volve “the phantasy of self as a pure perceivingnbeing,” but the viewer must alsondraw a line between itself (more aboutnthe neuter form anon) and the object sonthat it can be a voyeur. On this subjectnEllis says, “Voyeurism implies the powernof the spectator over what is seen. Notnthe power to change it, but the knowledgenthat the actions being undertakennare played out for the spectator.” Is thisnwhy slimy types use binoculars to peerninto distant buildings and drill hard-tospotnholes into rest-room walls?nAccording to EUis, zfllm is commonlyndefined as being something like the Hollywoodnproductions from 1915 to 1950.nHe is correct. But then he tries to definenwhat these movies are. He claims thatnthey are simply examinations performednby men who try to determine whatnwomen want. In his words, the wholengenre of entertairmient films “dependsnon the assumption of a masculine normnand the restiess demand to know whatnthe female counterpart to that norm is.”nNow, it might seem that Ellis has paintednhimself into a comer: if films only existnso that men can figure out what thenfemale norm is, then why should womennbother going to the movies, as they alreadynknow? He simply intones, then”processes of identification (narcissism)ninvolve bisexual positions that are notnthe exclusive prerogative of either sociallyndefined sex.” In other words,nwomen (which I always thought werenbiologically defined) forget that they arenwomen when they go to the movies. Presumably,nthen, out-of-work androgynousnpersons have great opportunities innHollywood: oh, how they would easenthe identification processes.nAccording to Ellis, “Many people feelna profound sense of shame at watching anfilm alone.” Given the psychosexual rigamarolenthat he applies to the activity,nit’s surprising that anyone has anythingnto do with movies, alone or in crowds. Ifnhe is correct, everybody might as wellnmake a one-time investment in binocularsnand trench coats and let themselvesngo wandering through parks in the darkn(SM) Dn46inChronicles of CulturenPOLEMICS & EXCHANGESnOn the Motherhood Mazenby Kathy L. WernernIt was with a sinking feeling that Inread Kathi Waite’s laudatory review ofnThrough the Motherhood Maze by SanfordnJ. Matthews and Maryann BucknumnBrinley in the February 1983 issue of thenChronicles. The piece is scarcely morenthan an apologia for absentee motherhoodnMotherhood is treated in the piecenas a malaise which often causes “neartotalnemotional coUapse.” Motherhoodnis not to be enjoyed and relished, butnrather endured or escaped. Mrs. Waitenimplies that (1) only a rare and exceptionalnwoman ( “the wonder and envy ofnher peers”) can tolerate the ftill-timenmothering of her children; and (2) anmother’s love of herself and pursuit ofnher own fulfillment will assure happinessnfor her children.nIn answer to Mrs. Waite’s first point,naccording to Rita Kramer {In Defense ofnthe Family), Selma Fraiberg {EverynChild’s Birthright), the accepted wisdomnof the centuries, and ordinary commonnsense, it is unlikely that anyone will lovenor care for children better than theirnown mother. (The exceptions to thisnrule are the abusive or neglectflil parentsn—^stiU a very small minority.) I wouldnsuggest that it is a peculiar phenomenonnof p)ost-Friedan America that so manynyoung mothers opt for success on men’snterms (money and careers) rather thannstaying home to care for their infants. Inntheir stampede for self-acmali2ation theynoften ignore, discount, or rationalize thenneeds of their children. And the “qualitytime”nargument used by so many womennis essentially invalid during a child’s firstnthree years, according to Kramer.nThe right response to Mrs. Waite’s assertionnthat” [ t ]o attempt to become thenbe-all and end-all to a child is, for some,nself-destructive” is Kramer’s wise observation:n”of course, no mother can benMrs. Werner is a full-time mother innNew Yorknnnthere every single moment, nor can anynmother provide constant and completensatisfaction, an expectation that is notnonly unrealistic but not even desirable.nLittle disappointments and minor fiaistrationsnare as much a part of experience asnpleasures and fiilfillment They shouldn’tnbe sought out on principle or used tonrationalize arrangements clearly not anbaby’s advantage when they’re avoidable,nthough, because nature and necessityndo a good enough job of providingnthem for us.”nAdmittedly, there are many womennwho do not have the economic optionnof raising their own children. However,nMrs. Waite made no mention of financialnconsiderations, but spoke of the womannwho returned to work out of a perceivednemotional need. Mothering one’s ownnchild fiill time is not something to benchosen impartially fi-om a list of “ThingsnI’d Like to Do.” It is a challenging responsibilitynfor every woman who wants hernbaby to develop to his full potential. Tonflourish, a baby needs his mother farnmore than he or she needs the latestnlearning toy or the costliest nurserynschools.nPossibly Mrs. Waite’s most misleadingnclaim is that a “woman who beforenmotherhood led an active life in a responsiblenjob may not be able to find unconditionalnhappiness in 24-hour mothering.”nIs mothering, therefore, an inactive,nirresponsible task? What job could benmore momentous than the rearing ofncompetent and caring human beings?nTo her statement that unconditionalnhappiness is not a given of motherhood,nI must agree. But one is unlikely to findn”Unfettered Bliss” listed on any job description.nMotherhood, like other adultnoccupations, requires the postponementnor sublimation of certain personal desires.nAnd just as it takes patience, self-control,nand hard work to love another humannbeing on a continuing basis, so it requiresnan act of the will to learn how to mothernone’s offepring. But in learning to serven