Setting the Stage
As implied by the name, this episode was a continuation of an episode that aired in November, 2003. The episode that aired on September 3, 2004 was actually taped at the same time as the episode that aired in November of 2003. It was the second hour of the taping. That means that the overall format of the show was the same and the audience was still seated according to their employment status - mothers who work for pay on one side and "stay-at-home" mothers on the other. Although the purpose of the first episode was to help two mothers decide whether they should work outside the home or not, Part II was more simply and directly focused on the animosity between mothers who work for pay and stay-at-home mothers, specifically between the two women who had been chosen to represent the extreme views of the two delineated groups. Both reps expressed the opinion that mothers on "the other side" were actually doing harm to their children based on their work/family choices or situation.
The Intro
Instead of differentiating the different purposes between Part I and Part II, the same intro was used for this episode as the last one - pre-taped segments of the two representative moms bashing other mothers’ work/family choices. The two women then proceeded to have a debate in the studio together on who’s better at caring for their children, based on their paid employment status. During the debate, Dr. Phil threatened to turn a hose on the two women.
Then Dr. Phil asked guest expert Heidi Brennan, Public Policy Advisor to Family and Home Network, to weigh in on the conversation. Ms. Brennan brought up the point that motherhood is challenging and we all find different ways to approach it. She also challenged the existence of the "Mommy Wars" (feuding between mothers who work for pay and those who do not) and stated that "the real mommy wars (are)... not between our two groups, but between motherhood itself and our culture." Dr. Phil responded by reminding the employed mother about an inflammatory comment made earlier by the stay-at-home mother. The stay-at-home mother denied the quote.
Issues Discussed
- Dr. Phil brought up the issue of "latch-key kids" and the trouble some children get into after school when they do not have adult supervision. A discussion followed on paying attention to children, TV time for children, and mothers who work two shifts - one for paid employment and one for child-rearing.
- One of the stay-at-home mothers (a second SAHM "rep" from the first taping) pointed out that every mother needs to do what is right for herself. It appeared she was possibly not as rigid in her opinions as the intro tape led us to believe.
- Joan K. Peters, author of When Mothers Work: Loving Our Children Without Sacrificing Ourselves, asked how she could change the future for her daughter (for the positive) - that she wants her child to grow up in a culture that does not make everything so difficult for parents.
- Dr. Phil’s wife, Robin McGraw, was introduced. She brought up the points that her children are who they are today because of the values she instilled, not because of whether she worked or not; and that mothers should have compassion for each other, not judgment. Dr. Phil responded with a joke about singing "Kumbaya."
- The problem of making parental participation at their kids’ schools accessible for both working and at-home parents was discussed.
- The portrayal of mothers in the media was briefly discussed.
Audience Comments & Conclusion
Twelve audience members made comments. The overwhelming majority of the comments made were either supportive to both lifestyles or neutral. In the middle of the comments, Dr. Phil introduced more inflammatory comments made by one of the representatives in her intro interview. After that tangent, audience members gave more positive comments and personal stories. The show concluded by Dr. Phil saying, "It’s clear that both sides of this issue want the same thing. They want children that are healthy and happy and nurtured."
Critical Thinking Questions
- Why do you think this show was set up into two "camps" of mothers? Would the discussion have been more informative and helpful if mothers had not been physically divided and categorized? Would it have been less informative and helpful if they had not?
- Were the guests and mother representatives treated respectfully?
- Do you think the studio audience or the TV audience walked away at the end of this show feeling better about themselves and other mothers? Did they feel worse? Did the show try to build consensus? Did it encourage anger or resentment? Did it make the mothers in the studio feel good about themselves? Did it make them more or less defensive or conflicted?
- Did the show provide new information or insights that mothers/viewers could apply to their lives in a positive way?
Return to Moms Vs Moms Part II Page
|
