...and retain some slice of your life for yourself and your interests. Women like those you describe are usually women who had no real identities before they got married and had kids. Or they are women who have bought the "you're a horrible mother unless you are hovering over your kid 24/7" crap. You sound smart and aware enough to stay out of that trap. Just keep motherhood in perspective; do as much of your hobbies/career as you can--and remind yourself that you are more than just the sum of your momhood.

>In addition, if you do stay at home with your kids, you will find that your social life becomes very centered on other (mostly) mothers with kids.<

Because a choice like that just happens, right? It's not something you can control by keeping your interests more open and not letting motherhood define you and staying in touch with your non-mommy friends, correct? This is one of the most annoying things about the uber-mom crowd--that "poor little me--I'm at the mercy of being a mother" crap. They act like their life is being acted upon, as if they are totally and completely at the beck and call of husbands/children/relatives/any-and-everybody. It never seems to occur to them that they can draw boundaries--that they don't have to let themselves be whittled down to wifey-moo with no opinions or life. (Judith Warner's NYT column is a perfect example of this kind of head. She's based any number of columns complaining about having to do something because "other, good mothers are doing it" or because the family expects it or because the Joneses expect it, or whatever. It never seems to occur to her that she could have headed off problems by just saying no in the first place. And until I got an earful of uber-mom martyrdom online, I never could figure out why she didn't.Now I know.) I would bet good money that it is this martyrdom-as-a-badge-of-honor mess that really unnerves the LW--the "I'm a mom!" thing is just a symptom of that.

>I hate the moral compass of moms, which always points straight to their own children, at the expense of all other people in the world, every single one of whom is somebody's child.<

Amen. Look at the number of letters here that swear a _real_ mom gives up everything for her kids. It's only a short step from that attitude to "Nobody else exists but my child and I don't give a damm about anyone else." It's why so many mothers voted for Bush in the last two presidential elections--they were so scared the brown people would blow up their little darlings that that fear overrode obvious evidence that Bush was incompetent. These folks are terrifying because they only care about the greater good when it affects their kids. If the fear that drives them to make decisions like Bush is the vaunted and all-hallowed "mother's instinct," then a lot of mothers need to check themselves.

>I also hate the way that if you try to explain this to a room full of moms, they all nod and smile patronizingly and say, "You'll feel differently when you have your own children."<

Too many moms _have_ to be smug. (I would say uber-moms, but the number of "kids are everything" responses on here unfortunately seems to confirm that most parents down deep really feel they are better than everyone else because they've had kids.) As another poster noted, their entire worth is wrapped up in moo-hood and it threatens the hell out of them to even hear that one doesn't have to let motherhood take over their lives.

>I didn't see letters saying real moms give up everything for their kids,<

Check the first letter in this thread--it's the first (and most dismaying) of several examples here.

>And it's really pretty doubtful that posters on Salon voted for Bush.<

It's still striking, don't you think, that several parent posters on here express the same kind of "kids are everything" fear that drove the "soccer mom" demographic to give Bush the edge in several key states. No one expected that demographic to back Bush so strongly--probably because it was assumed said folks would have the sense to see Bush's policies as contrary to their interests.

>For my part, being a mom (yes, among other things) has made me even more concerned about the state of the world and other people. It has taught me a lot about love and about life.

It's striking how easily one can distinguish between letter-writers who have children, and those who do not.<

Yep, because as we all know, childfree people don't/can't care about anything but themselves, right? I know a single guy who is a fireman. He is dedicated to saving other people and their kids, and has probably seen more of life, loss, and love in a week than you will in several years. But according to you he doesn't count because he's not a dad--in fact, by your lights, he probably should go into a less-demanding field so he can have kids and learn how to be a _real_ person, right? Or he should go ahead and have kids to prove he's really truly truly worthy.

Incidedntally, I never can figure why some parents think the only people who contribute in this world are childed folks. I guess folks like Lionel Hampton or Albert Kroc or Oprah should have had kids instead of "empty" careers--that way, they wouldn't have needed to set up foundations to help disadvantaged/ill children. I suppose Jane Austen or Eudora Welty or August Wilson should have been less "selfish" and had children instead of producing art that shaped _everyone's_ lives. Shame on those folks for not knowing what was good for them. How sad their lives were so barren, meaningless, and lonely...:)