The Myths of Motherhood: How Culture Reinvents the Myth of the Good Mother

Rating:
Summary: None of that feminist hogwash
Review: Being a woman against political correctness also does not make me a big fan of many feministic studies, so I was a bit relunctant to pick up this book at my college bookstore. The Myths of Motherhood is a fascinating read and not written by the usual feminist fare of male-hating/bashing writers. Shari L. Thurer is a mother herself and she writes with confident prose of the "maternal" perception throughout areas of history. Even with convincing speculation on what may have gone on through the minds of women in their respective eras. This book is an excellent reference on several levels and will lead one to re-evaluate just how much society's changes have affected what we *think* is a proper "mother".

Rating:
Summary: I Recommend this Book
Review: I found this book to be a fascinating, couldn't-put-it-down retrospective of motherhood seen in a historical and cultural perspective. Not only was the subject matter interesting, but it was written in a fresh and accessible manner for the non-historian.

Rating:
Summary: A Mixed Bag
Review: Like so many works by liberal feminists, The Myths of Motherhood is a mixed bag of good. Some good, some bad, some just silly.

First the bad: Shari L Thurer is clearly a liberal feminist. She uses this book to expound her belief in abortion, shared parenting arrangements, government subsidized daycare, and all the typical liberal feminist stuff. In many places in the book Ms. Thurer switches from giving historical data of motherhood in particular times/places to postulating about she believes it can/should have been done differently, and openly expressing her opinions on the subject of the ancient people that she describes. I think it's safe to say that no one this far removed from ancient people is qualified to give opinions about them. The giving of opinion and liberal propaganda are a shame, because the really overshadow the good things in this book.

Another problem that some readers may have with this book is that all religion is relegated to 'myth'. Some people may be offended to find that their closely held religious views are treated somewhat callously in this book.

Second, the Silly: Ms Thurer in some places in this book has failed to do her research on the topic and makes mistakes that even a lay person can easily catch. For example: she makes reference to the Catholic doctrine of Immaculate Conception, but she completely screws up the exegesis by making it seem that Jesus was immaculately conceived. That is not what the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception refers to. Immaculate Conception is the Catholic doctrine which says that Mary, the mother of Jesus, was saved and cleansed from sin in her mother's womb. It's just silly of Ms. Thurer to make a mistake like this. It makes the reader doubt her other academic claims as well on the logic that if she can't get the easy stuff right, how can the reader trust her with the harder parts?

Ms. Thurer also spends quite a lot of time in this book drawing proposterous conclusions about the state of a society by drawing upon it's works of art and literature. While these may be good tools for gauging how SOME members of a society MIGHT have felt, it is hardly material for making conclusions about an entire society's opinions on a topic - especially when the author ignore the purpose and context in which these works are made to be seen.

Ms Thurer also makes some pretty amazing LEAPS of logic. My favorite example is that in looking at the historical issue of infanticide and infant mortality, Ms. Thurer feels that to prevent infant deaths (through mortality and infanticide) we should have widespread access to abortion. Does she not understand the equation: 1DeadBabyThroughAbortion=1DeadBabyThroughInfanticide? Honestly, logic like hers is dangerous!

The Good: Yes, I do have some good. Ms Thurer does an excellent job of breaking down general historical periods and highlighting the trends, statistics, and practices of various cultures. She also does a good job of highlighting the issue that mothers are people, too, and need to be treated as whole persons with feelings and needs (this is somewhat overshadowed by the fact that she denys that mothers have a responsibility to put their children's needs before their own happiness).

Overall, this book has some good historical information that some may find interesting but is strongly overshadowed by a lack of good scholarship and the author's strong liberalist leanings.

Rating:
Summary: A Mixed Bag
Review: Like so many works by liberal feminists, The Myths of Motherhood is a mixed bag of good. Some good, some bad, some just silly.

First the bad: Shari L Thurer is clearly a liberal feminist. She uses this book to expound her belief in abortion, shared parenting arrangements, government subsidized daycare, and all the typical liberal feminist stuff. In many places in the book Ms. Thurer switches from giving historical data of motherhood in particular times/places to postulating about she believes it can/should have been done differently, and openly expressing her opinions on the subject of the ancient people that she describes. I think it's safe to say that no one this far removed from ancient people is qualified to give opinions about them. The giving of opinion and liberal propaganda are a shame, because the really overshadow the good things in this book.

Another problem that some readers may have with this book is that all religion is relegated to 'myth'. Some people may be offended to find that their closely held religious views are treated somewhat callously in this book.

Second, the Silly: Ms Thurer in some places in this book has failed to do her research on the topic and makes mistakes that even a lay person can easily catch. For example: she makes reference to the Catholic doctrine of Immaculate Conception, but she completely screws up the exegesis by making it seem that Jesus was immaculately conceived. That is not what the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception refers to. Immaculate Conception is the Catholic doctrine which says that Mary, the mother of Jesus, was saved and cleansed from sin in her mother's womb. It's just silly of Ms. Thurer to make a mistake like this. It makes the reader doubt her other academic claims as well on the logic that if she can't get the easy stuff right, how can the reader trust her with the harder parts?

Ms. Thurer also spends quite a lot of time in this book drawing proposterous conclusions about the state of a society by drawing upon it's works of art and literature. While these may be good tools for gauging how SOME members of a society MIGHT have felt, it is hardly material for making conclusions about an entire society's opinions on a topic - especially when the author ignore the purpose and context in which these works are made to be seen.

Ms Thurer also makes some pretty amazing LEAPS of logic. My favorite example is that in looking at the historical issue of infanticide and infant mortality, Ms. Thurer feels that to prevent infant deaths (through mortality and infanticide) we should have widespread access to abortion. Does she not understand the equation: 1DeadBabyThroughAbortion=1DeadBabyThroughInfanticide? Honestly, logic like hers is dangerous!

The Good: Yes, I do have some good. Ms Thurer does an excellent job of breaking down general historical periods and highlighting the trends, statistics, and practices of various cultures. She also does a good job of highlighting the issue that mothers are people, too, and need to be treated as whole persons with feelings and needs (this is somewhat overshadowed by the fact that she denys that mothers have a responsibility to put their children's needs before their own happiness).

Overall, this book has some good historical information that some may find interesting but is strongly overshadowed by a lack of good scholarship and the author's strong liberalist leanings.