Where the Parents Are?

"Now he [or she] is eighteeen months, or maybe two, and you've settled into being 'just a mother'. It's not a bad job after all. Your hours are flexible, and you can come and go as you please, provided you take the boss along. And who could ask for a nicer boss than that smiling, chubby little fellow who tags along with you wherever you go?"

- Mary White (La Leche League International, Board of Directors and Founding Mother), quoted from the foreword of "Mothering Your Nursing Toddler" by Norma Jane Bumgarner

I'm a stay at home Mom. Most days I love it. As with anything (a job, a relationship, a project) there are days when it gets frustrating. Yet I am so glad to have made the choice that I have.

It perplexes me when I talk to new mothers, who are clearly thrilled to be with their baby, and they start to worry aloud about getting the childcare arrangements sorted out, and wonder how they will ever adjust to being back at work, without giving equal consideration to staying home.

This leads to a scenario I've watched several times: a great new Mom (or Dad) has had to trudge reluctantly back to work after the parental leave, and their child vanishes from the local playgroup to be put into daycare. Months pass between the few times I see them, as they've become so over scheduled they can hardly arrange a social visit, let alone be spontaneous about it. Almost a year passes, and then I notice that their relationship has changed. Mom's voice sounds weary when she talks; the child misbehaves a lot, and maybe pushes her away when she offers a cuddle. Mom's too timid to be firm about the inappropriate things her child does. She doesn't see her child as much, so she'll do anything to avoid a conflict.

It's one of those little quiet tragedies, I think, of everyday life. Yet it's such an accepted one, and one people think they must go through in the process of raising their children.

Another scenario, this one happier, is that the parents return to work, and are lucky to find a nanny or relative to be the sole care provider for their child. Many children seem to thrive in a situation where they (along with a sibling, perhaps) get lots of loving attention from a talented, caring individual. The child becomes very attached to this person. The bittersweet consequence is that the exclusive relationship the parents enjoyed with their young child has been prematurely given away to this person. Mom's may feel a pang of guilt, even jealousy, when they watch their children rush into the arms of their beloved caregiver each weekday morning, and don't look back.

What also gets lost is the community that could develop among parents raising children. We get to know each other, and then go our separate ways just as things get interesting. The well-known adage of "it takes a village to raise a child" is, in my opinion, not realized very well in our society.

If you read the above, shrug your shoulders, and feel these are scenarios that don't greatly trouble you - that's fine with me. Everyone is different. We all have different degrees of need, different temperments and priorities. I'm not about to try and convince you that you are wrong and ought to change. I'm not about to try and convince parents, who work outside the home, that they ought to make the same choice I have.

Instead, I would like to try and offer some advice to parents who want to stay home but are convinced they can't; and to new parents (or those about to be parents) who are still deciding if stay-at-home parenting is for you. My next few posts will look at staying home from the financial, emotional and logistical aspects.

"Grups"

I checked out a recent article in New York Magazine about “Grups” (the word is a contraction of the term "grown-up"). The generation gap has been closed, declares the author Adam Sternbergh. These grups are a new form of adulthood.

What makes you a grup? You own more pairs of sneakers than suits. You go about the neighbourhood listening to the latest alternative band on your iPod, wearing trendy jeans and a shaggy haircut, maybe drinking a latte. Your kids wear miniature versions of your fashionable digs. Rather than playing bridge or going bowling, you stay out late at concerts, or hang out with other grups listening to jazz, while the kids play in your modernist living room.

In other words, grups are people in their 30s, 40s or (gasp) early 50s with homes, children and jobs, yet who tend to look and act like they’re a twentysomething university student.

I have been thinking for the past little while about where this Grup thing is coming from. It's open to debate if this is such a new phenomenon. Personally, I think we saw the beginnings, at the very least, of this trend with Baby Boomers and their kids. Timing aside though, what the author is really trying to grasp is how the disappearance of that formal passage into adulthood which used to be more noticible in our society. He comments that his own father took on a unfulfilling kind of job that paid well, and wore suits to work. He didn’t read his kid's comic books or listen to their Sex Pistols albums willingly. Or wear jeans (much).

Why are more adults today choosing to extend their 20-something behavior, their tastes, and their hobbies well into midlife?

Here's what I'm considering: maybe there isn’t supposed to be such a pronounced gap between the generations. It's considered a normal thing in our culture. Yet, in more traditional cultures, kids are expected to shadow their parents as they go about their day, so that by the time they are teenagers, they are actually doing adult stuff: managing a household, farming or raising the famiy’s livestock, taking care of younger siblings. They may even marry and start having a family of their own, at an age before most Western teens can even vote. The transition from child to adult is much more quick and seamless.

The generation gap that we’ve come to know and expect may instead be a sign that something is out of whack. When the way that adults and children spend their time is so different, creating a disconnect, then something in the culture has changed too drastically. Appearance of this Grup phenomenon may be a sign then that things are (trying) to reach an equilibrium again.

It struck me that the alterna-dads and yupster moms that Sternbergh describes are just busy doing what ought to come naturally: teaching their kids about the big world and how to get along in it.

Most of the people Sternbergh interviewed for the article work in the cultural sector: fashion design, music, or television and film production. This makes up a significant part of New York city’s community and its economy. Keeping current with shifts in popular culture can be vital to New Yorkers making a living in their city. Teaching their kids about the Ramones, iPods, cool clothes -- or helping them develop an “aesthetic” as one father put it -- is what will give those kids an edge when it comes time for them to start exploring NY's cultural buffet on their own. Showing little Dylan where to shop for the natty jeans and how to play a guitar riff is really no different than showing Juan the best way to grow the corn, beans 'n' squash. They are both learning forms of subsistence. The latter example is more direct, i.e. growing one’s own food; the other is how to be successful in a predominantly artisitc and materialistic environment. So you can make money, and thus buy your food, the roof over your head, etc.

Many of these parents in the Grup article also spoke of having passion for their work and enjoying life, as oppossed to supressing interests that began in their youth in order to fit into a more conservative corporate work culture. Why adopt more “grown-up” things they ask, like playing golf, wearing wool suits, and watching Matlock, if you don’t have a genuine like for that stuff?

What I found sorta touching is that these parents seemed to quite enjoy being parents, and regard parenting itself as a major creative endeavor. They strive to be more in synch with the younger people around them, and I think this is a very good thing to see. My reaction has not been one of, “oh pul-eese! Grow up already”; rather, it strikes me as healthy, even well-adapted, response.

And it remained unsaid, but -- isn’t it satisfying to have all the trappings of a cool youth combined with the greater sense of personal security in who you’ve become (not to mention a salary) that tends to emerge within adulthood? That’s having it all, New York style, I suppose.

Check out the article for yourself by clicking the link under "Specific Articles" in the sidebar on the right.

Ethnopediatrics

I've had a bit of a revelation: discovery of a new field of study called "ethnopediatrics". Time Magazine recently published (January 16, 2006) an article entitled "Want a brainier baby?" by Pamela Paul, which quotes anthropologist Meredith Small. Her comment and her occupation, of course, peaked my interest. So, I did a little googling, and it turns out that Small is one of the pioneers in this new field, which looks at how parenting styles or techniques vary across cultures.

She has written a few books: "Our babies, Ourselves: how biology and culture shape the way we parent" and "Kids: how biology and culture shape the way we raise young children." I haven't read either book yet, but certainly look forward to. Anyway, it thrilled me to find out about another person out there studying cross-cultural practice, and asking questions about how our own practices may or may not be better, worse, indifferent, etc. I'll try to add a few links related to Small's work in the sidebar.

Incidentally, the Time article was reporting more on the increasing selection of "educational" videos, books and toys for very young children (e.g. like Baby Einstein or Brainy Baby, etc.). This was interesting too, as I've received a couple of these kinds of books and videos as gifts for our baby. To date I haven't bothered with the videos (which I'm sure glad about now...read on); as for the books there're okay, but more impressive to adults than children (i.e. "wow - there's pictures by Van Gogh and Degas in here...guess that can't be a bad thing"). My son isn't old enough yet to really enjoy them; right now he's more interested in pots'n'pans, water in the sink and other 'mundane' everyday objects. Fine with us!

Anyway, the article pointed out that many of these products don't have solid science or research behind them to demonstrate a tangible benefit. Quite the opposite may be true, in fact. (Gee, tossing that Tellytubbie video could actually be a heroic move. Hmm...) The article cites videos and television as being particularly detrimental, in that they can negatively affect a child's brain development. Here's a quote from another academic guy, Dimitri Christakis:

"'Parents say, "My child can't stop looking at [a children's video]! She loves it!"...true, she can't stop looking at it, but that doesn't mean she loves it.' Not only might Baby not be enjoying the program, but [research suggests] 'there's reason to believe these products have deleterious effets on the developing mind'...the American Academy of Pediartrics recommends no TV viewing of any kind before age 2".

Meredith Small in her turn comments that "there's a growing thought that maybe Americans are overstimulating their babies, or stimulating them in the wrong ways."

View the article in Time by clicking the link in the sidebar. Note: the Time website requires that you login or get a subscription to read the whole article online.
To learn a bit more about Meredith Small, I've included a link to her bio page on Cornell University's website (see sidebar).

Touchy Feeley

Saw a commercial on television recently that asked: "Do Canadians touch their pets more than their spouses?" This is part of a teaser campaign, since you have to go to the company's website to find out the answer. I did - the answer is no (the fact that I was uncertain suggests that we have not a very physically affectionate society I suppose). According to the site, spouses receive the most touch (46%), followed by children, other family members, then pets, followed by friends and co-workers. The site also mentioned that 20% of married couples go a whole day without touching; and that 1/3 of Canadians regularly go a day or more withough touching a single person.

The reason I bring it up is that in learning about caring for newborns, I've come to recognize how important touch is to human beings. I'd say I'm not a very "touchy-feely" sort of person. Tho', as I write that, I will concede that I am very affectionate towards my husband and family. I do find that outside the family circle, however, I'm much more hesitant to pat a friend on the back or touch an acquaintence on the arm. Most people that I encounter on a daily basis tend to be the same way.

When I lived for a while in Europe, I made some friends who grew up in a culture where they touched much more, and they often kissed each other on both cheeks -- either in greeting or when departing. At first I felt a little silly doing this kiss-kiss thing, but it was nice once I got used to the custom. It's amazing how it affects your regard for a person if you a more physically affectionate. I haven't seen many of these friends for several years now, but I think of them just as fondly now as when I saw them everyday.

I guess that I am hoping to raise children who are more comfortable with the giving and receiving of affection than I am. That's why the commercial intregued me (it's generally not a habit of mine to visit product websites for fun). That's why I used a sling to carry my son about until he was ready and eager to be mobile, and in general, to treat him in a way that is more in keeping with how children have been raised for thousands of years - in close contact via breastfeeding and carrying. I think that in the West our society has become a little too touch phobic, and we are losing out on an important dimension in our relationships with others. "Actions speak louder than words." We can do more good sometimes not by saying the "right" thing, but by doing right through a caring gesture.

Great Expectations

I’ve come across this great little photo documentary on the WHO (World Health Organization) website. It was a special feature called Great Expectations, arranged to coincide with World Health Day 2005, the theme of which was maternal and child health.

Featured are six mothers, sharing their experiences of pregnancy and childbirth, from different countries: Bolivia, Egypt, Ethiopia, India, the Lao People's Democratic Republic, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain. It really struck a chord, as many of these women were having their babies around the same time as I was.

I find it very interesting to contrast, through the photos, the different styles of child care. The mother from the UK was the only mother formula feeding, who lamented how she needed a routine, and was making ample use of baby gadgets. These are practices that appear to really set us apart from parents in other parts of the world, and you have to wonder if our babies are any better off.

Well worth a visit, so here’s the link:
http://www.who.int/features/great_expectations/en/index.html