"I Want to Be a Daddy!"

Recently at my three-year-old daughter's check-up, our pediatrician asked her if she wants to be like mommy when she grows up?  To which she replied, "No!  I want to be a daddy!" 
We chuckled, surprised that she even understood the question, but I of course went home ruminating over what this could mean.  A few days later, in the car on the way to preschool I asked her what she wants to be when she grows up.  Her answer hadn't changed, "I want to be a daddy!"
"But you can't be a daddy, you're a girl.  Daddies are boys." (Here I admit to gender-molding.)
That didn't deter her though, "I want to be a daddy!" she shouted.
"Well, why do you want to be a daddy?" 
"Because daddies go to work!"
To which I replied, "Some mommies go to work, too.  Like Jackson's mommy.  She works.  Or your teachers at preschool, they're all mommies. Camille's teacher, Mrs.Goldstein, she's a mommy too."
She started laughing.  This was funny for her, then she tried to correct me, "No! My teachers aren't mommies. They're teachers!"
 She thought I was either dumb or making a joke.  For the next couple of weeks, as we passed the preschool, she remembered our conversation, and would say, "Jackson's mommy goes to work?"  She was still trying to figure this one out.  Later, I asked her where she wants to work when she's a daddy.  "At daddy's work, a doctor." Too bad our pediatrician, who recently married for the first time at age 52, isn't a mommy, because then I could rest my case.  But would resting my case, that doctors can be mommies too, be a good thing?


In the Sunday, June 12th, New York Times op-ed section, Karen Sibert, an anesthesiologist and mother of four grown children, made a case for women doctors being committed to the profession and not working part time.  She argued that the cost of medical education is heavily subsidized by the federal government (even though medical students might not feel it with their debt burden), and that since 40 % of female doctors are part-time workers (2010 AMA self-reporting survey), female doctors are not "paying back" to society what they owe.  She argues that "medical education is a privilege, not an entitlement, and it confers a real moral obligation to serve."  If there were an endless supply of doctors, then women could choose the part-time lifestyle, but this is not the case.  Since medical education is so expensive for the government (medical school and residency), the government doesn't believe it can afford to train more people to become doctors.

My husband and I frequently discuss the issue of child-bearing doctors who choose to work part-time.  He works in a community health center of 50 physicians, of whom 65% are female.  Of these 32 female doctors, 80% or 26 work part-time.  These part-time workers greatly affect the practice's bottom-line, but his practice has no choice but to hire female physicians.  Most newly-hired doctors in this practice come from the practice's residency program which graduates 10 residents a year, 9 of whom are women, on average.  Over the course of the ten years he has been in practice, the issue of productivity continues to threaten to bankrupt the practice.  This is due to the fact that many part-time physicians do not meet their "break-even" point.  Part-time doctors cost everyone more money.  As Dr. Sibert pointed out, they cost society because that person's subsidized medical education is not being fully utilized, but they also cost individual practices substantially.  The overhead, insurance, benefits and salary of a part-time physician mean that the number of patients she must see in order to meet the "break-even" point for her cost is higher than a full-time physician.  This means that she must be more productive by seeing more patients per hour than her full time colleague.  Dr. Sibert points to a 2006 AMA study that shows female physicians see "fewer patients than their male colleagues."  On average female part-time physicians do not meet their "break-even" points, and their full-time colleagues, often men, must make up the difference to keep the practice afloat.  Women who choose to be physicians are subsidized with their education, and then in the work-force, they are subsidized by their full-time colleagues.


As a feminist, I'm committed to equal opportunity for women, but Dr. Sibert's essay and the experience at my husband's practice raise some serious ethical questions.  In philosophy, we consider two competing moral commitments a moral dilemma.  In this case the  commitment to women's equal opportunity competes with our commitment to provide health care for all by subsidizing medical education.  Either we allow/encourage female physicians to work part time, understanding that this limits medical access to some members of society and leaves unfulfilled a "debt" to society and colleagues, or we require that physicians work full time, as productively as they can, so that the most people can receive physician care, and the debt to society is met.  One possible solution to this dilemma would be to relieve ourselves of the commitment to medical access for all by requiring medical students and residents to pay for the entirety of the education. Most medical students would find this burden impossible, and then we would have many fewer physicians.  To ease the dilemma by requiring that all physicians work full-time would mean that we restrict the freedom women physicians currently enjoy to work-part time while raising a family.  Neither of these "solutions" seem palatable.

While mulling over this dilemma, I asked many of my friends what their thoughts were, including a couple female physicians.  Overwhelmingly, my friends responded that the mother-physician "owes it" to her family to work part-time.  Her children "need" her to be available and involved.  I was surprised by this reaction. ( My own, personal, gut-response to this dilemma was to codify an agreement between medical students and the government to require physicians to work to a certain productivity point, or else pay back the government.)  Hearing that mothers "owe it" to their children made me think about the issue of indebtedness.  What are our obligations?  Our debts? Does the female physician also "owe" a dedication to her patients and vocation to earlier feminists, women and men who made it possible for women to practice medicine?  Formulated this way, our ethical dilemma is not so simple.  Now, the female physician has three competing commitments or debts, a tri-lemma: a debt to society for medical education received, a debt to those who made her freedom of opportunity possible, and an obligation to her children to be an involved and available mother.  In light of the particular costs involved in practicing part-time medicine, which debt should win out?  Is it possible for a female physician to meet all her obligations?

When thinking about obligations and debts to society, Socrates who famously paid his debt to society with his life, comes to mind.  Accused of corrupting the youth of Athens, Socrates was given the choice to leave Athens or die through a self-administered draught of hemlock.  His exile would require silence on his part, to which he famously reacts: "the unexamined life is not worth living" (Apology, 38a). After his trial, Socrates' friend Crito tries to convince him to escape before the day of his death.  After lengthy analysis, Socrates concludes that he had entered into a contract with the city of Athens, and his side of the deal is to obey their laws and judgments (Crito, 54c).  By continuing to live in Athens (70 years!), having had many opportunities to leave, Socrates made an implicit pact with the city to honor it's laws, as his debt to the city for "haven given you birth [by providing a mother and father], nurtured you, [and] educated you" (Crito 51d).  Should he break this pact, he would live in shame, hypocritically with his belief that "virtue and justice are man's most precious possession" (Crito 53d).  Socrates chooses instead of fleeing, to die honorably, fulfilling his obligation to the city of Athens.

Now, thankfully, this tri-lemma doesn't ask for any one's life. I would contend, against my first gut-reaction, that a mother-physician's debt to society extends beyond the financial obligation of medical school subsidies and expected health care in return, to caring for her children, future citizens of our society. All mothers owe it to society to raise thoughtful, contributing and moral children, to the best of their ability.   It would not be wise to deny women physicians the opportunity to have families, as they are often highly intelligent, caring individuals concerned about other's well-being - qualities one would want for a mother.  But Dr. Sibert's concerns should be remembered and addressed.  All physicians-in-training should be aware of the subsidized cost of their training.  They should be aware of the concept of indebtedness to society. Socrates took the draught, not just to fulfill his obligation, but to continue a tradition of social obligation.  Without social obligations, without concern for others or justice, we cease to be a civilized society.  In the same vein, without freedom of opportunity for women, to have children, raise them, become physicians, and work part time, we diminish our civility.

I Just Watch It for the Clothes

I often hear people lamenting "the media's" influence on our society, on how women perceive themselves, on what girls are raised to believe about themselves, etc..., as though "the media" is the culprit of everything oppressive and misogynistic in our culture.  If only the media would be more positive, more affirming and stop assaulting us with images of thin, beautiful, big-chested, vapid bimbos.  But there's a reason why shows like The Bachelor, The Real Housewives, America's Next Top Model (and America's most ruthless sadist, Tyra) exist, and it's not because men are glued to the screen or because the evil media is bent on destroying everything good in our culture.  We watch these shows.  And no one is making us.  Why do we engage in this acknowledged self-destructive, anti-feminist pastime?

I used to say, when caught watching something embarassing like Melrose Place, "I just watch it for the clothes."  I hoped that this confession would absolve me of feminist guilt, even though I knew the men in the show were pigs, the women maybe worse, and that the whole thing flew in the face of almost everything I believe to be good and valuable. But isn't it okay to try to find out what the latest styles are?  Or simply fantasize about "having it all" as in The Real Housewives?  And what about girl power shows like Grey's Anatomy, aren't these affirming my commitment to women's rights?

Susan J. Douglas in her book Enlightened Sexism: The Seductive Message that Feminism's Work is Done, argues no, fantasizing through either type of show isn't okay because "slithering just below the shiny mirage of power is the dark, sneaky serpent of sexism." Douglas claims that, "the media have been giving us, little more than fantasies of power.  They assure girls and women, repeatedly, that women's liberation is a fait accompli and that we are stronger, more successful, more sexually in control, more fearless, and more held in awe than we actually are."  She observes that shows like Law and Order, Grey's Anatomy, and The Closer reinforce the idea that feminism's political work is done, women can be anything, do anything, and earn respect from men.  While at the same time, on other stations or time slots, younger women and girls are sold the message that since women can do anything, then feminism is old fashioned and dowdy, that "girl power" is the new feminism.  This means that girls can reclaim their femininity and use their sexuality as a source of power. (Of course this sexual power is just a repackaged Daisy Duke, sexually provocative in pursuit of male approval.) The notion that feminism's work is done allows for what Douglas calls "enlightened sexism":

Enlightened sexism sells the line that it is precisely through women's calculated deployment of their faces, bodies, attire and sexuality that they gain and enjoy true power - power that is fun, that men will not resent, and indeed will embrace.  True power here has nothing to do with economic independence or professional achievement (that's a given): it has to do with getting men to lust after you and other women to envy you.

Personally, I can't bear to watch The Bachelor with the poor girls throwing there bodies at some less than intelligent "prince charming", but I do find myself tuning into The Real Housewives when I'm too exhausted after the kids are in bed to do anything but be entertained.  Why???  Because I enjoy feeling superior to the unintellectual, plastic-beauty slaves? Maybe.  Or is it because I envy them and am sucked into a masochistic hour of voyeurism?  Douglas argues that enlightened sexism has been driven by marketing tactics, "the use of that heady mix of flattery and denigration to sell us everything from skin cream to running shoes," and I would add patriarchy to the list of hawked goods.  The Real Housewives flatters me by triggering my sense of superiority, while at the same time denigrating my sense of self because I could never look as glamorous or spend anywhere near as much money as these women. (For most of these women their wealth comes from their men - with the exception of a few women on the OC edition).  The fantasy this show sells, is that if I were sexy, materialistic, catty and dumb, then all my days would be filled with luxury and ease - the perfect fanatsy at the end of long day tending children! I agree with Douglas that these shows are selling us sexism, and I would go on to say they are selling us oppression, subjugation and a betrayal of our feminist ancestors (think Susan B .Anthony or Elizabeth Cady Stanton).

While Douglas's analysis is provocative, entertaining, and challenging, she places blame primarily on the media and it's drive to sell. I would argue that we are complicit with the media in perpetuating this myth that feminism is over.  If we didn't watch the stuff, then it wouldn't be aired, period. What makes this "slithery serpent" even more dangerous, is that our daughters, nieces and friends are seeing this "enlightened sexism" without any sense of the importance of maintaining feminist standards. I fear that one day feminism could be dead, and gone.  If we don't continue to fight against "enlightened sexism", then our daughters will forget that feminism ever mattered, and find themselves (and their daughters) stuck in an oppressive misogynistic culture.

What are your thoughts?  Do you find yourself endulging in a "guilty pleasure", watching something that you know protrays women as objects?  Do you fantasize (like I have on occassion) of being that object, of feeling power in objectification?

Pin Money? *

When my third daughter, Camille (now age 7), was 4 she started asking for violin lessons.  I was very excited about her new desire, and especially because it seemed to come from "within."  Her older two sisters play piano, and are basically forced to play because I am an amateur piano teacher and accompanist.  The only problem with Camille's dream was that it would require MONEY.  I had started the older two on the piano around age 5, and then moved them on to a private teacher in the 5th and 4th grades.  The piano we already owned, so the first 5 or 6 years of lessons were free.  My husband is very frugal, and usually I recognize this as a good thing.  We rarely fight about money, have a shared checking account, complete transparency about investments, and are often able to reconcile our differences about how money should be spent.  Camille's aspiration however, posed a major challenge to this previously copacetic money relationship.

I started investigating the costs of this endeavor when Camille started kindergarten.  The going rate for 1/2 hour lessons in our area is $30-35, and a violin rental is about $30/month = $150/month or $1800/year.  Our amazing piano teacher grossly undercharges for her lessons, so my husband argued that we could only afford violin lessons at the same discounted rate.  But alas, there were no such teachers.  I found myself begging and pleading him to relent and pay for the lessons and violin; that this was Camille's dream, that she was self-motivated, that you only have childhood to really learn music, etc....I would take every opportunity to lobby on behalf of Camille, until Jeff said we just couldn't afford it.  Meanwhile, I shared our problem with a dear friend of mine who plays the violin, and she offered to get Camille started, but that she could only teach her for 6 months.  Yeah!  We started going to Lori's house weekly, and Camille was in heaven with her violin and her teacher.  When school ended Lori gently urged me to find a professional teacher.  Oh no!  This meant back to the drawing board with Jeff!  The begging and pleading began again, me often feeling like a petulant child or a groveling servant, and he (I assume) feeling trapped because he wanted the begging to stop, but feared taking on this new financial outlay.  One night the solution came to me, why not have him pay the rate that we pay our piano teacher , and I'll make up the rest (more than half the cost) with the money I take in from teaching piano lessons? (This money has always been put in a fund for a new piano, called the "piano fund").  He was amenable to this idea, it meant that Camille would be getting her fair share of music lesson money, and that I would be taking on some of the financial responsibility.

This seemed like the perfect solution until the first payment to the new violin teacher was due.  I had hoped that when it came time to write the check Jeff would gallantly step in and say, "Oh, don't worry about your portion.  It'll take so much longer to save up for the new piano. We can afford it."  But he didn't.  My resentment grew until I exploded one night, and accused him of treating me like a child by not paying the full price himself.  I slept on the couch that night. Out of desperation I called a sister, who firmly told me that if I reneged on our deal, then I really was a child, and worse, that I was treating Jeff like my daddy.  Whoa....

Since this explosion I have learned a few things: 1) I am much more invested in how Camille does at her weekly lessons, and how the teacher teaches because it's my money being used, 2) by being financially responsible for this very small part of our family budget I feel a sense of satisfaction, and 3) by maintaining my end of this bargain I feel a little less indebted to Jeff and his paycheck.

However, many questions arise from this scenario that are still unanswered in my mind:

1)  Are women who are dependent on their husband's salaries adults?  In other words, if I have to make a case or beg for money for what I think is a valuable project, does that mean that I am a child and my husband is the daddy?

2)  How should spouses settle money disputes when there is an imbalance in financial contributions?

3) Is it possible to get rid of the feeling of "asking" for money when you're not the one earning it?  And if not, then go to question 1 - how do we define ourselves, or view ourselves when we're not the earners?  If this adult/child disconnect persists, is being financially independent the only solution?

I would really love responses from all perspectives, people in my similar situation, as well as those of you who are contributors if not majority contributors in your household.



*
Meaning of "Pin Money" (http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/283200.html)


Originally a small allowance given to a woman in order to purchase clothes etc. for herself. More recently it is used to describe any small amount of money which might be earned by children or the low-paid for some service.
The earlier usage is quite old and is alluded to in the 16th century in The Testamenta Eboracensia - A Selection of Wills from the Registry at York, 1542:
"I give my said doughter Margarett my lease of the parsonadge of Kirkdall Churche.. to by her pynnes withal."
The first explicit mention of 'pin money' is in John Dryden's comedy Amphitryon, or the two Sosias, 1690:
"There's Pin-money, and Ali-money, and Seperate maintenance."

Happily Ever After, Where Are You?



"Before her wedding day, she thought she was in love; but since she lacked the happiness that should have come from that love, she must have been mistaken, she fancied.  And Emma sought to find out exactly what was meant in real life by the words felicity, passion and rapture, which had seemed so fine on the pages of the books."  (Flaubert, Madame Bovary  I:5)



Last month while Christmas shopping, I came upon a Barbie wedding set complete with Barbie in a beautiful gown, Ken in a dapper tuxedo (although there is something a little boxy about Ken), Stacie as bridesmaid, and Kelly as flower girl.  I immediately called my sister to tell her about this treasure.  Who could I give it to?  At $40 it was a little pricey for the cousins' exchange, and none of my girls play with Barbies.  As I'm describing the toy to her, she says, if you love it so much, why don't you buy it for yourself?  That's ridiculous.  I instantly started an internal investigation as to why I would be so drawn to the Barbie wedding set.  As a younger mother I detested Barbie, and told my mother and mother-in-law that we would be a Barbie-free house.  I realized my short-comings as a feminist however, when my oldest daughter turned four and I orchestrated a ballerina themed birthday party.  The mother of one of her little friends came up to me outside the preschool, and said " I found the perfect gift!  A ballerina Barbie!"  My heart sank as I failed to summon the courage to politely ask her not to introduce Barbie to our house.  A smaller chested, lithe Barbie in white tutu and slippers was opened to the delight of my four-year old.  We still have her, and although her hair is a little ratty I'm loathe to through her out, perhaps as a symbol of my weaknesses as a feminist, or perhaps because secretly I adore Barbie and the grand fairy tale she represents.

A few months ago I attended a mother-daughter church luncheon where the key-note speaker used the Cinderella story to illustrate the character traits of humility and self-sacrifice.  The woman sitting next to me, to my surprise, whispered, "I hate the Cinderella story. It's the worst thing we can tell our daughters-that if you find prince charming all your problems will magically disappear. Besides she wasn't showing humility or self-sacrifice for her step-mother, she was showing weakness and simple-mindedness!  She should have sued her step-mother for her part of the estate and for abuse."  Because I wasn't expecting this comment from this particular mother, I found myself mulling over her words long after the luncheon.  Why do we perpetuate the Cinderella story, in its myriad forms, that marrying prince charming is the best way to ensure happiness?  Why don't we address the search for happiness in a different way, i.e. you develop the ability to experience happiness here and now, and that it doesn't just magically happen for you when you've contrived the "perfect" wedding?

My family and I saw an exhibit at the Peabody Essex Museum about a year ago called "Marriage Rituals around the World."  It was a mixed media exhibit with gowns and other wedding accouterments from various cultures and times periods, as well as fascinating wedding videos from "around the world."  As I was watching the videos with my cynical, grouchy Saturday-morning self, my husband was trying to inspire awe in my daughters over the dresses and elaborate cakes.  These videos were truly exotic and a little strange, but they made me wonder, why do we as a species apparently, lavish and concentrate our efforts in such a way on marriage?  Perhaps, it's because marriage is a symbol of hope, regeneration, and a new beginning for the parents of the bride and groom.  But what of the bride and groom?  The bride and groom are not looking for regeneration or a fresh start, or the prospect of newness and vitality that babies bring.  For the bride and groom, they have been promised happiness and bliss.  As Emma in Madame Bovary experienced, the happiness that Charles Bovary was in a position to provide her was not passionate and definitely not rapturous.  Emma was quickly disappointed that her marriage was not as the romance novels had told her it would be.  She was ill-prepared to confront this reality, felt trapped, and sought what would be a tragic escape.  She was deluded by her desire for a more fulfilling, passionate union, into believing that passion would bring her happiness. The question Emma's character poses for us, is how can we change the marriage narrative so that we know what kind of happiness to expect, look for, or create for ourselves? 

I've found myself in a philosophical morass with regards to feminism, marriage, and my own daughters.  I often feel as though I've married my prince charming - he's romantic, intelligent, engaging, spends time with tthe kids, cooks, and even wakes up at 5:30 am to change my 7 year-old's wet bed while trying to keep it quiet so I don't wake up.  Even though he is a perfect match for me, happily every after does not follow by necessity.  We experience our moments of crisis, frustrations, and times of wondering how we will ever make it through.   I definitely want my daughters to experience happiness with a spouse, but since marriage doesn't gaurantee happiness, I want them to understand what marriage is in real terms.   My sisters and many friends of mine find ourselves in the weeds of marriage: we're done having babies, the bad habits and resentments of a decade-plus have accumulated to a staggering height, and the demands of older children physically and psychologically make us almost long for the simpler up-all-night-with-the-baby days.  If there was passion in the early days, it is often very hard to find or summon now.  The challenge that this stage of marriage presents is that we can find ourselves at the breaking point, where we question if we really love our spouse, if it's "worth it" to stay together, where we wonder as Emma did,  "Oh why, dear God, did I marry him?" (I:7).  Knowing that similar troubles await my own daughters down the road, yet believing that marriage is ultimately worth pursuing, in what context do I encourage this endeavor?

Clearly, the Cinderella story will not work, and it's a good thing I didn't buy the Barbie wedding set, so I don't perpetuate the happily ever after myth with my youngest two.  Instead, I hope that by witnessing the many arguments and moments of forgiveness that my husband and I share, along with relatively chaste scenes of ardor and affection, my girls can see that marriage is hard, but it's happinesses are not elusive. Yes, I adore the wedding gowns as we drive past the local bridal shop, and perhaps I'm overly enthusiastic when I point out to the girls, "Did you see that one with the beautiful sparkles?"  Yet on the same day they might receive a lecture from me about how important it is for them to develop their own independence and sense of self.  I often caution my oldest one against marrying too young, as I did, and losing those precious years of self-actualization.  Perhaps these challenging "middle" years of marriage are what make us nostalgic for the fairy-tale romance (and Barbie wedding sets), when believing in the fairy tale made happily ever after possible.  Now the burden is to make happily ever after actual through commitment, love and the openness to accept the kind of happiness available to us.  Perhaps taking ownership of our own happiness, recognizing that our spouse is not the creator of our happiness, and avoiding the tempting trap of escape are the first steps towards a feminist marriage.

Feminism: Militant or Philosophical?

For some people feminism is a dirty word, connoting man-hating militancy, and the women's movement represents an effort to disable families and marriages.  Some feminists have been unflinching in their efforts to bring about legal and social change, and this singularity of purpose has been interpreted as militant, threatening or even crazy.  Andrea Dworkin is one such feminist who has been accused of going too far, failing to compromise or take a middle position when it comes to rescuing women from social and sexual oppression.  She writes to women: "I have to ask you to resist, not to comply, to destroy the power men have over women, to refuse to accept it, to abhor it, and to do whatever is necessary despite its cost to you to change it" (Life and Death, 175).  She goes on to say, "If we have to fight back with arms, then we have to fight back with arms. One way or another we have to disarm men."  This particular feminist approach is off-putting for some women because Dworkin is castigating all men, all men need to be disarmed.  Dworkin's particular life experiences (horrific) reveal why she is so determined to put an end to female oppression, whatever the cost. The problem for feminists at home is that we cannot be Dworkin's acolytes if we want to instill values of empathy, concern, thoughtfulness and respect in our children (daughters and sons). Dworkin's project is not interested in spreading empathy and respect among the sexes, but solely in putting an END to oppression by provoking and fighting back.  I believe that as feminists at home we should be in the business of putting an end to oppression, but that our methods should be focused on the people we are raising.  We need to understand why certain oppressive behaviors arise in childhood and adolescence and change these behaviors and attitudes by teaching empathy and respect.

Immanuel Kant argued that the only moral attitude one can have toward another human being is to view them as a rational autonomous being who is an end in herself, and not a means to someone else's ends or goals. When a person becomes a means to someone else's ends their subjectivity is ignored or denied, and they become objects; hence objectification. Kant's idea is instrumental in developing a philosophical as opposed to a militant feminism, because it exposes those instances when girls and women are treated unjustly, i.e. they are used as means to another person's ends, and it offers us a guide to solving the problem of oppression by requiring that each person's autonomy be respected.  I firmly believe that if the 13 year old boy who attempted to intimidate my daughter's friend into giving him a hand job had been taught as a young boy to respect all people as ends in themselves, to view girls as people and not objects, then he wouldn't have introduced the game of one-way sex to this party of girls.

Recently I was talking with a good friend who has a sixteen year old daughter about this blog and how important it is to talk with our daughters about sex and the sexual culture they encounter. She agreed with me that in the middle school years oral sex is a game of power initiated by some boys, but that as the girls get older they start to use it as a tool to socially manipulate boys. My friend told of how she had tried to emphasize with her daughter that oral sex is still sex; it is a form of intimacy, and degrading when used in a context of social manipulation. My friend wanted to stress to her daughter that sex is an expression of intimate love and can be unifying, but its purpose is perverted when used to manipulate, coerce or dominate others. Interesting point, that girls can in turn use sex to achieve their own positions of power. However, if the genesis of this social and emotional game starts in middle school with a few provocative boys, then its domain is one of male dominance. Girls only figure out their strategies and how to play when they realize that this is the only game around, or that this game is the one to play if you want status and recognition from the boys.  What I fear is that for some young people their sexuality is effected by these practices; that for them sex loses its intimate nature.  When the other person is used as a means to an end, then both people are incapable of building a relationship of mutual trust and concern.

One of my favorite feminist philosophers, Martha Nussbaum, argues in her book Sex and Social Justice, that we can criticize and ultimately change oppressive sexual/social practices while at the same time preserving  trust, understanding, love and joy in our most intimate and fulfilling relationships. I think this is what my friend was concerned about with teen-age sexual behavior; that trust, understanding and love are discarded or ignored when sex is used as a tool of manipulation and people are objectified.  If we take the militant feminists approach, by demonizing men, then we fail to preserve the joy and happiness that can come from mutually respectful, empathic and intimate relationships.  But if we start at home, by demonstrating respect and an interest in preserving dignity, by openly discussing with our older children the dangers of objectification and how it happens, then we are not capitulating bystanders but contenders in the battle for universal human dignity.


As always, please leave your comments, reactions, experiences - they are invaluable in this discourse!

Am I a Hamster? : Part II

I have loved reading the various comments to "Am I a Hamster" on the blog and on facebook.  Common throughout all the comments was a palpable sense of support and empathy.  It's heartening to know that other mothers feel the same way, and that working moms are also afflicted by questions of identity.

Last night I had a conversation with a woman who helped to pull this problem into perspective.  She is a mother of five, whose last child graduated from Phillips Academy on Sunday. We had them over for a celebration dinner where I got to meet all her grown children and some of their spouses. All of her children are kind, thoughtful, positive, intellectually engaged and engaging - ultimately the type of adults I would want to raise.  As she attempted to start the mountain of dishes, I said, "You don't need to do that.  You're on vacation, not on your hamster wheel."  We then started to talk about hamsterness,  me confessing my apparent loss of self.  She said many things that inspired me, and I can't possibly quote her exactly, but I'll share a few of her ideas here.

 First, she said that all intelligent women hit a wall staying at home, where everything feels meaningless and mind-numbing.  This wall is part of the process of figuring out the next phase.  Without experiencing this existential conflict we wouldn't be able to have productive, meaningful lives after the kids are grown.  During these at home years, we can incubate our plans and dreams, and she emphasized that these years do go by quickly.  She also said that you can never re-do the years when your kids need you.  You can't go back and try again like so many other things in life.  So, why not give it your best?  I then told her about not being able to lie to my nine year old when asked what it's like to be a mom.  Her answer to this cut me to the quick.  She said, your kids know that you are sacrificing for them by being emotionally here for them, by not being preoccupied with developing your "self".  If they see your devotion in the work you do for them (and not just the cleaning and the cooking although these are essential to life), they will feel your love - that they are more important to you than you are to yourself.  This sense of love, she said, will give them the confidence, self-assurance and stability they need to become the kind, thoughtful and generative people you want them to become.  This advice brought me to tears (yes, in front of all 10 young adults!), because I realized that the converse must also be true. That is, if my children sense my resentment, dissatisfaction, annoyance and angst, then they will know that they are not the most important part of my life.

The hard part in all of this, is that in order to have a meaningful future after the kids are grown, I have to experience the threat of hamsterness, but keep it in check.  Quite a challenge.  She encouraged me to continue to make plans for the future because that will give me the hope that I need to know that my identity will not be lost; that I will not become a hamster when this is all over.

Thank you readers, for reading and commenting.  Knowing that you are reading helps me to think these problems through, and try to come to a place of peace as a woman and a feminist at home.

Aggression, Competition, and the Search for Girlfriends

This post may possibly have a follow up next week as I am most interested in the work of evolutionary psychologists in regards to female aggressive and competitive behaviors, but for now I am going to outline the problems with regard to feminist mothering.

Last spring my daughter who was then in third grade attended a birthday party.  It was a swimming party/sleepover event, but we had decided to pick her up at 10 pm for various reasons.  I hadn't given the birthday party any thought or concern since I felt very confident that I knew the mother, regarded her well, and the birthday girl seemed sweet and sincere.  When I picked up my daughter at 10 she was tired and wanted to go to sleep.  Again I didn't give this any thought.  The following afternoon I asked her how she enjoyed the birthday party.  She answered, "Oh, it was fun."  But something in her answer hinted at evasiveness, and my mothering radar engaged.  In order to find out what I suspected she wasn't telling me I asked her many, many questions about what they did at the party.  Finally she answered defensively and a little too emphatically, "It was fun mom, OK!"  I let it go for awhile, but then tracked her down and asked her again if anything had gone wrong at the party.  She started to cry and then told me that one of her friends had been dared to take off all her clothes, and she did it.  I was shocked, asked my daughter what she did when this happened, and how she felt.  She answered that she tried not to look,  and that she felt embarrassed for her friend, but that she was afraid of what the birthday girl would do if she said something.  I then asked, "Did she dare you to do anything?"  Unconvincingly, "no."  After 20 minutes or so of trying and trying to get her to confess, and every minute making me more acutely convinced that something terrible had happened to my daughter, she finally told me.  The birthday girl and her best friend had dared my daughter to kiss another girl.  When my daughter told me this she burst out crying.  She said she felt embarrassed and wished she hadn't done it, but felt like she didn't have a choice in the situation.  She told me she felt that the birthday girl wouldn't be her friend anymore if she didn't do it.  RED FLAG!  RED FLAG!

We then talked for a very long time about what makes a good friend: someone you can trust, someone who won't ask you to do anything that makes you feel uncomfortable, someone who cares about you.  She understood it all, but when I asked her who she was going to sit by at lunch the next day, she said it would be the birthday girl and her group.  The next stage, breaking free from the harmful group, was very hard.  We made a plan that she would start by sitting with another little group, that she would try to play with these other girls, but that she wouldn't say anything to the birthday party group that would make them want to retaliate or pull her back in.  We also talked about how it is probably the case that the birthday girl and her best friend want to exert power over the other girls and that is what motivates their meanness.  My daughter understood this right away by siting other examples of their mean and controlling behaviors with other girls: comments on their clothes, what they eat for lunch, their artwork, who they play with, what they play, etc...  The good news is that now at the end of fourth grade my daughter is confident with the friends she has and knows how to avoid the "sharks" on the playground, but at quite an emotional cost.

For me I was most shocked that this happened in third grade as my oldest daughter didn't experience mean girls until fourth grade.  But for both of them we have been able to use their experiences as useful life points to return to in sorting out female friendships.  As a feminist mother I'm trying to figure out why some girls resort to power plays and efforts at domination, especially since these traits are often considered "male."  As a girl growing up I had my share of teasing and torment from other girls, and often felt very alone, insecure that anyone would really want to be my friend.  What I want for my girls is the ability to resurface after such painful aggressive encounters and find "real" friends.

Evolutionary psychologists and anthropologists have done much work in trying to figure out from an evolutionary stand point why we humans do what we do.  In Sarah Blafer Hrdy's book Mother Nature, she explores why we humans have such similar mothering behaviors and how these behaviors have evolved.  This book has greatly changed the way I view my female friendships because she argues that one of the reasons we form bonding, lasting female friendships is that we are always looking for allo-mothers.  Allo-mothers are other women who could care for our young if something happened to us.  Evolutionarily this makes sense if what we are internally driven by is a "desire" to get our genes into the next generation.  Back in our hunter gatherer days, we would be motivated to find allo-mothers because we took on great risks to provide food for our offspring.  Nowadays this isn't the case for most of us humans, but we still feel this drive to find and maintain allo-mother relationships.  I would argue that as mothers we don't just seek to share our care-giving resources: time, food and protective abilities, but that we are also turning to our allo-mother friends for advice on social concerns with our offspring.  Personally, I feel compelled to start talking about some of our more sensitive, maybe even human-specific given our acute sense of self-awareness, social concerns with raising offspring.  Material resources, disease, and danger are not the only threats to getting my genes into the next generation; my daughters' sense of well-being, identity and confidence are also required to get my genes into the next generation.  So please readers, share your stories, advice, and time!  (and do the same with your daughters!!)


Post Script:

On a side note, and as a prelude of things to come, while I find Blafer Hrdy's work along with other evolutionary psychologists very compelling, I fear that the evolutionary psychological answer to why girls are aggressive would not warm my heart the way the concept of "allo-mothering" does.  I suspect that girls are aggressive towards other girls because they are practicing their competition before the real competition begins, getting a suitable mate.  And I also fear that this type of explanation (morally neutral) is considered just a cost of the system (i.e. natural selection may have some morally disagreeable outcomes in order to get the "strongest" genes into the next generation).  But the feminist idealist in me wants to push back, even if our behaviors are in some way evolutionarily determined.