Tuesday, April 16, 2013
Bringing Up Bebe
Bringing Up Bebe by Pamela Druckerman examines the way the French bring up their children. It's a way that's starkly different than the way many Americans do. This enlightening book made me think about time for myself, breast feeding, scheduling activities for my kids, sex, and the power of simply saying "NO." Don't have time to read the book? Here are my Cliff Notes.
When you take your kids to the playground, do you sit on the bench, read a book or quietly observe your child? Or do you jump right into the playground, showing your child - "Hey look, here's the slide! Cool, here's the swing. Molly! Look at the swing!"
Most French parents sit back and let their children explore by themselves. It's a process of self discovery, autonomy and also a balance of adulthood for the parent. They're involved in the child's activity but they aren't narrating their experience. They're also entitled to read an adult book - an activity for themselves.
French parents are not at constant service to their children. They have adult lives especially after bedtime with their husbands and friends. They have dinner parties where children play (with no mention of TV or a movie) while they have conversations uninterrupted. At dinner parties with adults and family children are not on-stage performing their "tricks" nor are they the subject of all conversation. They aren't the "enfant roi" or child king. Politics, religion, current events, pop culture and adult topics are covered, their children are not the only subjects discussed.
They aren't ignored either, don't mistake that. The days of children being "seen and not heard" are gone in France, mostly changed by Dolto in the 1960's. French believe a child can understand a feel things from a very early age. They believe that even infants are rational human beings that you can talk to like adult human beings. It's this respect for their being that French parents observe, and the reason why many French children are very well behaved.
French children eat sauteed leaks, fish soup, a variety of fruits and vegetables and lots of cheeses. There aren't "kids" menus in France. Children don't live off a diet of chicken nuggets, PPJ and mac & cheese because parents see it as their job to educate children from an early age on a variety of foods. Many French children are required to eat a bite of everything on their plate before leaving the table. Mom's don't make a second meal because kid doesn't like it.
French children do not snack all day. They have ONE snack (gouter) at 4:30 pm daily, many times it is something sweet like cake or chocolate. Because they have just one snack a day, they are truly hungry at meals and because they have snacks that indulge in chocolate, they aren't such a coveted treat and kids aren't gorging later.
French couples don't have "date night." In fact, the author says that French mother's find this American trend very sad and perplexing. Every night should be "date night" with your husband and calling it "date night" just sounds like you are scheduling romance. Many French parents go "en vacances" with their husband once or twice a year, leaving their children with grandparents or camp (as young as 6) for a week or two weeks.
French women are supposed to be sexy. As a general stereotype, women don't gain much weight during pregnancy, French magazines have articles teaching women to resist cravings. As a result of not gaining much weight, they typically regain their figure after 3 months. There's no living in sweat pants and maternity clothes 9 or 12 months later. Insurance actually pays for -- get this -- vaginal rejuvenation. Need I explain more? Insurance pays medical professionals to make the vagina tighter. Doctors ask such questions - "is your husband happy?"
French mother's go back to work at 3 months and very few are devoted housewives and stay home moms. Their children go to "creches" -or government run and subsided day cares that have absolutely no stigma like day cares do in the United States. Jobs at creches are highly sought after and are won by very accomplished educators and they're highly trained. People fight to get their kids into a local creche. The 4 course menu for babies at lunch rivals gourmet restaurants - part of why children are also so educated about food at an early age.
French mother's breast feed a lot less than American parents. The length of time that they breast feed is not a measure of performance unlike it often is in the United States where mother's ask - "how long did you make it?" French doctors suggest switching to formula with a blocked dock or cracked nipple. You don't get brownie points for sticking it out and many French mother's just find it inconvenient and requiring such effort, they don't do it at all. Only 63 percent of French mother's breast feed, half breast feed by leaving the hospital, and most abandon after 3 months. Yet, French children thrive and on a Unicef scale measuring infant mortality rates, immunization and health. the French outperform Americans.
Feeding times are called meals - not feeds- and most babies after 4 months are eating just 4 times a day. A breakfast, lunch, 4 pm gouter (snack) and dinner. French mothers do not generally feed between the hours of 12-5 am even early on.
French parents don't seem to discipline their children much - they rarely spank or use timeout. Their "discipline" is "educating" their children at all times. They do delay gratification, don't give into their children immediately and aren't afraid to just say no.
Speaking of delayed gratification, this may be why many French children sleep through the night at 3 months old. It's something the author coined as The Pause. Early on, many French mother's wait to respond to their baby's cry in the middle of the night. Early on (before 4 months), they wait up to 5 minutes to see if they child is truly awake or just going through part of their sleep cycle. As a result, many babies learn to put themselves back to sleep. Most French babies are sleeping through the night at 3 months old. It's rare to see a baby not sleep through the night at 6 months, and even more rare at 1 year. French mother's observe their babies natural rhythms, letting them sleep when they're tired and keeping them in the light during the day for naps and in dark at night.
Swiss psychologist Jean Piaget came to the US in the 1960's and shared his theories on child development. After each talk, someone in the audience typically asked - how do we speed this up? He called it "The American Question." He didn't think pushing kids to acquire skills ahead of schedule was possible or desirable.
The author writes: "Americans assign ourselves the job of pushing, stimulating and carrying ourselves from one developmental stage to the next. The better at parenting, we think, the faster our kids develop. French parents aren't so anxious to get them in swim classes, get them reading, or do math ahead of schedule. They do sign their kids up for tennis, fencing, and English lessons but they don't parade these activities as proof of what good parents they are. Nor are they guarded when talking about the classes, like they're some secret. In France, the point of enrolling a child in Saturday morning-music class isn't to activate some neural network, it's to have fun." They're not sitting at the park doing flash cards with their baby. They're letting their baby be a baby.
At three years old, they're not shuttling their kids (a maman taxi) to ballet, gymnastics, music, tennis and soccer. That would be out of balance for the mom and not good for the child's natural development.
French children are provided a framework (cadre) to live in where parents are strict and firm but within their limits are very free. Once their in a safe environment and structured, they are very free to do what they want and discover themselves. It's a process called "awakening."
The author glorified French parenting in my opinion and I am sure there are many exceptions to the rule. Certainly there must be an overweight French woman sitting in her maternity clothes 10 months later, scheduling their baby in the latest music class while secretly coveting the instructors phone number, doing flash cards, not showering and not having sex with her husband. But many of the ideas even if exaggerated or over generalized, are interesting and ones I could adapt. Mostly all but the breastfeeding one. And that rejuevenation!
Thursday, March 14, 2013
Cinderella Ate My Daughter
Cinderella ate my daughter by Peggy Orenstein is a book that every mother raising a daughter should read. Today's culture of "princesses" and emphasis on girls getting older younger, looking beautiful, and how that message is disseminated and received by toddlers as young is mind blowing. Through mainstream media, girls are put on a trajectory of things pink and sparkly, moving to diva, then overtly sexualized. The path is dangerous and parents do not have to succumb. Here's my book report, the Cliff Notes if you will --to share the key points readers.
So what's wrong with Cinderella?
Let's start out with Disney heroines as role models. Princesses avoid female bonding and their goals are to be saved by a prince, married, and taken care of for the rest of their lives. Recall Ariel, the little mermaid actually willing to trade her beautiful voice for a man! Their values derive from their appearance. With characters like these, we may actually be cultivating a legion of step sisters: spoiled, self-centered materialsts, superficially charming, but without depth or means of transformation.
Turns out "Disney Princesses" as a concept didn't exist until 2000 when a former Nike executive Andy Mooney saw an unfulfilled market for them to be branded together in a consumer products division. Think princess make-up, shoes, dress up clothes, over 26,000 products. Before Mooney, all of that merchandising didn't exist. Just 9 years later, sales soared to 4 BILLION dollars. It is the largest franchise on the planet for girls ages TWO to SIX.
Sex and your daughter
Orenstein makes a claim that "early sexualization can derail a girls healthy development then estrange them from their own erotic feelings." Perhaps the most thought provoking part of the book for me was when Orenstein writes: "my fear for my daughter is not that she will someday act in a sexual way; it is that she will learn to act sexually against her own self-interest." In other words: I know she will have sex, but when she does, I hope she does it for the right reasons (including that it's pleasurable for her - not just to gratify a man.)
Let's start out with Disney heroines as role models. Princesses avoid female bonding and their goals are to be saved by a prince, married, and taken care of for the rest of their lives. Recall Ariel, the little mermaid actually willing to trade her beautiful voice for a man! Their values derive from their appearance. With characters like these, we may actually be cultivating a legion of step sisters: spoiled, self-centered materialsts, superficially charming, but without depth or means of transformation.
Turns out "Disney Princesses" as a concept didn't exist until 2000 when a former Nike executive Andy Mooney saw an unfulfilled market for them to be branded together in a consumer products division. Think princess make-up, shoes, dress up clothes, over 26,000 products. Before Mooney, all of that merchandising didn't exist. Just 9 years later, sales soared to 4 BILLION dollars. It is the largest franchise on the planet for girls ages TWO to SIX.
What's up with everything PINK?
In short, because pink sells. Girls attraction to pink may seem encoded in their DNA, that girls are just born loving it, but the truth is that hundreds of thousands of products - toys, clothes, books are available and more importantly, marketed to them in pink. Even Sesame Street, a show that stomped out stereotypes and celebrated diversity for years sold out here with the launch in 2006 of Abby Cadabby, a pink three-year old "fairy in training."
In short, because pink sells. Girls attraction to pink may seem encoded in their DNA, that girls are just born loving it, but the truth is that hundreds of thousands of products - toys, clothes, books are available and more importantly, marketed to them in pink. Even Sesame Street, a show that stomped out stereotypes and celebrated diversity for years sold out here with the launch in 2006 of Abby Cadabby, a pink three-year old "fairy in training."
When children are tiny, no matter how we dress them or decorate their room, they do not know pink from blue. Generally, they play with the same toys. Girls and boys start labeling around age 2-3 and until age 5 don't really understand that your gender is fixed based on anatomy. They think gender is based on color choices, hair style, toy preferences and favorite colors. (A three year old thinks Sally is a girl because she wears a pink headband. She doesn't think Sally is a girl because Sally has a vagina.)
The lure of Disney Princesses and grasping PINK, pink and more pink then at age 2-5 makes total sense if above is the case. Developmentally speaking, that's the same age when girls need to prove they are girls, when they latch onto the most exaggerated image of femininity. Age four is also when their brains are the most malleable and most open to long term influence on the abilities and roles that go with their sex. Therefore the age when Princesses are being marketed to two - six years are precisely the time when they are learning about their gender identity and roles, and when they are the most susceptible to influence. And why they grasp pink as a symbol of their femininity.
Also discussed in this chapter is the concept of kids getting older younger. In marketing, it's actually known as KGOY. Bonnie Bell Lip Smackers originally were intended for age 12. Now half of six-to-nine year olds wear lip gloss or lipstick regularly. Lip Smackers now targets their audience at age 4. FOUR! For lipstick!
The lure of Disney Princesses and grasping PINK, pink and more pink then at age 2-5 makes total sense if above is the case. Developmentally speaking, that's the same age when girls need to prove they are girls, when they latch onto the most exaggerated image of femininity. Age four is also when their brains are the most malleable and most open to long term influence on the abilities and roles that go with their sex. Therefore the age when Princesses are being marketed to two - six years are precisely the time when they are learning about their gender identity and roles, and when they are the most susceptible to influence. And why they grasp pink as a symbol of their femininity.
Also discussed in this chapter is the concept of kids getting older younger. In marketing, it's actually known as KGOY. Bonnie Bell Lip Smackers originally were intended for age 12. Now half of six-to-nine year olds wear lip gloss or lipstick regularly. Lip Smackers now targets their audience at age 4. FOUR! For lipstick!
Sparkle, Sweetie!
In this chapter, Orenstein examines the culture of beauty pageants - specifically the hit TLC show Toddlers and Tiaras or even less excessive and real life situations in which 5 year old girls get spray tans, diet, dress in thousand dollar gowns and perform a "talent" to a mostly male judging panel. They strut their stuff on stage to be judged.
The show claims to be an expose and then the viewers that watch them indulge in "guilty free" voyeurism. They're the better parents because those moms are the monsters! Mother's of daughters in pageants claim that they build a child's confidence, give her a poise that will one day be useful in getting a job but what Orenstein thinks is really just a denial of injury (the idea that children are not harmed by the experience, but they actually benefit) or is just denial of responsibility (the idea that the child begged to be in it and they had no choice but to comply.) Perhaps worse is that we, the viewer, stop questioning the way our children are objectified in real life because we see situations on TV that are far worse. We are desensitized to the sexualization and objectification.
Disney's Intentions for Our Daughters
Disney's intentions for our daughters - the promise begun in the princess years, that if parents stuck with the brand - letting girls progress naturally from Cinderella to the Disney Channel divas with their TV shows, movie spin-offs, and music downloads - our daughters could actually enjoy pop culture without becoming pop tarts. Safe. Innocent. Protective. FALSE. Miley, Lindsay, Hilary, even Britney. They're all part of the Disney machine. They serve up their sexuality for mass consumption, and we the public - mostly our daughters - just buy into it.
Shielding ones daughter from all of the sexually charged toys, clothing, music and images is not easy. From Ty Girlz dolls, Bratz dolls, Moxie Girls, Barbie dolls, to the most recent Disney channel "It" girl - its pervasiveness is hard to escape. 8 year-olds are wearing low-slung shirts that read: BAD GIRL and short shorts, with lip gloss. Innocent and loved Miley Cirus was the loved Hannah Montanah. In 2006, she posed coyly and sexually for Vanity Fair - farewell to the innocent Hannah Montanah! Also enter Jamie Lynn Spears. Disney Channel "Safe It Girl" one day - knocked up at 16 the next. It's a trend Ornstein calls: "wholesome to whoresome."
In this chapter, Orenstein examines the culture of beauty pageants - specifically the hit TLC show Toddlers and Tiaras or even less excessive and real life situations in which 5 year old girls get spray tans, diet, dress in thousand dollar gowns and perform a "talent" to a mostly male judging panel. They strut their stuff on stage to be judged.
The show claims to be an expose and then the viewers that watch them indulge in "guilty free" voyeurism. They're the better parents because those moms are the monsters! Mother's of daughters in pageants claim that they build a child's confidence, give her a poise that will one day be useful in getting a job but what Orenstein thinks is really just a denial of injury (the idea that children are not harmed by the experience, but they actually benefit) or is just denial of responsibility (the idea that the child begged to be in it and they had no choice but to comply.) Perhaps worse is that we, the viewer, stop questioning the way our children are objectified in real life because we see situations on TV that are far worse. We are desensitized to the sexualization and objectification.
Disney's Intentions for Our Daughters
Many of us played princess and dress up when we were young and that's part of the appeal of the movies and the merchandise. Mother's assume because they watched them too, they can't be bad - they're safe, they're innocent. But what's a contradiction in today's world is that they're being introduced to a consumer culture that will ultimately encourage the opposite. And because when we were playing princess or watching Sleeping Beauty, the context in which they were marketed was much different.
Disney's intentions for our daughters - the promise begun in the princess years, that if parents stuck with the brand - letting girls progress naturally from Cinderella to the Disney Channel divas with their TV shows, movie spin-offs, and music downloads - our daughters could actually enjoy pop culture without becoming pop tarts. Safe. Innocent. Protective. FALSE. Miley, Lindsay, Hilary, even Britney. They're all part of the Disney machine. They serve up their sexuality for mass consumption, and we the public - mostly our daughters - just buy into it.
Shielding ones daughter from all of the sexually charged toys, clothing, music and images is not easy. From Ty Girlz dolls, Bratz dolls, Moxie Girls, Barbie dolls, to the most recent Disney channel "It" girl - its pervasiveness is hard to escape. 8 year-olds are wearing low-slung shirts that read: BAD GIRL and short shorts, with lip gloss. Innocent and loved Miley Cirus was the loved Hannah Montanah. In 2006, she posed coyly and sexually for Vanity Fair - farewell to the innocent Hannah Montanah! Also enter Jamie Lynn Spears. Disney Channel "Safe It Girl" one day - knocked up at 16 the next. It's a trend Ornstein calls: "wholesome to whoresome."
Sex and your daughter
Orenstein makes a claim that "early sexualization can derail a girls healthy development then estrange them from their own erotic feelings." Perhaps the most thought provoking part of the book for me was when Orenstein writes: "my fear for my daughter is not that she will someday act in a sexual way; it is that she will learn to act sexually against her own self-interest." In other words: I know she will have sex, but when she does, I hope she does it for the right reasons (including that it's pleasurable for her - not just to gratify a man.)
Why it's so dangerous.
There's ample evidence that suggests the more mainstream media girls consume, the more importance they place on being pretty and being sexy. Increasingly in today's culture women have to be smart, a good athlete, compassionate, friendly, caring, assertive, get into a good college, become a wife, working professional, mother and doting wife, pretty, sexy and cool. It's a tall order.
The media machine that tells girls how you look is more important than how you feel, or even worse that how you look is how you feel as well as who you are. Our children aren't growing up any faster because of the world, it's because we are allowing the images and the mass media allow them to be reached and we are accepting it. The marketing notion of KGOY is a full-filling prophecy.
Scary statistics - 81 percent of ten year old girls are already dieting. Kindergartners know that "fat" is shameful. But how? When was the last time you saw a chubby Disney Princess?
How a girl feels about her appearance has a major impact on her self-esteem - whether she is pretty enough, thin enough, or hot enough. If Princesses, Moxies, and Miley are not responsible, they certainly reinforce it. 12,000 Botox injections in 2009 for children ages 13-19, 43,000 children under 18 altered their appearance through cosmetic surgery.
Just between you, me, and my 622+ BFF's.
80% of KINDERGARTNERS are online. 80%. As those K-students get older, the internet has become a place to game, chat, experiment with identity, develop friendships, and flirt. Nowadays on social networking, their thoughts, photos, tastes, and activities are put out as statuses and subjected to immediate and lasting judgement by those they've accepted, which turns out teens aren't that discriminatory. As they get older on social communities, notice that the "self" has become a "brand"- something to be marketed towards others rather than developed from within. The friends become your consumers, an audience for whom you perform. Girls specifically then have to cultivate a persona of "beautiful, sexy yet innocent" and not come off like a "slut."
What should we do?
Teach your daughter to remember that identity is not for sale. Your identity comes from the inside. Orenstein also suggests:
We can and should give our daughters choices beyond Disney Princesses, Barbies, Moxie Dolls, Bratz Dolls, and the numerous other dolls being shoved down our throats aisle after aisle, ad after ad, commercial after commercial. Those choices should appeal to our daughter's desire to be girls at the time that they are most malleable. They're choices that should appeal to parent's values, world view and dreams for them. We should remember that there are other colors on the spectrum - not just pink - when choosing merchandise for our girls.
There's ample evidence that suggests the more mainstream media girls consume, the more importance they place on being pretty and being sexy. Increasingly in today's culture women have to be smart, a good athlete, compassionate, friendly, caring, assertive, get into a good college, become a wife, working professional, mother and doting wife, pretty, sexy and cool. It's a tall order.
The media machine that tells girls how you look is more important than how you feel, or even worse that how you look is how you feel as well as who you are. Our children aren't growing up any faster because of the world, it's because we are allowing the images and the mass media allow them to be reached and we are accepting it. The marketing notion of KGOY is a full-filling prophecy.
Scary statistics - 81 percent of ten year old girls are already dieting. Kindergartners know that "fat" is shameful. But how? When was the last time you saw a chubby Disney Princess?
How a girl feels about her appearance has a major impact on her self-esteem - whether she is pretty enough, thin enough, or hot enough. If Princesses, Moxies, and Miley are not responsible, they certainly reinforce it. 12,000 Botox injections in 2009 for children ages 13-19, 43,000 children under 18 altered their appearance through cosmetic surgery.
80% of KINDERGARTNERS are online. 80%. As those K-students get older, the internet has become a place to game, chat, experiment with identity, develop friendships, and flirt. Nowadays on social networking, their thoughts, photos, tastes, and activities are put out as statuses and subjected to immediate and lasting judgement by those they've accepted, which turns out teens aren't that discriminatory. As they get older on social communities, notice that the "self" has become a "brand"- something to be marketed towards others rather than developed from within. The friends become your consumers, an audience for whom you perform. Girls specifically then have to cultivate a persona of "beautiful, sexy yet innocent" and not come off like a "slut."
What should we do?
Teach your daughter to remember that identity is not for sale. Your identity comes from the inside. Orenstein also suggests:
- Stress what your daughters body can DO over how it is decorated.
- Praise her for her accomplishments over her looks.
- Make sure Dad is on board - a father's loving regard and interest in a girl, as the first man in her life, is crucial.
- Involve her in team sports: research shows that participation lowers teen pregnancy rates, raises self-esteem, and improves grades.
We can and should give our daughters choices beyond Disney Princesses, Barbies, Moxie Dolls, Bratz Dolls, and the numerous other dolls being shoved down our throats aisle after aisle, ad after ad, commercial after commercial. Those choices should appeal to our daughter's desire to be girls at the time that they are most malleable. They're choices that should appeal to parent's values, world view and dreams for them. We should remember that there are other colors on the spectrum - not just pink - when choosing merchandise for our girls.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)