In The News
Downing Street goes family (time) friendly
7I 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.
The hypocrite in the room: Views on female sexuality
22
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
Emulating oppression
9
The media, most parents and just about everyone, really, have been in a tizz about the latest Child Sexualisation Horror, a padded bikini top for 7-year-olds being sold in Primark. Parents’ and children’s groups called for the bikinis to be removed, saying it sexualised young girls and made them targets for paedophilia.
While I don’t deny the former, I completely disagree with the latter assumption, that sexualisation leads to paedophilia. Linking the way a female (be it a young girl or adult woman) dresses with her susceptibility to sexual assault and violence is at best misguided and at worst incredibly harmful. Let’s get this straight once and for all: the clothes we wear do not make us into victims; only those who would abuse and assault us do that.
While it may be comforting to think that if we only dress and act in the ‘right’ way that we won’t become victims of abuse, it’s simply not true. The continued acceptance of this myth is not only incredibly harmful to women and girls but allows their assailants to justify, excuse and continue their crimes. While everyone is tutting at the girl in the short skirt or padded bra, a predator snatches his ‘modestly-dressed’ prey.
And as for whether Primark was wrong to sell the item in question, I’m not so sure that the answer is as simple as the resounding ‘Hell yes!’ coming from all quarters. Again, it seems nice and easy to blame the retailer for making these ‘offensive’ items but let’s dig a little deeper. 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?
While it is of course disturbing to think of girls as young as seven wanting to have large breasts or wear lots of make-up, is it really so different from the ways in which young boys emulate the stereotypically masculine behaviour around them? Just because the emphasis is less on their bodies and more on their behaviour doesn’t mean that this modelling is any less harmful. Boys of seven who want to copy those fathers who subscribe to macho standards will know that they are expected to like and play at rough or violent endeavours like war and sports, suppress their emotions, be physically strong and imposing and distance themselves from anything that could be construed as ‘girly’ or ‘gay’. Yet, we don’t seem to get too worked up when they are indoctrinated with these messages, many of which are harmful to their self-esteem and emotional growth, because we’ve deemed those sorts of behaviours as normal and inevitable. Teaching our boys to be emotionally distant and aggressive seems to be acceptable in our society but woe betide the little girl who wants to copy her mother or the ladies on TV. Talk about conflicting messages!
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?
Economic independence and the happy housewife
3
I had an interesting conversation with my husband last night about economic independence (and its sometimes-evil cousin, dependence) and what it means for women, particularly those in relationships in which their partner is abusive or adulterous. As you will know if you’ve been anywhere near a newspaper stand, television or computer, there have been two big ‘he cheated’ scandals in the media lately — golf star Tiger Woods on wife Elin Nordegren, and footballer Ashley Cole on wife and popstar Cheryl Cole (nee Tweedy). While Cheryl has reportedly dumped her philandering husband, Elin appears to be ‘standing by her man.’
What my husband wondered is whether Cheryl’s economic independence and social status as a star in her own right had anything to do with why she finally felt able to dump her cheating partner and if Elin’s significantly lesser status and economic wealth (in comparison to Tiger’s — she was a retail clerk, nanny and sometimes-model before they met) may have contributed to her willingness to give him another chance. My feeling? Yes and no. Aren’t I helpful? But hear me out.
I do think that Elin’s greater economic dependence on Tiger may have played a part in her decision, whereas Cheryl, who has largely created her own wealth and cemented her status as the (supposed) ‘Nation’s Sweetheart’ through her own actions, not her husband’s, was undoubtedly less concerned with what she would do and how she would get by if she were to leave Ashley. That said, there is a big difference between the two couples that has to be taken into consideration as well; the Woods had children and the Coles didn’t. Subsequently, it becomes a much, much tougher decision to make. The upheaval and trauma is a lot for any child to take on and no mother wants to subject her children to that unless it’s absolutely necessary for her own emotional health. Considering the added pressure of going through divorce in the very public eye and what that could do to her children, Elin may have made the choice that was right for her them, not her.
Having said that, I’m not one who thinks that a couple should necessarily split up when cheating has occurred. Every person, no matter their economic dependence on or independence from their partners and regardless of their parental or social status, will have a different reaction to being cheated on from the next person. There are women who are completely economically dependent on their partners and who have children with that person who still walk right out the door at the first hint of unfaithfulness, while many woman of their own financial means and without children will stay with cheating partners in the hopes that he or she will change and that they can put the affair(s) behind them. Some of the ones who stay go on to have happy, fulfilling relationships. Others aren’t able to. Some women who leave don’t regret their decision for a second while others wonder if they should have granted their partner a second chance. There is no easy, ready-made answer. And that’s just when we’re talking about already middle-class, relatively privileged people! When you look at women from economically and socially deprived areas and those in truly abusive relationships, not just adulterous ones, the stakes change entirely.
This put me in mind of an article I recently read in the Guardian (h/t to Brinkster) that wondered ‘Why do women want to be Wags?’ (Wives And Girlfriends (of footballers), for the uninitiated). In the piece, women who actively pursue marriage to footballers as a lifestyle or career move (and some of whom have been successful at this) were interviewed to find out if the publicly-held assumption of Wags as ‘gold-diggers’, ‘slappers’ and shamelessly self-absorbed Barbie dolls trading on their husbands’ hard work is true. I could pick apart the article piece by piece but, really, my response to it could be formulated having only read the title. Frankly, I’m a bit surprised that there’s anyone out there who doesn’t already know why women from disadvantaged backgrounds actively ‘chase’ men of wealth and status. Does the saying, “It’s the economy, stupid” ring any bells?
Instead of taking a long, hard look at why so many girls and young women feel their only hope of ever lifting themselves out of poverty is by capitalising on their looks and being completely reliant on male approval and the security a wealthy male can provide, the public seems bent on making these women look slightly sad and pathetic, and more than a little lazy. The question should not be ‘Why do women want to be Wags?’ but ‘Why is a woman’s perceived sexuality a commodity?’
There’s also a large element of class snobbery at play here — a large swathe of the middle and upper classes seem to think it’s only ‘those’ (read: ‘chavvy’ or ‘trashy’) girls who do this kind of thing and, therefore, are safe to mock and belittle. Refusing to recognise the lack of educational and employment options for these young women as their chief motivator in seeking fame and fortune and instead putting it down to some kind of innate character flaw of the poor and misguided is absolutely abhorrent, not to mention ignorant. These are undoubtedly the same people who complain of people ‘sponging’ off the government and some of whom sneer at women who stay at home looking after their children, claiming they have it easy in comparison to their poor, hen-pecked, worked-to-the-bone husbands.
And indeed, not that many people consider being a housewife or a stay-at-home mum ‘work’. Oh, sure, we get lip service about how we’re (cue the violins) doing the hardest, most important job in the world and how amazing and selfless we are, and all the rest of it, but when it comes to trying to secure a longer, better paid maternity leave to give more women that opportunity, we’re suddenly whiny, entitled breeders who should have saved up for our squawking brats if we wanted them or be prepared to work to support them from the day they’re born. No taxpayer money will be spent on the fruit of your womb, madam, regardless of how much you earn or have paid into the system yourself or been denied opportunities based on arbitrary things like skin colour or postcode.
Thinking about things like this makes me look at my own economic dependence on my husband and shudder with fear. While I absolutely love and trust him, know that our marriage is solid and that he considers my contribution to the household just as valid as his, I am undoubtedly at his mercy. If I found out he cheated on me today, would I be able to just pack up my things and leave, with only my principles and dignity to guide me? Unfortunately, I couldn’t. Even if I wanted to, I wouldn’t. I would have to think about where to go, how I would live, what I would do for money, how I would provide shelter and food for my children, how I would get my daughter to school and wash her uniform, not to mention the intense emotional fallout for both myself and my kids. Would it make me think more carefully about whether I should stay in the marriage and try to forgive him, because I am dependent on him? Definitely. Does that scare the hell out of me? Undoubtedly.
Our dependence on men and their control over numerous aspects of our lives has been conditioned into us and is indeed a reality many women face. While women still earn 17% less than men for doing the same job, while they continue to be the ones to sacrifice their educations and careers to be carers, while they are told that it’s more important to be pretty than to be smart, it’s not a surprise and not something that will be easily fixed. It’s a complex issue and one which I am glad the feminists of the second-wave took up and made great strides in. That far greater numbers of women in the Western world are able to make decisions about relationships based on their feelings and personal ambitions rather than worries over their financial security is indeed a blessing. But we still have a long way to go before our independence (and that of women in less developed areas of the world) is a real option and a real choice, not a matter of luck or circumstance.
A new kind of war story: PTSD in childbirth
11The following is a guest post from one of the most influential bloggers in my life. When I found her site I was just starting to get really interested in and writing about the intersection of mothering and feminism and the veritable minefield of hot-button issues out there. Among the nearest and dearest to me is birth advocacy. I’d written about birth issues before but Jill at The Unnecesarean helped inspire me to take that advocacy to the next level — activism. She is a fiercely feminist protector of women’s bodily rights, their choices and their lives. In short, she kicks ass. I am honoured to share her words on my site.
____________________________________________________
Via Lauredhel of FWD/Forward, who included the following warning:
WARNING: story of obstetric assault and PTSD symptoms. More accurately labelled “obstetric trauma”, not “birth trauma”.
In the article, How childbirth caused my PTSD, which appeared on Salon.com, Taffy Brodesser-Akner writes of being violated against her consent by a doctor while on Pitocin and Stadol.
The delivery of my son didn’t start with a rush of water, or cramps that left me hunched. It was a decision, an edict, and with it, the drip Pitocin, a drug that induces contractions. The contractions came big and loud, almost immediately at one minute apart. My cervix wouldn’t dilate, though. I was eventually given the narcotic Stadol, which caused me to hallucinate through a very long night. Twenty-four hours later, clear-headed but still not dilated, I told my doctor I didn’t believe the induction was working, that I wanted to discuss other options. But before I knew it, he began painfully separating the membrane guarding my bag of waters.
“He isn’t examining me,” I yelled at my husband. “He’s doing something.”
In a hushed tone, the doctor asked the nurse for the hook, a mechanism that breaks your water.
“Why did you do that?” I asked when it was done. “I thought we were going to talk about it!”
His voice was cold, flat. “You’re not going anywhere,” he said.
She discusses how the diagnosis of PPD she received a week after birth didn’t fit, as she “felt that [she] was stuck in fight-or-flight,” then received a PTSD diagnosis that seemed to fit her symptoms. When she searched the Internet for information, she didn’t find a warm reception.
Just around the time I was figuring this all out, the Wall Street Journal published an article discussing postpartum PTSD. It referenced a now-famous study by Harris Interactive for Childbirth Connection, in which 9 percent of postpartum women screened met criteria for a diagnosis of PTSD, according to the mental-health diagnostician’s Bible, the DSM-IV.
Not surprisingly, it elicited a giant eye-roll from bloggers. “Something about applying the term PTSD to childbirth irks me,” said Hannah Tennant-Moore, a blogger for Babble’s Strollerderby. “PTSD is most commonly associated with war veterans and victims of extreme violence; applying it to new mothers makes maternity seem like a pathology.”
Over on Jezebel Jessica Grose sneered, “Have we become so precious and hyper-conscious that something women have been doing for time immemorial is now ranked alongside war as a painful event?” She went on to say: “Certainly having a bowling ball of a baby shooting out your vag isn’t a picnic for anyone, but the hysteria surrounding something so matter-of-fact is troubling.”
The article goes on to quote a pediatrician from the University of Chicago claiming that “[f]ifty years ago, women were anesthetized for childbirth” and are now awake to experience what he calls “misadventure[s] in the delivery room.”
The pediatrician follows the cultural script of pinning the trauma on this trend of women being awake to witness the rare events in which “the mother’s life [is] at risk or the baby’s.” He stated that having a baby is opting into a normative experience and that it is difficult to find people to turn to when you’re one of “the other 2 percent” who do not have uncomplicated births, and “[w]hen you find it’s totally different from what you were told it would be, it’s traumatic.”
Rupturing membranes without consent while a woman’s body is being slammed with pharmaceutically induced contractions is not a mere “misadventure” of childbirth itself. This is a violation of patient rights, autonomy and human decency. It’s the act of a doctor who clearly would have preferred for his patient to be anesthetized as in pediatrician’s scenario of days past so that whole annoying “informed consent” thing wouldn’t get in his way. The obstetricians that the author consulted about her birth raised questions about the necessity of the induction in the first place.
Slapping women in the face with the unrealistic expectation line serves only those wishing to perpetuate the status quo and blame women for creating their own PTSD. While is it true that the rareness of death in childbirth contributes to a “couldn’t ever happen to me” factor that is exacerbated by the unrealistic “I can control this from ever happening to you” or “you or your baby will die right now/tomorrow/next week/next month unless you do everything say” sales pitches from care providers, the time has come for women discussing the trauma associated not with childbirth but with coercive over-management of childbirth to not be thrown into some sexist, ableist Cassandra metaphor.
Akner no longer feels like “the only person who survived a normal life cycle event damaged and ruined” thanks to the community that she has found, a community that will probably continue to increase in numbers concomitantly with the increase in the number of unnecessary inductions and cesareans.
Getting it
21
When it comes to the ways in which parents and children are discriminated against and why those discriminations are inherently anti-woman, some people just don’t get it. Kate Harding, it seems, is one of those people.
She is one of the people to whom some feminist mothers may point when discussing the (sometimes pleasantly unnoticeable, sometimes seemingly insurmountable) divide between those who have had children and those who haven’t. She is someone who I personally agree with on many feminist issues but often, when it comes to a topic relating to parenting (usually concerning parenting in public), I find myself defensively reaching for that old cliché: “You couldn’t possibly understand, you don’t have children.” Whilst I dislike that line and think it is mainly unhelpful in a goal of creating positive discourse, there are times when its use is tempting when engaging with (or reading) someone who is just so not…getting it.
Just as I’m sure attempting to explain the realities of race or class inequities and pressures to someone who has not lived through them can feel quite frustrating and fruitless, so too can reading and responding to commentary that comes across as ignorant, insensitive and hypocritical from an otherwise smart, savvy and progressive woman.
Take, for example, Harding’s latest article on Salon’s Broadsheet, which was written in response to film director Kevin Smith being kicked off a Southwest Airlines flight because he was deemed too large for a single seat and hadn’t purchased two, in accordance with Southwest’s ‘person-of-size’ policy. As a fat-acceptance activist on another popular site, Harding took issue with this and linked the incident with the general air of hostility and hostility-disguised-as-concern aimed at fat people in public. Her impassioned, well-written piece shows how important this issue is to her, and many others.
But as I read her post, I couldn’t help but see extremely similar parallels between what she was railing against and what she herself had written just a few months ago in an article entitled ‘Screaming Toddlers on a Plane!’ In it, she discussed the removal of a two-year-old child and his mother from an airplane for the child’s ‘disruptive behaviour’ (which consisted of excitedly shouting “Go plane, go!” and “I want Daddy!”). While she expressed “sympathy” for parents flying with toddlers, she went on to admonish us to at least try to ‘control’ them. Because if she couldn’t see that we were ‘trying’ hard enough? She “reserve[s] the right to smugly judge [us], damnit.”
Essentially, she supports the idea that if a child cannot conform to social and behavioural norms and if its parents/carers do not actively take steps to ensure the comfort of others around them or at least apologise profusely for inconveniencing them (even if said ‘annoying’ behaviours are completely age-appropriate and nothing can really be ‘done’ about them, short of violence) she agrees that that child, and subsequently those with him/her, should be removed. At the very least, she reserves the right to express her disdain for what she perceives as the parents’ failings. Openly.
Yet, here she is in this instance, angry as all get-out that anyone would dare try to prioritize the comfort of other passengers over one person’s right to exist, or allow a long-held prejudice against a vulnerable group of people (who may or may not have any control over their ‘condition’) to be voiced. The collective disgust at the lack of ‘control’ a fat person or excitable child is seen to be exhibiting; the ways in which society seeks to punish those who encroach on our space or do not adhere to what is defined as normal or acceptable; the arrogance and privilege displayed by those who feel it is their right to criticise and complain when they are inconvenienced in any way by someone they don’t view as worthy of respect…can she, and others, really not see the ways in which fat-bashing (and other forms of intolerance) follows similar patterns to child/parent-bashing?
Now, Ruth at Look Left of the Pleiades has already drawn attention to the ways in which fat-acceptance is similar to child/parent-acceptance so I won’t repeat her many, many good points and analogies here, but I urge you to go read her post and then come back. Because I want to demonstrate why Harding’s perceptions of and attitudes towards children and parents in public are as harmful as the perceptions of and attitudes towards larger people that she so passionately disputes in her latest article and why this kind of disconnect contributes to the perpetuation of a ‘divide’ between feminist parents and childless feminists, as it does between those who are of ‘acceptable’ body size and those who aren’t.
Let’s start here, from the Kevin Smith article:
Perhaps they [those who complain about sitting next to large people] even had the special misfortune of sitting next to a rude fat person, the kind who doesn’t even seem contrite about infringing on someone else’s severely restricted personal space…There’s no shortage of rude people of all sizes, but it seems like everyone’s got a story about that whale who made a two-hour or three-hour or even five-hour flight pure hell for the adjacent paying customers.
Just like how everyone has a story of a screaming baby or toddler making their flight pure hell, huh? And, like, the freakin’ parents didn’t even APOLOGISE, can you believe it?!
From the ‘Toddler’ article:
I also believe, however, that unless he has special needs that make public screaming both more likely and far more difficult to end, a toddler hollering in a closed space for a prolonged period about something other than physical pain is very unlikely to evoke much sympathy. And the adult in charge has a responsibility to try to calm him and reinforce that this is inappropriate public behavior.
Reinforce that this is inappropriate public behaviour?! To a two-year-old who is stuck on a plane and is probably hungry, thirsty, scared, uncomfortable, bored or all of the above?! That is at least as laughable and useless to parents as “Just eat less and exercise more” probably is to severely overweight people. I’m also not keen on how Harding sets conditions on her sympathy: “If you do x and y, I’ll put up with you. But if I don’t think you ‘tried hard enough? I reserve my right to judge you and have you ejected.” Eerily similar to the conditions often placed upon sympathy for fat people: only if they are actively trying to minimise their mass and stay out of thin people’s way are they allowed any.
See, those of us who are and/or love people to whom airlines’ “person of size policies” apply don’t automatically envision the discomfort of getting stuck next to a fatty; we envision the physical and emotional pain of being the fatty crammed between two potentially hostile strangers, at the mercy of flight attendants who might decide we’re fine on one flight and a “safety risk” on the next.
I don’t automatically envision the discomfort of the people around me if my child cries on an airplane either, though I am all too well aware of the disapproval. My first duty is to my children and their well-being, not the flight enjoyment of those surrounding us. I do my best to minimise noise and disturbance but if, like what happened to me the last time I flew, my child is crying and howling because she was woken (in the middle of the night according to her body clock) by the flight attendant and made to sit back up and put on her seatbelt, I’m not going to care two jots if the people around me are put out. They might think I’m ‘doing nothing’ by simply sitting there with a hand on her shoulder, waiting for the upset to pass, but what they don’t know is that if I had kept shushing and fussing and cajoling, the wails would have undoubtedly gotten even louder. Funnily enough, some parents know their kids better than perfect strangers and what appears to be ‘ignoring’ to an outsider is actually preventing things from escalating further. The stares, the mutters, the annoyed glances, the outright commands to “shut that kid up”…these make for a pretty tense flying situation too. I would expect someone who has endured the same but for body size to be a bit more sympathetic to the enormous strain and embarrassment this causes the concerned party.
…the risk of smaller-scale humiliations — sitting next to someone who complains about their size; absorbing flight attendants’ naked disdain; overhearing someone say “I hope I don’t have to sit next to her”; being told, as Smith’s seatmate on his later flight was, that they should really purchase two seats in the future to avoid making other people uncomfortable; plus the aforementioned dirty looks and heavy sighs — is often enough to keep them at home.
Yep, know that feeling too. One man, on approaching his seat across the aisle from me and my six-month-old daughter, who was happily smiling and looking around, commented very loudly to his wife, “Oh great, we’re sitting next to a baby. See if we can change seats when the flight attendant comes by.” When they weren’t able to change seats, many heavy sighs and dirty looks ensued for the duration of the flight whenever my daughter made so much as a peep. I remember sitting there, tears silently coursing down my cheeks, as I held my finally-asleep baby — unable to move, go to the bathroom, eat, drink or read for fear of waking her and invoking the wrath of that horrid man. It made me forever fearful of the reactions of people around me and made me question whether I was the selfish one for wanting to go visit my family.
In the last paragraph of the Kevin Smith piece, Harding’s emotions come to the surface. Her rage at the lack of human decency and understanding becomes apparent and she says:
And I read comments from lots of people who are less openly hateful, but still think that fat people should buy two seats or lose weight or stay home — not that the airline has any responsibility to, say, ensure that adequate seating is available for everyone or treat people of all sizes like equal (not to mention individual) human beings — and you know what I think? Forgive me, but sometimes there’s no other way to say it: Fuck you. That’s what I think.
Sing it, sister! I agree with you 100%. I too wish that airplanes (and many other public spaces) were more accommodating of larger people, those with disabilities, families…the way most things are modelled on one body and type and under the assumption that one is travelling alone is very frustrating. I just wish you could apply those same strong feelings about accepting our bodies for what they are to accepting children and the nature of parenting for what they are. I wish you could be open-minded enough to know that even if you never experience parenting first-hand, it is something that you share a common bond with; that you (and all people) have a vested interest in making parents and children feel more welcome and included in our society, not ostracised. Those who were unaccepted for what they were as children can become the very people you struggle against now — the rigid, the selfish, the unkind. Setting out prescriptive behaviours and expectations for one group of people according to how their presence impacts others, not according to what is best or appropriate for them, is exactly what feminism (and fat-acceptance) strives to eradicate.
Just as you don’t want to be judged for your size, nor do we want to be judged for our reproductive and parenting choices, especially by those who haven’t walked a yard in our shoes, let alone a mile. In a homogenized world, I suppose everyone would be thin, every child would sit quietly and every parent would happily and healthily manage to work and bring up their children. But we don’t live in that world nor would any of us want to, I imagine.
As feminists, we celebrate diversity, challenge privilege and patriarchy and constantly question our own prejudices in order to grow and become better allies to those on the outside who need our help most. We mind our language, respect those with different needs, backgrounds and experiences from us and know when to say “I haven’t lived that. Tell me how I can stand with you and help you battle these injustices.”
In order to do that we need to become invested in fights that are not our ‘own,’ look for connections and similarities instead of divergences and dissimilarities. We need a feminism that ‘gets it’, or at least tries to. Not just about fat, not just about kids, but all of it. Because if we can’t support these basic tenets, and each other, what hope do we have of changing anything at all?
The chicken or the egg: Paternity leave and gender roles
12
So as you probably didn’t hear (because I’ve not seen it covered anywhere within the feminist blogosphere – sigh – and only given marginal press within mainstream media), Labour announced a couple days ago quite radical changes to the maternity and paternity leave laws, which will apply to children due on or after 3 April 2011 (provided they win the next general election).
Right now in the UK, a woman who gives birth to or adopts a child while in paid employment* is entitled to nine months’ paid maternity leave (most of which is on the Statutory Maternity Pay (SMP) of £123.06 per week; only the first six weeks is paid at 90% of one’s regular salary) and then three further months unpaid, with her partner being eligible for two weeks’ paid paternity leave, also paid at the SMP rate. Some employers pay more on top of that but many don’t so it can be assumed that this is what the majority of employees who take maternity or paternity leave will earn.
The proposed changes would give a woman the option of returning to work after six months, transferring the remaining three months of paid leave over to her partner. Her partner would then have the option of taking a further three months’ leave from his or her** job, unpaid. The total leave would still amount to 12 months (9 paid, 3 unpaid) but would be more easily split between them. In theory, this would give female breadwinners and those who would like to return to work after six months the ability to go back sooner without having to put their babies into non-familial care. It would also give men who earn less than their partners or who want to be more involved in their child’s care in the first year an opportunity to stay at home for 3-6 months without losing their jobs.
That’s the bare-bones of it and how it’s laid out on paper. However, whether and how it is taken up in practise is another matter entirely. Let’s run this through a reality check.
First, let’s look at the various combinations that could be employed with this new legislation. One reality is that some women won’t be able to afford being on the SMP rate at all (a more likely situation for single mums) and so will return to work even sooner than six months. This change does not help her at all, sadly. Another likely scenario for many people will be for the mother to stay at home for the full nine months until the unpaid portion of leave kicks in, which she may or may not take depending on the family’s circumstances. This may be due to personal choice, social conditioning/pressure or practical reasons (such as financial concerns or breastfeeding).
But a woman who takes her six months’ leave and then decides to return to work after this period of time (because she is the higher earner or because her income, though less than her partner’s, is needed, or simply because she wants to) now has the option of putting her 5-6 month-old baby into care or transferring the remainder of her leave entitlement over to her partner (if she has one). In families where it is financially possible for the father to take a 3-6 month financial hit after the mother already has as well, without any severe consequences, this is potentially great news. But in a family where unpaid or reduced-pay leave for the father (even for ‘only’ three months) is not an option, does it seem likely that the male partner will be willing or able to take over the childcare duties for those three months? Will he even want to? Or will it “make more sense” for the woman to stay at home for the three remaining ‘paid’ months, as she has done for the previous six, especially if she is paid less, is breastfeeding and/or already has a daily routine and support system in place?
Though I do think that there are certainly couples out there in which the woman either needs or wants to return to work after six months and the father would be willing, perhaps even eager, to be the sole care provider for his child for at least three months, I don’t think as many men will take it up as one might expect or hope. First, there is the social stigma to deal with. A man wanting to look after his baby in theory faces the reality of having to ask for the leave from his employer and then explain to his colleagues why he will be gone. For most men, caring for children is still widely viewed as ‘women’s work’ and taking on a role almost exclusively performed by women can be viewed as a threat to his status, both socially and professionally; if not by him then certainly by at least some of his peers.
A man who looks after his children is often viewed as a bumbling, inept ‘helper’ to the mother, doing her a favour or humouring her for the sake of the ‘easy life’. Fathers I’ve spoken to (including my own husband) have told me of the times they’ve taken their children out in public without the mother present and gotten comments about how great he is for “taking them off mum’s hands,” or “giving mum the day off” as if that’s the only reason he would be solely responsible for them — as a favour to his wife or partner. Heaven forbid he actually wants and is able to look after them by himself! Some dads even report being asked if they’re divorced and on a ‘weekend pass’ with their children.
The social conditioning that men (and all of us) have been subject to sends the strong message that fathers are the second-string, the back-up team, only needed when mum isn’t around for some (usually selfish) reason. Even then, fathers aren’t expected to perform as well at parenting as their female counterparts. I’ve heard many a story of other women rushing in to offer to make a cake for a single dad who is supposed to contribute to the school’s bake sale, or telling a stay-at-home dad that he doesn’t have to take part in the snack rota at playgroup because he “has his hands full already.” The message to men, from all sides, is that parenting is not really their area of expertise (or at least, combining parenting with household responsibilities isn’t) and that just keeping the children alive and fed and the house standing is all that is expected of them.
The second hurdle in encouraging men to take this option is financial. If a man is the higher earner (as is the case in the majority of partnerships), it will be much more difficult and sometimes even impossible for him to collect SMP wages instead of his normal salary. Of the small proportion of families who would be able to do this, few within that group would be able to function without any income at all on his part, if he were to take the final three months unpaid. It isn’t clear from the wording of the new legislation but I’ve read from other sources that if a couple wants the father to take his three months at SMP but cannot afford for him to take the final three months unpaid, they lose the option for the mother to take it, effectively shortening their total entitlement to just nine months instead of twelve. This is supposedly to encourage more fathers to take at least their three months at SMP.
Again, it sounds good in theory, giving a bit of incentive for men to take the paternity leave they are entitled to, but I remain doubtful that the incentives will be enough to overcome the social and financial hurdles that a lengthened paternity leave presents. Until the social stigma of men caring for children and performing domestic duties is broken and until women receive equal pay and opportunities at work, free from gender discrimination, paternity leave and maternity leave will remain quick fixes for a much wider, more complex problem that is endemic in our society.
**Paternity leave applies to female partners of women who give birth or adopt but for the sake of simplicity and because heterosexual relationships that produce children are more prevalent, I will be using ‘he’ to signify the partners of new mothers
The public policing of pregnancy
9
Any pregnant woman who has ever ordered a glass of wine with her dinner, asked for a regular (non-decaf) coffee, or nibbled on a piece of brie from the cheese plate will know what it feels like to be watched, monitored and judged. Many women have told me stories of barmen asking if they’re sure they don’t want him to add some soda water to that pinot grigio, or a barista saying “You mean decaf, right?” with her eyebrow arched. Some women have even been refused service or kicked out of establishments for drinking a pint of beer or attempting to buy a block of cheese.
I know that one of my biggest pet peeves when I was pregnant with my first child was the assumption that I was completely helpless, vulnerable and unable to make decisions based on calculated risk by myself. While I acknowledge that heavily pregnant women are at a physical disadvantage in certain situations and do indeed have a decreased sense of balance, a harder time standing for long periods of time and shouldn’t be lifting a load of bricks or anything, it got ridiculous at some stages. I had people rushing forward to pry a door out of my hands and open it for me, or insist on carrying my one bag of shopping, which consisted mainly of a tub of ice cream and extra-soft toilet tissue. And on the occasions when I was only going to be on the Underground or bus for a stop or two and so politely declined the seat offered me, I would get annoyed, even hostile reactions. I had one lady absolutely INSIST I take her seat, even though by the time we had this conversation, she got her things out of the area and I heaved myself into it, I had arrived at my stop and had to extract myself from the tangle of bags and limbs to get back to the doors again. The patronisation from some quarters was palpable.
Don’t get me wrong; I always appreciated the offer and more often than not, took them up on it, grateful for the protection from being smashed and elbowed in the stomach during the rush hour commute. But as my bump grew and I got closer and closer to my due date, I got not only looks of sympathy but ones of distaste. I remember one man grumbling under his breath when I waddled onto the train carriage one morning: “Jesus, is she going to give birth here too?” and rolling his eyes. It was astonishing, and obvious that some people felt that I should be confined to my home, a la the Victorians.
Funnily enough, that concern seemed much less prevalent when I was pregnant with my second child and had my daughter in tow with me. There were many times when I genuinely could have used some help while trying to get my pushchair, shopping and massive belly out of a narrow shop while holding the heavy door open and had completely able-bodied and pushchair-less people wait patiently, not offering any help, while I struggled and heaved and got flustered. It was as if the fact I was already a mother meant I didn’t need any help or consideration at all. Kind of like “Well, you knew what you were getting yourself into this time…”
I know it’s hard for people (especially those who have never been pregnant themselves) to know what to do and that each woman is different in what kind of help she’d like or need, but I think it’s safe to say that offering = good, insisting or completely ignoring = bad.
Of course, none of this compares with what Samantha Burton went through. Burton, who was 25 weeks pregnant and had two older children, was hospitalised against her will in Florida last March when she questioned her doctor’s order for complete bed rest after he suspected an impending miscarriage. Burton, who simply asked for a second opinion, was then forcibly hospitalised and forced to submit to “any and all medical treatments” the doctors felt necessary to ensure the safety of her foetus, even though a) there is no clinical evidence to support the commonly-held belief that bed rest improves outcomes for miscarriages; b) she had two other children to care for and so bed rest wasn’t feasible; and c) IT’S HER BODY AND THEREFORE HER DECISION. For three days she was held captive until undergoing a forced cesarean section that revealed her foetus had died anyway.
Thankfully, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has taken up the case and will be following it and keeping us updated as it goes through the Florida Court of Appeals since it (amazingly) lost in the original trial, Burton v. Florida. So far, the state of Florida has (appallingly but not surprisingly, in a state with a nearly 40% cesarean section rate) defended its actions as simply “maintaining the status quo.” Sadly, the status quo in America (and increasingly in other places as well) seems to be about treating pregnant women as incubators and their rights secondary to that of the foetus residing in and dependent on their bodies.
Making sure that we are afforded the same rights to make decisions regarding our health, safety and care as anyone else (even if an onlooker or doctor doesn’t approve) is absolutely imperative in ensuring we have full human rights, let alone “women’s rights.” And part of exerting that autonomy is by being able to eat cheese, drink caffeine, have a beer or carry our own shopping, Pregnancy Police be damned.