Next week I’ll be “shedding,” as Marco tells me it’s called, at a writers and artists retreat up in Massachusetts. I’ll be blogging about writing process again (it was so helpful to hear your thoughts on outlining last week!) so stay tuned…Kristen will also be blogging, and I’m thrilled to announce that she will now be joining me as a regular contributing blogger each week here on GWP! More exciting changes around here coming soon. This fall, a whole new look…

This morning I woke up to the voice of Katherine Lanpher (LOVE her) on NPR’s “The Takeaway” talking about a new Census Bureau report on fertility. According to the data, the number of women ages 40 to 44 who were childless in 2006 is twice as high as it was 30 years earlier. Among other highlights, the report, Fertility of American Women: 2006, found:

• The majority of women with a recent birth (57 percent) were in the labor force. (Are we, um, surprised?)
• Of the 4.2 million women who had a birth in the previous 12 months, 36 percent were separated, widowed, divorced or never married at the time of the survey. Of these 1.5 million unmarried mothers, 190,000 were living with an unmarried partner.
• Second generation Hispanic women tend to have lower fertility rates than either foreign-born Hispanics or those who were third generation (i.e., native and of native parents).
• The highest levels of current fertility (67 births in the year prior to the survey per 1,000 women) were among those with a graduate or professional degree.

The report also finds that the national birth rate for women age 15 to 50 receiving public assistance in 2006 was about three times of those not receiving public assistance. A decade after the passage of welfare reform in 1996, data show that women in this age range receiving public assistance had a birth rate of 155 births per 1,000 women, compared with 53 births per 1,000 women not receiving it.

To hear Katherine’s interview with a prof from Florida who hits on some of the implications of it all, click here.

This morning, the debut of another of our new monthly columns, “Off the Shelf” by Elline Lipkin. Elline is a poet and nonfiction writer. Her first book, The Errant Thread, was chosen by Eavan Boland to receive the Kore Press First Book Award and was published in 2006. She’s currently working on a book about girls for Seal Press and will be a Visiting Scholar with the Center for Research on Women at UCLA in the fall. She recently taught at UC Berkeley where she was a Postdoctoral Scholar with the Beatrice Bain Research Group. And here she is! – GWP

Parenting, Inc. by Pamela Paul

Just six months ago I felt bombarded by my bedside stack of wedding guides. Each, under the guise of “must have to be happy on your Big Day,” proscribed things to wear, stuff to buy, favors to give, rituals to enact, details to watch, all apparently needed to fulfill the American wedding tradition. Without each one in place, they warned, The Wedding Dream just couldn’t be. Happily, I tossed most aside in favor of indiebride status (shared with you Deb! Mazel tov!), but the relentlessness of “to-dos,” all sheltered under the umbrella of “necessary for happiness,” was enough to make me question my every choice.

Moving quickly on to the next stage of later-in-life union, I was glad for journalist Pamela Paul’s preview warning about the lists of Stuff new parents are told they need — so I can know what not to do, or at least, to try to resist. The “new parents checklist” Paul is given before the birth of her first child starts her off on a consumer journey that exacerbates every anxiety, worry, and concern stewing about her impending parenthood.

In her new book Parenting, Inc., Paul fires back – by examining the multiple industries that launch both an avalanche of products at new parents (only sometimes aimed at their babies) and the landslide of guilt, obligation, and often enough, misinformation that accompanies these products. Paul outlines how confused, overwhelmed, and/or desperate parents feel and then how susceptible they become to overpriced wares and unnecessary “edutainment” programs that they’re told will give their babies a head start.

Paul’s research is thorough as she exposes the selling points of everything from Baby Einstein (experts can’t tell if a baby is really engaged or not and setting a tape on an endless loop often serves as a less guilt-inducing break for parents since their child is “learning”) to teaching signing to babies (results dubious) to exclusive NYC clubs tailored to well-heeled babies, nannies, and parents (tapping into peer pressure and celebrity allure). She visits “enrichment classes” that range from Little Maestros to Gymboree. It doesn’t take a critical eye to see most kids are actively disengaged and that often the only ones benefiting are the parents who are eager to be out of the house and connecting with each other.

Paul exposes the phalanx of consultants who stand at the ready to charge overstretched or just overly concerned parents, from sleep specialists to thumb-sucking experts to bike tutors to potty-training day programs. A through-line in the book is the loss of extended family for support and expertise and their replacement with a consumerist approach to parenting through a deluge of products each packaged with angst-inducing rhetoric: This will be the key to make your baby smarter, brighter, swifter in his or her head start to Harvard. Particularly revealing are Paul’s interviews with many of the business-savvy entrepreneurs (including some “mompreneurs”) who realized what a vulnerable and anxious customer the new parent can be and who are ready to market accordingly.

Paul’s writing is engaging, particularly as she candidly reveals her own needs and frustrations as a parent and partly researches the book while into her pregnancy with her second child. She uses her own experience as a measuring stick to look critically at what she finds.

One critique of the book is, in some sense, also its strength — its relentlessness. Paul reiterates the sheer velocity of products to buy, outsourced help to tap, and crushing sense of obligation that parents feel, but her point is made (and remade) as she debunks their necessity. There are “nameologists” who will provide naming packages, tot manner minders, expert baby-proofers; no corner of childhood is exempt from a product or expert to help a parent do it better. The sense of frenetic obligation is palpable.

After awhile, I would have found it more interesting to hear about alternatives – parents who resisted, consumer groups who called products out, DIY’ers who found a way around the monolith of consumer pressure. And while she makes it clear that the dilemma of too much stuff is a class-based issue, this seems a place to expand her argument. How many kids who had tutoring before age 2 really live up to the racing head start they were supposedly getting? How many geniuses came from humble beginnings where no educational accoutrements were available? And from what context do these parents feel “every opportunity” is truly necessary for a child?

The negative effects of “helicopter parents” are only touched on and I wondered from where and when did such class-based devotion to achievement spring? Towards the book’s end the text turns more reflective as Paul asks a range of experts what it even means to parent, never mind parent “well” and it’s a relief, finally, to tie together the economic and social forces that goad parents toward an ethos of inadequacy and a cycle of self-doubt that seem to make few happy, despite the consumerism that promises exactly that. A few startlingly refreshing voices practically sing through the madness, such as that of Elisa Sherona, a 63-year-old grandmother who raised five kids in the ’60s and ’70s and is unafraid to declare outright you just don’t need any of this stuff and questions how raising kids like this will affect them as adults. While the latter remains to be seen, at the book’s end Paul finally has determined that she doesn’t need these products or programs for her kids and that that doesn’t mean she’s a bad parent. She lets out a sigh of relief that echoes Sherona’s thoughts, and seems all the more relieved that she can finally release.

-Elline Lipkin

I was SO sad to hear that the organization Dads and Daughters had to fold its tent this month due to lack of funds. I add my voice to the chorus of women sending shout outs to the folks behind DADs for their wonderful work these past 10 years.

One door closes, another creaks open. I’m excited to share a new blog by a member of my writers group, Paul Raeburn (left), over at Psychology Today. It’s called “About Fathers”. Paul also blogs at Fathers and Families, and he culls from the latest research and writes Very Smart Things about the importance of fathers and how fathers affect children’s development. Paul’s a journalist and the author of “Acquainted with the Night,” a memoir of raising children with bipolar disorder and depression, and a new father himself. I encourage GWP readers to visit and comment and check him out.

Jamie Maffeo is a student at Saint Ann’s School in Brooklyn and will be in tenth grade this coming fall. At age 15, Jamie has become one of Writopia Lab’s most prolific writers. She is a writer of poetry, memoir, and fiction, and has garnered multiple regional and national awards from Scholastic Art & Writing Awards in all three genres over the last three years.

We very much welcome (thoughtful!) comments on Jamie’s post. An aside: A former Hillary supporter myself, I’ve nevertheless been having mixed feelings about Hillary’s name being on the convention ballot and am still trying to understand the politics of it all. I find myself very moved by Jamie’s conviction below. – GWP

Hail to the Runner-Up!

In a recent writing workshop when Debbie asked me to write down three things, no matter how minor or grand, that I would like to change, only one thing came to mind. With each tap of my pencil I came to the realization that it was the only significant matter I wanted to write down. Quickly I wrote, “I would like to change the fact that Barack Obama became the presumptive democratic nominee-I wish Hillary Clinton had won instead.”

Over the past months I have become enraptured with Hillary Clinton’s intelligence, experience, and ability to continue fighting even with the bellicose nature of the press coverage. Not only was the press treating Barack Obama with obvious delicacy but they were also treating Hillary Clinton appallingly. For example, whereas Hillary Clinton was harshly criticized for showing emotion at a press conference, Barack Obama came out smelling like a rose after using the same words that Massachusetts Governor Patrick Deval used in one of his speeches as if they were his own. Regardless of what I saw as the clear press bias towards Obama, I was not and am not captivated by his empty speeches no matter how grandiloquent.

Many of my friends, however, were. After watching late night primaries, caucuses and debates I began to voice my opinion in school. I had never been as interested in politics and former elections as I was now: getting into arguments with close friends and shouting out in history class. I was tired of hearing the same mantras:

“But Obama wants change.”
“I’m sick of the Clintons.”
“Hillary has no personality.”

I would return their attacks with equal aggression saying, “Yes I get that Obama wants change but how is he going to make change? All of his speeches were bombastic and eloquent but they had no substance to them!” I would continue, wistfully, “She is just so intelligent. She has so much more experience then Obama. I just wish Obama had waited until 2012 or 2016 to run.”

I would emphasize the issues. I agreed with her universal health care plan. Hillary wanted to stop health care providers from turning away clients due to pre-existing conditions. She wanted mental illness to be covered. I also liked her plan to solve health care problems by starting now as a senator and not waiting until 2009. Hillary had great ideas about fighting global warming by using cars that run on fuel cells, bio fuels, and electricity. She wanted cars to get more mileage to the gallon then ever before so that the cost of driving will diminish. To conserve energy Hillary wanted buildings to be constructed that are more energy efficient. How can you argue with that?

Hillary talks facts and her solutions are realistic. She has had the motivation and dedication and after Obama became the presumptive democratic nominee I felt somewhat cheated as her supporter, wishing the press had been more just. With Hillary no longer in the race, my interest waned and I began to only casually glimpse at newspaper articles here and there. Slowly my day-to-day Obama versus Hillary arguments died down as the race turned to Obama versus McCain.

Now, days away from the August 26th National Democratic Convention, I’m getting excited again, because Hillary Clinton will speak at the convention.

I look forward to a count at the convention and am thrilled that Hillary Clinton’s name will be put on the ballot. A delegate count will give Hillary’s delegates the opportunity to cast their vote for this outstanding woman and will give me, a young Hillary supporter who cannot yet vote, the chance to honor my presumptive candidate with some R-E-S-P-E-C-T.

Following on the heels of that last one, this just in from the Center for Women in Government & Civil Society, University at Albany, SUNY:

A new report, Glass Ceiling in Gubernatorial Appointments, 1997-2007, provides new gender, race, and ethnicity data and a national and state-by-state trend analysis on the demographic composition of gubernatorial appointees in state governments, 1997-2007.

The report indicates that the glass ceiling remains intact for women appointed policy leaders in the executive branch of most state governments. Over the 11-year period, women’s share of policy leadership posts increased by a modest 6.8 percentage points to 35 percent. With respect to race and ethnicity, even as substantial changes in the race and ethnicity composition of the U.S. population continue to be recorded, the demographics of executive branch policy leaders changed very little between 1997 and 2007.

The report is available for download here. Read it and weep.

So check this out:

From the filmmakers of Mad Hot Ballroom comes a new social justice cause documentary, what’s your point, honey?

The doc puts a “new face on political leadership” by introducing 7 possible contenders coming down the pipeline, while revealing the inequalities that still exist today. The aim is to start the conversation — again. Teens and tweens, weave in and out to present the next generations’ take on the topic, giving the film punch. On the doc’s trail is a soon-to-be published book, She’s Out There! The Next Generation of Presidential Candidates, presenting a “doc in book form” to a mass audience.

Runtime is 87 minutes, and the film includes a 30-page study guide written by two faculty members at PACE University. Here’s the trailer — spread the word!:

It’s great to have models for married life, I tell ya. On Sunday, one of our favorite older married couples hosted a brunch for 4 newly marrieds — one of which still had “just married” painted on the back of their car, absent the tin cans.

From left to right: John, Sheri, Marco, me, Dawn, Isaac, Rebecca, Jeremy. Awww. (Thank you, Ricki and Jeff! You guys are the best!)

A quick pic from the Writopia Lab blogging workshop I led last week. Stay tuned for more posts from the girls coming next week! In the meantime, we’re loving everyone’s comments on Jessica’s post (below)…

Have a good weekend, all!

Jessica Zalph is a student at Hunter College High School in Manhattan and will be in ninth grade this coming fall. She is a member of Writopia Lab and has won various awards in the Scholastic writing contests. As an author, Jessica usually writes short stories and poetry, but she decided to break out of character to write this “coming out” piece about vegetarianism. With a dash o’ feminism mixed in. Here’s Jessica! -GWP

October is Vegetarian Awareness Month. If only people knew about it.

“Among men [vegetarianism is] regarded as, if not a girl thing, then at least a girlie thing — an anemic regimen for sensitive souls subsisting on rabbit food and tofurkey,” says Holly Brubach in her recent New York Times article “Real Men Eat Meat.” If the male gender sees vegetarianism as a “girl thing,” then that’s got to be our hardest obstacle to overcome. Whenever compassion and eating “rabbit food” became a girl thing, it became taboo for boys, because sexism is rooted so deeply in our society that girls are seen as weaker overall. But maybe making a harder decision wouldn’t be weak at all. Maybe it’d be more macho, if that’s what you’re after, to overcome the stereotypes. Overcoming the expectations society has of you could be “manly,” no?

I’ve been a vegetarian for the fourteen years of my existence – my parents stopped eating meat four years before I was born. They were told by a number of smug acquaintances that, just wait, I would become all “teenager-y” and start eating meat once I became obsessed with fitting in and defying my parents out of spite. We’re still waiting.

Probably the reason I’ve stuck with vegetarianism and animal rights is because it’s not just an arbitrary ritual I inherited, but is based on the unfortunate reality that the thing on the plate is the same as the cute little thing on the farm. I know I must have adopted this concept at an early age, because I recall feeling appalled fury at a boy in my preschool class who took the unsuspecting snails out of their tank and stepped on them.

Most of the attitudes I’ve encountered haven’t seemed to change much over time.

“Vegetarians are stupid” is the bluntest of the accusations I’ve received – this one coming just recently in our eighth grade hallway from a guy flaunting an anti-Wendy’s flyer, sparking the debate that flares up every now and again at school. It’s only in hindsight that I realize that these heated I-wish-they-were-discussions-not-shouting-matches are generally divided by gender. Girls my age tend to be considerably more tolerant, even if they don’t adopt the practice of not eating meat themselves, because boys, in general, have macho stereotypes driven into their heads from babyhood.

The anti-Wendy’s flyer is waved tauntingly. “Meat is good,” comes the challenge, which lingers in the air. Whatever futile hope has caused me to take this bait all these years rises in me again. And so it begins. Detailed description – the cruelty the animals face, the fact that they can feel emotions and pain, even if they don’t have your intellect, thank-you-very-much. Wild rebuttal – ending with “Vegetarians are stupid,” and exasperated disappointment from me. It’s not worth it.

And yet, in a grasping-at-straws way, it is. It’s a success any time that you can make someone confront the cruelty involved in butchering animals, because getting people to face the truth is the hardest thing you can make someone do, and possibly the first step toward creating a change.

I’m not sure when vegetarianism became seen as a sign of weakness. Maybe it always has been. “It’s human nature to eat meat. The food chain and all that,” says my friend. And maybe it is human nature to eat meat, but it’s also human nature to use violence to get and keep political power, and yet many countries have incorporated democracy to overcome this problem. If we can overcome our natural tendency to physically fight for power, surely this October we can overcome the meat-eating part of our omnivore selves as well.

Chew on that.