As a woman who has declined to put her picture on Facebook—my profile photo is a drawing of me by my daughter—I respectfully disagree with Katie Roiphe's assumption that this somehow represents some reprehensible self-effacement on my part as a working woman. I'm admittedly a little late to social networking, and not exactly a devotee. A friend of mine jokes that my status line should read, ''Sara Mosle is now unavailable on Facebook,'' as I almost never check it. I joined out of curiosity and don't dispute its occasional uses: I have happily reconnected with several long-lost and far-flung friends. But generally these days, I'm trying to spend less time—not more—online, so I might actually do the high-powered job that Roiphe wants me to take more pride in and have more actual face time (as opposed to Facebook time) with family and friends.

In one sense, I agree with Roiphe: I don't like pictures of kids as stand-ins for parents—but not for the reasons she says. I don't think any child's photo (especially that of a non-consenting baby or toddler) should be out there for casual public consumption. It's her face, not mine, after all (and a profile picture can be seen by anyone). Also, plenty of men use pictures of their children (or of their dogs or of Bart Simpson). I don't think any of these people—male or female—are necessarily hiding behind their kids or canines so much as hiding, period. Not everyone wants to be a public figure (even if their careers occasionally require them to be one)—hence my own use of a drawing. Anonymity has its uses, too—something Elizabeth Edwards might have done well to remember. (There are recent pictures of me and my daughter on my actual page, which friends can see, but, to me, this is different from a profile photo that can be seen by anyone.)

But to take on Roiphe's point directly: What is it to her if some woman defines herself by her children? I know lots of women—serious, committed career women—who, if they had to choose, would put their children first. Or more accurately, to borrow from Judith Shulevitz's terrific point, would put their kids first for now—when, at other points in their lives, they have or would put themselves, or their jobs, or a friend, or a partner, or their elderly parents, first. To me, the whole point of feminism is not to dictate to women what their self-definition (which is surely forever changing) should be, but to support the full range of women's roles throughout their lives. Maybe the problem is that Facebook, invented by men, forces women to choose a single photo for their profile—when any woman, almost by definition, is a collage.

Tags: childhood, life, motherhood, privacy, Rielle Hunter; elizabeth edwards; marriage and commitment

Sara, I agree with your defense—in response to Katie Roiphe's piece about women hiding behind their children on Facebook—of a woman's right to put her kids first. I'm 25 and enjoying my selfish years now, because, as Judith Shulevitz pointed out in her piece about the seasons of a woman's life, I fully expect them to end when I have kids. And I think that's natural. Just as natural, in fact, for fathers as it is for moms.

My mother once relayed to my sister and me a hypothetical question she'd posed to my dad. A bus is hurtling down the street, about to hit her. Would he jump in front and sacrifice his life to save hers? He wavered. Perhaps to protect herself from having to hear him deliver a "no," she quickly presented a second scenario. "What if it were one of the girls?" This time, no wavering. "Yes, I'd jump in front of the bus."

My dad's response is more about evolution than self-definition, though. It's not that he would save my sister or me because we're his proudest accomplishments. It's that we're his genetic offspring who still have kids of our own still to produce—kids that will carry on his DNA. Isn't that how the whole circle of life thing is supposed to work? And while the bus scenario is farfetched, the same mentality would apply to everyday decisions, like whether to miss a big conference to take care of a sick child.

I think in discussing Roiphe's piece (and what a discussion it's triggered in the comments section!), we're conflating too many things. While I agree with you, Sara, that it's okay (good, even) to put your children first, I'm with Roiphe on the point that that shouldn't mean your kids are all you can talk about, their faces all you care to have anyone see when they type in your name. One of the things I'm most grateful to my parents for is raising me in a home where dinner table conversations were interesting, involving thoughts on the day's news, the books we were reading, their issues at work. If Roiphe's women friends can only talk about their kids at dinner parties, I hope—for their kids' sake, at least—that their family-dinner conversations are a little more expansive.

Tags: Facebook, katie roiphe, parenting