There's lots of things no one tells you when you become a parent. Or things you are told, but don't really believe, not until you are in the midst of it. Then you can't even bemoan that no one warned you, because someone did.
There's lots of discussions about the toll of parenting on your finances, your body, your sex life, your relationships, but I haven't come across any discussions of becoming a mother and plummeting self esteem. And that, more than anything else, is what I've given up since becoming a parent.
Lean In and Knowing Your Value are just two recent books that discuss the failure of women to negotiate salary. I know I'm awful at asking for what I'm worth. I keep trying. I keep practicing. And I'm not sure I'm improving. And I think this all has to do with self-esteem and having a sense of self-worth.
There's other discussions on the fact that mothering is not valued in our society, for example The War on Moms, and while society's devaluation of motherhood is part of the problem, our children are another part of it. Yes, it doesn't help that no one seems to think that raising a productive member of society is something that should be rewarded, but those little minds that we are constantly fighting against do us in.
No wonder I don't have an interest in negotiating salary. I use up all my negotiating energies trying to convince my child to put on his socks, brush his teeth, and put on his coat so we aren't late for school. Every morning.
This process never makes me feel successful or like I've accomplished anything. Negotiating does not have positive associations for me. Honestly, I'd rather avoid it.
But I'll keep working on it. I'll keep trying new tactics to get us out the door in the morning without me wanting to get in the car and drive off without my kid. And I'll keep pushing myself to ask for what I'm worth--more than I think I'm worth, actually. Because, I'm probably selling myself short.
Monday, May 6, 2013
Friday, December 30, 2011
That still matters?
This post isn't exactly about motherhood--but it is about acceptable life choices for women.
I was thrilled when I recently found a new book by one of my favorite authors. Especially since I was about to spend a good chunk of a day in airports and on airplanes.
As I waited to board my first flight, I pulled the book out of my bag. Before I even opened it, I noticed something different about this book--this was a low-end publication job. The cover was a stock photo with minimal design. I flipped the book open and sure enough, this, the American edition, was from a publisher I'd never heard of (though it was published by Little, Brown in England last year).
This author is a pretty big name--not a John Grisham, but one of her series has been turned into a TV show and one of the characters in Girl with a Dragon Tattoo reads her books. So, I was curious--why was this big name author being published by a no-name press? So I snooped a bit further.
In the acknowledgments, the author thanked her wife and son for their support. "Huh." I thought, "I didn't know she was a lesbian." But when I flipped to the back flap, the author blurb only mentioned her son. Well, that explained why I didn't know. . .
Then I started reading. Charlie, our female protagonist, opens the novel pondering whether to stay with her wife of seven years or see if there are any possibilities with another woman she's met. All of the main characters in the book are lesbians--though the book isn't a "lesbian book." Rather it's a well written, tight thriller--just like all this author's other books. It just happens that the characters are lesbians in this work.
The delayed publication in the US and the no name press made sense--kinda. Apparently publishers feel that while American readers are willing to read books about vampires and werewolves, sexual sadists and time travelers, they aren't ready to read a book about lesbians. Additionally, I think that the assumption (and maybe the actuality) is that readers are more comfortable with gay male characters than female. But why? If this big name author has a hard time getting her book published, just because of the orientation of her characters, what other great books are we missing out on because of the unwillingness of publishers to print these books?
Sadly, the reviews on Amazon seem to support the publishers hesitancy. My favorite: "It is an excuse to peddle the lesbian agenda. Most of the characters are lesbian with a few extra homophobic heteros. The reaction of the drunken catholic father on discovering his daughter's lesbian relationship was ludicrous. It is hardly the 1950s." Seems to me if you are going to accuse a novel of having a "lesbian agenda" just because the characters are lesbian, you can't also express disbelief that a father would kick his daughter out of the house because she's come out to him.
ps You can find the book and other reviews here. I purposely kept the author's name out of this post.
I was thrilled when I recently found a new book by one of my favorite authors. Especially since I was about to spend a good chunk of a day in airports and on airplanes.
As I waited to board my first flight, I pulled the book out of my bag. Before I even opened it, I noticed something different about this book--this was a low-end publication job. The cover was a stock photo with minimal design. I flipped the book open and sure enough, this, the American edition, was from a publisher I'd never heard of (though it was published by Little, Brown in England last year).
This author is a pretty big name--not a John Grisham, but one of her series has been turned into a TV show and one of the characters in Girl with a Dragon Tattoo reads her books. So, I was curious--why was this big name author being published by a no-name press? So I snooped a bit further.
In the acknowledgments, the author thanked her wife and son for their support. "Huh." I thought, "I didn't know she was a lesbian." But when I flipped to the back flap, the author blurb only mentioned her son. Well, that explained why I didn't know. . .
Then I started reading. Charlie, our female protagonist, opens the novel pondering whether to stay with her wife of seven years or see if there are any possibilities with another woman she's met. All of the main characters in the book are lesbians--though the book isn't a "lesbian book." Rather it's a well written, tight thriller--just like all this author's other books. It just happens that the characters are lesbians in this work.
The delayed publication in the US and the no name press made sense--kinda. Apparently publishers feel that while American readers are willing to read books about vampires and werewolves, sexual sadists and time travelers, they aren't ready to read a book about lesbians. Additionally, I think that the assumption (and maybe the actuality) is that readers are more comfortable with gay male characters than female. But why? If this big name author has a hard time getting her book published, just because of the orientation of her characters, what other great books are we missing out on because of the unwillingness of publishers to print these books?
Sadly, the reviews on Amazon seem to support the publishers hesitancy. My favorite: "It is an excuse to peddle the lesbian agenda. Most of the characters are lesbian with a few extra homophobic heteros. The reaction of the drunken catholic father on discovering his daughter's lesbian relationship was ludicrous. It is hardly the 1950s." Seems to me if you are going to accuse a novel of having a "lesbian agenda" just because the characters are lesbian, you can't also express disbelief that a father would kick his daughter out of the house because she's come out to him.
ps You can find the book and other reviews here. I purposely kept the author's name out of this post.
Friday, April 15, 2011
A Second Helping of Fried Mice
In Autism, Vaccines, and Fried Mice, I talked about mothers' distrust of the medical world, and I want to talk a bit more about that. In The Winter Rose
India goes into Whitechapel armed with pictures of smiling broccoli (literally) assuming that parents in poverty don't know that vegetables are good for their children. I felt a like one of those mothers recently. I had checked a variety of books on children and sleep out of the library. Like so many parents, bedtime is not my forte and my son is often up later than I would like and/or putting him to bed does not go as smoothly as I would hope. So, because reading a book is how I start to solve almost any problem, I read some books. And one of authors spent the first third of his book telling me how important sleep was. How my son had to get a good night's sleep if I wanted him to excel in school, to be happy balanced adult, if I wanted to be a good parent.
I was offended and stopped reading. Of course I know my son needs a good night's sleep, just like I know I do. If I didn't think he needed sleep, why would I be reading a book on it? And this writer's assumption of my ignorance reminded me of India and her smiling vegetables. And made me realize that things maybe haven't progressed so much in the past 100 years.
Granted, this book on sleep was at least a decade old and things have changed a bit. There seems to be a new trend, particularly in nutrition, that we should trust our child's instincts more and force things less. But the dynamic between the medical professional and the mother has been ugly for a long time and will not be easily changed.
I am not saying that the public does not need to be educated about changes in scientific thought, both the vaccine/autism debate and the creationism/evolution debate speak the general population's dearth of understanding regarding the philosophy of science. But the tone and relation between the mothers and medical authorities is way out of whack. I wonder if some of this goes back to the rise of science and medicine and the way healing was removed from the women's realm and put in the men's. The reaction to the plague in Ken Follet's World Without End
seems an accurate fictionalization of how gender affected the development of medicine and vice versa.
What I think what needs to change is the American Medical Associations', the American Academy of Pediatrics' and even the CDC's approach. There is frequently the tone that they are the "learned" ones while mothers are ignorant and must be educated. There is general amnesia about the fact that mothers have been raising children successfully for thousands of years while these groups have only been around for decades. And that what these groups recommended a generation ago is now not recommended, even frowned upon. While we have seen a shift in the gender roles within medical practice (at least women are allowed to practice in our culture), there is still the nature/science divide. Things like homeopathy and co-sleeping are discounted and in the process medical authorities remain didactic instead of understanding and helpful. And as a result, women will continue to feed their children fried mice, at least figuratively.
India goes into Whitechapel armed with pictures of smiling broccoli (literally) assuming that parents in poverty don't know that vegetables are good for their children. I felt a like one of those mothers recently. I had checked a variety of books on children and sleep out of the library. Like so many parents, bedtime is not my forte and my son is often up later than I would like and/or putting him to bed does not go as smoothly as I would hope. So, because reading a book is how I start to solve almost any problem, I read some books. And one of authors spent the first third of his book telling me how important sleep was. How my son had to get a good night's sleep if I wanted him to excel in school, to be happy balanced adult, if I wanted to be a good parent.I was offended and stopped reading. Of course I know my son needs a good night's sleep, just like I know I do. If I didn't think he needed sleep, why would I be reading a book on it? And this writer's assumption of my ignorance reminded me of India and her smiling vegetables. And made me realize that things maybe haven't progressed so much in the past 100 years.
Granted, this book on sleep was at least a decade old and things have changed a bit. There seems to be a new trend, particularly in nutrition, that we should trust our child's instincts more and force things less. But the dynamic between the medical professional and the mother has been ugly for a long time and will not be easily changed.
I am not saying that the public does not need to be educated about changes in scientific thought, both the vaccine/autism debate and the creationism/evolution debate speak the general population's dearth of understanding regarding the philosophy of science. But the tone and relation between the mothers and medical authorities is way out of whack. I wonder if some of this goes back to the rise of science and medicine and the way healing was removed from the women's realm and put in the men's. The reaction to the plague in Ken Follet's World Without End
seems an accurate fictionalization of how gender affected the development of medicine and vice versa.What I think what needs to change is the American Medical Associations', the American Academy of Pediatrics' and even the CDC's approach. There is frequently the tone that they are the "learned" ones while mothers are ignorant and must be educated. There is general amnesia about the fact that mothers have been raising children successfully for thousands of years while these groups have only been around for decades. And that what these groups recommended a generation ago is now not recommended, even frowned upon. While we have seen a shift in the gender roles within medical practice (at least women are allowed to practice in our culture), there is still the nature/science divide. Things like homeopathy and co-sleeping are discounted and in the process medical authorities remain didactic instead of understanding and helpful. And as a result, women will continue to feed their children fried mice, at least figuratively.
Two Moms Walk into a Bar
I currently work as a Children's Librarian in a fairly large library system in a somewhat affluent community on the east coast. Every day, I see lots of parenting, parenting that ranges from commendable to questionable. Because of our location, we have a fairly diverse population, both racially and ethnically. And recently I have become aware of my presumptions about parenting style based on the race or ethnicity of the parent. And I find these presumptions problematic. Where do they come from? If I suffer from the presumptions, how do they effect others? This post is hard for me to write since I have to admit that I am not as "post-race" as I wish I were. I am by no means defending my presumptions, but I feel that ignoring them is as dangerous as giving into them. Instead, I hope that I can maybe tease apart why they exist and hopefully move beyond them.
The most common questionable parenting that I see is parents who come in to use our public computers and fail to pay any attention to their children for however long they are engaged online. I am more forgiving of parents who are looking for a place to live or applying for jobs than those who are on facebook, but it's still a challenge since the entertaining and policing of these children then falls on the library staff or other parents in the area.
The other day I had an interaction with a mother whom I had pegged as the inattentive sort because of her race and age (she was younger and black) until she mentioned owning Melissa and Doug puzzles at home. This "name dropping" kicked her into the other category in my head and made me stop and question my assumption. I hadn't seen her interact with her children at all, but based solely on her race and age I had assumed what type of mother she was. How had I come to assume that all young black mothers were inattentive? Why did I assume that those that appeared Indian where overattentive? How did the way a mother dress affect my assumptions? How about the number and ages of her children? And who am I to judge anyway?
I'd like to say that this presumption is based on my observations in my job: that the majority of parents who come in with their children for their chidren's sake, for example to attend a children's program, are white and older. But that's a cop-out and not accurate.
I started reading Supporting Boys' Learning
because as the mother of a preschool boy I try to stay at least aware of what the current thinking is. Nothing was very surprising to me, so I didn't finish it. But one part did stick with me. There is evidence that teachers in early childhood education expect African American boys to be the trouble makers and treat them, subtly, as such. These presumptions are then picked up by the children, not just the boys themselves, but by female students and non-black male students. This is part of the explanation of my mothering presumptions. There is such an ingrained cultural stereotype that young African American mothers are not "good mothers" that I've absorbed it. A large part of this comes from not only the media, but also the political climate in the 80s [see below]. And what I find extremely troubling is not so much my absorption but the affect this stereotype has on mothers of color.
I have always found the idea of "Welfare Queens" offensive to mothers everywhere. The idea that someone would have more children just to get more money out of the government could only have been created by someone who has never given birth. And of course I'm no fan of any "blame the victim" philosophy. And while I have strongly rejected the idea of "Welfare Queens" I hadn't realized that other, more subtle, stereotypes have were able to sneak through.
I have talked before (and I'm sure I'll talk more) about how mothers are not valued and supported in our society, but adding the layer of race or class (and probably religion and ethnicity) increase or decrease the nominal value women do feel. As a single mother, I feel at times as if the world assumes I am not a good mother because of that. I can't claim to know how it feels to have the world assume I am a lacking parent because of my race, but I do have an inkling. It sucks.
Sadly, I don't know what to do about this. Personally, I am trying to catch myself--remind myself that race is no indication of parenting style or type. But what about on a larger scale. We obviously need better images in the media and maybe Michelle Obama will help that. (Though we don't see her "parent" much as the Obamas' have smartly kept their daughters out of the spotlight as much as possible.) I'd like to see a TV show about a black single mother who is involved in her kids' lives. Not one who sacrifices everything for them, but one who still has adult friends whom she meets with occasionally. One who has a healthy dating life. I guess I'd like to see something along the lines of The New Adventures of Old Christine
or Reba. Though it feels wrong to ask for the "black version" of these shows. . . hell, I'd just settle for more black women on TV period!
I am also going to continue my personal quest to not judge mothers as much. That includes my assumptions about mothers based on race or class, whether they have a glass of wine when they are at a restaurant with their children, everything. It's not going to be easy in a culture that devalues parenting as much as ours to not look for reasons to judge, but I'm going to try. And I'm going to try to unearth what other stereotypes unconsciously affect my exceptions of parents. I'm sure there are more.
The most common questionable parenting that I see is parents who come in to use our public computers and fail to pay any attention to their children for however long they are engaged online. I am more forgiving of parents who are looking for a place to live or applying for jobs than those who are on facebook, but it's still a challenge since the entertaining and policing of these children then falls on the library staff or other parents in the area.
The other day I had an interaction with a mother whom I had pegged as the inattentive sort because of her race and age (she was younger and black) until she mentioned owning Melissa and Doug puzzles at home. This "name dropping" kicked her into the other category in my head and made me stop and question my assumption. I hadn't seen her interact with her children at all, but based solely on her race and age I had assumed what type of mother she was. How had I come to assume that all young black mothers were inattentive? Why did I assume that those that appeared Indian where overattentive? How did the way a mother dress affect my assumptions? How about the number and ages of her children? And who am I to judge anyway?
I'd like to say that this presumption is based on my observations in my job: that the majority of parents who come in with their children for their chidren's sake, for example to attend a children's program, are white and older. But that's a cop-out and not accurate.
I started reading Supporting Boys' Learning
because as the mother of a preschool boy I try to stay at least aware of what the current thinking is. Nothing was very surprising to me, so I didn't finish it. But one part did stick with me. There is evidence that teachers in early childhood education expect African American boys to be the trouble makers and treat them, subtly, as such. These presumptions are then picked up by the children, not just the boys themselves, but by female students and non-black male students. This is part of the explanation of my mothering presumptions. There is such an ingrained cultural stereotype that young African American mothers are not "good mothers" that I've absorbed it. A large part of this comes from not only the media, but also the political climate in the 80s [see below]. And what I find extremely troubling is not so much my absorption but the affect this stereotype has on mothers of color. I have always found the idea of "Welfare Queens" offensive to mothers everywhere. The idea that someone would have more children just to get more money out of the government could only have been created by someone who has never given birth. And of course I'm no fan of any "blame the victim" philosophy. And while I have strongly rejected the idea of "Welfare Queens" I hadn't realized that other, more subtle, stereotypes have were able to sneak through.
I have talked before (and I'm sure I'll talk more) about how mothers are not valued and supported in our society, but adding the layer of race or class (and probably religion and ethnicity) increase or decrease the nominal value women do feel. As a single mother, I feel at times as if the world assumes I am not a good mother because of that. I can't claim to know how it feels to have the world assume I am a lacking parent because of my race, but I do have an inkling. It sucks.
Sadly, I don't know what to do about this. Personally, I am trying to catch myself--remind myself that race is no indication of parenting style or type. But what about on a larger scale. We obviously need better images in the media and maybe Michelle Obama will help that. (Though we don't see her "parent" much as the Obamas' have smartly kept their daughters out of the spotlight as much as possible.) I'd like to see a TV show about a black single mother who is involved in her kids' lives. Not one who sacrifices everything for them, but one who still has adult friends whom she meets with occasionally. One who has a healthy dating life. I guess I'd like to see something along the lines of The New Adventures of Old Christine
or Reba. Though it feels wrong to ask for the "black version" of these shows. . . hell, I'd just settle for more black women on TV period! I am also going to continue my personal quest to not judge mothers as much. That includes my assumptions about mothers based on race or class, whether they have a glass of wine when they are at a restaurant with their children, everything. It's not going to be easy in a culture that devalues parenting as much as ours to not look for reasons to judge, but I'm going to try. And I'm going to try to unearth what other stereotypes unconsciously affect my exceptions of parents. I'm sure there are more.
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
Autism, Vaccines, and Fried Mice
***Disclaimer: I am very pro-vaccine. But arguing about that is not my purpose here. I'm interested in why and how we believe medical advice. And how that ties in to bigger ideas of motherhood.
One of my favorite novels is Jennifer Donnelly's The Winter Rose. This epic historical piece tells the story of India, a wealthy woman who becomes one of England's first female doctors. Set in the first decade of the 20th century, India, who is admit about making a difference in the lives of the poor, takes a job at a clinic in Whitechapel. Convinced if she can just educate the people there about nutrition and sanitation, their lives will be vastly improved. She learns, quickly, however, that the problems that plague the poor of London are not that simple.
One of those lessons comes from a nurse she is working with and involves a fried mouse. One of India's patients is a small girl suffering from TB. India is incensed when she finds out that the girl's mother has given her a fried mouse to eat, a common "old wives' tale" cure for the disease. She is frustrated by the ignorance of such a remedy, pointing out that mice carry diseases which could have made the child worse.
But the nurse she is talking to is wiser. She explains to India that it's hard to watch your child suffer and not do anything. The mother doesn't have much money, but she has plenty of mice. So, while frying a mouse and feeding it to your child might not be a good thing to do, it is something. And while the nurse doesn't make this point, her argument seems to be that the fried mouse was as much tonic for the mother's sense of helplessness as it was for her daughter's symptoms.
This seems to me to be part of what is behind the vaccine/autism debate. We know so little about the disorder, especially about what causes it. When some scientists presented a cause, backed by some data, it makes sense that people latched onto the idea. I think this idea also hit a chord with the attachment parenting movement, though I haven't completely thought that through.
I have The Panic Virus
sitting at home, waiting for me to get to it. I'll be interested to see what Mnookin has to say on the issue. But the title alone fits with my argument here. Avoidance of vaccination comes from a fear of harming your child. And which side you come down on depends on which you fear more, the potential harm of vaccines or the potential harm of diseases these vaccines prevent.
I have certainly had nights where I'm up with a sick child and I'm rummaging through the medicine cupboard trying to find something to give him because I just want him to feel better. And, I will admit, I have occasionally given him medicine that is not exactly for his age or is slightly expired, because I just want to do something!
I think as parents we are told everything is fixable and preventable. [I've talked about something similar before, see my post on Attachment Parenting and Helicopter Parents] So, if our child is sick, there must be something we can do. And we are a bad parent if we can't figure out what that is. And this is a motivation behind the vaccination/autism issue.
We also have a tradition of listening to other parents over medical professionals. Much like the fried mouse incident~it's something you know another parent has done or believes and therefore you put more stock in that than something that comes from the government or a medical authority. Parenting by "fad" has always been a popular approach, one that does not always run parallel to medical advice. And really, who can blame parents. Just look at the every changing advice on whether a newborn should sleep on her back, stomach or something else altogether.
It seems safe to say that mothers don't feel valued by groups like the American Academy of Pediatrics. And if you are not respected by a group, why would you listen to and respect its opinions?
One of my favorite novels is Jennifer Donnelly's The Winter Rose
. This epic historical piece tells the story of India, a wealthy woman who becomes one of England's first female doctors. Set in the first decade of the 20th century, India, who is admit about making a difference in the lives of the poor, takes a job at a clinic in Whitechapel. Convinced if she can just educate the people there about nutrition and sanitation, their lives will be vastly improved. She learns, quickly, however, that the problems that plague the poor of London are not that simple.One of those lessons comes from a nurse she is working with and involves a fried mouse. One of India's patients is a small girl suffering from TB. India is incensed when she finds out that the girl's mother has given her a fried mouse to eat, a common "old wives' tale" cure for the disease. She is frustrated by the ignorance of such a remedy, pointing out that mice carry diseases which could have made the child worse.
But the nurse she is talking to is wiser. She explains to India that it's hard to watch your child suffer and not do anything. The mother doesn't have much money, but she has plenty of mice. So, while frying a mouse and feeding it to your child might not be a good thing to do, it is something. And while the nurse doesn't make this point, her argument seems to be that the fried mouse was as much tonic for the mother's sense of helplessness as it was for her daughter's symptoms.
This seems to me to be part of what is behind the vaccine/autism debate. We know so little about the disorder, especially about what causes it. When some scientists presented a cause, backed by some data, it makes sense that people latched onto the idea. I think this idea also hit a chord with the attachment parenting movement, though I haven't completely thought that through.
I have The Panic Virus
sitting at home, waiting for me to get to it. I'll be interested to see what Mnookin has to say on the issue. But the title alone fits with my argument here. Avoidance of vaccination comes from a fear of harming your child. And which side you come down on depends on which you fear more, the potential harm of vaccines or the potential harm of diseases these vaccines prevent.I have certainly had nights where I'm up with a sick child and I'm rummaging through the medicine cupboard trying to find something to give him because I just want him to feel better. And, I will admit, I have occasionally given him medicine that is not exactly for his age or is slightly expired, because I just want to do something!
I think as parents we are told everything is fixable and preventable. [I've talked about something similar before, see my post on Attachment Parenting and Helicopter Parents] So, if our child is sick, there must be something we can do. And we are a bad parent if we can't figure out what that is. And this is a motivation behind the vaccination/autism issue.
We also have a tradition of listening to other parents over medical professionals. Much like the fried mouse incident~it's something you know another parent has done or believes and therefore you put more stock in that than something that comes from the government or a medical authority. Parenting by "fad" has always been a popular approach, one that does not always run parallel to medical advice. And really, who can blame parents. Just look at the every changing advice on whether a newborn should sleep on her back, stomach or something else altogether.
It seems safe to say that mothers don't feel valued by groups like the American Academy of Pediatrics. And if you are not respected by a group, why would you listen to and respect its opinions?
Wednesday, January 19, 2011
"Stick 'em up"
So, I don't really understand the family decals that have appeared on the windows of cars. Not like I don't understand = I think they are dumb, but as in I truly don't understand. What is the motivation behind them?
A few observations. 1) They appear most frequently on SUVs and Crossovers. Which I suppose makes sense because you need a good window to put them on. 2) I have only seen normative families. Even though you can by gay pride options (see below) I've yet to see any on cars.
So now some personal reflections: I have considered buying some. Mine would be non-normative, a single mom and a son. But I balk at that for several reasons. First, it doesn't seem smart to advertise that I'm a single mom~I'm afraid that might result in being a target of some seedy people out there, though perhaps that's irrational. Second, as much as I try to own and be proud of a single parent, there is still a part of me that feels that being a single parent means you have failed in some part. I'm afraid people will judge me.
I think there are some identity/performance issues to be explored here, but I don't have time right now. Maybe I"ll come back to it later. . .
In conclusion, questions.
1. Do you have these guys on your car?
2. Would you consider having any?
3. Any thoughts as to why they are popular?
January 19, 2010
A few observations. 1) They appear most frequently on SUVs and Crossovers. Which I suppose makes sense because you need a good window to put them on. 2) I have only seen normative families. Even though you can by gay pride options (see below) I've yet to see any on cars.
So now some personal reflections: I have considered buying some. Mine would be non-normative, a single mom and a son. But I balk at that for several reasons. First, it doesn't seem smart to advertise that I'm a single mom~I'm afraid that might result in being a target of some seedy people out there, though perhaps that's irrational. Second, as much as I try to own and be proud of a single parent, there is still a part of me that feels that being a single parent means you have failed in some part. I'm afraid people will judge me.
I think there are some identity/performance issues to be explored here, but I don't have time right now. Maybe I"ll come back to it later. . .
In conclusion, questions.
1. Do you have these guys on your car?
2. Would you consider having any?
3. Any thoughts as to why they are popular?
January 19, 2010
Sunday, November 14, 2010
Attachment Parenting and Helicopter Parents
In a recent blog post Erica Jong discusses her thoughts on some modern motherhood dilemmas. There's a lot in her article, so I'm not going to get into a point by point analysis. But I would like to use it as a jumping off point, or perhaps some new material to weave into the tapestry I've started here.
Two parenting topics she criticizes are attachment parenting and helicopter parents. For those of you who might not know, attachment parenting is a parenting theory spearheaded by William and Martha Sears. [If you really want, you can find their book here
]. The basic point of this approach is that you literally "attach" your infant to you. You hold her all the time, you let her sleep in your bed, you breastfeed, etc. Not surprisingly, the Searses are anti-day care or any care that isn't parental.
Helicopter parenting might be the "grown up" version of attachment parenting. The term is usually used in conjunction with high school and college students whose parents are overly involved, calling Deans about a exam grade for example.
Jung argues that attachment parenting basically makes overburdened guilty mothers feel worse. And I agree with that. However, I think she misses a chance to look at the bigger picture, one that includes both ends of the age spectrum. Both of these "strategies" seem to me to be tied to Lerner's thesis in The War on Moms.
Parenting in this country is not a supported service. You really do have to fend for yourself. And if you do, why are we surprised that a) someone has taken it to the extreme and b) parents have a hard time trusting that their college student will be assisted by anyone else.
Attachment parents are hesitant (or resistant) to handing their child off to strangers not because they think they know better, but because they have been told through our cultural structures and societal overtones that this child was their choice and is their responsibility. They receive no financial support or even access to basic necessities. One can't even buy diapers with food stamps. Instead, they have to provide everything themselves. In a country where even bumper stickers remind you that that little person was your choice, and therefore your responsibility (It's a child, not a choice) is it any wonder that some choose to hunker down and snarl at anyone who tries to come near?
Of course, this lack of support continues throughout the child's life. Parents are told over and over again that they are responsible for their child's education. They have to take the time to help with homework and ask questions and bring in snacks for class parties. And then we expect them to switch it off just because the child turns 18? Really, is it any surprise that the oversight continues?
I agree that parents need to support their children in their education--but they need to support it, not manage it. If parents felt as if someone else, such as our country's educational system, was managing the education of today's children, they could just provide sideline support. But that's not what happens. From cradle to graduation cap, parents are told they are going it alone, or at least with minimal assistance.
If we want a nation of self-sufficient, mature workers, we need to give parents the ability to raise them. We need to provide safe, affordable daycare and preschool where learning skills can be acquired at an early age. We need to provide safe, affordable extra-curriculars for our children. We need to provide support for those in charge of the largest part of our GNP--our children.
November 14, 2010
Two parenting topics she criticizes are attachment parenting and helicopter parents. For those of you who might not know, attachment parenting is a parenting theory spearheaded by William and Martha Sears. [If you really want, you can find their book here
]. The basic point of this approach is that you literally "attach" your infant to you. You hold her all the time, you let her sleep in your bed, you breastfeed, etc. Not surprisingly, the Searses are anti-day care or any care that isn't parental.Helicopter parenting might be the "grown up" version of attachment parenting. The term is usually used in conjunction with high school and college students whose parents are overly involved, calling Deans about a exam grade for example.
Jung argues that attachment parenting basically makes overburdened guilty mothers feel worse. And I agree with that. However, I think she misses a chance to look at the bigger picture, one that includes both ends of the age spectrum. Both of these "strategies" seem to me to be tied to Lerner's thesis in The War on Moms.
Parenting in this country is not a supported service. You really do have to fend for yourself. And if you do, why are we surprised that a) someone has taken it to the extreme and b) parents have a hard time trusting that their college student will be assisted by anyone else.Attachment parents are hesitant (or resistant) to handing their child off to strangers not because they think they know better, but because they have been told through our cultural structures and societal overtones that this child was their choice and is their responsibility. They receive no financial support or even access to basic necessities. One can't even buy diapers with food stamps. Instead, they have to provide everything themselves. In a country where even bumper stickers remind you that that little person was your choice, and therefore your responsibility (It's a child, not a choice) is it any wonder that some choose to hunker down and snarl at anyone who tries to come near?
Of course, this lack of support continues throughout the child's life. Parents are told over and over again that they are responsible for their child's education. They have to take the time to help with homework and ask questions and bring in snacks for class parties. And then we expect them to switch it off just because the child turns 18? Really, is it any surprise that the oversight continues?
I agree that parents need to support their children in their education--but they need to support it, not manage it. If parents felt as if someone else, such as our country's educational system, was managing the education of today's children, they could just provide sideline support. But that's not what happens. From cradle to graduation cap, parents are told they are going it alone, or at least with minimal assistance.
If we want a nation of self-sufficient, mature workers, we need to give parents the ability to raise them. We need to provide safe, affordable daycare and preschool where learning skills can be acquired at an early age. We need to provide safe, affordable extra-curriculars for our children. We need to provide support for those in charge of the largest part of our GNP--our children.
November 14, 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
