Caretaking/Mothering Expressed Through IM

I found the section "Caretaking/Mothering Expressed through IM" very interesting. I tend to disagree with the author who states that girls "often antagonize, insult, and confront other girls on IM" (86). I interpreted her example of an IM conversation between two girls demonstrating this type of behavior in a different light. I got the impression that girl A, Jordan, was attempting to engage her friend Michele (girl B) in drama over a boy she previously dated. Michele did not feel as if the topic deserved any more attention. Personally, I consider Michele's comment "ignore him" (91) great advice from a good friend, and contrary to the author's opinion, demonstrative of an ethic of care, albeit perhaps, "tough love." However, I do agree with the author in another of her comments which I believe sums up girls' use of IM quite well. She states, "the girls' use of IM at once shows how they transgress typical gender norms and yet also, far too often, give into the dominant ideals of what it means to be a girl" (92).

If the social norm for what it "means to be a girl" is the eventual duty to care for children, husbands, and homes, there is definite evidence of this ideal expressed by the girls in IM conversations with other boys. They reveal deep concern and care for the well-being of the boys' issues. It is a bit disheartening that the girls do play into these trappings of gender against better judgment -- such as the case of Jordan stressing about her ex-boyfriends phone sex exploits. However, IM concern and real-time face to face concern are different and IM concern does not necessarily gauge the reality of a person's relationship with another. For example, Michele's dismissal of Jordan's upset online actually indicates her care for her friend. It is interesting to realize though that Jordan forms her relationship identity to Mark through her online expression of care for him.

This becomes a concern due to the fact that the care is not reciprocal. Mark was not looking for care and thus Jordan's "caretaking" is futile. Instead of using better logic and defenses to navigate and decipher her conversation and relationship with Mark, Jordan reverts to the "biological division of labor (which) serves to keep patriarchal ruling classes in order, and women relegated to the margins of society" (90). I mean honestly, who is losing here? Mark -- a young teen male pleased with his three way phone sex exploits? Or Jordan -- a young teen girl worrying and stressing for no reason and consequently harming her relationship with her girl friend? I want to leave this blog with a very important statement made in this chapter of Instant Identity, "(It is) imperative to note that care is not biological but rather culturally understood, and men can be taught to care and value care as much as women" (90).