Psychobabbling

Given the major events that will be occurring in my life in the next few weeks, it was quite fortunate/interesting/random to come across these studies.  One encouraging:  Having a sister makes you happier and more optimistic.  And one not so much: Giving birth hurts. End of story.

I’m interested in finding out more about how exactly happiness, psychological health, and cohesion were measured in the first story, so I’m taking it with a grain of salt.  And I also don’t like that the explanation the researchers come to is that families with girls are better off because girls talk more and are more emotionally open, resorting to using stereotypes to drive the point home.  It’s also plausible that because we are less accepting of emotional expression and dependence in boys, we discourage their closeness to one another, which contributes to decreased cohesion.  But, you know, that’s not as good of a story as “boys will be boys.”    

As for the second story, I’m not even going to get into it.

No Comments | In: articles, gender, research | | #

There are so many things to contemplate in the face of bring a girl into the world.  I don’t even know where to start.  I tend to think that gender differences are greatly exaggerated by culture, and I’m curious to see how this little girl will be different from her big brother; these differences may or may not conform to gender stereotypes, and may be a function of nature or nurture, it’s impossible to tell.  We start to gender our kids even before they are born, even those of us who tend to be more gender-neutral in our thinking have unconscious biases and expectations about how a girl or boy is supposed to be.  And we tend to attribute gender-conforming behavior to gender while attributing gender-divergent behavior to individual differences.  For example, my little dude is very active (gender-congruent: “he’s such a boy!”) and very chatty (gender divergent: “he’s so verbal!”). 

Given these expectations, I’ve been wondering whether I’m going to be more protective of this little one because she is a girl.  I think that’s one of the ways that we start to shape kids into their gender roles, by encouraging boys to venture out more into the world and being more reticent about such things with girls.  That certainly seems to be true when they get to be teenagers; we have such a different take on boys’ and girls’ emerging sexuality, and seem to fear girls’ sexual maturity whereas we have more of a go get ‘em attitude with boys (if I write about this again I’ll see if there’s some data to back this up).  

So something I read a few years ago has been on my mind, which is a statistic that while girls and women are more likely to be victimized by someone they know, boys and men are more likely to be attacked by strangers.  Even though people seem to freak out if, as a woman, you chose to ride the subway home alone late at night, you are actually statistically safer than the lone man sitting across from you (thanks to this post on Freakonomics for reminding me of that fact).  But there is still this belief that girls and women are more fragile and in need of protection, which undoubtedly shapes their experience of their place in the world.  I’m trying to keep this in mind as the big day gets closer.

No Comments | In: gender, personal | | #

Has anyone else noticed that all of the original Sesame Street muppets are male?  I’ve been watching a bit more Sesame Street in the past year than I have in, say, the past 30 years, and the addition of two relatively new female muppets, Abbie Cadabie and Zoe,  since my own Sesame Street heyday, made me notice their conspicuous absence in years past.   I totally didn’t even pay attention to this when I was a kid, but what is this communicating about gender?  Can you imagine a show with all female characters, and no one taking notice?  Sesame has been so progressive in the inclusion of diverse types of people in their neighborhood, so what’s up with the all-dude muppets? 

Ok, so I’m not there first person to notice this.   Here’s a study that found that male characters appeared twice as often as female characters in randomly selected episodes of Sesame Street (though this study predates the two new female muppets), and “the total number of characters portrayed in stereotypical roles was 10 times greater than characters portrayed in non-stereotypical roles.”  Why is this important?  As we all know, children learn the norms of society from, at least in some small part, television.  And though women are 51% of the population, they are usually portrayed as a minority or “other” group.  Just think about the use of male-normative language (this is a nice post too), like “mankind” to refer to both women and men, and what this implies about our cultural values.  I really expected better from you, Sesame Street.     

2 Comments | In: gender, media | | #

Sometimes the most eloquent writing about feminism springs from the minds of men.  Backpackingdad hits the nail on the head with this one.   He speaks about striving for true gender equality through greater balance not only in the work place but in the home,  and highlights how some women may have difficulty letting go of the reigns at the homestead despite the stated desire for equality.

“Part of the job is already being done as fathers step into at-home roles and immerse themselves very successfully. But here they face resistance from not only other men, who resist the changing roles and the infection of the workplace with domesticity. They also face a peculiar sort of resistance from women. Some women view at-home dads in a spectacularly evil light, as sexual prowlers hoping to seduce neighbourhood moms. But even more insidious is the casual assumption that men are buffoons when placed in a domestic role. This assumption, and the dismissal of male competence in the home and with the children, does more, I think, to deter men from stepping into those roles on their own than any pressure from male peers…

…  It is subtle misandry, misogyny’s dance partner, and it is an obstacle to the very balance and equality that would help you to never feel that kind of superiority, disappointment, and anger ever again. It is an obstacle to the creation of a class of men who collaborate with you to change social and economic structures that will result in gender equality and improved work-life balance. Think about the converse situation, in which men would congregate to laugh about the sad attempts of the newly “liberated” women to operate in a man’s world. Did it, does it, happen? Yes, I’m certain of it. But it is not something to be tolerated, and it is certainly not something to be lauded. “

Word, ladies.  Word.

No Comments | In: gender, work/family balance | | #

Here’s a little essay about why we moms should not be working outside of the home from Opposing Views:

“Raising children is a full-time job, one that dramatically alters the paths women were on prior to becoming mothers. Therefore, working full time while trying to raise young children is impossible. This is not anti-feminist, nor is it a matter of one’s politics. It is just a fact. No matter how much women would like to balance work and family, the endless demands of children don’t allow mothers to dedicate themselves fully to someone or something else. This doesn’t mean mothers must be out of the workforce permanently. But it does mean they’ll need to sequence their lives — plan their lives in such a way that they’ll be able to pursue work and motherhood, but at separate times. Or do them simultaneously when their children are older, as women have historically done.”

There are several good critiques of this argument in the comments section of this post, but I can’t help but add my own.  There is no mention of the responsibility of fathers in contributing to the care of their children and the author does not cite any research to back up the “fact” of the assertion that it is impossible to work full-time and raise a child.  Certainly, our culture needs to be more supportive of the integration of parenting in general with work outside the home (longer parental leave, for a start).  But balancing work and home responsibilities in a meaningful and healthy way is a real possibility.  To suggest that women need to stop everything to have kids neglects the fact that many families are not financially able to do so, and that women who want to work are happier and better parents when they are able to do so (which I posted about here).  Also, in a country where 50% of marriages end in divorce, allowing for women to have greater financial means and to be less dependent on their husbands will undoubtedly improve their circumstances if and when their marriages end (and similarly, it makes it more possible for wome to feel able to leave bad marriages).   In fact, this study found that women’s standard of living actually decreases 27% after a divorce, while for men it increases 10%.         

And, I’m sorry, is this 1950?  Did we gain nothing from second wave feminism?  I can’t believe people still buy into this crap.  I’m not arguing that mothers (or fathers, for that matter) should absolutely work outside of the home, but there is not only one good way to raise a child.  Like anything, I’m skeptical of either-or arguments, life is way more complicated than that.

No Comments | In: commentary, gender, research, work/family balance | | #

Motherload has contributed to the discussion about the Atlantic Monthly article I posted about yesterday, and also followed up with the author who has received lots of positive (amen!) and negative (you are selfish!)  responses, prompting her to wonder:

“What does it say about modern mothers, she wonders, that such energy is spent judging how other women feed their children? What are we reflecting about ourselves when we so readily apply the word ’selfish’ to any Mom who doesn’t do things our way? (And why, while we are at it, is it so wrong for a mother to think of herself — and her job and her marriage — first once in awhile?)”

 Additionally, those super cool Equally Shared Parenting peeps have responded on Motherload, offering suggestions on how to equally share breastfeeding, including dad taking over other duties or bottle feeding.   They also wrote about it on their Equality Blog.  At first, it seems logistically impossible, but there is more to a baby’s day than boob time. 

And here’s an interesting response to the original article at PhD in Parenting, including how one family kept the balance:

“There are biological differences between men and women (some pleasant and some unpleasant), but accepting those doesn’t mean accepting inequality. If both parents are committed to making an equal contribution (not an equal lack of contribution) to their child’s life, then there is a way to split things up so that breastfeeding doesn’t become an unfair burden on the mother.”

No Comments | In: articles, feeding, gender, work/family balance | | #

In this post from Mainstream Parenting, the downside of breastfeeding is discussed, prompted by an Atlantic Monthly articlewritten by a mother contemplating the repercussions of exclusively breastfeeding her third child.   The original article has a great comparison of the current breast feeding uber mom image to that of Betty Friedan’s “problem that has no name,” a history of the pro-breastfeeding movement, and questions some of the actually underwhelming evidence of the benefits of breastfeeding.   And, of particular interest to me, is the discussion of how breastfeeding has the potential of shifting the gender balance of power in the (heterosexual) family:

“We were raised to expect that co-parenting was an attainable goal. But who were we kidding? Even in the best of marriages, the domestic burden shifts, in incremental, mostly unacknowledged ways, onto the woman. Breast-feeding plays a central role in the shift. In my set, no husband tells his wife that it is her womanly duty to stay home and nurse the child. Instead, both parents together weigh the evidence and then make a rational, informed decision that she should do so. Then other, logical decisions follow: she alone fed the child, so she naturally knows better how to comfort the child, so she is the better judge to pick a school for the child and the better nurse when the child is sick, and so on. Recently, my husband and I noticed that we had reached the age at which friends from high school and college now hold positions of serious power. When we went down the list, we had to work hard to find any women. Where had all our female friends strayed? Why had they disappeared during the years they’d had small children?”

I do think there is a way to make breastfeeding work and still feel balance, and so does Estherar at Mainstream Parenting:

“I’m happy to say from experience that it doesn’t have to be this way, if you and your partner acknowledge this and either take steps to correct this imbalance (e.g., Mommy feeds, Daddy changes the poopy diapers) or take care the balance is restored once the baby is weaned or takes bottles of breastmilk. “

But ultimately, as with so much of this stuff, one must practice whatever is right for one’s family.  And I’m in support of any such evidence that takes the wind out of the sails of those who judge.   

I’ll leave you with another great tidbit from the article:

“The debate about breast-feeding takes place without any reference to its actual context in women’s lives. Breast-feeding exclusively is not like taking a prenatal vitamin. It is a serious time commitment that pretty much guarantees that you will not work in any meaningful way. Let’s say a baby feeds seven times a day and then a couple more times at night. That’s nine times for about a half hour each, which adds up to more than half of a working day, every day, for at least six months. This is why, when people say that breast-feeding is ‘free,’ I want to hit them with a two-by-four. It’s only free if a woman’s time is worth nothing.”

1 Comment | In: articles, feeding, gender, work/family balance | | #

I just came across a lovely post from Rational Moms about one woman’s experience returning to work that resonated a bit with my own experience.   Here’s an excerpt:

“We women are known for being too hard on ourselves, and socio-cultural elements influence how we treat ourselves. Whether we’re choosing to go back to work, to stay home, to have one child (You have no idea how many people have asked me whether I want to have more children), to have seven children, to work part-time, to work night shifts, or to work the streets, once you have a baby, everyone is a pediatrician with a degree in child development, and the advice is ever-flowing…

…If you’re one of these women choosing to go back to work, don’t you dare feel guilty about wanting to work, about wanting to retain some semblance of your former identity as you return to the workforce, about wanting to be productive in this manner.”

She speaks to the importance of doing what is best for one’s family without judgement, and of her own understanding of the impact of her decision.  Nicely done.

No Comments | In: articles, gender, work/family balance | | #

Building on the discussion of the work-family-gender balance, Motherload has posted about how the economic downturn has shifted this balance, as more men have lost jobs than women.   In fact, according to the article, a whopping 82% of the newly unemployed are men, because men tend to work in such hard-hit industries as manufacturing and construction, while women are overrepresented in jobs in more stable fields of health care and  education. 

This of course has resulted in a lot more dads being home, and has had interesting repercussions for the distribution of domestic responsibilities.   A leveling of the playing field?  Hardly.  It turns out, when a woman looses her job, she tends to increase hours spent in childcare, whereas for unemployed men, their childcare time allocation does not change from when they were employed.  Craziness. 

But I’m not going to buy into the whole men-are-lazy-and-can’t-be-trusted-to-scramble-an-egg explanation of this.  After reading some of the comments to this article, it seems that a lot of this may stem from our cultural expectation that men are only worthwhile if they bring home a paycheck, and don’t cancel day care for their kids when they’re unemployed because they don’t want to settle in to their unemployed status.  That’s not to excuse someone from not pulling his own weight around the house, but it seems important to look at the larger social context of this situation.  Still though, dude, spend some more time with your kids before you have to go back to a 50 hour work week.

No Comments | In: articles, commentary, gender, work/family balance | | #

You know all of that bellyaching I do about not-so-family-friendly work place policies like short parental leave and lack of support for breastfeeding?  Well here’s a group that’s actually doing something about it.  Moms Rising is a grassroots organization which is fighting for improvements in maternity and paternity leave, flexible work hours, and better health care and child care for families, among other campaigns.  They also have lots of resources for folks fighting the good fight, and an interesting blog to boot. 

No Comments | In: commentary, feeding, gender, work/family balance | | #