going to bars, and instead raising my children (while working as an attorney and writing that never-to-b­e-complete­d novel), it appears I will never be "brilliant and accomplish­ed." Oh, if ONLY I had spent more time DRINKING IN BARS, then I could be an interesting dinner companion!

...?

What does THAT say about feminism, I'd like to know?

[Debra Schendell]

Well, my facebook profile picture is just of me....but when I call friends/mothers/etc I introduce myself as Debra Schendell, ________'s mom. Why do I do this I wonder?? My identity, at least with people whom I know from my child's school, seems to be tied solely to my daughter. This thought has entered my mind before....­.as a stay at home mom, my identity is tied to my child. I tend to feel that I need to explain that I have CHOSEN to be at home for my child, that it is OKAY that I don't work outside the home, and that I am going back to school. Why do I feel the need to explain these things to others? Simply because I made the choice to stay home and not work outside the home? Or because of societal pressures?

[punditmom]

There is a lot of feminist vs. mother smackdown going on online these days and it is troubling to me. I'm sure Roiphe would give me an earful about choosing "PunditMom" as my political persona. But the thing is, I'm a mom and a writer/pundit, so why should I divorce those parts of me?

While I'm sure her thesis makes for good controversy at a new blog looking to find readers and sell ads, the bigger question for me is this -- why are people all of a sudden trying to make a divide where there shouldn't be one? Doesn't that just make it easier for those who want to fight against feminist principles? Seems to me that Roiphe should worry less about having to talk at a dinner party about someone's kids and worry more about bringing all feminists together, regardless of their motherhood (or fatherhood!) status.

http://punditmom1.blogspot.com

[JenniferHarvey]

Rolphe really does need to take a look at the whole picture. If she saw my profile one any day, she would see a range of clues about the person behind the profile. Some days, I post interesting news articles. Some days I might complain about the lizards in my front yard or talk about my kids or music or what kind of cocktail sounds good. All in one day. Imagine. None of those clues are a complete picture, and neither is one's photo the complete picture.

Excellent article, Romi.

(Perhaps Rolphe should turn her attention to the spouses who SHARE a Facebook profile, as though they have shared the same set of friends and thoughts and experiences, and books and movies, and funny stories, and co-workers and remember-whens, going all the way back to when they were toddlers.)

[bumbleward]

My Facebook picture is one of my bottom (and jeans and sneakers, walking in the park). Yesterday, it was a Norwegian flag. Tomorrow it will be a tree. Does this mean I'm schizophrenic? Oops.

[Jessica Gottlieb]

Oh Romi, you are a bad feminist for a plethora of other reasons.

You don't hate your husband AND you wear lipstick.

The kid pictures online aren't for me, but that's because I think my kids should have a chance to create their own bad reputations.

[GemNY]

Far be it from me to jump on a dusty feminist rant....

and yet...

What weirds me out about seeing people post pictures of their kids instead of themselves is that it is the face you choose to represent yourself. It isn't about being a parent. It isn't pride in a child. It is the face you choose to represent who you are.

What child needs that?

I have friends on facebook who post pictures that include them with their child.... a very different thing.

[aryssabrooke]

Romi, you nailed it. Ms. Rolphe seems to be on yet another baseless tirade that if you cook, clean, and stay at home with your children, you can't possibly be a feminist. The real test of how far feminism has come, Ms. Rolfe, is that we now have a CHOICE.

I have a career that I love deeply. But at some point, I know that I'm going to choose leaving that career to work with my kids every day, to educate and prepare them for the world. I'm going to work at canning, and cooking, and painting, all of these 'stay at home wife' of the 1950s activities that Ms. Rolfe will take to indicate that my husband and I live in the dark ages. Well, whatever. Enjoying and knowing how to can, crochet, and change a diaper do not a shut-in housewife with no choices make me. Nor would having my kid as my facebook profile picture.

[John Dickerson]

Just fyi, on my Twitter feed that's not a picture of my son. It's a picture of me at age 12.

[rlassally]

oops. my bad. But the current picture of me up on facebook is me at 3 months.

[paynesgrey]

I agree completely with this article.So what does it say about me, a fifty year old male, when I post a picture of my kid on my Facebook page, that I'm confident enough with my masculinity to show I have a child whom I love? What a stupid double standard. Does Ms. Rolphe have children, I wonder? Either way, she's missing something about the idea of parenthood here.

As for sparkling dinner conversation, I find that men end up talking about football or their golf game as often as novels or movies, which I find stunningly boring. I don't find that interesting discussions have much to do with the sex of the participants, but rather whether they are interesting people.

But then, this is a society where a president is judged by his hamburger condiment.

Oy.

[Michael Braun]

If she's right, then I'm really in trouble. My Facebook photo is one of my dogs, a smal, hairy teacup Yorkie (I, on the other hand, am balding and 200 lbs). I posted my dog's photo cause she's cuter than I am, but, I also have SIX kids. I'd post one of their photos in a minute cause I am proud of them. Why would I want to post my own face? I see it in the mirror enough times a day.