Somebody commented here yesterday, drawing attention to the possibility that some Christian groups raise girls with different expectations for their future than boys. This is probably a bad thing, although I have mixed feelings about it.
I will say at once that I believe firmly in the traditional family; that is to say a man and a woman making a vow of monogamy and raising their children together. As a matter of common observation, women tend to do most of the childcare themselves. Whether this should be the case is debateable; the truth is that even in the most right-on and progressive family, it is practically unheard of for the man to do the lion's share of the child rearing.
I believe that raising children is the most important thing that any adult can undertake. Everything else which I have done in my life is utterly insignificant when compared with bringing up my children. If we acknowledge that it is women who will be doing this task, then it makes sense to give them a little extra instruction about this, over and above what we teach to boys. I am not, by the way, advocating that boys should be taught or allowed to think that looking after babies is only for females. I am suggesting that realistically, it is girls who will end up doing the bulk of this. I suppose that from this point of view, it would make sense to angle a curriculum towards encouraging girls to learning more about childcare than boys. This is pretty much what some of the Christian curricula on offer for home educators aim to do. From that point of view, I suppose one can see the point.
I hasten to add, that I did no such thing myself. Although I did the majority of the childcare of my youngest daughter myself and despite the fact that she came to work with me and spent a few days every week from when she was three weeks old seeing me care for under-fives, she has never shown any sort of little girl type inclination to cuddle babies. This could, I suppose, be a consequence of having a man rather than a woman take care of her a lot when she was small. Maybe mothers pass on something to their daughters about caring for babies; I don't know. I sometimes wonder how good a scheme it is in real life for fathers to take care of their babies, instead of the mothers. I think it at least possible that this might lead to a disordered view of gender. Not that there is any sign of this in my daughter, but I can see that men are going to shape girls in very different ways from women.
I am not promoting any particular opinion here, just thinking about the programme about Gypsies last night and also the idea of a curriculum geared towards girls growing up as mothers and home keepers. I think that ideally, a rigorous academic course of instruction should be followed for both boys and girls, with additional separate elements for both. I can certainly think of one or two things that it would be wholesome to teach boys, as well as the normal subjects! I have to say that when I worked in Hackney during the eighties, running playgroups and so on, we tried to treat boys and girls exactly the same and it was a flop. Nurseries and primary schools were doing the same and it was all pretty much a failure there as well. I think that boys and girls are different and it might not be a bad thing to reflect these differences in the education which they are offered.
I couldn't bring myself to watch the programme last night (although I think one of my daughters did - must interogate later!) but I stand by what I said yesterday; whatever the culture, whatever the likely future for any child, a good education for all is essential, and any scheme which limits girls education because they may "never need it" is particularly short sighted because they will one day most likely be responsible for the education of their own children.
ReplyDeleteWe have a family of lovely African Muslim girls in our home ed group (the parents seem to trust a group of Christians more than they do the state sector) and they are very serious about getting a good education, taking exams etc. Learning physics seems a higher priority for them than home making!
"I sometimes wonder how good a scheme it is in real life for fathers to take care of their babies, instead of the mothers. I think it at least possible that this might lead to a disordered view of gender."
ReplyDeleteWhat on earth do you mean by that?
'"I sometimes wonder how good a scheme it is in real life for fathers to take care of their babies, instead of the mothers. I think it at least possible that this might lead to a disordered view of gender."
ReplyDeleteWhat on earth do you mean by that? '
Nothing sinister; I simply mean this. If a baby grows up being cared for and nurtured by a man and not a woman, then she might get the impression that men are just as likely to be taking care of children and looking after them as women are. This is, unfortunately, a fantasy. She may then become a grown woman with weird and distorted ideas about gender roles. That is to say she might hope to meet a man who will do an equal share of the housework and be happy to undertake the majority of care for his baby. This is as rare as rocking horse shit. Such a woman would be doomed to disappointment and never able to find aman who matched up to her unrealistic expectations. It would be better for girls to grow up realising that men do not in general clean the bathroom or get up in the night to take care of the baby.
I hasten to add that my daughter would go stark staring mad if she knew that I was expressing such views!
Julie says-whatever the likely future for any child, a good education for all is essential,
ReplyDeleteGovernments dont want every child to have a good education otherwise who will do the crap jobs? such burger flipper you want a larger pool of people who are very poorly educated who then in turn are easy to manger and please via the tv a daily dose of eastenders keeps most of the population happy!
It is true that childcare responsibilities are divided unevenly most of the time in heterosexual married homes (gay parents apparently do a much better job of avoiding conflict in this sphere), and that it is generally women who stay home in the dwindling, tiny number of 2-parent homes with 1 non-working parent, but that's no reason to say that education should be divided unevenly, or denied to girls all together.
ReplyDeleteAre you seriously suggesting that women should be prepared exclusively, (or 'specially') for a 'career' in stay-at-home-motherhood that essentially no longer exists outside of small religious sects? Or that having the 'taking care of babies' training you propose limited to girls only wouldn't send a message to all children that girls are not to be prepared for the workplace?
Or that all children - from families of all religions and beliefs about gender, straight and gay - should be raised with gender roles and limitations imported straight from the 1930s?
The following might be of interest on this subject, as well.
http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/the_tls/article7171325.ece
'Are you seriously suggesting that women should be prepared exclusively, (or 'specially') for a 'career' in stay-at-home-motherhood that essentially no longer exists outside of small religious sects?'
ReplyDeleteNo, I said, 'I think that ideally, a rigorous academic course of instruction should be followed for both boys and girls, with additional separate elements for both. I can certainly think of one or two things that it would be wholesome to teach boys, as well as the normal subjects!'
'(gay parents apparently do a much better job of avoiding conflict in this sphere'
Because of course men and women are different. Two women undertaking a task, or two men, are bound to have more similar outlooks and ways of doing things.
'
Or that all children - from families of all religions and beliefs about gender, straight and gay - should be raised with gender roles and limitations imported straight from the 1930s?'
Women doing the bulk of the child rearing is still the norm; this did not die out in the 1930s! Ask a few mothers and you will find that men simply do not seem to hear the baby crying in the night. Whenever proper studies are undertaken, it always turns out that whatever the couple claim, it is the woman who does the majority of the looking after the baby. This is a fact of life.
Just to claify what I am saying. Most girls will grow up to have children. Most of them will undertake the majority of the care of those children themselves. No boys will grow up to have children. hardly any of them will undertake the bulk of caring for a baby themselves. It therefore makes sense to give girls extra teaching in this field. This is not an ideal world; this is how things really are.
ReplyDelete'Parentcraft' used to be taught in schools. Is it not any more?
ReplyDelete"This is not an ideal world; this is how things really are. "
ReplyDelete...And how you clearly hope they always will be. Thankfully, your daughter apparently has more sense.
Incidentally, I don't know what circles you run in, but most of the younger (by which I mean younger than 50) couples I know have a much more equal division of bathroom-cleaning and baby-caring responsibilities than you describe. This is not to say that an egalitarian utopia has been achieved..but luckily for the rest of us, the progress is away from your barefoot-and-pregnant idea of women's roles.
I suspect that, despite your anger about ethnic cultural segregation, the patriarchal attitiudes of some of the relatively-newly-arrived immigrants you encounter in your work have become your new normal. The daughters of such homes often yern to escape to wider prospects and the sons have trouble marrying in the wider culture because of their undesireable attitudes, but this seems to have escaped you.
'...And how you clearly hope they always will be'
ReplyDeleteBy no means. I was the primary carer for my daughter. I have spent many years promoting non-sexist childcare in one of the most progressive and left wing boroughs in London. I would hardly have done this if I were committed to maintaining the status quo in gender roles.
'This is not to say that an egalitarian utopia has been achieved..'
ReplyDeleteI interpet this to mean that just as among my own friends, it is the women of your acquaintance who look after the baby most.
' your barefoot-and-pregnant idea of women's roles.'
What this means, I have no idea at all!
'Are you seriously suggesting that women should be prepared exclusively, (or 'specially') for a 'career' in stay-at-home-motherhood that essentially no longer exists outside of small religious sects? '
ReplyDeleteAnd who said anything at all here about 'stay-at-home-motherhood'? Even when both parents are working, it is still the mother who usually looks after the baby or child more. I can't answer of course for small religious sects; I am talking about ordinary families. How many families do people know of where the father does the bulk of the childcare? It does happen, but very rarely.
"That is to say she might hope to meet a man who will do an equal share of the housework and be happy to undertake the majority of care for his baby. This is as rare as rocking horse shit. Such a woman would be doomed to disappointment and never able to find aman who matched up to her unrealistic expectations."
ReplyDeleteWell that's a bit of an odd view. There's lots of less than ideal ways of living that are fairly common - or even the norm - regular use of alcohol to manage emotional states, overwork in paid employment and neglect of family life, lack of interest in children's happiness, and many, many more. I don't think it's a good idea to live like that so my children are 'ready' for the 'realities' of life as lived by other people. Children know full well how the world works. Even a girl raised primarily by her father will know that this is unusual. If she decides that's what she wants for her own children she will know that it is not the norm but *is* possible. That's the joy of making minority choices - it makes you see that far more is possible than you would ever assume by just looking around at what other people usually do.
"If a baby grows up being cared for and nurtured by a man and not a woman, then she might get the impression that men are just as likely to be taking care of children and looking after them as women are."
ReplyDeleteOnly if she is brought up in a vacuum and never sees how other families operate either in books, on TV or in real life. Most people in this situation will know perfectly well what the most usual situation is, but they are probably more aware of the alternatives. We have been able to more or less share work and child care so there's another type of experience. Our children know that this is not the norm because they visit friend's homes to play and for sleepovers, etc. They have also been lucky enough to also know a family where the father did the lions share of child care and the mother worked.
Oh my gosh! I don't think I've ever disagreed with one of your blog posts before.
ReplyDeleteStill- there's a first time for everything
"If a baby grows up being cared for and nurtured by a man and not a woman, then she might get the impression that men are just as likely to be taking care of children and looking after them as women are."
...and thus she will have an ideal, and so will others of similar backgrounds, and then (and only then) will things change in wider society.
...too late for me, alas- but hopefully for my kids' generation, or the one after that!
'...and thus she will have an ideal, and so will others of similar backgrounds, and then (and only then) will things change in wider society.
ReplyDelete...too late for me, alas- but hopefully for my kids' generation, or the one after that!'
This is of course quite a reasonable point of view. I am basing this largely upon my own daughter's attitudes. When she was small and we visited friends, she quickly learned that it was the mother who got up and dealt with the baby in the night, as well as doing most of the other care. She would remark when we left that on how horrible it was that the husband did not appear to be doing much with his own child. (I will say nothing of the families where the father taking care of his child in the evening is referred to as 'baby-sitting'!'
As she has grown older, she has become angrier and even less tolerant about this. As far as she is concerned, men and women are precisely equal in the childcare stakes. The odds of her finding a man who will actually do half of all that has to be done with a baby or small child are vanishingly small. Most women have to make compromises and however much they might moan about it, most mothers accept deep inside that they are going to be the primary carer for their child. I do not personally think this right, but it is the way things are and seems unlikley to change in the future. The consequence is a young woman who would not put up with a man who was not going to do at least half the washing up, laundry, childcare and everything else in the home. This is an unrealistic expectation and I might wish that she would lower her sights a little! (I told her the other day that she would end up an old maid; I am still nursing the bruise to my upper arm that resulted from this light hearted remark.)
"As far as she is concerned, men and women are precisely equal in the childcare stakes."
ReplyDeleteApart from the obvious exceptions of course; pregnancy and breast feeding.
"The consequence is a young woman who would not put up with a man who was not going to do at least half the washing up, laundry, childcare and everything else in the home. This is an unrealistic expectation and I might wish that she would lower her sights a little!"
ReplyDeleteTell her from me it's not unrealistic at all, she just needs to be careful when making her choice!
'Apart from the obvious exceptions of course; pregnancy and breast feeding.'
ReplyDeleteActually, the first of these is technically feasible, by what is in effect an artificially induced ectopic prgnancy in the abdomen. The blood vessels would grow and attach and in theory it would be possible to carry to term. (Obviously would need a Ceasarian!) As for the second, there is something called expressing. Also, there have been accounts of men lactating under certain circumstances. More research needed on both your controversial and sexist assumptions!
"More research needed on both your controversial and sexist assumptions!"
ReplyDeleteDisputing the practicalities of male pregnancy and breastfeeding is not sexist, they are practical difficulties brought about by the differences between male and female bodies.
Artificially induced ectopic pregnancies would be highly dangerous so whilst technically feasible it's highly unlikely to happen (except by accident in a woman when an abortion is usually recommended) let alone become popular.
As to expressing - it's often not successful and in my experience, can be very painful and cause more stress than it relieves! It also doubles the work because you have to express the milk and also feed the baby (assuming the baby takes milk from a bottle, all of mine refused despite several attempts). In some women it reduces the milk supply and could limit breastfeeding as a result.
Obviously expressing has it's place for those who want or need to return to work and also want to continue breastfeeding (if they manage to express and their baby accepts a bottle) and it might be nice for the father the have the chance to feed their baby occasionally. But giving the impression to new mothers that they will or should be able to express may raise unreasonable expectations and add rather than relieve stress.
'Disputing the practicalities of male pregnancy and breastfeeding is not sexist, they are practical difficulties brought about by the differences between male and female bodies.'
ReplyDeleteI think perhaps I might have been joking about both the male pregnancy and also the breastfeeding.
So were you joking about sexism too?
ReplyDelete