A depressing work of staggering ignorance
Aug 4th
Oh, the epic screed I could write about this article in the New York Times.
First, the good news: a major newspaper put an article about mothers in the workforce in the Economy section, not Life & Style or the Moms Like Me! section, where most news items about women go to die.
But before David Leonhardt and his sub-editors go patting themselves on the back too hard, I’d like to point out the major flaws in the story. Lord knows I’d like to point out all the minor ones too, but I haven’t got time for that tedious process today.
First, Leonhardt assumes that the three female Supreme Court nominees he holds up as examples of women being forced to choose between family and career actually wanted children. Unless he’s been privy to private conversations with these women on their reproductive choices, I’m afraid this is what one would call Lazy Journalism. Man, I hate that! It’s why I decided against a full-on career in journalism in the end — I’m way too slothful for all that fact-finding and high-energy truthfulness. But at $2 a pop, I expect the New York Times to put down its $4 single scoop of ice cream, get up off the sofa and actually, I don’t know, write articles based on something besides gender stereotypes. Is it just me?
Anyway.
Here’s where Leonhardt’s article simultaneously caught my attention and pissed me off: the ol’ It’s All Feminism’s Fault™ trick, number 323,982 in an infinite series.
The fact that the job market has evolved in this way is no accident. It’s a result of policy choices. As Jane Waldfogel, a Columbia University professor who studies families and work, says, “American feminists made a conscious choice to emphasize equal rights and equal opportunities, but not to talk about policies that would address family responsibilities.”
In many ways, the choice was shrewd. The feminist movement has been fabulously successful fighting for antidiscrimination laws that require men and women to be treated equally. These laws have not eliminated the blatant sexism of past decades — think “Mad Men” — but they have beaten back much of it.
As a result, outright sexism is no longer the main barrier to gender equality. The main barrier is the harsh price most workers pay for pursuing anything other than the old-fashioned career path.“Women do almost as well as men today,” Ms. Waldfogel said, “as long as they don’t have children.”
Did you hear that, “shrewd” feminists of yore? You screwed up because when you demanded equality in the workplace, you didn’t also make the correct “policy choices” to ensure that mothers wouldn’t get the shaft. IT’S ALL YOUR FAULT!
Wait, what? You say that you weren’t in positions of power to make economic or social policies and that you did talk about these issues but were summarily ignored before resentfully being given the crappiest office in the building when you, as a senior manager, were finally removed from the typing pool where The Girls all sat? I think we all know that was a conscious choice on your part, Janet. [Note: Janet is the name of the 2nd wave feminist who participates in technically fictional but historically accurate role play situations in my head]
And was there any mention of the role men and their hundreds-years-old policies have played in women’s inability to break the glass ceiling? Was there anything in there about how if fathers took on more of the childcare and housework, women would be less likely to be pushed out of the labor force in staggering numbers? Was there even a smattering of meaningful analysis of gender roles, social pressure, paltry maternity leave, patriarchal attitudes and, yes, good ol’ workplace sexism?
Oh Janet, you were always a dreamer, weren’t you! I think it’s cute.
Risk vs. rights: the home birth debate
Jul 30th
On the BBC News website today, we learn that British medical journal The Lancet has published an article declaring home births “too risky” for infants and stating that, even though giving birth at home is associated with fewer risks for the mother (“shorter recovery time and fewer lacerations, post-partum haemorrhages, retained placentae and infections”) women should “not have the right to put their baby at risk.”
Well. Ain’t that sweet? It’s as if the women’s rights movement never happened! We are but pods, oh masterful overlords. Guide us in your infinite wisdom so that we may bear unto you the fruit of our wombs, and happily give of ourselves all that will never be granted us in return. Ommm.
But wait, hasn’t planned home birth been found to be just as safe as hospital birth for low-risk women? Yes. Yes it has. But that doesn’t matter because The Lancet has an explanation for those faulty data.
Data also frequently include misclassified cases, since studies usually look at newborn outcomes in relation to the actual rather than planned delivery location…Most studies also rely on different midwifery models for home delivery, which are not generalisable.”
Not generalisable? You mean like the different midwifery models and health care systems used (but not controlled for) in the AJOG study upon which The Lancet is basing its opinion? Comparing home birth in the UK (where trained midwives attend around 90% of births and where there is a free-at-the-point-of-use national health care system) with home birth in the US — where only 8% of births are attended by midwives (some of whom are not certified) and where affordable, accessible antenatal care is not always easy to come by — is like looking at apples and oranges and declaring them the same because they are round.
Putting aside the fact that the AJOG study conflates outcomes unique to significantly different countries with a cohesive, well-rounded, controlled study of planned home birth in nations under similar health care systems, there remains a big problem with any argument that gives ultimate authority to someone other than the mother: human rights. If you believe that all decisions about a competent person’s care should remain with the individual in question and that patients, no matter their ‘ailment’, have the right to take advice into consideration but ultimately reject it, without threat of censure if the desirable outcome does not materialise, then you can’t very well say that women, even those considered high risk, are ‘not allowed’ to opt for a home birth.
The reasons for this are two-fold: one, because the definition of ‘high risk’ is subjective and varies greatly from one trust, hospital and health care provider to another. Some women are told they are high risk because they are obese, or over 35, or because they had a previous caesarean section. Hell, my friend was told she was an unsuitable candidate for a home birth because there was limited parking nearby and her rug wasn’t washable! If parking spots and interior furnishings are enough to deny a woman her right to choose, what would become of those in more ‘sinister’ predicaments, like being old or fat? The concern is that maternity units will begin labelling otherwise healthy women as ‘high risk’ (even if they’re not) and refusing them home births due to their own staffing problems, convenience or biases. It already happens all the time (“If it’s a busy night you’ll have to come into hospital, dear”) so without an NHS-wide list of which conditions and situations would contraindicate a home birth, each woman desiring one would have to hope against hope that she was being correctly assessed by an objective, patient-centred, evidence-based, fully-staffed maternity service which, at the moment, the UK does not have.
Secondly, all of this is beside the point! Even if a woman was pretty unquestionably high-risk and would statistically be safer in hospital, it would be a violation of her autonomy, agency and, yes, her human rights, to be forcibly hospitalised for observation and interventions which she may not have consented to, ‘for the sake of the baby’. Take all of the arguments for being pro-choice and apply them here — until a baby is independent of its mother’s body, it is a woman’s choice what she does with it (and where and with whom).
The vast majority of births proceed normally (or would do if they weren’t interfered with) and need little medical assistance. Many births that would have been fine on their own are tinkered with, sped up or subject to impersonal, litigation-wary hospital policy, creating their own set of complications and crises. Some women, even if they don’t need or make use of the medical assistance, are comforted by having it on stand-by. That is how our current culture frames birth; Better safe than sorry! Just in case!
But some women feel much safer and at ease in their own environment, at home, and believe in their body’s ability to give birth. Punishing mothers for doing what is best for them on the minuscule off-chance of untreatable catastrophe for the baby is akin to berating a parent whose child choked to death on a piece of food while she was at work for leaving him with a trusted care provider who didn’t also happen to be a paediatric surgeon or emergency medical respondent.
Things happen. Tragedy happens. People die, including babies. It’s always horrible. It’s always sad. Sometimes it is preventable, sometimes it isn’t. And some people will never understand even considering taking that risk, no matter how small. I get that. It’s a visceral, emotional reaction to the cultural narrative we’ve become woven into; of harm reduction at all costs, of no child left behind and one loss being one too many.
But the thing is, there is ALWAYS a chance of complications, no matter which setting you choose. Women die in hospitals during or immediately after childbirth all the time, from haemorrhaging, fatal clots (often incurred after caesarean surgery) , infections (often acquired in hospital) or human error. In cases where a woman, or her baby, would have lived if they hadn’t been in hospital — if she hadn’t had the induction that led to the caesarean that led to the her fatal embolism or the baby’s respiratory failure — do we blame them? Do we ban hospital birth and say it’s risky? No. Because ALL birth carries some element of risk. Giving birth is giving life, and life comes with risk. Are we really so terrified of mortality, or so arrogant, as to think we can eliminate it completely?
Ensuring that pregnant women have all of the information and support they need to make the decision best for THEM (not some patronising attempt to strong-arm, scaremonger or strip them of their rights and give them to people who ‘know better’) — and then trusting and respecting that decision — is the only acceptable position on this, as far as I’m concerned.
And I am concerned. I’m very concerned about what this means for pregnant women’s rights. Are you?
The cleaner, the baker, the child care-taker
Jul 13th
We pay a lot of lip service to those who work with children, don’t we? Moulding young minds, shaping the future, the most difficult (but rewarding!) job in the world (after motherhood, of course)…blah, blah, blah. Yes, so rewarding and important and indispensable that we can justify paying teachers, and particularly early years child care workers, a pittance. Some argue that teachers have shorter days and a shorter working year than most, with more holidays and job security. Therefore, they don’t need/deserve as much. Some people, like a man on BBC London’s call-in radio show this morning, say teachers aren’t paid that well, no, but they can take on extra jobs after school hours and in the summer holidays to supplement their incomes.
Correction: male teachers, the currently able-bodied and well-connected, and those without school-age children can take on temporary, part-time jobs as it suits their schedule (but only if they can find one — they’ll be in fierce competition with teens looking for summer jobs and the unskilled unemployed during a recession). Many teachers, however, are women with school-age children themselves and who are the primary carers, or primary child care arrangers, for their families. If a teacher is not teaching, her children aren’t in school either. What, pray tell, would this male caller propose she do with her children while she shuffles off to a part-time job, perhaps in retail, caring or tutoring, one that is unlikely to even cover the costs of paying someone to look after them? I’m guessing the caller’s wife took care of all that, leaving him free to take on the building and courier jobs that supplemented his below-average income. Well bully for him. Must be nice living in a bubble of privilege where child care is sourced and performed by the Child Care Faeries.
But ‘regular’ teachers’ pay isn’t even the issue here. The actual topic of discussion on this radio show was whether it was fair for a head teacher of a state school in Lonodn, which is publicly funded, to be earning more than £230,000 a year while the teachers themselves faced pay freezes under new government budget slashing, and the cleaners at the same school earn £10,000 per year, which is not even a living wage. Many callers thought he earned this high salary because, at the end of the day (the most overused expression in Britain), he takes full responsibility for the school’s performance. Oh, the weight on his shoulders is heavy alright — earning 20 times as much as some of your staff must be quite a gold-plated burden indeed. Pulling up in the Jag, sliding into that Reserved spot, clutching your lambskin briefcase and Starbucks coffee as you wave to the cleaning crew straggling in off the public buses after being up since 5am getting their own children dressed, fed and off to school across town before coming into work to mop floors and scrub toilets for below the minimum wage…what a chore! So worth the ridiculous salary, that.
As is often the case, even in female-dominated sectors like schools, the people at the top get all the credit and pay with little regard for the machine, as it were, as a whole. Instead of looking at employment structure as a pyramid, with one person on top and the rest of the underlings trickling down en masse, it would be helpful to consider it as a cog with interlocking teeth. All the parts have to work perfectly and in harmony to make things run smoothly. If even one small bit breaks down, the whole machine comes grinding to a halt. That includes the cleaners, cooks and teaching assistants at a school.
But after all, as one caller said, pushing a mop around or serving spaghetti isn’t exactly rocket science. Neither is changing nappies, caring for babies or running a pre-school, apparently. It’s not until you get to the prestigious job of shaping those young minds and filling them with information (or propaganda and biases, if you’re not a fan of education with a capital E) that it becomes real work worthy of a high salary and oodles of respect. Funnily enough, these top jobs are more often than not filled by men, even though the vast majority of those working within the state school system are women. Why might that be? Let me scratch my chin for a bit here. I’m thinking it starts with P and ends in -archy.
It’s the same reason why women are cooks but men are chefs. It’s why stay-at-home mums aren’t given a second thought but stay-at-home dads are fawned over and patted on the back. It’s why even in mummy blogging, dads come out top. It’s why men working in unskilled jobs (grave diggers, bin men, street cleaners, etc..) for Birmingham Council were given ‘bonuses’ to supplement their paltry base pay while women working similarly-skilled jobs (cleaners, teaching assistants, carers, etc..) were kept in the dark about this practice and remained on the base salary.
Until roles traditionally performed by women are given the respect and remuneration they deserve and until our disgusting, capitalist ‘winner takes all’ system is turned on its head or gotten rid of altogether, we will continue to see men in tweed jackets and business suits growing rich and fat on the backs of women, the poor and the disadvantaged.
Baby weight is bullshit
Jul 7th
I got the following press release yesterday and couldn’t resist sharing. You too could have a ‘yummy mummy tummy’ if you’re willing to forego all other activities and dedicate yourself singularly to achieving your pre-pregnancy shape or carving out a whole new shape for yourself altogether! Imagine that.
My comments are in brackets.
GET A ‘YUMMY MUMMY TUMMY’ IN THE COMFORT OF YOUR OWN HOME
Having a newborn to look after is a full time job, leaving most new mums little time to think about anything more than grabbing some extra sleep when the opportunity arises [But don't! That would be selfish. Instead, tone that mound of flesh on your abdomen before the flab swallows you whole and you become - *whisper* - FAT!]. Despite wanting to snap back into pre-pregnancy shape overnight, reality for most is something of an uphill struggle made harder by the lack of time and energy to get out and exercise; a vicious cycle which in turn can dampen spirits and leave new mums feeling even more sluggish and tired [Exacerbated by the fact that new mums don't even have time to pee alone, let alone work out for an hour].
Janey Holliday founder and Director of Fit For A Princess [not surprised in the least by this name] - outdoor and online fitness for women, is a committed mum of twins; Harry and Monty, 18 months [Did you hear that, lazy, non-committed mums of mere singletons? TWINS. And damn it, she's COMMITTED!] Within seven weeks of giving birth Janey had gone from a 58 to 28 inch waist [Um, wasn't most of that baby? I think everyone's waist measurements go down considerably after they've given birth] and was back in her pre-pregnancy jeans. Janey followed her own GUT BUSTER programme which is about eating the right foods, having a healthy gut and working on activating muscles and regaining strength. If women start doing sit-ups too soon, its not only dangerous but can actually make your muscles dome out [But obviously it was okay for Janey because she was back in tip-top shape a mere seven weeks later! I suppose by 'too soon' they mean while your perineum is still being stitched. But once you're on the recovery ward...it's crunch time!]
Within 13 weeks, she was back in her exercise gear teaching her daily bootcamps at the crack of dawn in the middle of Winter [With a live-in nanny this is super-simple to arrange]! This impressive transformation was not the result of some crazy fad diet or excessive exercise regime to shed the baby pounds in record time, but simply a measured approach to sensible eating and exercise, the philosophy upon which Janey founded Fit For A Princess.
“Getting up early cold be perceived as hell for a lot of new Mum’s, but by ensuring I went to bed when the twins did, having a coffee before I left the house and playing uplifting music in my car on the way to the sessions, meant I had more energy here than any other time of the day. For me, and the Mum’s doing the bootcamp it was actually ME time – no babies, no house to tidy, no business to run, just a group of women chatting and gossiping while we worked out – heaven!”, Janey comments. [Wait. Do you mean that by sacrificing the entirety of my evenings and time spent with my partner or others, I can go to bed at 8pm and be ready to wake up at 4am for a little ab-toning and a gossip with the girls before returning to start my day as baby-wrangler and housekeeper? Sweet!]
However, for some, in the first few weeks and months, getting outdoors to do a class and finding both the time and energy to exercise is not always a reality [And for some, that struggle continues until the child leaves home at 18+; the horror!]. From her experience as a new mum coping with the juggling act of looking after her twins and herself, Janey has developed over 200 minutes of outdoor video workouts which are broken into 15 different sections and a variety of cartoon illustrated fitness ebooks, allowing Mum’s to fit in some highly effective exercises that can be done in stolen moments throughout the day, from the comfort and privacy of your front room. The exercises are aimed not just at helping to shift excess baby weight and tone new mummy tummies [is there a more horrid, insipid phrase?], but to boost energy levels and confidence through the positive effects of exercise. Plus you don’t have to be an exercise guru to do them! [Indeed. You need only be committed to choosing exercise over sleep, adult interaction, hobbies, fostering relationships or having 'Me time' that doesn't involve sweat or pain]
If you live in London or near one of the Fit a Princess franchisees and are settled into a routine and finding more time to get out and about, a 2 week bootcamp is a great way to kick start a new healthy approach to exercising, even if you haven’t exercised for a while. These intensive courses run throughout the year at baby-friendly times and are specifically designed to maximise inch loss, shape change and fitness levels, as well as providing an incentive to get out the front door into the fresh air and meet new, like minded people.
Exercise doesn’t have to be a burden and getting back into shape after having a baby needn’t feel like an unattainable goal [But it does need to be a goal!]. With the right approach and guidance, and a little bit of motivation [Just buy a few women's glossies and you'll be hating yourself in record time], you’ll be amazed at how quickly you’ll feel the positive benefits of exercise for both you and your baby [and your man and society, natch].
Downing Street goes family (time) friendly
Jun 7th
I was delighted to learn today that British Prime Minister David Cameron and his deputy, Nick Clegg, have taken to organising some Cabinet meetings around their children’s bedtimes and have expressed their desire to make this a regular occurrence so that they can remain involved with their family lives. Despite what I may think of their partnership and other policies, Cameron and Clegg seem to have taken a firm stance on the importance of spending time together as a family and a work-life balance by not just talking the talk but walking the walk, or at least trying to. And I admire that, even though I think Cameron’s definition of what a family is is entirely too narrow.
But of course, it wasn’t long before the criticisms of Cameron and Clegg’s new ‘flexitime’ practices started coming: ‘What the hell are they THINKING?! Shouldn’t their wives or nannies be doing that? These are important men with important, full-time jobs and a country to run! They need to sort out the economy, not doing little Johnny’s nappies and night-time sing-songs! Working parents all over Britain hardly get to see their children because of the demands their job(s) places on them; why should these rich boffins get to swan off home and rearrange meetings around their little dears?’
That was the sum of the content and comments on this Daily Mail article [I read them so you don't have to; believe me, it's a hot shower needed afterwards].
So, to sum up: Men should stick to the important stuff like running the country and making decisions about all of our lives and The Wives should shoulder the entire burden of childcare/rearing and household management (in addition to their own piddling ‘careers’ if they have one) because what you produce and how much you earn are more important than family and any man who doesn’t realise that is a threat to his own financial security and that of the World Order of Dudeliness And Other Masculine Pursuits.
No wonder we have such a long way to go in allowing women more options and flexibility in their professional lives and men more options and flexibility in their personal lives. Until we can break down these kinds of stereotypes, we’re just running in circles.
Guest post: It’s a MAD dad world
May 31st
If you follow the parent blogging world at all, you can’t have failed to have noticed the launch of the MADs Awards. That stands for Mums And Dads. You can read about them here. Stage 1 was nominations, when anyone could nominate anyone. And we did. Literally hundreds of blogs were nominated. We’re now at Stage 2. The most popular 5 blogs in each category have been named, and we’re all invited to vote on those top 5. Voting closes on 6th June.
When I looked at the list of finalists, I was very struck by the preponderance of Dads. Don’t get me wrong. There are some very fine Daddy bloggers out there, and their presence adds to the parent blogging mix. But I’m honestly a little puzzled why they feature quite so prevalently in the awards. I mean, it can’t be, can it, that they’re really so very much better than the Mummy bloggers?
Do the maths with me, if you will. There are 50 finalists. That’s 5 in each of the 9 categories, and 5 nominated for overall Best Blogger of the Year. Of these, 8 are male. That’s 16%. You’re thinking that’s not a very high percentage? Well, let’s put it against the percentage of Dad bloggers in the parent blogosphere, which I’ve taken to be British Mummy Bloggers. BMB has over 1,300 members now, and there are around 25 Dads. That works out at less than 2%. Is that 2% really so gifted that they deserve the disproportionate 16% of finalist places? If the ratios were proportionate, there would be over 200 Dad members of BMB – nearly 10 times the actual number. And what about this? For the top accolade of Best Blogger of the Year, they are in the majority. Yes, 3 out of the 5 nominees for Best Blogger are Dads. Is it not surprising, in any sphere, if a 2% minority of the population produces 3 out of the 5 candidates for top recognition?
What to make of this? Well, I’d like to be really angry about it, because that would have given the opportunity for a clever title to this post along the lines of “Why I’m truly a MAD finalist”. But I find it hard to be angry, because the awards have been designed very democratically. Bloggers nominated fellow bloggers, so who can we point the finger of sexism at here? It’s at ourselves, isn’t it? And when I look at myself, I can see how that happens. It’s partly the novelty value of a man’s viewpoint in what is predominantly a woman’s world. A Dad blogger arrests the attention, as a woman in the board room does, or a lady doctor used to (did we really call them that?). They stand out simply for being different.
I think it’s more than that, though. I sense in myself something that wants to reward a man for being a good father more than a woman for being a good mother (and I’m not, by that, implying that blogging equates to good parenthood). If I see a father accompanying his child on a school field trip, I feel that he must be a good dad, as he’s taken a day off work to do so. If I see a mother who has a full-time job on a field trip, do I feel the same? I don’t think I do. How often have I read in the blogosphere of a mum who is going away for a week-end on her own, and there’ll be a comment “How lovely that your partner is so supportive and is happy to look after the children on his own for a whole week-end”. Do we feel the same way when a husband goes away? I don’t think we do. I know a lot of this stuff is wrapped up in practicalities, bread-winning, role patterns and daily norms, and of course it may be a bigger hurdle for the woman to let go of her parental responsibilities and duties than for the man to step up to them (I’ll put my hand up to that one.) But at an emotional level, I think we love to love a man who’s being a father, more than we allow ourselves to love ourselves for being mothers.
It’s the same syndrome by which men who are chefs or primary school teachers seem to do so well in those careers. It’s almost as if we’re so flattered that these individuals will enter our women’s world, that we want to reward them with our favour. I know it’s more complicated than that. Those men may typically have more time to devote to their careers, or may be more ambitious, or may value promotion and publicity more than their female colleagues. But I do also sense that there’s some kind of self-destruct button that we women press, to allow them to thrive so successfully. It seems we get all star-struck by the dads in our female midst, and assume that their voices are more worth listening to than our own, and that their achievements are more valuable.
It’s interesting to see which other categories the men fared well in. There’s 1 nominated for Best Writer, 2 for Most Innovative Blog, and 2 for Funniest Blog. Am I reading too much into these to see them as representing the characteristics that we admire in men? Perhaps. I don’t want to get carried away here. I hesitated to write this post. It’s going to sound awfully like sour grapes if I don’t win, isn’t it? That’s why I’m publishing it now, before we know who the winners are. Of course I’d love it if you voted for me, but I hope this post will persuade you to do so on the basis of my writing, not my gender – because that would miss the point rather, wouldn’t it?
Iota Manhattan blogs at Not Wrong, Just Different and is a UK-to-US transplant. She describes herself as “an erstwhile civil servant, then fundraiser (arts and voluntary sector). Now Mum/Mom at home.” She likes reading, going to the cinema and a good cup of tea.
The hypocrite in the room: Views on female sexuality
May 16th
I wrote last month about the uproar caused by Primark’s padded bras for little girls and why I think the outrage was misplaced. I said:
Why would we expect a little girl, who so desperately wants to emulate the older girls and women around her (including the ones she sees on billboards, TV and music videos), to understand that aspiring to have the body and looks that she knows will be expected of her when she’s older is somehow wrong or shameful as a child? What is it about female beauty standards that we are so horrified when children copy them? Is it because we fear they will ‘grow up too soon’, or because we know that those beauty standards are harmful by nature, no matter one’s age?
and
The sexualisation of children is a problem, yes. But the chicken that laid this rancid egg is not paedophilia or evil retailers bent on making children grow up before their time — it’s the continuing sexualisation of women and the perpetuation of gender stereotypes. Without either of those, padded bras for little girls wouldn’t have even entered a retail executive’s head. At the way our culture stands, can you really blame Primark for simply maintaining the status quo?
And now we learn there is yet another zOmG The Children!! outrage, but this time it’s about some eight and nine-year-old girls performing a routine at an urban dance competition to Beyonce’s ‘Single Ladies’, complete with ‘sexy’ dance moves and skimpy, sparkly outfits. The video went viral a few days ago and has been circulating all over the United States of Paranoia America and beyond.* This is, of course, causing the world’s morality neurons to implode.
High priestess of judgmental parenting, Jessica Gottlieb, wrote about it here and let’s just say she did not approve. This is the same woman who thinks we should accept that breastfeeding and bringing children out in public are going to be frowned upon by a large segment of society and we should just learn to accept that and adjust our lives accordingly. So while I really don’t care what Ms. Gottlieb herself has to say about this particular controversy, the fact that so many people have jumped on the Oh My God What Little Sluts bandwagon has disturbed me. In fact, one dad wrote a blog post about it entitled Stop Slutting Up Our Girls [hey, did you know that 'slut' was now a verb as well --neat, eh?!], in which he notes:
I have a daughter. I see the way she is marketed to. I’ve taken her shopping and seen the outfits that hang on display. Most of it is fine, but so much of it is far from that. Sure, sex sells, but do we need to be selling it to girls so young that they haven’t even developed yet? There is no reason for that.
He also wrote
Parents, you are the last line of defense here. The old saying that sex sells is a fact and we all know it. That is never going to change, but does sex have to sell in your house? No, it doesn’t. This is a problem that parents are allowing to happen. Complain all you want about what is happening in our world, but the more active you are as a parent and not allow things like this to happen the better we all will be.
First, let’s get something out of the way. Whether you think ‘suggestive’ dancing and ‘sexy’ outfits are appropriate for children or not, the fact is that these things are both culturally-approved expressions of female sexuality (or sad demonstrations of deep-rooted patriarchal norms that centre the male gaze above true female sexual desires, depending on your view). Putting the onus on parents (i.e. mothers) to police their daughters’ actions, behaviours and dress to ensure they receive just enough social conditioning to be a ‘good’ and ‘normal’ female (pretty, thin, nice, deferential, morally upright, sexy but not too sexy, smart but not too smart) but being super careful to not let them cross the line into ‘bad’ or ‘abnormal’ female behaviours (not adhering to beauty and body standards, being a ‘bitch’, expressing sexuality in a way that could be construed as ‘slutty’, ’easy’ or, horror of horrors, queer, challenging authority, prioritising education or career over marriage and motherhood) is deeply problematic, not least because it is largely an exercise carried out on our daughters, not our sons, and the blame for a girl not ‘turning out well’ is often assigned to the mother, who is presumed to have undertaken the majority of childrearing. How often do we see or read about a child doing something ‘bad’ and someone’s immediate response is, “Where is that child’s mother?”
Of course, when it comes to policing female sexuality, fathers are, for once, actively encouraged to participate in parenting by being the monitor of skirt length, cleavage depth and worthiness of any male suitors that come a’knocking. A perceived breach of this fatherly ‘guarding’ of his daughter’s sexuality puts a man well within his rights to threaten said suitors with physical violence or intimidation, and his daughter under lock and key until she proves she can keep her legs shut. The idea that a girl or woman’s sexuality is ‘owned’ by her father until she ‘gives’ it to her chosen partner (who will then ‘take’ her virginity) reinforces the notion of Women As Property and their bodies the currency of power between men.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: We will never be rid of the sexualisation of girls until we are rid of the sexualisation of women. The problem is that we have become so immune to the harm that objectification has on women (who all start out as little girls) that we are blind to its roots. Notice how the dad from the ‘Slutting it Up’ article blithely notes (twice) that “sex sells,” indicating that this is an inevitable and acceptable argument for marketing women’s sexuality once they are deemed adult enough. Being okay with women’s bodies being used to please others and sell products but being abhorred by the same treatment of girls is not only ignorant but hypocritical. The argument that children are innocent and therefore need protecting from these kinds of messages and influence is completely sidelining the fact that children, regardless of how much we ‘protect’ them, are growing up seeing women’s bodies and beauty being admired above all else. They see their fathers and other men they respect buying the Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue or ogling topless Page 3 girls. They see how much praise and acclaim women’s looks get them. They see half-naked women with makeup-caked, come-hither eyes on every billboard and on the front of every magazine cover they pass. They see videos like the one for Beyonce’s ‘Single Ladies’, one that won many awards and was highly praised by adults for being ‘sexy’ and ‘innovative’ and they know that when their time comes, they too will be rewarded and praised if they can look and move like the dancers on the screen. So when we get upset at the sexualisation of girls but embrace it wholeheartedly once those girls become women, is it any wonder that cultural influence wins out over individual parents’ attempts to discourage and minimise it?
If you’re not comfortable with seeing girl children copy these grown-up behaviours, don’t be so complicit in accepting the behaviours they were copying in the first place. If you’re a father and the thought of your little girl gyrating on a pole is too much to bear, don’t visit strip clubs when you’re out with the guys. If you’re a mother who invests heavily in adhering to beauty standards, don’t be surprised when your daughter won’t leave the house without eyeliner and lipstick and gets a boob job to ‘feel good about herself.’ If you’re disgusted by the thought of a 7-year-old wanting a padded bra, be disgusted at all the ads featuring women’s breasts.
Until we start respecting women, little girls will never respect themselves enough to make truly independent, autonomous choices that reflect their own dreams, desires and talents. Instead, they will move through life knowing the world is a voyeur and they must perform; that their sexuality is a product that must be consumed and devoured, until their beauty fades and their bellies sag, when the world will be finished with them. And when they become mothers themselves, they will start the cycle all over again, training their own daughters to run on the same hamster wheel that enslaves us all.
If you want to get off the wheel, stop complaining while you run to keep up. Instead, grab a hammer and help smash the damn thing apart.
*The video has been taken down now but clips of it can be viewed by clicking through here
Hat-tip to Kelly for suggesting I write about this
Full-time mother: occupation?
May 2nd
A site called Full Time Mothers reported yesterday that a woman whose sole job is to care for her children was successful in convincing the General Register Office to allow her (and, presumably, any other women in her position) to use ‘full time mother’ instead of ‘housewife’ or ‘home-maker’ as an occupational title on her child’s birth certificate.
Karen, now full-time mum to four children said : ‘Although I appreciate that all mothers are mothers all the time, whether out in paid work or looking after their children, there is clearly a significant difference, which would affect all kinds of socio-economic analysis, between holding a paid job and arranging various forms of childcare, and taking care of your own children all the time as your only job.’
She continued: ‘It is important to me personally that my children’s birth certificates accurately reflect my occupation at the time of their birth, but surely it should also be important to the Office of National Statistics that all information gathered can be used to analyse the actual situation of our population.’
Karen felt strongly that ‘housewife’ or ‘home-maker’ were not adequate descriptions of her daytime occupation, since her main activity during the day is caring for her young children, not cleaning the house, as this gets done in the evenings when the children are asleep, not unlike ‘life-before-children’ when the couple tackled domestic chores after returning from their daytime jobs.
Karen explained: ‘ You could easily define yourself as a house-wife or home-maker and in fact not have any childcare element in your day at all!’
While I agree with much of what Karen says, I’m still uncomfortable with the term ‘full-time mother,’ for exactly the reasons she mentioned in the first paragraph. We’re all mothers, all the time, no matter where we are or how many hours we spend caring for our children. Would a different term be more suitable and less dismissive of those women who do work outside the home? I know I personally hate ‘housewife’ and ‘home-maker’ too. Stay-at-home mum isn’t much better. Could ‘Primary care provider’ or ‘At-home parent’ be a valid alternative? Does it even matter?
I’m interested to hear your opinions, whether you work solely at home or also in a paying job. What do you think?
Provocation and a culture of violence
Apr 30th
Peter Harvey, a 49-year-old science teacher in England, was acquitted yesterday of attempted murder charges for the attack he launched on a 14-year-old boy who had “provoked” him in the classroom and who was “badly behaved.” Mr. Harvey dragged the student down to the ground by the neck and struck him on the head twice with a dumbbell, fracturing the boy’s skull, while shouting, “Die, die, die!” According to the article:
After the verdicts, Judge Michael Stokes QC, who had earlier questioned the decision to prosecute the teacher, said “common sense has prevailed” [emphasis mine]. He said Mr Harvey would not be imprisoned or face a suspended jail term when he returns for sentencing on 21 May.
The teacher never denied assaulting the boy and his case hinged on the argument that, already mentally ill, he was driven to breaking point by an unruly class of badly behaved pupils at All Saints’ Roman Catholic School in Mansfield, Nottinghamshire, last July.
Mr Harvey, who admitted causing grievous bodily harm without intent, told police he felt as if he was watching himself on television as he beat his 14-year-old victim twice about the head. The teenager suffered a fractured skull and spent five days in hospital but has since recovered.
Now, I do have some sympathy for Mr. Harvey in that he was obviously struggling emotionally and mentally and was seeking help for this but, nonetheless, his violent outburst cannot be justified and should not be excused. I have to wonder if even just one variable were changed if the outcome of his case would have been different. What if, for example, the child had been a girl? What if instead of a teacher, it was the child’s mother who attacked him because she ‘snapped’? What if the teacher had done this to his wife, not a student? Somehow, I think the sympathy would have been much less in any of these situations.
The message being broadcast is that male-on-male violence is acceptable, even inevitable. Young boys are learning that negative or undesirable behaviour can be punished with aggressive retaliation. They are learning that some of the adults closest to them, responsible for their very safety and well-being, can physically assault them — be it through spanking, smacking or beatings — and that size and strength are proponents of power over those of lesser size and influence. They are learning that we do not always protect the vulnerable and, instead, protect the ‘common sense’ approach to violence which is, ‘If they deserved it, it’s okay.’ They are learning that using their bodies to resolve situations in which they are angered is an appropriate response and that so long as they felt that the person in question had deliberately incited them, all will be forgiven, or at least understood.
Shifting blame from the attacker onto the victim is something that feminists are already familiar with, in our campaigns against domestic violence and sexual assault. Advocates have worked tirelessly to spread the message that ‘provocation’ as a justification for violence is never acceptable, especially when dealing with someone smaller and/or more vulnerable than oneself. It is not acceptable to strike your partner across the face, no matter how spiteful or offensive her words. It is not acceptable to beat your child unconscious, no matter how stressed you were or how badly he was behaving. It is not acceptable to rape a woman because she ‘provoked’ you with her short skirt and flirtatious smiles.
Let’s stop blaming the victims and address the real problem — a culture that tells children not to hit but then models violent behaviour, essentially handing them a big Stick of Justification with which to attack anyone who ‘provokes’ them later in life.
Reply turned post: What is ‘work’?
Apr 19th
I left this rather long comment on Catherine Redfern’s post on The F-Word, which was about the Conservatives’ proposed tax break for married couples but quickly turned into a bit of commentary on whether the ideal of one parent at home with the children is harmful to women. In the post, Catherine included a poster from a 1947 magazine encouraging women to “try to free yourself for work” to help the economy and wondered if, with the idolisation of motherhood, the reverse would soon be true — posters extolling us to stay at home where we belong.
While I understand and agree with Catherine’s dislike of the tax break for married couples, which, as she rightly says, would be largely irrelevant and, even worse, ignores the diversity and complexity of modern families, I do take issue with the idea that one parent (usually the mother) being at home with the children is undesirable, unattainable or even unnecessary. Is it, as it stands, an unfair and flawed system that puts women at a disadvantage? Yes. But I don’t think the answer is simply making working outside the home unavoidable and staying at home some kind of insult to the sisterhood (not that this is what Catherine insinuated; this is what many stay-at-home mothers have told me it feels like).
It’s such a complex issue and one that I’ve been thinking about a lot as I’ve been reading this fascinating analysis of the value of ‘women’s work’ in economic journalist Ann Crittenden’s 2001 book The Price of Motherhood: Why the most important job in the world is still the least valued. I’m only halfway through and it has already challenged and altered the way I’d been approaching the solution for the modern mother’s dilemma of combining work and family. I still have lots more reading and thinking to do on the subject but I’m seeing things from a slightly different angle for the first time in ages and it is wholly refreshing. I’ll be doing a review of the book once I’m finished with it.
My comment on The F-Word post is below [altered slightly for clarity].
I have to say, it can be a bit tiresome hearing all about how incredibly privileged and wealthy those who stay home, even part of the time, must be — I stay home with my children and work a part-time job from home (as do many of the working and middle class women in my area who can’t afford full-time child care but must work to some extent, though not many are able to do their jobs from home and instead work nights or weekends) and while there are undoubtedly some privileges in that, they certainly aren’t economic. My caring labour is worth absolutely nothing in economic or social terms because what I do is supposed to be a ‘labour of love,’ not worthy of compensation. There’s an awful lot of talk about how important raising children is and how motherhood is so great, blah blah blah, but talk is cheap when actions belie the opposite.
When I do re-enter the ‘proper’ workforce my skills will be considered outdated, unpolished and worth even less than they were before. I will earn much less over my lifetime than a man, a woman without children and those mothers who returned to work when their paid maternity leaves (if they got one) were up. I’ll be more at risk for poverty when I’m retirement age as my pension will have suffered greatly in the years when I was ‘not contributing’. While I might be privileged in staying home with my children now, I am paying a ‘mummy tax’ that will have a knock-on effect for the rest of my life. Again, that’s not to say I’ve got it rough because lord knows I’ve got it easy compared to so many women working their fingers to the bone night and day, but merely to point out that even those of us ‘privileged’ enough to stay at home are paying for it one way or another.
One can’t put raising children or managing a household on one’s CV as it is seen as irrelevant. And it will continue to be seen as irrelevant, even undesirable, as long as only labour that falls outside of the domestic sphere is treated as “real” work. Women who stay at home ARE working. It’s just that our contributions to society aren’t counted in economic terms, even though they are great.
Saying that a child would be better off with one-to-one or small group care (which doesn’t have to be a parent) isn’t judgmental, it’s a pretty indisputable fact. That so many families are forced to put their children into cheap, large-group care where they aren’t given the individual attention they deserve (even though the care may be adequate for its purposes) is not acceptable or at least desirable. If women are expected to be proficient consumers and workers as well as primary caregivers, we need much better caring systems, heavily subsidised by the state, and with much better-paid and trained workers, along with more flexible working options for both parents. Don’t forget that one of the demands of the second wave movement was free 24/7 child care. We seem to have let that one fall by the wayside, leaving individual mothers in the lurch to fight that battle on their own.
Counting on men to step up the plate and start doing an equal amount of childrearing and housework hasn’t worked so far and, short of an economic and social revolution, doesn’t look likely any time soon, no matter how many baby steps have been made. Men are also constrained by long-established economic pressures and gender stereotypes. I fear that placing all of our hopes for change on fathers’ ability to break though rigid societal structures is going to leave us, and our children, waiting in the wings for a very long time. We can and should work towards a more equitable division of household and caring labour, not to mention an overhaul of gender stereotypes, but it has proven to be a slow, arduous process. In the meantime and in concert with those efforts, we should be working to value (both societally and economically) women’s work as primary caregivers and essential parts of our communities. We should make it easier for women to work, yes, but we should also make it easier for them (or their partners) to stay at home when their children are young if that’s what they want. And there’s nothing ’1950s housewife’ (read: derisory) about that.