From Kittens To Kids

I kinda sorta knew my husband wasn't that into natural childbirth ie no drugs, no epidural.

But the scales pretty much dropped from my eyes during a video chat yesterday – I was telling him about someone who had gone through 30 hours of labor and who couldn't say enough good things about the doula she'd hired.  That's when it happened. 

The glazed look coming into his eyes, the hand rubbing his forehead in a not-so-subtle sign of internal dissent, and finally, he says "Your mom and sisters don't think an epidural is all that bad, you know?"

Finally!  The truth is out!  The signs of passive-aggressive behavior are all there.  He's NOT with me on natural childbirth.  The asshole.  After all the trouble I took to research the topic, and all the time I spent to blog about it so that he could get a quick understanding of the issues without having to read the books himself!  And BTW, how big a deal can it be for him to actually read a couple of books?

Was he listening to me at all?  Or, more likely, was his mind closed all this time in a patronising mode of "the little woman is going nuts; she doesn't know what she's talking about"? 

How dare he?  I'm furious.  A 100% supportive childbirth partner is so critical for drug-free natural childbirth, and here he is, wavering, stammering, hemming and hawing, and in general reverting to the goddam male propensity to regard pain as something to be medicated away, instead of listening to his woman and supporting me in the age-old way a woman needs to be supported.

I was wavering about whether a doula would be overkill, given that my midwives are so experienced.  Now, I know for sure I need one.  With a doubting Thomas in my corner, I'm going to need all the help I can get to make sure my labor goes the way I want it to go. 

Husbands!  They should come with a remote control.  At the rate mine is coming along, my bet is that he's going to freak out just when I need him most, and I'll have to ask for him to be kicked out of the labor room. 

Even now, his lack of support is making me mad enough to cry and be depressed. 

Can you imagine how he'll make me feel when I'm in labor, and he goes "Honey, maybe it's time for an epidural?" 

Mathieu, how is it that France is now a hotbed of feminism!?!?

Following Norway's dramatic leadership in 2003, Nicolas Sarkozy's party has just tabled a bill that would require all companies listed on the Paris stock exchange to ensure that female employees make up 50% of their Boards.  For more details, check out this article.  The gist from across the Atlantic is that this move is a "necessary evil" to combat the status quo of male elitism in the French corporate world.

Wow.  I take my hat off to the Norwegians and the French.  

No matter what anyone says, men have at least 80 years headstart in the modern corporate world.  Naturally, they've defined the rules of success by testosterone-riddled metrics, metrics that are likely to be rejected by sensible intelligent women whose biological destiny requires a different set of priorities.  Ergo, fewer women make it to the top, and fewer top women are available to sit on the Board.  The French have apparently accepted that as long as those rules remain the same, things won't change.

Of course, quotas are never ideal, but on the whole, this would be a change for the better.  Can you imagine if this were the start of a worldwide phenomenon?  If women could one day be equally represented in government and in the corporate world, I can't help but believe that this would mediate the worst of male excesses and aggression, and move us toward a more honest, decent and civilized age.

Call me a Pollyanna, but that's my stance, and I'm sticking to it.

  

Anger and disgust – those were the feelings that used to come unbidden into my head when I read news about any woman giving up a powerful career to stay home with her kids.

"Thanks a lot, sweetie – it's not like the men at the office aren't biased enough. Give them more ammunition, why don't you?"

So, it was strange that this time, when I read this self-penned article by the ex-political editor of The Observer, that a different set of emotions surfaced.

Respect. Empathy. And a sense of gladness. 

If more women feel they have the right to choose, and the freedom to exert that choice in either direction, then aren't we getting closer to a truer form of feminism?

Huh!  I believe this personal evolution may have just elevated me to an old fart.  Old wise fart, I hope.

 

That's the title of the book by Nina DiSesa.

Go read it, then give it to your daughter and get her to read it.

It's really hard for any woman to prove herself in a man's world. Nina tells you how she did it, with charm and aplomb, accepting men for what they are, embracing the best of what they have to offer, and meeting them halfway across the male-female chasm.

A bio, expose, self-help book, chick lit – whatever you call it, the Chairman of the largest advertising network in the world tells it as she has lived it.  It's a fun read.

I noticed that Nina mentioned empathy as an attribute that woman have, that men simply don't have.  I was just thinking the other day, that male doctors are incapable of empathy.  They could be the most technically-competent physicians in the world, and have the best of intentions…they could even be conscious of a desire to display more empathy, but their perfunctory rehearsed routines feel like, well … a rehearsed routine.

When a female doctor kicks ass at what she does, AND exudes natural empathy for her patients – POW! She blows your socks off.

'Nuf said. I guess I agree with Nina that it is important for women to bring their own strengths to the table, and when you do so, you can shine in a way that no man can.  Hallelujah, Amen.

 

"Naughty today, were you? Well, it’s frozen-salmon-down-your-pants time!"

Hey, don't look at me. (Although, personally, I think the idea is brilliant, and funny as hell.)

The advocate for that kind of "corporal" punishment for misbehaving boys is Aric Sigman.  Who's Aric, you ask? He's an American dad and psychologist living in Great Britain, and you can read all about him here.

He's a bit old school, but in a good way. How can you not agree with him when he says this:

"Capitalism has been allowed to have the ear of children directly…It's there on television in their bedrooms, subliminally parenting them, and purveying goods.  As a matter of decency, there ought to be a buffer zone where children are protected from profit motives. Instead the advertisers enlist children's sense of entitlement. I saw an advert the other day with the slogan 'Impatience is a virtue'.  What sort of message is that to give children?  We ought to be instilling empathy, consideration for others and a modicum of deferred gratification."

So, this guy isn’t a whack job.  It simply that he’s has gained a bit of notoriety with his philosophy on the use of smacking when parenting young children. As the reporter writes:

"He tell his story of his two-year-old son running into the road, being knocked down and ending up in hospital – but how, far from learning his lesson, he ran out into the road again, forcing Sigman to give him "a whack on his backside, accompanied by a good shaking".

Did it work?

"Well, he never ran in the road again."

But was it the whack that did it?

"I'll never know. It could have been the emotional upset, or my disapproval, the aversive stimulus of my voice. But I've not lost sleep over it."

So, why am I picking up on this?

Because the topic of kid-spanking came up one day among friends, and I was told that spanking is outlawed in California.

"Outlawed? What do you mean, “outlawed”? As in, you can't even smack your child’s Pampers-buffered tush if she throws a tantrum? Surely not!"

"Surely yes! Go check it up."

"I will! Even the California state government can't be that screwed up!"

Some minor investigation later, I realize it was all a big hoo-hah controversy started by an attention-seeking state assembly member, whose name I shall not state in my stubborn bid to refuse her the publicity she no doubt craves.  (How do I know? She’s not a mother, so what else could have driven her to introduce such a ludicrous bill? Or, maybe, that's why she introduced such a ludicrous bill.)

AB 2943 makes no distinction between an acceptable form of parental discipline – ie. a normal spanking – and the violent act of “brandishing a deadly weapon upon a child”. If a person is convicted of violating this law, the children could be removed from the home and the parent could spend time in jail.  It was big news when a state assembly committee approved that bill in April 2008, but thankfully, a bill has to pass ALL committees AND be signed by the state governor before becoming law.  So far, they haven’t done that, so I guess the majority of the state legislators still retain a shred of common sense.

But, back to Aric Sigman. I don’t want you to go away thinking that I agree with everything he says.  He’s a big-ass chauvinist too, and that’s where we part ways.

He advocates for women to be full-time moms, and me? Well, I think it’s each woman’s right to choose what’s right for her AND her family.  It is misogynistic nonsense, perpetuated through the ages by the likes of this well-meaning but unenlightened gentleman, that keeps stoking the cruelly judgmental, self-servingly overhyped and completely unnecessary “mommy war” that exists in America between working moms and stay-at-home moms.  Some women are happier being full-time moms, and some women are happier when working. It’s as simple as that.