motherhood

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

Sandra Tsing Loh’s new book, Mother on Fire: A True Motherf%#$@ Story About Parenting! comes out this month and I give her brilliant f&#%g credit for the subtitle. For a taste of Loh, see her latest, “I Choose My Choice!” in The Atlantic. (Thanks, Heather, for the heads up!)

Oh, how men take pride in their sperm.

As a fertility specialist cum (hey no pun – it’s Latin) interview subject recently told me, often when a man learns that his sperm are plentiful, mobile, and strong, he’ll proclaim right then and there: “My guys are good! My guys are good!” Meanwhile, awaiting her diagnosis, his partner will slowly retreat back in her chair. And get this: even in an era when severe male factor infertility is one of the diagnoses most easy to treat, some guys who go in with their partners for fertility workups refuse to go through with the semen analysis because they’re too afraid of the results. For more on all this, of course, check out Sperm Counts: Overcome [pun intended] by Man’s Most Precious Fluid by sociology and women’s studies prof Lisa Jean Moore, a book I blogged about here a while back.

So with all that as a prelude, I thought I’d start out the week by karmically balancing the universe. Color me 1970s, but I firmly believe that more women should greet the news that their ovaries are working with “My Girls Are Good!” Or something like that. “Girls” doesn’t quite cut it. Any one out there got an alternative expression for ovum pride? I’m taking suggestions.

It’s my delight, as always, to bring you this guest post from GWP regular Virginia Rutter, prof of sociology at Framingham State College, to whom I send out a big batch of xxoo! -Deborah

Three quick hits this afternoon (courtesy Rebekah Spicuglia) regarding new info about women’s health here and abroad:

Saving Mothers, One at a Time
7/15/08
NY Times: According to a 2007 study of global maternal mortality rates, more than two-thirds of deaths among Malawian women of reproductive age are linked to pregnancy or childbirth – a larger proportion than in any of the 171 countries in the study.

Teen Sexual Behavior Does Not Predict HPV Risk
7/16/08
RHRealityCheck.org: A teen’s sexual activity doesn’t predict her future risk for HPV, and shouldn’t determine whether she receives the HPV vaccine, according to University of Michigan researchers. HPV, genital human papillomavirus, is the most common sexually transmitted infection, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Study Questions Breast Self-Exams
7/15/08
Boston Globe: Although most women are told to examine their breasts every month for lumps, new research confirms that the practice – on its own – may do more harm than good. Self exams, and those by healthcare providers, actually produce an increase in benign biopsies, but don’t get the patient into treatment earlier or save her life.

(Image is from Women’s Health 2009: The 17th Annual Congress)

Those MotherTalk-ers have got it going on. They’ve just launched a matchmaking service for Books Seeking Reviewers, called Connections. The listings it seems are typically from authors or small presses who are looking for online reviewers but not a full-blown blog tour. To submit your own book for a listing, email info@mother-talk.com with 500 characters or less and include the book title(s) and contact information. To become a reviewer, get in touch with Melissa at melissa@mother-talk.com. Among others, they are currently seeking reviewers for Mama PhD for a blog tour that starts July 30.

And yet another reason I’m BUMMED I won’t be at BlogHer this year: The MotherTalk “First Drink On Us” party at BlogHer on Thursday, July 17th from 5-8 pm at Caruso’s. They’ll be giving away nearly 300 fabulous books, and author Shari MacDonald Strong will be on hand to sign copies of The Maternal Is Political.

I know, I know. I have a good excuse. I’m getting married. (Have I mentioned that?! YIKES – it’s now 2 weeks away!)

Thank you, all, for your comments on yesterday’s post about Rebecca and Alice Walker (Mama Drama Take 2), and to all those you emailed me privately to share thoughts. I’m again subverting the post/comment convention to share some highlights because, as always, you GWP readers have so much insight to share:

Gloria Feldt: “I would have found Rebecca’s article amusing if it hadn’t been such sad statement about how women–once again–are damned if they do and damned if they don’t have a life beyond mothering.”

Sally: “I think that while it’s more about her own issues with her mother than it is about feminism & motherhood, it opens up the discussion about the pressures of motherhood and feminism.”

Anniegirl1138: “That was a terribly sad accounting of a childhood and if all true than she certainly does have cause to be upset about it. Past a certain point though our parents failings cannot be blamed for who we are as adults.”

Renee Siegel,: “I’m proud to be Debbie’s mom even if Debbie (GWP) experienced me as ‘overly available.’ Relationships need constant nourishing, interaction, and even conflict to continue to grow and evolve. What matters to me is not just conflict, but the repair of broken times when feelings that are hurt can be repaired and oxygenated in order to survive….Relationships are not static things to be put on shelves once we pass childhood. It’s a lot of work, but well worth it when two people love and respect each other. It is particularly sad if a mother cannot enjoy her daughter’s success and happiness in whatever the daughter choses as a path in life. This works two ways– daughters can be proud of their mothers, as well.”

I interrupt this post for the following message: Mom, I am so incredibly proud of you, and who you’ve become.

When I was writing my book Sisterhood, Interrupted, I knew that my manuscript submission deadline was to be but an arbitrary end. I could have kept writing and writing and writing. Because mama drama (Chapter 5) is a story that just doesn’t quit.

In a recent issue of The Daily Mail, Rebecca Walker writes, “My mother may be revered by women around the world – goodness knows, many even have shrines to her. But I honestly believe it’s time to puncture the myth and to reveal what life was really like to grow up as a child of the feminist revolution.” Rebecca is a colleague of mine, and a peer. She contributed an essay to my anthology Only Child. I’m saddened to hear, as she reveals in The Mail, that she’s having trouble conceiving a second of her own. But publicly blaming her mother, and through her mother, flaming feminism, seems extreme.

Like Rebecca, I’m starting my journey to motherhood later. Had it not been for feminism, I might have stayed married to a first husband who was wrong for me (we divorced). Had it not been for feminism, and more specifically, the Pill, I might have conceived in my early twenties, a time when I was still growing up myself and would have failed miserably at motherhood. And let’s face it: had it not been for feminism, I would not be a writer publishing feminist articles and books–including some that question and critique the movement’s hot contentions and debates.

Like Rebecca, I too have had my share of conflict with my mother. We’ve screamed, fought, brought each other to our therapists, and duked it out. My mother is not a famous feminist, and to be sure she’s been ever present in my life–perhaps unlike Alice Walker in that regard, according to Rebecca’s account. My mother was overly available, and therein our troubles began. As one of the writers in our Only Child anthology puts it, sometimes we onlies can long for neglect.

Yes, my mother-daughter troubles were of the fixable variety. Perhaps Rebecca and Alice’s are not, and perhaps it is unfair for me to even compare. The personal is by all means political; when your mother is Alice Walker, no doubt those boundaries are bound to slide. But when Rebecca writes that “Feminism has much to answer for denigrating men and encouraging women to seek independence whatever the cost to their families,” I fear she is revealing far less about a movement and more about herself.

Image cred

This is why I love CCF, which I blog about here a lot because they’re just such darn good providers in the knowledge business. This week they’re issuing a press release on the importance of a time use survey, with contemporary spin and flair–and an important message with policy application: “Save ATUS.” What’s ATUS you ask? Here’s a sneak peak at the release, courtesy of Virginia Rutter, who just sent it to me. Feel free to pass it on!:

Making Time for Work and Family: Got Data?

For Family Social Scientists, the American Time Use Survey Provides Valuable Information on Work, Family, and How We Endure the Conflict between the Two

June 4, 2008 Chicago Il —- Mothers do more paid work—14 hours more—than they did 40 years ago. They do less housework—exactly 14 hours fewer—too. But they do 4 hours more of childcare than in the past. How do we know? Suzanne Bianchi, University of Maryland sociologist, and her colleagues used the American Time Use Survey (ATUS), a time diary study that has been collected by the Bureau of Labor Statistics since 2003.

Dads are stepping up in new ways too. Men have steadily increased their participation in housework and child care over the past 30 years. And contrary to claims of some earlier studies, dads who work less than full-time don’t use their extra time just to watch TV. Part-time worker dads do more housework (about an hour more) than full-time worker dads, and about 40 minutes more childcare. We know about these changes thanks to forthcoming work from Liana Sayer (Ohio State University) and Sanjiv Gupta (University of Massachusetts at Amherst) in which they analyzed the 2003-2005 ATUS.

But if women have given up 14 hours a week of housework and taken on 14 more hours of paid work, what else have they given up to put in 4 more hours of childcare? Here the news may be less rosy. It appears that social bonding with spouse, kin, and friends is being sacrificed to the higher standards for time with children. Bianchi and colleagues’ analysis of the ATUS reveals that, compared to 20 years ago, married working moms now spend less time with their spouse—while single moms spend less time with friends and family.

SCIENCE HELPS US KEEP UP WITH SOCIAL CHANGE
These facts illustrate the on-going revolution in how Americans spend their time—what they do at work, how men and women organize family schedules, and how children and teens spend their days. To understand changes in family life and to guide policy makers—and families themselves—about the best ways to adjust to new patterns of work and parenting, researchers collect such information. This in turn becomes the basis for news stories, advice columns and television programs that citizens rely on—and are hungry for.

The American Time Use Survey is one of those key resources. (For more information on ATUS visit http://www.bls.gov/tus/home.htm and www.saveatus.org.) As researcher Bianchi explains, “ATUS provides essential information about how Americans spend their time—time spent caring for children, cleaning the house, working for pay, and caring for sick adults.” We all rely on these jobs being done in order to keep our society running well: but it is vital for us to know how, when, and by whom they are done in our changing social world.

“The Council on Contemporary Families uses this kind of scientific research in order to understand the complex and changing dynamics of the family,” reports Evergreen State College Professor Stephanie Coontz, CCF’s Director of Research and Public Education. “Many CCF briefing papers and fact sheets rely on data from the time-use studies.” (A host of examples are at http://www.contemporaryfamilies.org/briefpapers.php.)

“The complexity of coordinating families’ work and school schedules with the need for health care, down time, cultivation of intimacy, and everyday chores presents new challenges to couples, parents, and children in the way they spend their days,” explains Coontz. “Changes in time use help us understand how families cope with modern stresses–and also what happens when they cannot cope. Right now, the economy is slowing down, but many families find themselves speeding up. Unless we keep on top of these changes, we cannot analyze what kinds of practical support and information families need. Making sure that the data continue to be collected is an issue that cuts across partisan divisions, uniting family researchers from many different points of view.”

For further information on the American Time Use Survey, visit http://www.bls.gov/tus/home.htm.

WELL DONE, CCF!

Some interesting tidbits today, once more, on momhood:

First, an interesting article by Paul Nyhan in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, reporting that the gap between the demands of work and home in 2008 remains wide, far wider for those sitting on the bottom and in the middle of the wage scale, according to Virginia Rutter, a senior fellow with Council on Contemporary Families. They have less money for child care and often face meager benefits at work.

In another twist, older moms are more likely to keep working after having children than younger moms, according to an analysis of federal data by former Bureau of Labor Statistics economist Charlotte Yee. In 2004, 67 percent of moms age 30 to 44 were in the labor force after having their first child, compared with 56 percent of moms in the 20 to 24 age range.

And finally, a propos of this weekend’s grand opening of Sex and the City, a Slate article reports that one of the three married mommies innocently trailing their little tyke is cheating. Wowza. The data comes from a new “Sex and the American Mom” survey conducted by Cookie magazine and AOL Body and apparently filled in by 30,000 women. Researchers, does this data ring true?