MOTHER SHAMIN' and MOTHER BLAMIN'
Continuing the discussion of the use of epideictic to police motherhood discourse, motherhood identity used as dissent or a means of resistance in real life generates more epideictic style responses, though the primary rhetorical strategy may begin by shaming before implementing blaming oratory.
Magical Pregnancy Unicorns and Shaming through Spectacle
This is the scene from What to Expect When You're Expecting when Wendy Cooper breaks down, , in front of an audience during her key note speech at a baby convention, and she delivers the line that “pregnancy sucks”. However, please note that those aspects of pregnancy that belie the glow are not allowed to be addressed on stage. Just prior to this scene, Wendy Cooper peed into her dress, and so switched outfits with her assistant, Janice. Janice comes onto the stage at Wendy’s behest to hand her the speech notes, and in the confusion bares her wet dress. When she attempts to salvage the situation by addressing a potential problem of pregnancy, Wendy continuously attempts to silence her with increasingly emphatic “No’s”. Much of this has to do with the silencing of any non-magical narratives of pregnancy; furthermore, this ties in to existing taboos regarding women’s bodies, such as the invisibility of menstrual cycles, breastfeeding, and the like that exists in patriarchal hegemony (Rich, 102-106). Anything non- magical, and therefore not part of the Ideal Motherhood discourse, is indecent and shameful when brought into the public, even when natural.
This studied disavowal is reminiscent of Wendy’s behaviour throughout the film, where she ignores her gas and swollen feet and various other problems. Wendy seems to be have developed the more disgusting and visible side effects of pregnancy, such as smelly gas and dripping fluids, ones that should be kept out of the public. This is verified by the various reactions by people around her, who wrinkle their nose, or gasp, or express their disgust, as in the case of this scene. Even her husband smacks his forehead in shame. This causes her shame, especially when she feels vastly inferior compared to her younger, more attractive step-mother-in-law, Skyler Cooper, whose pregnancy (twins) fits the magical pregnancy (unicorn) to a T.
|
The problem with this scene is that despite acknowledging the potentially unpalatable side of pregnancy, it offers no dignified resolution. It begins and ends as a spectacle, and gets sidelined as a form of entertainment, which seems like a realistic depiction. It is framed as a meltdown, not as a collected moment of resistance to the (mostly) unattainable ideals of pregnancy glow. It exemplifies the terror and the disdain of the uncontrollability of the female body and experiences of motherhood (despite medical science and pregnancy guidebooks), and yet reduces the experience of motherhood to the body - whether it be hormones or uncontrollable bladder. It doesn’t allow any room to develop another narrative of motherhood that isn’t laughed at, reduced to spectacle, and/or shamed into becoming part of the glow. Until birth, Wendy Copper exhibits little control over her experience, yet somehow feels content and fulfilled after having her baby and getting “the glow”. We the viewers watch her always in comparison to Skyler Cooper’s magical pregnancy (quite unbelievable to me).
Mother Blamin'
A realistic example of the epideictic at play is the media response to Cindy Sheehan’s anti-war activism after the death of her oldest son in Iraq. According to Laura Knudson (2009), the various responses by media outlets and social media demonstrates how the
good mother and bad mother dichotomy was used to support or invalidate Sheehan’s peace activism, and by extension her motherhood. Sheehan began demonstrating immediately against the war on the premise of her motherhood- her most famous being camping outside the gates of then President George Bush’s Crawford, Texas ranch. The identity of Sheehan as mother remains foundation to and provided her the credibility for her peace activism.
As a mother of a dead soldier, she felt she had a moral imperative and authority to speak against the Iraq war. Upon examination of the media portrayals of Sheehan’s activism, Knudson concludes that Sheehan’s motherhood was used to both demonize and promote her peace message. Some examples Knudson provides are the instances when the media used her inability to meet standards of ideal motherhood, such as a dirty house, to discredit her claim to motherhood, and thus invalidate her authority to speak. Others accused her of neglecting her living children, and thereby once again being a “bad mother”, and so invalidating her right to speak against the war. Knudson concludes that eventually, Sheehan’s activism was uncut when she began to be seen as a “bad mother”, since bad mothers do not have a right to authoritatively speak (148).
This shows that mothers who participate in resistance are relegated to the category of “bad mothers”, since perfect motherhood is unattainable. Whether it’s a matter of cleanliness, or constant attention, or a need to establish a space of one’s own, motherhood experiences that do not align with and speak towards the dominant motherhood narrative are silenced or discredited.
good mother and bad mother dichotomy was used to support or invalidate Sheehan’s peace activism, and by extension her motherhood. Sheehan began demonstrating immediately against the war on the premise of her motherhood- her most famous being camping outside the gates of then President George Bush’s Crawford, Texas ranch. The identity of Sheehan as mother remains foundation to and provided her the credibility for her peace activism.
As a mother of a dead soldier, she felt she had a moral imperative and authority to speak against the Iraq war. Upon examination of the media portrayals of Sheehan’s activism, Knudson concludes that Sheehan’s motherhood was used to both demonize and promote her peace message. Some examples Knudson provides are the instances when the media used her inability to meet standards of ideal motherhood, such as a dirty house, to discredit her claim to motherhood, and thus invalidate her authority to speak. Others accused her of neglecting her living children, and thereby once again being a “bad mother”, and so invalidating her right to speak against the war. Knudson concludes that eventually, Sheehan’s activism was uncut when she began to be seen as a “bad mother”, since bad mothers do not have a right to authoritatively speak (148).
This shows that mothers who participate in resistance are relegated to the category of “bad mothers”, since perfect motherhood is unattainable. Whether it’s a matter of cleanliness, or constant attention, or a need to establish a space of one’s own, motherhood experiences that do not align with and speak towards the dominant motherhood narrative are silenced or discredited.