About Me

Ithaca, New York
MWF, now officially 42, loves long walks on the beach and laughing with friends ... oh, wait. By day, I'm a mid-level university administrator reluctant to be more specific on a public forum. Nights and weekends, though, I'm a homebody with strong nerdist leanings. I'm never happier than when I'm chatting around the fire, playing board games, cooking up some pasta, and/or road-tripping with my family and friends. I studied psychology and then labor economics in school, and I work in higher education. From time to time I get smug, obsessive, or just plain boring about some combination of these topics, especially when inequality, parenting, or consumer culture are involved. You have been warned.
Showing posts with label gender. Show all posts
Showing posts with label gender. Show all posts

Wednesday, October 17, 2012

#86 Trans-Sister Radio

Trans-Sister Radio, by Chris Bohjalian 
(New York: Random House, 2000)
 Summary:
"When schoolteacher Allison Banks develops a crush on university professor Dana Stevens, she knows that he will give her what she needs most: gentleness, kindness, passion. Her daughter, Carly, enthusiastically witnesses the change in her mother. But a few months into their relationship, Dana tells Allison his secret: he has always been certain that he is a woman born into the wrong skin, and soon he will have a sex-change operation. Allison, overwhelmed by the depth of her love, finds herself unable to leave him—but by deciding to stay she must face questions most people never even consider. Not only will her own life and Carly's be irrevocably changed, she will have to contend with the outrage of her small Vermont community and come to terms with her lover's new sense of self—and hope against hope that her love will transcend their ingrained notions of what it means to be a man and a woman."

Opening Line:
"I was eight when my parents separated, and nine when they actually divorced."

My Take:
This is Bohjalian at his peak, worthy to stand alongside Midwives and The Double Bind rather than the remaindered pale shadows of The Night Strangers and its ilk. The story is narrated from four different perspectives: Allison's, Dana's, Carly's (who opens the book with the line above), and that of Allison's ex-husband and Carly's father, Will. Admittedly, I did predict one of the points in the closing, which was probably supposed to be a twist -- probably just because I've read too many novels by Bohjalian and Jodi Picoult. Not sure I totally buy how calmly both Allison and Carly seem to accept Dana's revelation, but the former, at least, is sufficiently well-explained that it's not wholly ridiculous. And I especially enjoyed the reaction from Allison's school community (parents demanding to have their kids transferred out of her class, a wishy-washy first year principal, etc.). If anything, the book could have used a bit more conflict among the main characters; most of it comes from the school, whereas any friction between the protagonists seems minor and quickly resolved. Still a good read, though.

Thursday, May 26, 2011

#44: Jane Austen's Guide to Dating

Jane Austen's Guide to Dating, by Lauren Henderson (New York: Hyperion, 2005).

Summary:
"For two hundred years Jane Austen's witty, perceptive, and romantic books have delighted millions of readers. Inspired by Austen's acute observations of the hits and near-misses of love, Lauren Henderson has created Jane Austen's Guide to Dating to bring Austen's Regency wisdom into a twenty-first century perspective, complete with very modern lists of do's and don'ts.

"Jane Austen's Guide to Dating is a pithy book of concrete advice and strategies that show how honesty, self-awareness, and forthrightness do win the right man and weed out the losers, playboys, and toxic flirts. Offering an approach to dating that will never make you act against your own best instincts, Jane Austen's Guide to Dating includes insightful personality quizzes that reveal which Jane Austen character you -- and your love interest -- most resemble, and will help you find answers to your most pressing dating questions.

"The only dating guide based on stories that have truly stood the test of time, Jane Austen's Guide to Dating uses both wit and charm to help readers overcome the nonsense and find the sense (and sensibility) to succeed in a lasting relationship. No need to have read Jane Austen, either -- Jane Austen's Guide to Dating summarizes all the love stories in the books so you can dive right into the benefits of her great advice. Fans of Jane Austen and newcomers to her novels alike will delight in this fun, fresh, and audacious guide."

Table of Contents:
  • Introduction
  • About the Structure of This Book and How to Use It
  1. If You Like Someone, Make It Clear That You Do
  2. Don't Put Your Feelings on Public Display, Unless They're Fully Reciprocated
  3. Don't Play Games or Lead People On
  4. Have Faith in Your Own Instincts
  5. Don't Fall for Superficial Qualities
  6. Look for Someone Who Can Bring Out Your Best Qualities
  7. Don't Settle -- Don't Marry for Money, or Convenience, or Out of Loneliness
  8. Be Witty If You Can, but Not Cynical, Indiscreet, or Cruel
  9. Be Prepared to Wait for the Right Person to Come Along
  10. If Your Lover Needs a Reprimand, Let Him Have It
  • Which Jane Austen Character Are You?
  • Which Jane Austen Character Is the Man You Like?
  • Compatibility Chart
  • Book Summaries
  • Characters
My Take:
Was looking for something else in the same general shelving area, and this one caught my eye on the title alone. So far it's pretty darned funny; I've only read Pride & Prejudice (and seen movie versions of Emma and Sense and Sensibility), but I can still enjoy a self-help book that doesn't take itself too seriously.

(Afterwards) As I suspected, entertaining with a few grains of truth in there. Not that I expect to be on the dating market again any time soon (i.e., ever), but still fun.

Sunday, April 3, 2011

#26: I'm Okay ... You're a Brat!

I'm Okay ... You're a Brat! Setting the Priorities Straight and Freeing You from the Guilt and Mad Myths of Parenthood, by Susan Jeffers (Los Angeles: Renaissance Books, 1999).

Summary:
"At last! A welcome declaration of independence for parents of all ages, a call to arms for would-be parents and those who want to remain child-free.

"In this refreshingly honest book, best-selling author Dr. Susan Jeffers breaks the conspiracy of silence, pulling no punches when she details just how difficult parenting can be. With humor and compassion she uncovers the guilt traps set for parents by many child-care experts. She questions the myths and half-truths that make parents feel inadequate and offers valuable survival tools for those whose kids are driving them crazy.

"I'm Okay ... You're a Brat! explains:
  • why parenthood is a joy for some and a nightmare for others
  • why 'what you put in doesn't necessarily come out'
  • why your relationship with your spouse suffers when children enter the picture
  • why parents' lives change so drastically when a child is born
  • how you can love you kids yet hate parenthood
  • how you can have great fulfillment in life with or without children
"Sure, raising a family can be joyful. But for all of us who have been awoken at 3 A.M. by a crying baby and screamed silently, 'I want my life back,' it is reassuring to know that we are not alone.

"Is parenthood always fulfilling? Is everything that goes wrong with a child really the parents' fault? Is breast always best? Is it always better for Mom to be at home instead of at work? You may be shocked at this book's answers. In challenging the basic values of our child-centered culture, Dr. Jeffers liberates parents and non-parents alike from guilt. She encourages all of us to think for ourselves when making vital decisions about our lives and our families.

"Drawing on her own experiences building a family and interviews with other parents, Dr. Jeffers lets us know that it's okay to be frustrated with childrearing -- that it isn't always the blissful experience we've been led to expect. She also shows us why contrary to popular opinion, choosing a life free of children is not selfish."

Table of Contents:

Introduction: It's About Time

Part I: Another Side of the Picture
  • Chapter 1: Why Didn't Anyone Tell Me?
  • Chapter 2: I Want My Life Back!
  • Chapter 3: Oil and Water: Sex and Diapers
  • Chapter 4: The Unspeakable Truth About Kids
Part II: Send the "Experts" Back to School
  • Chapter 5: What You Put In Doesn't Necessarily Come Out
  • Chapter 6: Down with the Guilt-Peddlers!
  • Chapter 7: The Top Ten Mad, Mad Myths
  • Chapter 8: The Dangers of Full-Time Parenting
  • Chapter 9: There's No Place Like Work
Part III: Should We ... Shouldn't We ... Why Did We?
  • Chapter 10: So Why Do We Do It?
  • Chapter 11: So Why Don't We Do It?
  • Chapter 12: If One Could Do It Over Again ...
Conclusion: And When All Is Said and Done

My Take:

A definite breath of fresh air and sanity in the crowded field of parenting literature. I only wish I'd read this book back when it first came out, when Twig was a wee one and I was deep in the grip of the mad myths and the guilt peddlers. I'm Okay is well-researched and end-noted, but very much accessible; the effect is more like Erma Bombeck with a grad degree than a serious scholarly tome. And that's just fine. I love, love, love that Jeffers acknowledges that yes, you can love your kids without loving every or most moments of The Parenting Process. It's rare indeed to find a book or article about the trials of parenting that doesn't end by wrapping everything up in a tidy little "But it's all worth it!" bow. If anything, I think the author overstates the difficulty and unpleasantness of parenting, but what do I know; maybe I have more of the LPB (Love Being a Parent) gene than I'd realized, or maybe I got off easy/ had the foresight to realize we'd all be happier at the House of Hazelthyme with a single-child family. Jeffers claims to have written the book in part for the fence-sitters -- those twenty- or thirtysomething adults who don't quite know whether they want kids -- to tell them it's OK to remain childfree, and if anything, that's the way the book's likely to push someone who's really undecided. Which, again is fine by me; heaven knows there's no shortage of books and individuals extolling the joys and ignoring or soft-pedaling the difficulties of parenthood.

Highly recommended for anyone with or about to have a baby -- not so you'll change your mind, but so you'll know that if it's not quite what you'd expected (OK, if you're miserable for a while postpartum), you'll know you're not alone.

Friday, September 24, 2010

#68 - Drum roll, please

So, after 2 false starts, my 68th book of the year ended up being ...

The Lazy Husband: How To Get Men To Do More Parenting and Housework, by Joshua Coleman (New York: St. Martin's Press, 2005)

Summary: "'My job is more stressful thank yours.' 'I'm just not very good at domestic stuff.' 'Your standards are too high.' 'I never learned how to do this chore.' Have you heard one or more of the above excuses in the past month? Are you sick of your husband's avoidance tactics regarding housework and parenting? If you answered yes to either of these questions, you need this book. The Lazy Husband is a hands-on guide to changing men's attitudes towards domestic work and child care. Dr. Joshua Coleman, author and clinical psychologist, understands that a happy marriage is a balanced marriage. And now, in his refreshingly honest and straightforward style, Coleman reveals exactly how women can motivate their husbands to become better partners and better fathers. By outlining and defining the various types of lazy husbands, Dr. Joshua Coleman teaches women how to understand where their husbands are coming from and enact change. Some Lazy Husband types include: * The Boy-Husband: This husband wants to be taken care of, and pretends to be incompetent around the house. * The Perfectionist Husband: This husband wants the house and the kids to look perfect, but doesn't want to do the work himself. * The Angry Husband: This husband keeps his wife at bay with his irritability, anger, or intimidation. From here, Coleman develops type-specific plans for change. By following these proactive plans, you, too, can achieve a happy, well-balanced marriage. Just remember, you can do less by getting your husband to do more."

Table of Contents:
  • Introduction
  • 1 - The Perfect Mother
  • 2 - Creating Change
  • 3 - Once Children Arrive
  • 4 - Foundations: What Kind of Marriage Do I Have?
  • 5 - Childhood Revisited
  • 6 - It's a Personality Thing
  • 7 - What's with Men, Anyway?
  • 8 - For the Husband
  • 9 - The Lazy Husband Campaign
My take: First of all, it's time for a disclaimer and a confession. I'll start with the latter: I have an embarrassing weakness for self-help books. No, they're not Harlequin romances or Star Trek novels, but I'm the woman who goes to tax school in her free time; it's not like my inner dorkiness has ever been a big secret.

That brings me to the disclaimer: My reading this book is not in any way a reflection on my own marriage! In fact, Mr. Hazelthyme is presently doing an admirable job of pulling his weight and my own at home, as I've been out on the town 3 nights a week (see the preceding paragraph) and taken on another part-time job besides. Can you see why I've been hiding this book amidst a big stack of others from the library, and always making sure it's face down on the nightstand? (Hey, some people hide candy wrappers or liquor bottles in the trash -- so what if some of our secrets are lamer than others?) But I'm always interested to see how the popular press treats topics I'm interested in -- gender roles, intimate relationships, parenting -- and what's Out There in the zeitgeist. I read this stuff for much the same reason I waste the occasional evening playing Plants vs. Zombies: even if it's not going to make my life any better in the long run, it's still pretty entertaining.

Now that that's out of the way, let's move on to the review. In short, Lazy Husband was imperfect, but better than much I've read in the same genre (and we've already established that that's a lot). Coleman's chief argument won't surprise anyone who's ever been in a committed long-term relationship: Marriage is a complicated dance, and every action has its reaction. Over time, both parties' behavior contributes to the patterns that emerge, and some of them can be frustrating at best. Provocative/ inflammatory title and cover photo aside, Coleman's treatment of husbands' vs. wives' role in this dynamic is actually fairly even-handed. His book is primarily addressed to women because that's where the perceived need is greatest; you rarely hear men grousing about how much easier life would be if only they were more involved in parenting and domestic chores. He does, however, spend some time talking about why it is that men and women's expectations seem to differ so widely in this area, and even includes a brief mention of why men should care (the short answer: happier, healthier kids, and more, better sex).

My main criticism isn't one I usually make: I think Coleman's a bit biased in favor of what he calls egalitarian marriages, which colors an otherwise-interesting section of the book. He presents 3 different models for how heterosexual couples divide paid and unpaid work: traditional, transitional, and egalitarian. So far, so good, except that he seems to imply that only traditional relationships have their down sides, and that all marriages ultimately should be egalitarian. Perhaps I'm mellowing in my old age, but I'm not sure I agree. Should couples negotiate their division of labor together, and address the inevitable snags with affection and respect? Absolutely. But I do think healthy, respectful families are possible in all configurations, even traditional ones, and I know that egalitarianism itself is no guarantee of a strong, sustainable relationship.

Monday, May 17, 2010

#39 - Beyond (Straight and Gay) Marriage

Beyond (Straight and Gay) Marriage: Valuing All Families under the Law, by Nancy D. Polikoff (Boston: Beacon Press, 2008) was excellent -- illuminating, clearly-written, and provocative.

Summary: "Polikoff (law, American U. Washington College of Law) takes issue with the concept of marriage and argues that it makes unmarried couples of any sexual orientation, single-parent households, extended family units, and others unable to reap the benefits of the law. She asserts that marriage is not the cure for the disadvantages faced by same-sex couples, but that married couples should not have rights that other family forms do not. She argues that the law should not give marriage more value, as it is not a family form that is more important than others. Topics addressed include feminism and gay rights, the marriage-equality movement, countries where marriage matters less than in the US, domestic partner benefits, medical care and family and medical leave, distribution of assets and providing for children, wrongful death, worker's compensation, and Social Security."

Table of Contents:
  1. The Changing Meaning of Marriage
  2. Gay Rights and the Conservative Backlash
  3. Redefining Family
  4. The Right and the Marriage Movement
  5. LGBT Families and the Marriage-Equality Movement
  6. Countries Where Marriage Matters Less
  7. Valuing All Families
  8. Domestic Partner Benefits for All Families
  9. Coping with Illness: Medical Care and Family and Medical Leave
  10. When a Relationship Ends through Dissolution or Death: Distributing Assets and Providing for Children
  11. Losing an Economic Provider: Wrongful Death, Workers' Compensation, and Social Security
My take: As suggested above, an excellent book. While Polikoff supports same-sex couples' right to marry, her chief argument here is that marriage should be beside the point. Rather, all family units -- gay couples, unmarried male-female couples, single parents, adults caring for elderly or disabled relatives -- should receive the same support we (the U.S.) currently reserve exclusively for marriage. She suggests that the caretaking dyad -- the relationship between those who can't help being dependent on someone else for their care and well-being, i.e., children and those with disabilities, and their caregivers -- rather than the marital relationship be the focus of our social safety net, whether that's survivors' benefits when a wage-earner dies or providing medical leave and insurance for whoever one has an interdependent relationship with. Good stuff -- the kind of thing that's so well-articulated that it seems like it should have been obvious a long time ago.

Friday, May 7, 2010

#36 - Self-Made Man

While Self-Made Man: One Woman's Journey Into Manhood and Back Again, by Norah Vincent (New York: Viking, 2006) was a decent read, the concept was definitely stronger than the execution.

Jacket blurb: "Norah Vincent wanted to know what life was really like for men. Many women have long been convinced that men have always had it better, in every way. To find out for herself if this was actually true, and to see where the common perception fell short, Norah did it: for eighteen months she became a guy.

"Following in the tradition of John Howard Griffin (Black Like Me) and Barbara Ehrenreich (Nickel and Dimed), Norah Vincent absorbed a cultural experience and reported back on what she observed incognito. With the help of a makeup artist, a trainer, and a Juilliard voice coach, she infiltrated spaces and situations women never see. For more than a year and a half she ventured into the world as her alter ego, Ned, with an ever-present five o'clock shadow, a crew cut, wire-rimmed glasses, and her own size 11 1/2 shoes -- a perfect disguise that allowed her to observe and participate in the world of men as an insider. ...

"With her buddies in the bowling league Norah enjoyed the rough and rewarding embrace of male camaraderie undetectable to an outsider. A stint in a high-octane sales job taught her the gut-wrenching pressures endured by men who would do anything to succeed. She went to strip clubs, dated women hungry for love but disappointed by men, and was welcomed into all-male communities as hermetically sealed as a men's therapy group, and even a monastery. Narrating her journey with exquisite insight, empathy, and humor, Norah uses her intimate firsthand experience to explore the many mysteries of gender identity as well as who men are when women aren't around."

Table of Contents:
  1. Getting Started
  2. Friendship
  3. Sex
  4. Love
  5. Life
  6. Work
  7. Self
  8. Journey's End
My take: Perhaps the shortcomings of Self-Made Man are intrinsic to the material. The idea is intriguing: Can a woman pass as a man? For how long? In what settings? Where it falls short, though, is in Vincent's failure to break much new ground, to reveal anything shocking about male enclaves that wasn't accessible to the public before. This makes sense, when you think about it. The parallels to Black Like Me (which I haven't read) and Nickel and Dimed (which I have) overlook an important distinction: while most white people don't know what it's like to walk around in dark skin, and few middle- to upper-middle-class readers have had to support themselves on the jobs and wages of the working poor, most women, through their fathers, brothers, or male partners, have at least some intimate knowledge of men.

Probably my favorite part of the book was Vincent's first real undercover chapter, "Friendship," which chronicles her experience in a men's bowling league. I was particularly impressed here with her observations on class (again, a favorite soapbox of mine, and often an elephant in the room in discussions of gender roles). Recalling a night when the entire bowling alley grew silent as one bowler closed in on a perfect 300 score, she notes,
"So much of what happens emotionally between men isn't spoken aloud, and so the outsider, especially the female outsider who is used to emotional life being overt and spoken (often overspoken), tends to assume that what isn't said isn't there. But it is there, and when you're inside it, it's as if you're suddenly hearing sounds that only dogs can hear."
Later, after Ned comes clean with his teammates about his true identity, and finds them surprisingly nonplussed, she fesses up about her own less-than-generous initial expectations:
"I had condescended to them all along, even in my gracious surprise that they were somehow human. They had made that leap on my behalf without the benefit of suppressed snobbery. I have condescended to them still in these pages throughout, congratulating myself for stooping to receive their affections and dispense my own, for presuming to understand them. Class is inescapable in tone, and even a pseudointellectual will always sound like she thinks she's earning points in liberal heaven for shaking hands with the caveman or, worse, the noble savage. The most I can say is that they were far better men than I in that, and undoubtedly far worse or just as bad in ways that I would never and could never know. They made me welcome in their midst, and by so doing, they made me feel like a bit of a shithead, like an arrogant prick know-it-all. In a sense, they made me the subject of my own report. They bowled with irony after all.

"They made me look ridiculous to myself and they made me laugh about it. And for that I will always be grateful to them, because anybody who does that for you is a true and great friend."
Sadly, the following chapters don't quite live up to this one. "Sex," about Ned's foray into strip clubs, is depressing, sure, but not quite ground-breaking; Ivy League Stripper or (if you prefer fiction) Garden of Last Days are more compelling on this front. Likewise for the dating ("Love") chapter; as a gay woman, going undercover as a man to date (presumably) straight women, Vincent does have a unique perspective on the fluidity of gender and sexual orientation, but the subjects of male vs. female communication styles and bad dates from hell have already been covered extensively elsewhere.

All in all, an interesting collection of vignettes, and worth reading if you happen across it, but it's more entertaining than illuminating.

Saturday, January 9, 2010

Middlesex, by Jeffrey Eugenides

Last night, I finished my first book of 2010: Jeffrey Eugenides' Middlesex (New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2002), the 2003 Pulitzer Prize winner for fiction. As I mentioned earlier, it took years to pull it down from the bookshelf, blow the dust off, and pack it away for my last sojourn in NH ... and now I know what the fuss was about.

Jacket blurb: "Middlesex tells the breathtaking story of Calliope Stephanides, and three generations of the Greek-American Stephanides family, who travel from a tiny village overlooking Mount Olympus in Asia Minor to Prohibition-era Detroit, witnessing its glory days as the Motor City, and the race riots of 1967, before they move out to the tree-lined streets of suburban Grosse Pointe, Michigan. To understand why Calliope is not like other girls, she has to uncover a guilty family secret, and the astonishing genetic history that turns Callie into Cal, one of the most audacious and wondrous narrators in contemporary fiction. Lyrical and thrilling, Middlesex is an exhilarating reinvention of the American epic."

There are multi-generational family sagas, and immigrant sagas, stacked three-deep in every bookstore, but nonetheless, Middlesex stands alone. In large part, the credit goes to its narrator: Cal/ Calliope, born and raised as a girl by Greek-American parents in Detroit, but now, as the story begins, living as Cal, a 41-year-old male diplomat living in Berlin. Many reviews have quoted the memorable opening line: "I was born twice: first, as a baby girl, on a remarkably smogless Detroit day in January of 1960; and then again, as a teenage boy, in an emergency room near Petoskey, Michigan, in August of 1974." We know from the first paragraph that Cal is a hermaphrodite, specifically, a "5-alpha-reductase pseudohermaphrodite."

What we don't know, and can't help being frantically curious to learn, is how Cal/ Calliope got from the first birth to the second to the 41-year-old self we meet on the first page. This odyssey is a long one, beginning on the slopes of Mt. Olympus almost 40 years before Calliope's birth. Here, siblings Desdemona and Lefty Stephanides find themselves with neither past nor future; their parents were killed in a recent war with the Turks, Desdemona's efforts to find Lefty a wife from the slim pickings in their village are unsuccessful, and the Greek army is in retreat from the Turks yet again. Posing as French nationals, they flee to Smyrna and board a ship to Detroit to join a married cousin. Once on board, they pretend they've never met, and are ultimately married by the ship's captain.

In the New World, no one save cousin Sourmelina knows they are brother and sister, and she has enough secrets of her own that Desdemona easily swears her to secrecy. Desdemona's famed silkworms don't make it past Ellis Island, so the pair enter the States with nothing, moving in with Lina and her American husband, bootlegger Jimmy Zizmo. Lefty works briefly on Ford's assembly line and in Jimmy's smuggling operation before opening his own speakeasy and later, with the end of Prohibition, legitimate, above-ground bar. Some years later, both couples conceive on the same night, and bear their children (Lina and Jimmy's daughter, Tessie, and Desdemona and Lefty's son, Milton) within weeks of each other.

Tessie and Milton, along with Milton's younger sister Zoe, grow up in the shadow of the Depression and World War II. Desdemona, sensing the growing attraction between Milton and Tessie, and afraid a cousin marriage will reveal her own secret, tries to find a suitable girl for Milton in Greektown, but is no more successful than she had been with Lefty back in Asia Minor. Despite Milton's stint in the Navy and Tessie's brief engagement to a promising young priest, the two fall in love and eventually marry, producing two children -- an older son, who our narrator calls only Chapter Eleven (in honor of his eventual effect on Lefty's chain of hot dog stands); and (so they think) a daughter, Calliope Helen.

The changes in the Stephanides family mirror those taking place around them in Detroit over the decades: some gradual, others seismic; some constructive, others foreboding. In the mid-1950s, as Chapter Eleven is born, Milton's Zebra Room and its neighborhood reflect the early signs of Detroit's decline. The success of the diner that takes its place allows Milt and Tessie to move to Indian Village, where the houses "had big yards, important walkways, picturesquely oxidizing cupolas, lawn jockeys (whose days were numbered), and burglar alarms (whose popularity was only just beginning). Fortunately, it's impressively large; unfortunately, Lefty, who's been pushed out of the restaurant biz, spends his days playing the numbers, until his savings are exhausted, and he and Desdemona forced to move into Tessie and Milton's attic. Later, Calliope's birth and the turn of the decade coincide with Lefty's first stroke, which leaves him still sharp, but speechless save a chalkboard. Seven years later, the diner goes up in smoke in the 1967 riots, and the insurance money allows the family to move again, this time, to the prestigious suburbs and private schools of Grosse Point.

Here, Callie finds herself isolated in more ways than one. Grosse Pointe, after all, is supposed to be a refuge for those white families fleeing Detroit and the spectre of busing; the Greek-American Stephanideses are far more ethnic than their average neighbors, and obtain their house only by paying cash. And in time, as her classmates begin to menstruate and develop breasts, Callie, too, grows ... different. As she explains,
"Beauty may always be a little bit freakish, but the year I turned thirteen I was becoming freakier than ever. Consider the yearbook. In the field hockey team photo, taken in the fall, I am on one knee in the front row. With my homeroom in the spring, I am stooping in the back. My face is shadowed with self-consciousness. (Over the years my perpetually perplexed expression would drive photographers to distraction. It ruined class photos and Christmas cards until, in the most widely published pictures of me, the problem was finally solved by blocking out my face altogether.)"
Gradually, but not altogether surprisingly, she embarks on a love affair ("wordless, blinkered, a nighttime thing, a dream thing") with her female best friend. However, even then, neither "the Object" nor Callie herself suspect anything unusual:
"Whatever it was that I was was best revealed slowly, in flattering light. Which meant not much light at all. Besides, that's the way it goes in adolescence. You try things out in the dark. You get drunk or stoned and extemporize. ...

"Through all this I made no lasting conclusions about myself. I know it's hard to believe, but that's the way it works. The mind self-edits. The mind airbrushes. It's a different thing to be inside a body than outside. From outside, you can look, inspect, compare. From inside there is no comparison. ...

"Why should I have thought I was anything other than a girl? Because I was attracted to a girl? That happened all the time. It was happening more than ever in 1974. It was becoming a national pastime. My ecstatic intuition about myself was now deeply suppressed. How long I would have managed to keep it down is anybody's guess. But in the end it wasn't up to me. The big things never are. Birth, I mean, and death. And love. And what love bequeaths to us before we're born."
Ultimately, of course, Calliope/ Cal's bequest is revealed, with startling implications for the remainder of her/ his journey into and through adulthood.

In addition to being eminently readable, with a compelling, unusual storyline and fascinating, multi-layered characters, Middlesex also offers considerable literary merit (just in case the Pulitzer doesn't convince you, but my own amateur bibliophile's $0.02 will). Eugenides' descriptions of the Stephanides' physical and emotional landscapes are at once subtle and vivid. Witness his description of Lefty's stint at Ford's River Rouge plant, which evokes not just an auto assembly line, but the the vast intricacy of Cal's genetic code:
"Every fourteen seconds Wierzbicki reams a bearing and Stephanides grinds a bearing and O'Malley attaches a bearing to a camshaft. This camshaft travels away on a conveyor, curling around the factory, through its clouds of metal dust, its acid fogs, until another worker fifty yards on reaches up and removes the camshaft, fitting it onto the engine block (twenty seconds). Simultaneously, other men are unhooking parts from adjacent conveyors -- the carbuerator, the distributor, the intake manifold -- and connecting them to the engine block. Above their bent heads, hige spindles pound steam-powered fists. No one says a word. ... Wierzbicki reams a bearing and Stephanides grinds a bearing and O'Malley attaches a bearing to a camshaft. While other workers screw in the air filter (seventeen seconds) and attach the starter motor (twenty-six seconds) and put on the flywheel. At which point the engine is fnished and the last man sends it soaring away ...

"Except that he isn't the last man. There are other men below hauling the engine in, as a chassis rolls out to meet it. ... My grandfather sees only the bearing in front of him, his hands removing it, grinding it, and putting it back as another appears. The conveyor over his head extends back to the men who stamp out the bearings and load ingots into the furnaces; it goes back to the Foundry where the Negroes work, goggled against the infernal light and heat. ... The Foundry is the deepest recess of the Rouge, but the Line goes back farther than that. It extends outside to the hills of coal and cokel it goes to the river where the freighters dock to unload the ore, at which point the Line becomes the river itself, snaking up to the north woods until it reaches its source, which is the earth itself, the limestone and sandstone therein; and then the line leads back again, out of substrata to river to freighters and finally to the cranes, shovels, and furnaces where it is turned into molten steel and poured into molds, cooling and hardening into car parts -- the gears, drive shafts, and fuel tanks of 1922 Model T's. Wierzbicki reams a bearing and Stephanides grinds a bearing and O'Malley attaches a bearing to a camshaft. ... The Line isn't a single line but many, diverging and intersecting."
The novel is replete with unanswered questions, not just about gender, but about the very notion of dichotomy. Among these is whether it's our genes or our environments that shape our family histories and our selves. As Cal offers, reflecting on the night of his parents' conception, "Parents are supposed to pass down physical traits to their children, but it's my belief that all sorts of other things get passed down, too: motifs, scenarios, even fates." Later, he returns to this theme in more detail, describing the rare events of his own beginnings:
"The bedroom grows still. Inside my mother, a billion sperm swim upstream, males in the lead. They carry not only instructions about eye color, height, nose shape, enzyme production, microphage resistance, but a story, too. Against a black background they swim, a long white silken thread spinning itself out. The thread begins on a day two hundred and fifty years ago, when the biology gods, for their own amusement, monkeyed with a gene on a baby's fifth chromosome. That baby passed the mutation on to her son, who passed it on to his two daughters, who passed it on to three of their children (my great-great-greats, etc.), until it finally ended up in the bodies of my grandparents. Hitching a ride, the gene descended a mountain and left a village behind. It got trapped in a burning city and escaped, speaking bad French. Crossing the ocean, it faked a romance, circled a ship's deck, and made love in a lifeboat. It had its braids cut off. It took a train to Detroit and moved into a house on Hurlbut; it consulted dream books and opened and underground speakeasy; it got a job at Temple No. 1 ... And then the gene moved on again, into new bodies ... It joined the Boy Scouts and painted its toenails red; it played 'Begin the Beguine' out the back window; it went off to war and stayed at home, watching newsreels; it took an entrance exam; posed like the movie magazines; received a death sentence and made a deal with St. Christopher; it dated a future priest and broke off an engagement; it was saved by a bosun's chair ... always moving ahead, rushing along, only a few more curves left in the track now, Annapolis and a submarine chaser ... until the biology gods knew this was their time, this was what they'd been waiting for, and as a spoon swung and a yia yia worried, my destiny fell into place ... On March 20, 1954, Chapter Eleven arrived and the biology gods shook their heads, nope, sorry ... But there was still time, everything was in place, the roller coaster was in free fall and there was no stopping it now, my father was seeing visions of little girls and my mother was praying to a Christ Pantocrator she didn't entirely believe in until finally -- right this minute! -- on Greek Easter, 1959, it's about to happen. The gene is about to meet its twin."
Cal also grapples with questions of agency; are we shaped entirely by our genes and our histories, or can we write our own stories? At first glance, the book leans toward the former. Cal remembers, as the adolescent Calliope, dreaming "the most futile human dream of all, the dream of writing a book worthy of joining their number, a one hundred and sixteenth Great Book with another long Greek name on the cover: Stephanides. That was when I was young and full of grand dreams. Now I've given up any hope of lasting fame or literary perfection. I don't care if I write a great book anymore, but just one which, whatever its flaws, will leave a record of my impossible life." Earlier in the text, we've already seen Desdemona's world shifting out of focus during World War II, and Milton's character forged by his early 1950s naval service. However, Cal does acknowledge that, beginning with Calliope's birth, she (later, he) does indeed play some part in shaping the world:
"I've never had the right words to describe my life, and now that I've entered my story, I need them more than ever. I can't just sit back and watch from a distance anymore. From here on in, everything I'll tell you is colored by the subjective experience of being part of events. Here's where my story splits, divides, undergoes meiosis. Already the world feels heavier, now I'm a part of it. I'm talking about bandages and sopped cotton, the smell of mildew in movie theaters, and of all the lousy cats and their stinking litter boxes, of rain on city streets when the dust comes up and the old Italian men take their folding chairs inside. Up until now it hasn't been my world. Not my America. But here we are, at last."
In the second-to-last chapter, Cal describes an other-worldly, unsettling, yet lovely phenomenon allegedly common to 1970s Detroit -- pink nights:
"They happened every so often, depending on temperature and the level of chemicals in the air. When particulate matter in the atmosphere was sufficient, light from the ground got trapped and reflected back, and the entire Detroit sky would become the soft pink of cotton candy. It never got dark on pink nights, but the light was nothing like daytime. Our pink nights glowed with the raw luminescence of the night shift, of factories running around the clock. Sometimes the sky would become as bright as Pepto-Bismol, but more often it was a muted, a fabric-softener color. Nobody thought it was strange. Nobody said anything about it. We had all grown up with pink nights. They were not a natural phenomenon, but they were natural to us."
Unnatural, even disturbing, but also utterly compelling, a rare gem. Much like our narrator, or Middlesex itself.

Saturday, November 14, 2009

118 - The Disappearing Girl

Odd juxtaposition, this. In between reading The Disappearing Girl: Learning the Language of Teenage Depression, by Lisa Machoian (Dutton, 2005) today, I was selling Girl Scout cookies with a passel of tweens, on a college campus where we were surrounded by young women (and men) just on the other side of adolescence. Neither is that unusual an event, but it did put some of Machoian's warning into sharper focus.

My initial reaction is that Disappearing Girl was a decent enough book, well-written, and packed with extended, moving case studies. Machoian's goal seems to be to assist parents, counselors, and others who work with adolescent girls in understanding what depression looks like in this population, and how they can best help. I'm neither a clinician nor the parent of an adolescent (yet), but it seems like for the most part, she succeeds; if nothing else, the few reviews I was able to find online were positive.

There's not a lot of new content here; I can't say I learned much about depression or female adolescence that I didn't already know, though (as my blog-reading public will attest) I do tend to gobble up books on both topics. What is new is Machoian's focus on portraying, in direct quotes and paraphrases, the girls' own experiences of depression and its onset. She also returns repeatedly to the problem of distinguishing normal teenaged angst from genuine depression, and in the final chapters, offers some guidelines for parents and others who struggle with this question.

I can't find too much to criticize about the book, with the possible exception of Machoian's tendency to insert herself into the girls' stories a bit more than seems necessary, but I also can't seem to find much concrete to say to recommend it, either. This isn't because it's a "bad" book; on the contrary, one Amazon reviewer called it "paradoxically uplifting," which I can see; yes, it's a book about teenage depression, but it also reflects tremendous hope, both on the part of the girls Machoian profiles and the author, that this condition can be understood and treated. Mostly, I just came away feeling like I'd read this book before. Yes, it's more psychology and less culture than, say, The Triple Bind, but it also suggests that I've gotten into a bit of a rut when it comes to reading about certain subjects. I think perhaps I just need to lay off the books on treating and/or parenting adolescents, and read some nice juicy fiction for a while.

Wednesday, September 9, 2009

#83 - My Little Red Book

Also read My Little Red Book (Twelve, 2009) Monday, just before it was due back. Felt like I was a bit behind the curve on this one; a dear friend gave it as a gift to her daughter on the occasion of the daughter's first period, and heck, even Littlehazel devoured it before I'd even cracked the cover open.

The book, edited by Rachel Kauder Nalebuff, is an anthology of stories about girls'/ women's first periods. It's both a quick read and a fascinating one. The settings range from 1919 to WWII Europe to a contemporary text message, and the contributors include such well-known authors as Meg Cabot, Megan McCafferty, Tamora Pierce, and Gloria Steinem (who revised her famous "If Men Could Menstruate" essay for the occasion). Simply put, a must read for anyone with strong feelings about this occasion in their own lives (whether it's decades past or still somewhere ahead of you) or strong feelings for a young woman they're close to.

Thursday, September 3, 2009

#79 - The Triple Bind

I finished The Triple Bind: Saving our Teenage Girls from Today's Pressures, by Steven Hinshaw (Ballantine, 2009), last Tuesday. As you may have guessed from my last few reviews of books about the perils facing adolescent girls in contemporary U.S. culture, it's rare for a book on this topic to impress me -- but The Triple Bind did. In my partially-informed layperson's opinion, it's of interest not just to parents and teachers, but to social scientists interested in female adolescence. If I actually had a reader base, I'd encourage you/ them to correct me if I'm wrong, but c'mon now ... let's get real.

All right, self-deprecating humor aside, Hinshaw's main thesis is that today's teenage girls are caught in what he calls a triple bind: the expectation that they excel at 1) all the traditional "girl" stuff, i.e., being pretty and nice; 2) most of the traditional "guy" stuff, including sports and Ivy League-level academics; and 3) at the same time, conform to a narrow, unrealistic set of standards and make the whole package look effortless. As the title of the first chapter ("Impossible Expectations") suggests, that's no mean feat -- and the book is generously laced with accounts of accomplished young women who crumble in the attempt, sometimes with devastating results. This isn't to say that the book's alarmist or overly sensational; it's not. Yes, Hinshaw includes the occasional extreme example (the chapter on cyberculture begins with the well-known story of Megan Meier's suicide), but the majority of case studies portray girls whose injuries are far less extreme. His point (and this is where he differs from other similar books like So Sexy So Soon and The Lolita Effect, which pretty much stop at illustrating a disturbing trend and tossing off a few obligatory recommendations for countering it in the last chapter) is that the triple bind has specific, measurable negative consequences for girls: specifically, high rates of depression, self-mutilation, eating disorders, and increasingly, aggressive behavior.

As a one-time economics student, I was intrigued by Hinshaw's linking the triple bind to the global and uncertain nature of today's economy. Citing Thomas Friedman's The World is Flat (one of many, many items on my ever-expanding Wanna Read list), he suggests:
"[W]e're in the process of moving toward a global economy, one in which work is almost infinitely transferable to anyplace on the planet. ... Reading between the lines, however, you get a much more disturbing story, one in which no American, no matter how well qualified or well trained, is safe from the prospect of losing not only a job but the very possibility of having a job."
He also cites Barbara Ehrenreich's Bait and Switch, which I have read, toward a similar end: For a whole host of complicated reasons, the insecurity that poor and working-class workers have long known has crept upward, and is now part of the middle-class reality as well. In short, there's more pressure on everyone to do whatever it takes to succees in today's workplace -- girls, boys, whoever.

The book then goes on to define depression, and handles the nature-nurture question (do people really still debate this anymore?) quite adroitly (in brief, you can inherit vulnerability to depression, but your life experiences still play a big part in whether you ever develop the illness and how bad it gets. Um, no kidding.) Interestingly, too, Hinshaw also talks about the particular dangers depression poses for teenage girls, stating that even one bout of major depression in adolescence dramatically increases both the odds of another such episode later in life, and the severity of any subsequent episodes that do occur. (Um, no kidding, again. Can you tell this book struck a nerve or 3 with me?) He argues that the risk is compounded by the typical busy, sleep-deprived life of the average teenage overachiever, the loss of intrinsic meaning of the many activities cramming their schedules, and the belief that girls are not only supposed to excel at all this stuff, but they're supposed to make it look easy. Other chapters talk about "the popular culture of 'self-erasing identities,'", i.e., "the very images that seem to offer a girl alternatives for discovering her identity in fact demand that she erase herself so as to better blend in with the crowd;" the hidden dangers of empathy; the objectification of female sexuality; cyberculture; and female agression. I could go on, but in short -- this is an interesting and compelling book, and one I'll recommend to others interested in the subject matter.

Sunday, August 30, 2009

#78 - The Lolita Effect

Just took a foray into non-fiction again with The Lolita Effect: The Media Sexualization of Young Girls and What We Can Do About It, by M. Gigi Durham (Overlook Press, 2008). Having read more than a few hysterical and/or oversimplified books on this topic, I was a bit skeptical at first, but ended up being pleasantly surprised. Not only is The Lolita Effect far more balanced and nuanced than So Sexy So Soon, but it also scores high on readability.

The nuance begins with the title. Durham argues that while we (popular culture) have come to use "Lolita" to describe a young girl who deliberately behaves in a seductive manner, Dolores Haze, the original Lolita in that book by Nabokov, is not an intentional nymphet, but an innocent victim of her predatory, pedophile stepfather, Humbert Humbert. (True confessions time: shamefully, I haven't actually read Lolita, so I'm taking Durham's word for this.) She is also emphatic about not being anti-sex or advocating censorship. On the contrary, she suggests that previous works and authors on this topic (hel-LO, Mary Pipher!) have often tended toward an overly dualistic, "moral panic" approach that makes for some strange bedfellows (i.e., traditional, mostly Christian conservatives and progressive, usually sex-positive parents and teachers). Explains Durham,
"[I]t is not girls' sexuality in and of itself that is a problem; the problem is that the expression of girls' sexuality seems to be possible only within an extremely restrictive framework. Girls' sexuality, it seems, has to comply with the markers of sexuality that we recognize, and it cannot be manifested, recognized, or mobilized in other, potentially more empowering and supportive, ways."
Most of the book is devoted to defining the five myths that constitute the Lolita effect. These are as follows:
  1. Sexuality equals looking sexy, or, in Durham's words, "if you've got it, flaunt it."
  2. Exactly what looks (and therefore, is) sexy ("hot," in common parlance) is very narrowly defined. In short, the perfect girl/ woman looks like Barbie. Not only is this an unrealistic, unhealthy ideal for girls to aspire to, but it's racist and classist (after all, who has the money to buy The Look?) to boot.
  3. Younger is better -- not just as in, society thinks women in their 20s are more attractive than those in their mothers' generation, but as in, very young, still a girl. Hearken back to the days of Britney Spears' Catholic school miniskirt-wearing, pigtail-sporting, lollipop-sucking debut, among other examples.
  4. Violence is sexy. Here, Durham cites slasher films, music videos and lyrics, and violent video games a la Grand Theft Auto as examples.
  5. Sexy is defined for and by the male gaze. Boys choose girls, girls are sex objects, and alternate pairings -- male-male, female-female, or even non-traditional male-female -- Just Don't Exist.
Durham is a professor of journalism and communication, so it's not surprising that the remedies she proposes tend heavily toward increased media literacy and consumer education. Again, she's very clear about not advocating censorship, partly because that's a slippery slope that might lead us to censor Lolita and Romeo and Juliet, and partly because she takes the matter-of-fact position that yes, children and adolescents are sexual, and we need to respect and acknowledge that ... it's just that we should be doing so in "more empowering and supportive ways" than we've tended to see of late. Her list of internet and print resources is impressive and useful, as well. It's been a while since I've said this of a book on parenting and/or sexuality, but I recommend this one highly.

Thursday, July 30, 2009

#68 - I'm Too Sexy

Not sure what I think about this one. #68 was So Sexy So Soon: The New Sexualized Childhood and What Parents Can Do to Protect Their Kids, by Diane E. Levin and (Ballantine, 2008). On one hand, the book does a good job of being interesting and compelling but not alarmist; on the other, doesn't really cover much new ground. If you're interested in the topic (for more details, check the official web site for the book here) and haven't read much about it, this one's worth reading; if you're already fairly familiar, you probably won't get much new from this book.

Sunday, April 26, 2009

#37 - ARGH!

No, that's not a reflection on #37 - Cherishing Our Daughters: How Parents Can Raise Girls to Become Strong and Loving Women, by Evelyn Bassoff (1998, The Putnam Group), which was OK if not perfect ... more a sense that the parenting, marriage, and family theme has run its course. If I were a grad student, the common themes found in popular books from this genre and era (the mid-1990s) would be a fascinating thesis topic. And like any grad student I've ever known, I'd probably get sick to death of the topic after a while. I'm there now after what, 3 or 4 books ... so it's probably a good thing I'm not a grad student anymore. You'll notice that the latest additions to my bookshelf are heavy on the entertaining, mass market fiction; I even went so far as to check out one of the adult-oriented offerings from Meg Cabot, a mostly-YA author Littlehazel's become fond of lately. And at this very moment, I'm halfway through an utterly predictable Maeve Binchy book and enjoying it thoroughly, TYVM.

All righty, then, where was I? Right, Cherishing Our Daughters. After seeing Mary Pipher's praise quoted on the cover, my hopes weren't too high, but this book was actually better than I expected. Essentially, the book is Bassoff's extended meditation on the ten parental "gifts" that are most critical to raising strong, loving daughters: maternal devotion, paternal care, "letting in" (i.e., allowing extended family members to love and support one's daughter, too), protectiveness, limit-setting, respect, wholeness, courage, roots, and wings. I found the "loving and letting in" chapter interesting, having just read The Shelter of Each Other. While Pipher's thoughts on extended family relationships seemed narrow and dictatorial, Bassoff's seem more balanced; she focuses mostly on the grandparent-granddaughter relationship, but acknowledges that there's room for other relatives and close friends to perform similar functions, and addresses the extra wrinkles that arise when there's a blended family and/or a stepparent in the picture.

I also enjoyed the chapters on protectiveness and limit-setting. So often, we hear "protectiveness" prefaced by "over"; by contrast, this book seems to place as much emphasis on teaching girls to be assertive, say no, and trust their gut instincts when something Just Doesn't Seem Right ... in other words, protecting themselves. Bassoff also acknowledges the risks of being too protective, quoting Ellen Goodman (as she does frequently throughout the book):
"But at some point in time, we must also begin to acknowledge the risks of protectiveness. Risks that come when children are taught to be afraid. Risks that come to a diverse society when kids grow up to be suspicious of 'others.' Without even knowing it and with the best intentions, we can stunt our children with our deep longing to keep them safe."
I wasn't thrilled with the end of the protectiveness chapter. This is one of several places throughout the book where Bassoff recounts a popular legend or fairy tale (in this case, that of Briar Rose, a/k/a Sleeping Beauty), and attempts to draw from it some lesson or other to inform our understanding of girls' development. In most cases, I found this approach clunky and out-of-place. The first paragraph of this thread is clear enough:
"[E]ven the most cherished child cannot be kept perfectly safe. Indeed, in one way the curse of the bad fairy represents the inevitable misfortunes that beset every child's life. Although we parents can mitigate the dangers that confront our daughters, we cannot eliminate them. Nor can we stop time and lock our daughters in eternal childhood to preserve their innocence."

Hear, hear; makes sense to me. Unfortunately, rather than stopping here while she's ahead, Bassoff goes on to suggest that the fairy's "curse" represents menstrual bleeding, talk about the feminist critique of the Briar Rose story as "a metaphor for a woman's unhealthy passivity -- the comatose existence that is expected to last until she is rescued by a man's sexual overtures," and so on ... all of which seemed digressive, like it belonged more to a high school junior English class than a book on parenting and female development.

My other main critique of Cherishing Our Daughters was that it contains just a bit too much gender essentialism for my taste. (If you haven't guessed yet, this is a sore spot of mine.) I appreciate the author's repeated emphasis on the importance of both parents' involvement in a girl's development; I recognize that fathers and mothers tend to interact differently with their children, and that this is generally a good thing. I don't, however, agree that "focus, determination, direction, assertiveness, ambition, [and] adventurousness" are primarly masculine qualities which only a father can transmit, any more than I think fathers are incapable of being patient, tender, or comforting. And frankly, though the rest of the "Father's Care" chapter is pretty rational and well-balanced, the comment about "When men are encouraged to be fathermen, and not 'Mr. Moms,' they are empowered -- and so are their daughters" seemed gratuitous. I'm not sure exactly what a "Mr. Mom" is in this context, but this argument would have been stronger had Bassoff just encouraged the reader to respect fathers' unique talents and styles, rather than suggesting it's unreasonable for them to pitch in with the scutwork more commonly done by moms. Some tasks of parenting are empowering, sure ... others are just plain unpleasant. They still need to get done.

In a similar vein, I was a bit cranky at Bassoff's insistence that the best mothers stay home, or at least work part-time, while their children are babies ... period, the end. Do we need longer, more generous parental leave policies in the U.S.? Absolutely. But she seems to place the blame and guilt sorely on the mother's shoulders, without recognizing that one single solution probably isn't best for everyone:
"The truth of the matter is that being a mother is the most important and most demanding of all vocations. At stake is the life and well-being of another human being. If children are to thrive, mothers must once again realize the importance and the joy of being present in their lives, just as the bright, capable women of past generations did. This does not mean that all women give up their personal ambitions and creative aspirations, although these might be realized before having children or put off until after the children need less in the way of daily care. It does not mean that all women forgo outside employment, although, for at least the first year after having a baby, part-time, rather than full-time, employment ought to be considered."

On the following page, she goes on to claim that mothers need to be with their children minute by minute and hour by hour during their early months and years in order to become attuned to the children's needs. OK, I'll grant that the book was published in 1998 and the "Mommy Wars" were still a-raging at the time, but devoting the first ten pages to a contentious, polarizing topic that could have consumed a whole book by itself may not have been the best move. As it was, I managed to keep reading and was pleased not to find Bassoff harping further on this issue later on ... but it did take me a few chapters to calm down and start reading with an open mind again.

Tuesday, April 21, 2009

#35 - More of the same

Yep, I'm on another of my thematic kicks; this time, I'm reading about gender and family issues. Earlier this week, I finished Wifework: What Marriage Really Means for Women, by Susan Maushart. In a word -- eh. The title itself is a tall order; there are a lot of married women out there, and it's hard to imagine that one book can deconstruct every last one of their marriages in 247 pages. Frankly, this one doesn't even come close. Maushart's thesis is that today's high divorce rate is due to the inequalities behind married partners, the differences between (borrowing a page from American sociologist Jessie Bernard) His marriage and Her marriage:
"We can't make up our minds about marriage because we have not acknowledged that these two versions of the one relationship are fundamentally and perhaps irreconcilably divergent. And, more to the point, we have not yet acknowledged -- perhaps not even to ourselves -- that His marriage still works. And Hers doesn't."
She defines "wifework" in some detail in the first chapter to include performing a disproportionate share of household and child care tasks, emotional caretaking, maintaining His diet and physical well-being, deferring to His intimacy and conversational needs, et al. You get the idea. She then suggests that wifework evolved as a little extra something women did to help keep their men monogamous -- "a spoonful of sugar to make the medicine of monogamy go down." Subsequent chapters explore the prevalence and persistence of wifework, and how it plays out in the arenas of housework, parenting, and emptional caregiving.

The book was a reasonably interesting read, and much of it did resonate with, um, things I've heard from married woman friends. It also offers some amusing observations, e.g., "In my opinion, love isn't blind. It just provides exceptional camouflage." I particularly enjoyed the "Rising Expectations and Diminishing Returns" chapter, about the growing gap between what we expect of marriage on one hand and what we actually get on the other -- though Marriage: A History tackled this same subject more clearly and comprehensively. I'm not, however, convinced that Wifework is solid scholarship. For one thing, Maushart has a habit of citing a study or statistic related to whatever point she's trying to make, but then extrapolating (sometimes with a witty but misleading quote thrown in for good measure) to draw conclusions far beyond what the evidence supports; witness her statements in Chapter 5 that "It is a sociological truism that unmarried males represent the dregs of society, and unmarried females the cream," and "what keeps marriages together are wives who have no choice but to keep them together. What puts marriage asunder are wives with access to other options."

For another, in offering anecdotes to illustrate her points, Maushart relies far too heavily on her own experience. The first time, when she regales us in Chapter 2 with her sudden compulsion to cook dinners and scrub toilets after her first marriage in 1985, it's amusing; by Chapter 14, the umpteenth reference (this time, to a tiff with her second husband over earning vs. decision-making power), it's gotten old. Moreover, it makes her sound bitter and lacking in objectivity -- both of which detract from the arguments she's trying to make. Coupled with her breezy, flippant tone and cutesy chapter titles (e.g., "Equality Go Bye-Byes" and "Whose Wife Is It, Anyway?"), this makes the book feel somewhere like a cross between a series of popular essays and a mudslide-fueled gripefest with a girlfriend, rather than like a legitimate contribution to social science.

Overall, if you're new to the subject, Wifework is a readable introduction, and offers some interesting food for thought. It's definitely a light appetizer, though, and not a full meal; long-time addicts of the genre won't find much new here, and will probably find the tone off-putting.

Next up: My review for the equally disappointing The Shelter of Each Other, by Mary Pipher. I really need to stock up on some good, juicy fiction, stat.

Monday, April 20, 2009

Love and marriage ...

Sorry, folks -- if you were hoping for a juicy personal expose on the seamy side of life at Hazel's House, this ain't it. Double the "bad idea" quotient on that because Mrhazel is one of the few people who actually reads my blog, and then double that because we just had Mrhazel's mom with us for the weekend. Cafe Hazelthyme remains PG-rated at best. Nothing to see here.

Well, nothing except my review for #34 - Marriage, A History: From Intimacy to Obedience, or How Love Conquered Marriage, by Stephanie Coontz. I'll admit up front that I was predisposed to like this one; I'm interested in family and gender issues, I devour histories that are less about battles and conquests than about the everyday lives of regular people, and I really enjoyed The Way We Never Were and The Way We Really Are, Coontz's earlier books about much the same subject (namely, the history of family life). While I ended up not enjoying Marriage quite as much as the other two -- possibly because I've read a number of books and articles on the topic since then, so it's harder to find something new or surprising -- it was nonetheless an interesting read, informative, and written in a clear, engaging style.

The book starts with a premise that will be familiar to readers of Coontz's earlier books: namely, that what we think of as "traditional" in terms of marriage and family life isn't, really. More precisely, she argues that people only began marrying for love about 200 years ago, and that the iconic traditional family depicted in Ozzie and Harriet and Leave It to Beaver was both a recent invention and a short-lived one:
"The long decade of the 1950s, stretching from 1947 to the early 1960s in the United States and from 1952 to the late 1960s in Western Europe, was a unique moment in the history of marriage. Neve before had so many people shared the experience of courting their own mates, getting married at will, and setting up their own households. Never had married couples been so independent of extended family ties and community groups. And never before had so many people agreed that only one kind of family was 'normal.'

"The cultural consensus that everyone should marry and form a male breadwinner family was like a steamroller that crushed every alternative view. By the end of the 1950s even people who had grown up in completely different family systems had come to believe that universal marriage into a male breadwinner family was the traditional and permanent form of marriage."
In reality, according to Coontz, it was neither. By contrast, "the single most important function of marriage through most of history ... was its role in establishing cooperative relationships between families and communities. ... Marriage also allowed families to pool labor and resources or to establish some kind of partnership between two different kin groups." She devotes roughly the first half of the book to a survey of marriage customs across cultures and time periods in the thousands of years before the love match became widely accepted, from political marriages in ancient Athens and then Rome (including Antony's to Cleopatra, of which she writes "both Cleopatra and Antony were playing for stakes that had little to do with undying love ... on everyone's part this was a calculated, even ruthless, political intrigue") to early Christianity's evolving requirements for marriage and divorce to the essential role of marriage in allowing medieval peasants to create economically viable households.

The tipping point occurred toward the close of the 18th century, when industrialization shifted production from home to factory, and Enlightenment philosophers came to emphasize individual rights and justice over domination and force. Says Coontz, the result was as follows:
"The husband, once the supervisor of the family labor force, came to be seen as the person who, by himself, provided for the family. The wife's role was redefined to focus on her emotional and moral contributions to family life rather than her economic inputs. The husband was the family's economic motor, and the wife its sentimental core."
Realizing that this is becoming long, I'm barely halfway through the book, and I'm still mostly summarizing rather than offering any intelligent reflections ... I'll recommend this book as both entertaining and informative, and direct those seeking a more in-depth analysis to this review from an April 2007 California Literary Review, which I wish I'd written. (I mostly agree with the author, but I'm not that good. Then again, he probably wasn't sitting on the couch with an afghan on his feet and an elderly iBook on his lap when he wrote it, either.)

Sunday, March 1, 2009

#22 and Deja Vu

OK, it's been a while since this happened. I got about a third of the way through my 22nd book of the year, The Sexual Paradox: Men, Women, and the Real Gender Gap, by Susan Pinker, and realized, "Wait, haven't I read this before?" Yep; I had. Admittedly, I churn through books on this subject (gender roles and gender differences, especially in the workplace) about as quickly as I find them, but still ... it was kind of funny.

All right, then -- tangent aside, this book put forth some interesting ideas about the extent to which biological differences between men and women may explain some of the persistent difference in their career choices, but it also overreaches as to the importance of these differences, and often makes the mistake of confusing compelling anecdotes with solid evidence. Pinker's thesis is twofold: first, that many boys who struggle with ADHD, dyslexia, and the like during their school days end up out-earning and out-achieving the female classmates whose performance in school was far stronger, and second, there are biological and developmental differences between males and females that explain the persistent differences in their career choices and trajectories. If the second piece sounds like a hot-button issue, it is; in fact, it's what cost Obama economic advisor Lawrence Summers the presidency of Harvard several years back. And I'll admit straight-out that it's a sensitive issue for me, and that I had to try really hard to read Pinker's book the whole way through (again) with an open mind.

I'll start with the good stuff: some of Pinker's arguments are well-researched and -articulated. Perhaps the most solid is her chapter on males as the more fragile sex, both in terms of increased mortality at every age, and increased risk for difficulties in school. I was also intrigued by her chapters on dyslexia, autism and Asperger's syndrome, and ADHD, and her suggestion that in some ways, these disorders (all of which are far more prevalent in males than in females) each represent extreme examples of traits and behaviors that, in moderation, have historically been advantageous to men -- that's not to say that I'm fully convinced by this book alone that this is the case, but it's an interesting idea and one I'd like to see more research on.

That said, I think the book is far weaker when it delves into the traits and behaviors where women have traditionally had the advantage, and what this means for their career choices. In short, Pinker argues that the reason there are still so few women in the highest echelon science, math, and engineering careers is that their superior verbal and empathetic skills, coupled with their preference for intrinsically-meaningful work over that which is purely lucrative, motivate them to leave these fields (or leave the most prestigious, highly paid jobs in these fields) even when they've gotten the credentials and the jobs, and haven't been victims of discrimination. Again, I'm trying really hard to be objective here, but I think the following quote from the beginning of Chapter 3 illustrates two of the key fallacies in her reasoning:

"At the beginning of 2005, the choices of educated women became the focus of intense public scrutiny. ... [Harvard president Larry Summers] had offered some ideas about why there might be fewer women than men in high-flying academic science, math, and engineering careers. Could one reason be innate sex differences at the very extremes of performance? Or was discrimination still keeping women out? ... I thought about the high-achieving women in science I'd met over the years. They hardly seemed deficient at math, or in any academic area, for that matter. In fact, they seemed to have an array of options due to their native talents and their educational opportunities. Had they drifted into medicine, psychology, and teaching as consolation prizes after having been discouraged from pursuing physics or engineering careers? The answer, as it turned out, could be seen from my front porch."

Problem number one: Pinker seems to be trying to convince us that sex discrimination is a thing of the past, and that therefore, the differences between high-achieving men's and women's career choices must be due to innate differences between the sexes. Even if we accept for the moment her suggestion that discrimination's no longer a problem (and though I don't think it's that simple, I do believe that especially in the positions she profiles, it's probably far less prevalent than it was 25 or 30 years ago), I don't think it automatically follows that innate sex differences are the other explanation available. Sure, some women leave these fields because they decide the money and prestige just aren't worth it, and they find other work more meaningful ... but so do some men. She also seems to be a bit too quick to shrug off women's choices to leave these fields for other, more meaningful work because (oversimplification alert) "after all, it was her decision and she's much happier this way" -- glossing over the issue of whether a profession that requires 60- to 80-hour workweeks in order to succeed might itself be a problem.

Problem number two: Perhaps we should call this one the Belkin fallacy, after New York Times writer Lisa Belkin's infamous "Opt-Out Revolution" article from the early 2000's. The plural of anecdote is not data, and I'm always leery of arguments that seek to extrapolate from "people I know or know of" to society at large -- especially when the people one knows tend to fall within a pretty narrow socioeconomic spectrum. I know no one book or author can address every issue remotely connected to their topic, but I find it interesting (though not surprising any more) that Pinker doesn't even mention how different male-female occupational choices might play out among plumbers, firefighters, day care workers, secretaries, et al. It's easy to feel like it's no problem for women to be underrepresented in science and engineering if they chose to go into other fields and are still making a pretty darned comfortable living, even if it's not quite as lucrative as it might have been. However, what's going on toward the blue- and pink-collar realms? Are women really beginning careers as plumbers or mechanics or carpenters, but then leaving them because they find day care work more rewarding? And if so, are we still comfortable with the "intrinsic meaning for better pay" trade-off when it leaves them (in most cases) unable to earn a living wage?

As I said, I'm a big nerd about this stuff and could go on in this vein for quite a while, but I think you've got the idea -- worth reading, and has some interesting ideas, but I'm not sure I buy the big picture Pinker's trying to stitch together out of these threads. I'm off to do something sterotypically female and start dinner now.