News

Garber Announces Advisory Committee for Harvard Law School Dean Search

News

First Harvard Prize Book in Kosovo Established by Harvard Alumni

News

Ryan Murdock ’25 Remembered as Dedicated Advocate and Caring Friend

News

Harvard Faculty Appeal Temporary Suspensions From Widener Library

News

Man Who Managed Clients for High-End Cambridge Brothel Network Pleads Guilty

Making Motherhood a Career

By Melissa R. Hart

HACKENSACK. N.J.

SURROGATE motherhood may be a job, but it keeps a woman in the home. And that appears to be one point in Marybeth Whitehead-Gould's favor in the eyes of the court.

Visitation rights in the infamous "Baby M" trial were decided yesterday, and Mrs. Whitehead-Gould was definitely victorious. Her visitation rights have increased from one hour of supervised time each week, to a full day of unsupervised visitation a week. The judge's decision to award these rights to the natural mother of the child may not be unreasonable, but the hearings which led to this decision were overwhelmingly biased against career women.

Mrs. Stern, in her day on the witness stand last week, showed that a woman's best defense is a promise not to work for a living. The line of argument pursued not only by Mrs. Whitehead-Gould's lawyer, but also by the Stern's attorney, showed that the men in this case have made one measure of good motherhood a willingness to give up a career and stay home with the baby.

Mrs. Stern, the good mother who was presented in direct examination, goes to "Gymboree" on Monday mornings, "Tots and Toddlers" on Tuesday, "Mother's Day Off" on Wednesday, and has an informal play group for neighborhood children on Thursday. Her schedule is organized around attending these cleverly-named play groups, supervising naptimes, providing balanced meals and recording landmark achievements in her "little Melissa's" growth. The classic lawyerly question--Where were you on the night of June 4th?--in this case was transposed to. How tall was your little Melissa as of June 10th? Mrs. Stern was quick with the answer, and hence she proved to the court her credentials as a mother. As she told the courtroom, her central goal is assuring that Melissa "has a fair chance to become the person she is supposed to be." Step aside Gloria Steinem.

IN court Mrs. Stern's lawyer made a point of emphasizing the Mrs.. The opposing lawyer could present no more damaging argument than to refer to Stern as Dr. Stern. That used to be a title which commanded respect, not embarassment. Stern went through four years of undergraduate work, three years of medical school and a five year internship. Her schedule used to be organized around becoming a doctor. And now Dr. Stern. asked Mrs. Whitehead-Gould's lawyer, you will never again work full time? Dr. Stern, you will give up your career for Melissa? Why of course.

Of course! Mrs. Stern must have missed the feminist movement. The lawyers trying this case imposed their standards of motherhood on the witness by the questions they asked, but she acquiesced to their determinations by the answers she gave. Something has gone horribly wrong. Women never said they didn't want only to be mothers during the feminist revolution, they just said they didn't want only to be mothers. But now, as the case of Baby M has shown, women are being asked to make the choice. It's bad enough to disapprove of a woman for working. It's unconscionable to legally judge a woman's capacity to be a good mother based on her willingness to go by Mrs. rather than Dr. Stern.

Want to keep up with breaking news? Subscribe to our email newsletter.

Tags