A friend sent me Yet Another Article citing a “study” finding that male and female brains differ, and therefore 'proves' that the genders are destined to behave according to long-held stereotypes. Since you have to sign up as a member to comment (I hate that. What’s that all about?), and I don’t want to become a “member” of Yet Another Forum, I’ll sound off here, where I’m a member of my own club and anyone with a computer is welcome and encouraged to comment.
Dr. Louann Brizendine is here to tell us among other things that “his amygdala, the alarm system for threats, fear, and danger is...larger in men…making men more alert than women to potential turf threats.”
Why, then, are women the stereotyped worriers, and the ones who are stereotyped as getting up on a chair and shrieking if we see a mouse or a spider?
Dr. Brizendine goes on to explain how male’s brains are the reason they constantly check out women and stare at their breasts, and why, when we tell them our problems, they go into Fixit Mode. She concludes by proverbially throwing up her hands and sighing that it makes more sense to deal with these brain realities, than to argue with them or ignore them…”The best advice I have for women is make peace with the male brain. Let men be men.”
Ah, yes. Let men be men: It’s just one molecule away from “boys will be boys”. It’s all wired in. It’s in their DNA. Not a darned thing we can do. Why even try to civilize them?
Dr. Brizendine's credentials notwithstanding, this is simplistic pop drek parading as science and excusing gender stereotyping.
Thursday, March 25, 2010
Friday, March 19, 2010
Christmas. Yeah, Christmas. חג המולד
As I’ve mentioned on occasion, I’m a *chasida* [follower] of Washington Post columnist Carolyn Hax’s commenters’ forum. The other day Hax ran a letter from a reader who was offended that his Christian MIL (that’s mother-in-law) sent him, his Jew-by-choice wife, and their four-year-old son Christmas cards. Unfortunately, the LW (that’s letter-writer) didn’t arouse too much sympathy, as he also complained that MIL gave them a cash gift, as opposed to one she picked out. Now I’m all down with the second point; heck, I’ll accept cash from any source, even if it’s the Islamic Jihad Clearinghouse Sweepstakes. But the ensuing discussion about card-sending (which elicited no fewer than 287 comments) aroused some latent defensiveness in me vis-à-vis Christmas in America that the Hax discussion finally enabled me to articulate after all these years. My visceral reaction to Christmas is so strong, in fact, that despite having left it behind 29 years ago, I was surprised that I still haven’t actually let go of it.
So, for any American Christians reading this, here's my Knee-Jerk anti-Christmas Primer. And yes, for my purposes, “Christian” refers to you even if you weren’t baptized and have never stepped foot in a church, as long as you don’t actively affiliate or identify with another faith. OK, now that we've got that sorted out, here we go: The LW got all hot under the caller ‘cause his MIL sent him a Christmas card — a seemingly innocuous act, right? And predictably, within the first dozen comments, someone piped up with, “I’ve gotten Chanuka cards and wasn’t offended”, to which I replied:
Christians getting Chanuka, Divali, or Eid cards and not being offended in a Christian-majority society proves nothing. Minority members — the laid-back poster above notwithstanding — tend to be sensitive on this and other fronts, and not without grounds, even if those grounds date back decades or centuries: They’re still part of our group’s collective consciousness. Call it paranoia if you want, but if you haven’t been one, you can’t judge.
Another poster commented: “The Jewish people I know all celebrate Christmas”, to which I replied:
This is akin to telling a blond joke, and when the blond you’re telling it to gets offended, saying to her, “But all my other blond acquaintances thought it was funny.” So you know a few assimilated Jews; does that make you an authority on Jewish observance? I’ll detour here to say that it also pushes my buttons when year after year on December 25th, some fellow ex-pat gigglingly greets me with “Merry Christmas” and then goes on to wax nostalgic about the Christmas carols of her childhood and memories of helping the neighbors trim their tree. It always makes me want to say, “Are you trying to shoe how worldly you are, having come from the multi-cultural West? ‘Cause I’m from there too, and I’m not impressed”.
It’s also ignorant to draw conclusions about a group based on the members thereof that you happen to know. I recall a (nominally) Jewish teacher harassing an Orthodox classmate when the latter told the former that he’d be absent on Succot. The teacher said, “What do you mean it’s a Jewish holiday? I’ve never heard of it!” When I tried to vouch for my classmate, telling the teacher that Succot indeed exists (this was pre-Internet) and it is indeed forbidden to work thereon, he asked me if I’d be in class on Succot. When I replied in the affirmative, he predictably said to my classmate, “See? She’s going to be here, so why can’t you?” It’s called nuances, or in this case, differing levels of religious observance. A university journalism teacher should be sensitive to these, no?
Another poster commented that she didn’t understand what all the fuss is about as she’d never received a Rosh haShana card. To which I replied:
Chanuka is not a Christmas equivalent, and card-sending is not an inherently Jewish tradition. My parents’ generation sends out Jewish New Year cards, which falls in September-October, to their Jewish friends. That explains the fact that you’ve never gotten one.
Another poster tried to smooth things over by saying how she simply sends everyone on her list regardless of religion her usual Christmas cards. Another described the whole issue as “just one big happy diverse soup”, to which I replied:
It works like this: Christians have their Important Holiday on December 25, so many of them (excepting the enlightened group here) assume that everyone has Something To Celebrate circa December 25th. You send your friends "the usual Christmas card". Nice. What you need to understand is that for non-Christians, there is no such thing as "the usual Christmas anything". It's this assumption on the part of (many) Christians that galls (many of) us non-Christians. Sorry. It's my upbringing. This is just not an issue I can get all Zen and soupy about...
To the commenter who claimed that the LW “…is missing out on and not learning a thing about his MIL’s traditions”, I referred to another Jewish poster’s references to: “…so overwhelming is the [Christmas] cheer with the movies, decorations, lights, commercials, sales, concerts: It's impossible not to get sucked in!” I wrote:
Pennagirl, "learn about MIL's traditions"? Are you kidding? Did you read Tscoll’s post? In order to "learn about" Christianity in the US, the only requirement is to have a pulse and watch TV: You absorb it into your pores by osmosis. In fact, if you can wrap your head around it, "Happy Holidays" and "Seasons Greetings" is almost as presumptuous (perhaps more -- I haven't decided) as "Merry Christmas". The presumption that "OK, we get that you don't celebrate Christmas, but you MUST celebrate SOMETHING at this time of year", i.e., there is something inherently spiritual or joyous about the period between Thanksgiving and Gregorian New Year akin to the sun rising every morning, therefore I greet you with "Good morning". (What? Your religion doesn't recognize mornings???!!!). It is just so hard for Majority America (for lack of a better label for this category) to internalize that December 25th is just another day for us, like the 10th of Tishrèi is to you all. Except unlike the 10th of Tishrèi, of which you walk around all day utterly unaware, Christmas is In Our Faces; we feel assaulted by it. Though we'd like to, we can't just pretend like it's any other day. Believe it or not.
Finally, I agree that the LW seems to be looking for offense where there is probably none intended. I was just trying to give the majority members in this forum a window into what makes minority members tick, i.e., what may push our buttons. I don’t mean to sound bitter; I'm just tellin' it like it is, through my lens, having grown up as an identifying Jew in the US. For any of you who “get it”, you’ll understand this: I'd jump for joy if just one retail clerk between Thanksgiving and Gregorian New Year were to bless me with a generic, "Thank you. Have a nice day".
*
Tangentially, I was reminded just yesterday of how cringe-producing it is when the screenwriters of TV series try to “do Jewish”: I was watching the Party of Five episode wherein Claudia contemplates converting to Judaism for her preteen Jewish boyfriend. Arty’s attempts to explain Judaism “while standing on one foot” are superficial at best, pathetic at worst.
Regarding “the rules”, he tells her about “kosher” [kashrut] by explaining, “You’re not allowed to eat lobster or shrimp, and you can’t have a hamburger together with a milkshake”. When Claudia’s face falls, Arty reassures her, “But you don’t have to be kosher [observe kashrut]; we’re not.” Oy vey! And the actor’s awful attempts at Hebrew (or in this case Aramaic): *yees go dole, vah yees go dosh, shmay row bow*. Gawd. Please, screenwriters-attempting-to-be-diverse: Spare us this torture. We’re all blushing beet-red on your behalf.
So, for any American Christians reading this, here's my Knee-Jerk anti-Christmas Primer. And yes, for my purposes, “Christian” refers to you even if you weren’t baptized and have never stepped foot in a church, as long as you don’t actively affiliate or identify with another faith. OK, now that we've got that sorted out, here we go: The LW got all hot under the caller ‘cause his MIL sent him a Christmas card — a seemingly innocuous act, right? And predictably, within the first dozen comments, someone piped up with, “I’ve gotten Chanuka cards and wasn’t offended”, to which I replied:
Christians getting Chanuka, Divali, or Eid cards and not being offended in a Christian-majority society proves nothing. Minority members — the laid-back poster above notwithstanding — tend to be sensitive on this and other fronts, and not without grounds, even if those grounds date back decades or centuries: They’re still part of our group’s collective consciousness. Call it paranoia if you want, but if you haven’t been one, you can’t judge.
Another poster commented: “The Jewish people I know all celebrate Christmas”, to which I replied:
This is akin to telling a blond joke, and when the blond you’re telling it to gets offended, saying to her, “But all my other blond acquaintances thought it was funny.” So you know a few assimilated Jews; does that make you an authority on Jewish observance? I’ll detour here to say that it also pushes my buttons when year after year on December 25th, some fellow ex-pat gigglingly greets me with “Merry Christmas” and then goes on to wax nostalgic about the Christmas carols of her childhood and memories of helping the neighbors trim their tree. It always makes me want to say, “Are you trying to shoe how worldly you are, having come from the multi-cultural West? ‘Cause I’m from there too, and I’m not impressed”.
It’s also ignorant to draw conclusions about a group based on the members thereof that you happen to know. I recall a (nominally) Jewish teacher harassing an Orthodox classmate when the latter told the former that he’d be absent on Succot. The teacher said, “What do you mean it’s a Jewish holiday? I’ve never heard of it!” When I tried to vouch for my classmate, telling the teacher that Succot indeed exists (this was pre-Internet) and it is indeed forbidden to work thereon, he asked me if I’d be in class on Succot. When I replied in the affirmative, he predictably said to my classmate, “See? She’s going to be here, so why can’t you?” It’s called nuances, or in this case, differing levels of religious observance. A university journalism teacher should be sensitive to these, no?
Another poster commented that she didn’t understand what all the fuss is about as she’d never received a Rosh haShana card. To which I replied:
Chanuka is not a Christmas equivalent, and card-sending is not an inherently Jewish tradition. My parents’ generation sends out Jewish New Year cards, which falls in September-October, to their Jewish friends. That explains the fact that you’ve never gotten one.
Another poster tried to smooth things over by saying how she simply sends everyone on her list regardless of religion her usual Christmas cards. Another described the whole issue as “just one big happy diverse soup”, to which I replied:
It works like this: Christians have their Important Holiday on December 25, so many of them (excepting the enlightened group here) assume that everyone has Something To Celebrate circa December 25th. You send your friends "the usual Christmas card". Nice. What you need to understand is that for non-Christians, there is no such thing as "the usual Christmas anything". It's this assumption on the part of (many) Christians that galls (many of) us non-Christians. Sorry. It's my upbringing. This is just not an issue I can get all Zen and soupy about...
To the commenter who claimed that the LW “…is missing out on and not learning a thing about his MIL’s traditions”, I referred to another Jewish poster’s references to: “…so overwhelming is the [Christmas] cheer with the movies, decorations, lights, commercials, sales, concerts: It's impossible not to get sucked in!” I wrote:
Pennagirl, "learn about MIL's traditions"? Are you kidding? Did you read Tscoll’s post? In order to "learn about" Christianity in the US, the only requirement is to have a pulse and watch TV: You absorb it into your pores by osmosis. In fact, if you can wrap your head around it, "Happy Holidays" and "Seasons Greetings" is almost as presumptuous (perhaps more -- I haven't decided) as "Merry Christmas". The presumption that "OK, we get that you don't celebrate Christmas, but you MUST celebrate SOMETHING at this time of year", i.e., there is something inherently spiritual or joyous about the period between Thanksgiving and Gregorian New Year akin to the sun rising every morning, therefore I greet you with "Good morning". (What? Your religion doesn't recognize mornings???!!!). It is just so hard for Majority America (for lack of a better label for this category) to internalize that December 25th is just another day for us, like the 10th of Tishrèi is to you all. Except unlike the 10th of Tishrèi, of which you walk around all day utterly unaware, Christmas is In Our Faces; we feel assaulted by it. Though we'd like to, we can't just pretend like it's any other day. Believe it or not.
Finally, I agree that the LW seems to be looking for offense where there is probably none intended. I was just trying to give the majority members in this forum a window into what makes minority members tick, i.e., what may push our buttons. I don’t mean to sound bitter; I'm just tellin' it like it is, through my lens, having grown up as an identifying Jew in the US. For any of you who “get it”, you’ll understand this: I'd jump for joy if just one retail clerk between Thanksgiving and Gregorian New Year were to bless me with a generic, "Thank you. Have a nice day".
*
Tangentially, I was reminded just yesterday of how cringe-producing it is when the screenwriters of TV series try to “do Jewish”: I was watching the Party of Five episode wherein Claudia contemplates converting to Judaism for her preteen Jewish boyfriend. Arty’s attempts to explain Judaism “while standing on one foot” are superficial at best, pathetic at worst.
Regarding “the rules”, he tells her about “kosher” [kashrut] by explaining, “You’re not allowed to eat lobster or shrimp, and you can’t have a hamburger together with a milkshake”. When Claudia’s face falls, Arty reassures her, “But you don’t have to be kosher [observe kashrut]; we’re not.” Oy vey! And the actor’s awful attempts at Hebrew (or in this case Aramaic): *yees go dole, vah yees go dosh, shmay row bow*. Gawd. Please, screenwriters-attempting-to-be-diverse: Spare us this torture. We’re all blushing beet-red on your behalf.
Friday, February 19, 2010
Gender, Brain, & ADD מיגדר, המוח, והפרעות קשב וריכוז
I’m an active participant in the Free Range Kids forums, where in reference to studies on brain and gender, I wrote:
Yes, I’ve read those gender brain studies, and I always say, fine, but why are we so invested in the differences? We know that the differences between any two individuals of the same gender are wider than those between the genders in general. So what do we get out of emphasizing the differences between the genders? What do we gain from it? Who funds this research? Is it advancing humankind?
A poster named Lucy replies:
"The simple answer is it helps us understand ourselves. In an ideal world, it would be used for good, for things like changing classroom environments so boys aren’t expected to behave like girls in the classroom, and as a consequence, drugged to gain that achievement. In our twisted world, such information would most likely be used to develop better drugs to get boys to behave like girls in the classroom."
My reply:
Lucy, I’m sorry you equate sitting quietly and listening, skills that our society expects of audiences at lectures and performances, as well as worship congregants, with behaving “like a girl”. Reminding you that from the beginning of compulsory education until the 1960s, both genders were expected to behave thusly in school; this in an age when gender roles were rigid.
Today, parents want to have their cake and eat it too: They like our post-feminist world where women can be doctors and men can be nurses, but when they don’t bother to set the same behavior standards for their sons as for their daughters, they cry “ADD!” at the resulting behavior. Can’t have it both ways…
Another thing I’ve been wondering about is the incidence (or existence) of ADD among populations that demand compliant behavior of both genders, such as the ultra-Orthodox, or the Amish. Does anyone know the incidence of attention deficit in these populations? My guess is that it’s very low if it exists at all. Any information is welcome.
Adding to this post:
I'm also an avid follower of the Hax forum, where a commentor called jrzWrld wrote:
"When you have ADD -- especially when you've grown to adulthood before it's diagnosed (as I did) -- there are kind of like holes in your life skills. You don't learn the way other people do, so some common, basic skills are never learned properly.
Long before I was diagnosed, I had a boyfriend who picked up on the fact that I didn't learn things like other people did or focus like they did, and that was part of why I was such a bad housekeeper. When we were setting out to clean the apartment one day, he broke the plan down for me into tiny steps that made it seem more manageable and far less overwhelming.
He didn't know I had ADD, but he had realized that I tended to view household tasks as monolithic monstrosities rather than a series of much smaller jobs strung together. Even years later I am amazed at his sensitivity."
To which I replied:
While your boyfriend sounds quite sweet, I'm suspicious of ADD having become the go-to explanation for what used to be called simply "disorganized" or "unable to run a household". Seems to me that if you take the time to demonstrate cleaning the toilet to a (reasonably intelligent) child, let him try it, and praise his efforts, it should stick in there and be retrievable years later when that skill is needed. And yes, I used the male pronoun deliberately, Moms of Sons!
In that vein, a quote from Haxer Trout-on-line:
“The goal of raising kids is to end up with adults who can function successfully (outside the penal system or a fool farm) after you're gone; who don't need someone (defense attorney? consulting psychiatrist at sentencing hearing?) to explain to the world that they're good people, just high-energy (or however you favor selling people on the idea that a piece of ca-ca is actually a chocolate bon-bon).”
Yes, I’ve read those gender brain studies, and I always say, fine, but why are we so invested in the differences? We know that the differences between any two individuals of the same gender are wider than those between the genders in general. So what do we get out of emphasizing the differences between the genders? What do we gain from it? Who funds this research? Is it advancing humankind?
A poster named Lucy replies:
"The simple answer is it helps us understand ourselves. In an ideal world, it would be used for good, for things like changing classroom environments so boys aren’t expected to behave like girls in the classroom, and as a consequence, drugged to gain that achievement. In our twisted world, such information would most likely be used to develop better drugs to get boys to behave like girls in the classroom."
My reply:
Lucy, I’m sorry you equate sitting quietly and listening, skills that our society expects of audiences at lectures and performances, as well as worship congregants, with behaving “like a girl”. Reminding you that from the beginning of compulsory education until the 1960s, both genders were expected to behave thusly in school; this in an age when gender roles were rigid.
Today, parents want to have their cake and eat it too: They like our post-feminist world where women can be doctors and men can be nurses, but when they don’t bother to set the same behavior standards for their sons as for their daughters, they cry “ADD!” at the resulting behavior. Can’t have it both ways…
Another thing I’ve been wondering about is the incidence (or existence) of ADD among populations that demand compliant behavior of both genders, such as the ultra-Orthodox, or the Amish. Does anyone know the incidence of attention deficit in these populations? My guess is that it’s very low if it exists at all. Any information is welcome.
Adding to this post:
I'm also an avid follower of the Hax forum, where a commentor called jrzWrld wrote:
"When you have ADD -- especially when you've grown to adulthood before it's diagnosed (as I did) -- there are kind of like holes in your life skills. You don't learn the way other people do, so some common, basic skills are never learned properly.
Long before I was diagnosed, I had a boyfriend who picked up on the fact that I didn't learn things like other people did or focus like they did, and that was part of why I was such a bad housekeeper. When we were setting out to clean the apartment one day, he broke the plan down for me into tiny steps that made it seem more manageable and far less overwhelming.
He didn't know I had ADD, but he had realized that I tended to view household tasks as monolithic monstrosities rather than a series of much smaller jobs strung together. Even years later I am amazed at his sensitivity."
To which I replied:
While your boyfriend sounds quite sweet, I'm suspicious of ADD having become the go-to explanation for what used to be called simply "disorganized" or "unable to run a household". Seems to me that if you take the time to demonstrate cleaning the toilet to a (reasonably intelligent) child, let him try it, and praise his efforts, it should stick in there and be retrievable years later when that skill is needed. And yes, I used the male pronoun deliberately, Moms of Sons!
In that vein, a quote from Haxer Trout-on-line:
“The goal of raising kids is to end up with adults who can function successfully (outside the penal system or a fool farm) after you're gone; who don't need someone (defense attorney? consulting psychiatrist at sentencing hearing?) to explain to the world that they're good people, just high-energy (or however you favor selling people on the idea that a piece of ca-ca is actually a chocolate bon-bon).”
Wednesday, January 6, 2010
Chametz Ban Round II חרם על חמץ, סבב שני
Referring to this article עברית:
Here we go again. At least this time (I have to give Shas credit) they’re starting the battle early, i.e., months prior to Passover. Gives everyone plenty of time to get their media licks in and do the requisite amount of keening and hand-wringing. In this corner — Shas. No explanations needed. In this corner — the confused, scattered, spineless stammering of the non-Orthodox.
First in this year’s lineup is MK Yohanan Plesner of Kadima, who walks straight into the decades-old semantic trap: “We support maintaining the Jewish character of the state. On the other hand, it is forbidden to change the status quo for the worse and to enter into people's dinner plates.” Go, Yohi.
Worst policy idea ever: Trying to fit vague concepts such as “the Jewish character of the state” into a legal context. No one can quite define this elusive Jewish character, but, like the judge said of pornography, “I know what it is when I see it”. Problem is, “I know what it is when I see it” is not a sufficient concept on which to base a law. Unfortunately, “Jewish character” is not like “quiet”, which it takes a certain decibel level to violate according to city ordinances. Decibel levels are an objective measure; everyone can agree that the wedding hall down the block is or is not violating the Noise Law. Not the case with “Jewish character”. Perhaps all Shas followers agree what constitutes it, but the rest of us don’t.
Even worse idea, policy-wise: “status quo”. Since when does “status quo” carry any legal weight? Does it merit being preserved even if it’s a bad idea? Why do all legislators, no matter their party affiliation, seem hell-bent on treating this status quo — which was cobbled together decades ago — like the sacred cow that it most certainly is not? Times change; perhaps we need to stop protecting this insidious and crippling “status quo”.
To quote Washington Post columnist Carolyn Hax on victims of abusive relationships: “We contort ourselves into pretzels [trying to appease our abuser], then wonder why we’re so uncomfortable”. Shas is bullying us into submission, no more, no less. The only way to put a halt to bullying is to stand up to the bully. Legislators, take note: You’ve got exactly four months to show us — and them — what you’re made of.
Here we go again. At least this time (I have to give Shas credit) they’re starting the battle early, i.e., months prior to Passover. Gives everyone plenty of time to get their media licks in and do the requisite amount of keening and hand-wringing. In this corner — Shas. No explanations needed. In this corner — the confused, scattered, spineless stammering of the non-Orthodox.
First in this year’s lineup is MK Yohanan Plesner of Kadima, who walks straight into the decades-old semantic trap: “We support maintaining the Jewish character of the state. On the other hand, it is forbidden to change the status quo for the worse and to enter into people's dinner plates.” Go, Yohi.
Worst policy idea ever: Trying to fit vague concepts such as “the Jewish character of the state” into a legal context. No one can quite define this elusive Jewish character, but, like the judge said of pornography, “I know what it is when I see it”. Problem is, “I know what it is when I see it” is not a sufficient concept on which to base a law. Unfortunately, “Jewish character” is not like “quiet”, which it takes a certain decibel level to violate according to city ordinances. Decibel levels are an objective measure; everyone can agree that the wedding hall down the block is or is not violating the Noise Law. Not the case with “Jewish character”. Perhaps all Shas followers agree what constitutes it, but the rest of us don’t.
Even worse idea, policy-wise: “status quo”. Since when does “status quo” carry any legal weight? Does it merit being preserved even if it’s a bad idea? Why do all legislators, no matter their party affiliation, seem hell-bent on treating this status quo — which was cobbled together decades ago — like the sacred cow that it most certainly is not? Times change; perhaps we need to stop protecting this insidious and crippling “status quo”.
To quote Washington Post columnist Carolyn Hax on victims of abusive relationships: “We contort ourselves into pretzels [trying to appease our abuser], then wonder why we’re so uncomfortable”. Shas is bullying us into submission, no more, no less. The only way to put a halt to bullying is to stand up to the bully. Legislators, take note: You’ve got exactly four months to show us — and them — what you’re made of.
New dads, old dads אבות חדשים, אבות ותיקים
I happened to be walking by a new dad carrying his baby when he was approached by an older male acquaintance, who said (jokingly) something to the effect of, “I feel very sorry for her [the baby]!” Besides finding this a vaguely inappropriate way to congratulate a new parent, even as a joke, something bugged me about it. After thinking about it for about three seconds, it dawned on me: Gender (of course!). Believe it or not, there are gender stereotypes zooming all over this scenario.
Let’s start with the Congratulator. What was behind his little jokelet of a remark? That we don’t really expect a father to take any more than a cameo role in parenting, because really, what’s a dad? Just a bumbling, doofus-y cartoon version of a “real” parent, i.e., a mother.
Second, only a man could get away with making such a remark. No woman could, even as a joke. Why is that? Because we expect women to be genuinely interested in new babies and solicitous of new parents, whereas our expectations of men in this area are diminished: Men get to make a joke and walk away, thereby distancing themselves from the matter at hand — i.e., a baby has been born — which makes them squirm and feel awkward. Women, on the other hand, are expected to exclaim over the baby and make a fuss, whether or not they feel a shred of interest in or ease around babies. A remark such as, “I feel very sorry for her!” coming from a woman would be perceived as rude indeed.
And where does all this lead? To the fact that we socialize our girls to be the responsible ones, the civilizing influence over those wild, out-of-control boys. I see it in our kids: Who does the baking, draws the signs, makes the greeting cards, composes the poems for classmates’ birthdays? Who recruits and organizes the class ditty for classmates’ bar mitzvas? Only in a few years, when fire (barbeques, bonfires) or vehicles are involved do the boys come out of the woodwork. Hmmmm…what’s at work here?
Let’s start with the Congratulator. What was behind his little jokelet of a remark? That we don’t really expect a father to take any more than a cameo role in parenting, because really, what’s a dad? Just a bumbling, doofus-y cartoon version of a “real” parent, i.e., a mother.
Second, only a man could get away with making such a remark. No woman could, even as a joke. Why is that? Because we expect women to be genuinely interested in new babies and solicitous of new parents, whereas our expectations of men in this area are diminished: Men get to make a joke and walk away, thereby distancing themselves from the matter at hand — i.e., a baby has been born — which makes them squirm and feel awkward. Women, on the other hand, are expected to exclaim over the baby and make a fuss, whether or not they feel a shred of interest in or ease around babies. A remark such as, “I feel very sorry for her!” coming from a woman would be perceived as rude indeed.
And where does all this lead? To the fact that we socialize our girls to be the responsible ones, the civilizing influence over those wild, out-of-control boys. I see it in our kids: Who does the baking, draws the signs, makes the greeting cards, composes the poems for classmates’ birthdays? Who recruits and organizes the class ditty for classmates’ bar mitzvas? Only in a few years, when fire (barbeques, bonfires) or vehicles are involved do the boys come out of the woodwork. Hmmmm…what’s at work here?
Noise is the new smoking רעש: העישון החדש
When I first moved here, Israel was way behind the States in terms of smoking in public places. I found that in order to get someone to put out her cigarette, on a bus, say, I’d have to say I have allergies, or asthma, or contact lenses: It had not yet been internalized that we’re all entitled to a smoke-free environment, just because.
We’ve come a long way vis-à-vis smoking, but I noticed that I’ve had to fall back on the same excuse-giving in order to get retail establishments to lower the volume on their (usually awful) music. This week I was sitting on a bench in Azrieli Mall in Modiin, taking a break and waiting to meet a friend. The bench was situated between two stores, each playing loud music. A few meters away was an Orange (cellular provider) island, and I wondered how the staff imprisoned therein could stand it and how they were able to even hear their customers. Then I had an idea.
I went into one of the music-blaring stores (empty of clientele) and asked the two teenagers staffing the place to turn down their music, “because I’m trying to execute a transaction at Orange and I can’t hear myself think”. They complied, albeit with quizzical looks on their faces. Ditto for the other store. They complied, but I’d had to give a reason for my request; after all, I was not their customer, so technically I had no “right” to ask them for anything…except that noise is…well, noisy.
While I’d solved my situation-specific problem momentarily (one of the stores turned its music up a few minutes later, causing me to wonder, “Wasn’t it a relief for the proprietors to have it quiet?”), I can’t help but wonder: Doesn’t the mall management get it? Instead of being relaxed and inviting, the atmosphere at that mall was like that of an outdoor bazaar, which here in the Middle East means each vendor blasting her music as loudly as possible, which according to their logic attracts customers, which I find anything but inviting: I find it downright off-putting.
Didn’t the mall management study “What makes a successful mall” in mall management school? Have any of them happened to visit a mall in the States, by any chance? Because while I’m by no means a fan of malls or consumerism in general, if you’re going to run a business — regardless of the nature thereof — don’t you want to do it right?
We’ve come a long way vis-à-vis smoking, but I noticed that I’ve had to fall back on the same excuse-giving in order to get retail establishments to lower the volume on their (usually awful) music. This week I was sitting on a bench in Azrieli Mall in Modiin, taking a break and waiting to meet a friend. The bench was situated between two stores, each playing loud music. A few meters away was an Orange (cellular provider) island, and I wondered how the staff imprisoned therein could stand it and how they were able to even hear their customers. Then I had an idea.
I went into one of the music-blaring stores (empty of clientele) and asked the two teenagers staffing the place to turn down their music, “because I’m trying to execute a transaction at Orange and I can’t hear myself think”. They complied, albeit with quizzical looks on their faces. Ditto for the other store. They complied, but I’d had to give a reason for my request; after all, I was not their customer, so technically I had no “right” to ask them for anything…except that noise is…well, noisy.
While I’d solved my situation-specific problem momentarily (one of the stores turned its music up a few minutes later, causing me to wonder, “Wasn’t it a relief for the proprietors to have it quiet?”), I can’t help but wonder: Doesn’t the mall management get it? Instead of being relaxed and inviting, the atmosphere at that mall was like that of an outdoor bazaar, which here in the Middle East means each vendor blasting her music as loudly as possible, which according to their logic attracts customers, which I find anything but inviting: I find it downright off-putting.
Didn’t the mall management study “What makes a successful mall” in mall management school? Have any of them happened to visit a mall in the States, by any chance? Because while I’m by no means a fan of malls or consumerism in general, if you’re going to run a business — regardless of the nature thereof — don’t you want to do it right?
Thursday, December 10, 2009
How Come All the Boys're on Ritalin? מדוע כל הבנים נוטלים ריטלין
ADHD. Say it in a roomful of parents, and you won’t have to worry about small talk for hours. Everyone’s got an opinion, from the anti-TV crusaders to the armchair anthropologists [“It’s a trait that was useful when we were hunting mammoth”; “It shows up more in the descendants of immigrants”]. For a long time now, I’ve suspected an element of gender stereotyping in the “ADHD soup”.
First of all, we need to reintroduce a term that unfortunately has gone out of use: hyperkinetic, meaning simply “can’t stop moving”. I knew one kid in my childhood who actually had this disorder; it is indeed organic, and present from birth. I recall reading an article in some women’s magazine decades ago written by the mother of a hyperkinetic teen. She described a parenting nightmare for about the first 14 years, when according to her description, the condition began tapering off. At her writing, her son was 16 and well-adjusted. She never mentioned drugs, although these perhaps could have been a livesaver for her. Hyperkinesia is rare.
Whenever people begin to speculate about the explosion of ADHD in the population, and someone laments, “What happened? It used to be a rarity.” I want to respond, “True hyperkinesia is still a rarity. What is now referred to as ADHD is simply a product of too much screen time, too little parenting, and a large dose of gender stereotyping, all of which may respond to drugs, but none of which are congenital.” Except parents let themselves off the hook by choosing to believe that it is congenital.
I did some Web research and found two articles about the prevalence of ADHD among boys. The first does a nice job of explaining the phenomenon. The second does a good job of reinforcing stereotypes:
“When girls are under increased stress, they fold their hands and get quieter. When boys are under stress, they become a behavior problem.”
A commentor on an Amazon review of The Trouble With Boys:
“As a female classroom teacher… I understand the difference of learning styles between boys and girls.”
Furthermore, the article claims that schools are more rigorous than they once were:
“…schools ratchet up their expectations, says Lawrence Diller, a psychiatrist in the Bay Area who has been an outspoken critic of the ADHD industry. “More kids — and particularly more boys — look as if they might have a problem. Teachers now demand a standardized level of performance from all students. Many can’t tolerate too much motion, too much noise, too many questions — even within the range of normal — if it interferes with the pace of their class.”
“The way schools are run we have kids sitting at desks for a very long time,” says principal Susan Charles.
Let’s take a look at these claims:
Teachers now demand a standardized level of performance from all students? - You could’ve fooled me. I thought we’d gotten away from all the soul-sucking uniformity, having shifted over to the “tailored-to-the-individual” and “learn-at-your-own-pace” philosophy.
Today’s teachers can’t tolerate too much motion, too much noise, too many questions? As if teachers in previous generations could?
We have kids sitting at desks for a very long time? Certainly not that I’ve noticed. On the contrary, from what I’ve observed, not only is there much more motion in my kids’ classrooms than there was in my classrooms as a kid, but moving about the room is much more accepted today, as is a certain noise level. In fact, I have my doubts about my former kid self being able to concentrate in today’s classrooms precisely because of the casual atmosphere.
My mother began teaching in 1943. She was assigned a combined class of 40 second and third graders in a school with a working- and middle-class enrollment. I asked her if she recalls any discipline problems. “No,” she replied. “They all behaved.” I’m pretty certain, too, that they were all seated at desks and required to remain quiet for hours at a time, in surroundings far less comfortable or kid-friendly than those in today’s schools. So what gives?
My theory? “He’s ADHD” is the new, PC “Boys will be boys”. I suspect a link between parents’ expectations of their sons’ behavior conforming to "boy" stereotypes, and the likelihood of those sons being diagnosed ADHD. After all, all the other explanations — TV and computers, single-parent homes, food additives, environmental toxins — affect both genders equally, yet up to four times as many boys as girls are diagnosed ADHD. I blame parents’ throwing in the discipline towel sooner with their sons than with their daughters, thereby perpetuating the stereotype of rambunctious boys and compliant girls. Ever noticed that one never hears parents of daughters describe their offspring as “high-energy”, “noisy”, or “rambunctious”?
I would love to construct a study of two groups of parents: one composed of parents who believe that the genders are inherently different and express it in their parenting, letting gender stereotypes take over in the home; and one composed of parents who actively oppose gender stereotyping and who hold their sons to the same behavior standards as they do their daughters. These concepts being almost completely subjective and difficult if not impossible to measure, it would seem that such a study will not be conducted anytime soon. Therefore, while I can’t prove such a link, I am here, throwing it out to anyone who will listen. If anyone knows of a study like the one I describe, please let me know.
First of all, we need to reintroduce a term that unfortunately has gone out of use: hyperkinetic, meaning simply “can’t stop moving”. I knew one kid in my childhood who actually had this disorder; it is indeed organic, and present from birth. I recall reading an article in some women’s magazine decades ago written by the mother of a hyperkinetic teen. She described a parenting nightmare for about the first 14 years, when according to her description, the condition began tapering off. At her writing, her son was 16 and well-adjusted. She never mentioned drugs, although these perhaps could have been a livesaver for her. Hyperkinesia is rare.
Whenever people begin to speculate about the explosion of ADHD in the population, and someone laments, “What happened? It used to be a rarity.” I want to respond, “True hyperkinesia is still a rarity. What is now referred to as ADHD is simply a product of too much screen time, too little parenting, and a large dose of gender stereotyping, all of which may respond to drugs, but none of which are congenital.” Except parents let themselves off the hook by choosing to believe that it is congenital.
I did some Web research and found two articles about the prevalence of ADHD among boys. The first does a nice job of explaining the phenomenon. The second does a good job of reinforcing stereotypes:
“When girls are under increased stress, they fold their hands and get quieter. When boys are under stress, they become a behavior problem.”
A commentor on an Amazon review of The Trouble With Boys:
“As a female classroom teacher… I understand the difference of learning styles between boys and girls.”
Furthermore, the article claims that schools are more rigorous than they once were:
“…schools ratchet up their expectations, says Lawrence Diller, a psychiatrist in the Bay Area who has been an outspoken critic of the ADHD industry. “More kids — and particularly more boys — look as if they might have a problem. Teachers now demand a standardized level of performance from all students. Many can’t tolerate too much motion, too much noise, too many questions — even within the range of normal — if it interferes with the pace of their class.”
“The way schools are run we have kids sitting at desks for a very long time,” says principal Susan Charles.
Let’s take a look at these claims:
Teachers now demand a standardized level of performance from all students? - You could’ve fooled me. I thought we’d gotten away from all the soul-sucking uniformity, having shifted over to the “tailored-to-the-individual” and “learn-at-your-own-pace” philosophy.
Today’s teachers can’t tolerate too much motion, too much noise, too many questions? As if teachers in previous generations could?
We have kids sitting at desks for a very long time? Certainly not that I’ve noticed. On the contrary, from what I’ve observed, not only is there much more motion in my kids’ classrooms than there was in my classrooms as a kid, but moving about the room is much more accepted today, as is a certain noise level. In fact, I have my doubts about my former kid self being able to concentrate in today’s classrooms precisely because of the casual atmosphere.
My mother began teaching in 1943. She was assigned a combined class of 40 second and third graders in a school with a working- and middle-class enrollment. I asked her if she recalls any discipline problems. “No,” she replied. “They all behaved.” I’m pretty certain, too, that they were all seated at desks and required to remain quiet for hours at a time, in surroundings far less comfortable or kid-friendly than those in today’s schools. So what gives?
My theory? “He’s ADHD” is the new, PC “Boys will be boys”. I suspect a link between parents’ expectations of their sons’ behavior conforming to "boy" stereotypes, and the likelihood of those sons being diagnosed ADHD. After all, all the other explanations — TV and computers, single-parent homes, food additives, environmental toxins — affect both genders equally, yet up to four times as many boys as girls are diagnosed ADHD. I blame parents’ throwing in the discipline towel sooner with their sons than with their daughters, thereby perpetuating the stereotype of rambunctious boys and compliant girls. Ever noticed that one never hears parents of daughters describe their offspring as “high-energy”, “noisy”, or “rambunctious”?
I would love to construct a study of two groups of parents: one composed of parents who believe that the genders are inherently different and express it in their parenting, letting gender stereotypes take over in the home; and one composed of parents who actively oppose gender stereotyping and who hold their sons to the same behavior standards as they do their daughters. These concepts being almost completely subjective and difficult if not impossible to measure, it would seem that such a study will not be conducted anytime soon. Therefore, while I can’t prove such a link, I am here, throwing it out to anyone who will listen. If anyone knows of a study like the one I describe, please let me know.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
