i'd like to be a supermom, please.

While reading an old Tom Brokaw transcript for my comprehensive exam research, the following commonplace utterance jumped off the page.

“My children are young, they’ll never be this age again, and I really don’t want to miss out on that.”

The children will never be any age again. That’s the thing about time.

Yes, it’s cynical and presumptuous of me to assume that watching babies grow is not all that fascinating. Here I stand admitting that my ambivalence may reverse entirely if I pop one out and look into its pudgy little face. At that time, I will likely be arguing for childcare, parental leave, reintegration-to-workforce programs and fully funded transitional post-docs, extension of the tenure clock, and forgiveness of parental gaps from governmental funding bodies like SSHRC.

But what especially bothers me is the context in which this phrase, “I don’t want to miss out,” always floats to the surface. It’s the cited justification when a mother decides to leave the labour force or cut down to part time paid employment. While it may be true for some, how much of this unwillingness on the part of mothers to sacrifice motherhood for the “fast track” (or any track at all) stems from a true longing to be at home with babies, and what part, if any, can be attributed to various social pressures? Further, which moms get to make this choice anyway? Could a black mother on welfare utter this pleasantry and be legitimated? Or would she be seen as craving afternoons of painting her nails in front of soap operas? And does this mother “decide,” or does she default to letting the fast track alone while making peace with herself and others through reliance upon this phrase?

In the Brokaw segment, “Mom at Work,” Tom interviewed a lawyer at Goldman Sachs. She “does not feel the pull” between work and family because she is now working three days a week – a “new version of having it all.” Indeed, she states, “The beauty of my way is that I have everything.” How nice for you, rich white lady. As if “superwoman” were a drive-thru menu item (I will take one of those, supersize it please). Oh right, you’ve never been to a fast-food restaurant because you have a nanny who cooks your meals.

My point is not to gang up on this, or any mother, though. I do not want to be mistaken for attributing blame. What I mean to say is that this heralding of supermom is intensely problematic as it pits welfare mother and supermom against each other, instilling the fear of apocalypse in all of us lest we get out of sync with neoliberal expectations of woman-citizen.

So I’ll put down the sarcasm. As Susan Douglas and Meredith Michaels detail in “The Mommy Myth,” the 90s marked an intensified “mommy track” discourse: working outside the home is not all its cracked up to be, feminists, so you’d best retreat to the domestic bliss of home before it’s too late. A brand of so-called postfeminism or difference feminism manufactured the more nurturing, more sensitive, less competitive, natural mother woman, and shoved it onto magazine covers for purchase. It turns out we're not "equal" so let us women do what we do best - nurture (read: clean and feed).

It seems to me that even when the supermom syndrome is criticized in mainstream media (and it’s only criticized in the context of hetero-nuclear family, of course) and we get a glimpse at nearly progressive feminist discourse, moms are guided back to the home. Because guess what? He’ll leave you. Would you rather have a stable nuclear family or a gritty 9-5 and a life of loneliness, financial stress and social apology? In Canada and the US, the idea of an overhaul of family policy is still met with heavy skepticism and resistance. This inevitability-of-business model, and even the praise of efficient business practices for the vitality of a competitive GDP, occurs even among my close male friends who seem like otherwise reasonable humans. I’m not sure what it will take for this historical problem to be seen for the gross injustice that it is.