I just read this article, and even though in principle I agree with their argument, I definitely do not agree with making parents feel terrible for not being able to relax during pregnancy, breastfeed or have a natural birth if they wanted to do these things, or assume a child is neglected if it's not being constantly held by a family member. The author then proceeds to condescendingly suggest a dog, or even more patronising - a fish - instead of having a child if they cannot reach the impossibly high standards this author has set new parents.
I assume the author is a parent. I think that a lot of the things they try to ram down your throat as necessities are lovely - I love co-sleeping, breastfeeding, babywearing and hanging out with my little girl. I would also love her to have more family members involved in her care, but we live in a different city to our extended family network, so our daughter is a poor deprived thing, having to make do with two loving parents, and a whole host of our friends who she loves. I am a terrible parent, apparently. I should get a fish and take the baby back, I suppose.
It's hard enough being a new parent without someone making the nice, feel-good decisions look like a totalitarian regime. No one should be forced to parent in any particular way - we all turned out ok, and I doubt all of our parents were attachment parents. Sure we've all got our own issues, but even well-adjusted people have their own idiosyncracies.
Does this woman think that if we work even harder as over-worked parents that we'll somehow overcome our children's weaknesses? We've all got them, and no amount of parenting is going to raise a perfect child.
Although Darcia Narvaez is a psychologist, she doesn't seem particularly adept at being polite to her readership, as she berates us for being human, fragile, and imperfect. Seems a pretty cruel thing for a psychologist to do, but I guess she gets paid to help people with low self-esteem brought on by perfectionist standards of parenting too.
I don't know why this particular article has gotten my hackles up, because I agree with a lot of the points she makes. I do think that babies should be breastfed and carried around like little joeys for as long as possible, and all the rest.
However, I agree with this stuff for my kids. Not all kids. Or all parents. All people have different opinions, and I would have thought a psychologist would be more tolerant, and more understanding of different beliefs and practices. I guess the stress Narvaez says we should avoid in pregnancy is in no way related to the unrealistic and unrelenting pressures placed on parents-to-be who already have enough on their plates?
Keep up the good work, Narvaez. Maybe soon there will actually be even less attachment parents, because you've made it seem like an impossible thing to achieve.
Showing posts with label feminism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label feminism. Show all posts
Monday, 16 April 2012
Saturday, 14 April 2012
Parenting Pride and Feminist Philosophising
I'm a proud parent. I am also proud of being a parent. It seems that a vast section of society would prefer to think that children happen to other people, and don't want to be bothered in their adult world by little people. Fair enough, I guess. Although I have to question the values held by a society that doesn't place any distinction upon children, or the people who choose to have them.
A lot of people seem to forget that children and parents shape the future of our society. Without people willing to sacrifice their earning potential or do without luxuries, there wouldn't be a new generation. Maybe childless people need to give people who have kids a bit of a break. Kids throw tantrums in inconvenient places, ask embarrassing questions, and talk too loudly. They also learn by doing things, so they need to go to places like shopping centres and learn what goes on and how to behave, just like anyone else.
I get sick of hearing that "parenting is a choice". Of course it is, most things in life are. That doesn't stop parenting from being one of the most difficult and rewarding things most people do with their lives. I am often asked if Indigo was an "accident" when people find out I'm 24, because fewer people in their twenties are having kids. Being a parent at an age when most of your friends are partying and getting into the swing of their careers can be tough - people can be very critical of the choice to be a parent, without having ever considering that it was a choice I wanted to make, and so do many others. Fewer of these same friends can understand why, after a child which must surely have been an accident, Dave and I want another child.
I think the use of the word "accident" leads people to dismiss someone's choice to have a child - as if somehow unexpected parents are less worthy, because they had parenthood thrust on them and chose to embrace it. I don't know if you can call it an accident to knowingly keep your child, and love and care for them from the time you know they exist. I don't know if you can call a child an accident when a couple has been dreaming about and planning for children, at sometime in the near future. It's just a matter of perspective. I never tell nosy people a clear-cut answer when they ask if Indigo was an accident. I feel to do so would betray her and all other babies - like somehow, planned babies are "better" than unplanned, and to say either way is meaningless for her and all children.
On another note, since when has 24 been young to have a baby? 24 is pretty much the ideal time to fall pregnant, according to this study, and it was definitely perfect for me. I don't like being judged by a society that forces women to work before having children, supposedly to liberate them, only to find in their thirties that they have trouble conceiving when they want to because they were waiting for things to be perfect, or want to own a house first, have such a busy schedule they don't even have time for a partner, or a myriad of other reasons.
Who said that we have to work before having children? We humans live an awfully long time now, so we have the luxury to think about whether we want to have a career or study, and think about children when we're ready, but also to have children at a younger age, and think about a career when we're ready. Society understands and accepts the former, but often views the latter with contempt. I don't understand why people can understand the personal goals of wanting a rewarding and interesting career, disposable income, the possibilities of travel, but cannot understand the goals of wanting to be the best person you can be to grow a family. They are both valid life goals, and are not mutually exclusive!
This all revolves around the feminist issue of choice. Apparently women are identifying less with being feminists - we're seen as hairy-legged, angry manhaters - and although women give lip service to equality on occasion, we are constantly expected to somehow be better than equal. If we choose to have children, to choose to stay home with them is oppressing us, even though some of us would far prefer the single full-time job of parent than to play the juggling game with paid employment and kid-wrangling, and working is supposedly oppressing the women who choose to work by denying them the choice to stay home. Again - valid choices, but society far prefers the idea of employed parents, so to be a stay-at-home parent is somehow slothful or unproductive to society, regardless of the woman's choice, or the child's happiness.
It seems we're all being groomed to be perfect little worker bees, consuming and working to pay off debt and being constantly stressed. People see this as normal. As someone who all but dropped out of society for almost two years a few years ago due to chronic anxiety and extremely high levels of stress, I can tell you that for me and a very large majority of people, this is not healthy, and we can choose not to live this way. The issue of choice is seriously important, but we treat it very lightly, and most of us "ladies" don't like getting into feminist or political discussions in case we upset or offend someone, or worse - bore them.
So, I just try to remind people that we have choices in life, and we are free to enjoy our long lives in any way that does no harm. In the end, it's all a matter of perspective.
What works for you?
A lot of people seem to forget that children and parents shape the future of our society. Without people willing to sacrifice their earning potential or do without luxuries, there wouldn't be a new generation. Maybe childless people need to give people who have kids a bit of a break. Kids throw tantrums in inconvenient places, ask embarrassing questions, and talk too loudly. They also learn by doing things, so they need to go to places like shopping centres and learn what goes on and how to behave, just like anyone else.
I get sick of hearing that "parenting is a choice". Of course it is, most things in life are. That doesn't stop parenting from being one of the most difficult and rewarding things most people do with their lives. I am often asked if Indigo was an "accident" when people find out I'm 24, because fewer people in their twenties are having kids. Being a parent at an age when most of your friends are partying and getting into the swing of their careers can be tough - people can be very critical of the choice to be a parent, without having ever considering that it was a choice I wanted to make, and so do many others. Fewer of these same friends can understand why, after a child which must surely have been an accident, Dave and I want another child.
I think the use of the word "accident" leads people to dismiss someone's choice to have a child - as if somehow unexpected parents are less worthy, because they had parenthood thrust on them and chose to embrace it. I don't know if you can call it an accident to knowingly keep your child, and love and care for them from the time you know they exist. I don't know if you can call a child an accident when a couple has been dreaming about and planning for children, at sometime in the near future. It's just a matter of perspective. I never tell nosy people a clear-cut answer when they ask if Indigo was an accident. I feel to do so would betray her and all other babies - like somehow, planned babies are "better" than unplanned, and to say either way is meaningless for her and all children.
On another note, since when has 24 been young to have a baby? 24 is pretty much the ideal time to fall pregnant, according to this study, and it was definitely perfect for me. I don't like being judged by a society that forces women to work before having children, supposedly to liberate them, only to find in their thirties that they have trouble conceiving when they want to because they were waiting for things to be perfect, or want to own a house first, have such a busy schedule they don't even have time for a partner, or a myriad of other reasons.
Who said that we have to work before having children? We humans live an awfully long time now, so we have the luxury to think about whether we want to have a career or study, and think about children when we're ready, but also to have children at a younger age, and think about a career when we're ready. Society understands and accepts the former, but often views the latter with contempt. I don't understand why people can understand the personal goals of wanting a rewarding and interesting career, disposable income, the possibilities of travel, but cannot understand the goals of wanting to be the best person you can be to grow a family. They are both valid life goals, and are not mutually exclusive!
This all revolves around the feminist issue of choice. Apparently women are identifying less with being feminists - we're seen as hairy-legged, angry manhaters - and although women give lip service to equality on occasion, we are constantly expected to somehow be better than equal. If we choose to have children, to choose to stay home with them is oppressing us, even though some of us would far prefer the single full-time job of parent than to play the juggling game with paid employment and kid-wrangling, and working is supposedly oppressing the women who choose to work by denying them the choice to stay home. Again - valid choices, but society far prefers the idea of employed parents, so to be a stay-at-home parent is somehow slothful or unproductive to society, regardless of the woman's choice, or the child's happiness.
It seems we're all being groomed to be perfect little worker bees, consuming and working to pay off debt and being constantly stressed. People see this as normal. As someone who all but dropped out of society for almost two years a few years ago due to chronic anxiety and extremely high levels of stress, I can tell you that for me and a very large majority of people, this is not healthy, and we can choose not to live this way. The issue of choice is seriously important, but we treat it very lightly, and most of us "ladies" don't like getting into feminist or political discussions in case we upset or offend someone, or worse - bore them.
So, I just try to remind people that we have choices in life, and we are free to enjoy our long lives in any way that does no harm. In the end, it's all a matter of perspective.
What works for you?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)