Parenting, science and feminism

USNews.com: Has a century of child-raising advice taught us anything? Expert opinions through the years



Dr. Ray Guarendi is right! Not that I needed U.S. News World Report to tell me that. However, I find this article very interesting. Dr. Ray claims that parenting experts have ruined parenting by making parents paranoid that they might permanently damage their children, maybe even causing them to appear on Jerry Springer to reveal tot he world why they are so messed up. According to Dr. Ray, parents need only to have love for their children, a good moral compass and a firm, consistent hand in discipline. Author Rachel Hartigan Shea agrees.

But by the 1920s, one mother was so overwhelmed with child-care instruction that she confessed, "I try to do just what you say, but I am a nervous wreck just trying to be calm." Indeed, the "century introduced a vision of children and of child rearing that entailed a new kind of vigilance," says Ann Hulbert, author of the new book Raising America: Experts, Parents, and a Century of Advice About Children. It also introduced the idea that a good parent is, by definition, an anxious one.

American parents hadn't used to rely heavily on experts, but much in the 20th century was so new that old standbys--grandmothers and religion--seemed to have lost relevance. With more than half of Americans living in cities in 1920 (up from a third in 1890), adults led very different lives from their own parents'. And they were enamored of the idea that science could improve child rearing as it had improved everything else. "It is childhood's teachableness that has enabled man to overcome heredity with history," declared one turn-of-the-century expert.

Isn't it interesting that foresaking faith and family led to feelings of guilt and anxiety? Embracing the enlightenment ideals of scientific progress led to paranoia and feelings of inadequacy. The rub is that most of the so-called scientific advice was based on flimsy science. The desire to be scientific outstripped the ability. Today, over 100 years later, not much has changed. There are some scientific gems - I am especially fond of Erik Erikson's psychosocial stages of development and the theories on bonding - but by and large parenting advice is more political than scientific.

While this article makes some good points, it makes some questionable assumptions.

Women's status was changing, too. The move away from farms freed women from a lot of household labor--and from having to give birth to enough farmhands to keep the crops going. Women were even heading off to college, but since motherhood was still regarded as the only true feminine vocation, experts worried about how to make it palatable to these educated women. The answer, supplied by pioneers in the new fields of pediatrics and psychology, was to professionalize motherhood. Under the guidance of Holt and Hall, and later John Watson and Arnold Gesell, mothers were to put aside instinct and become scientific examiners of their children's behavior. (Fathers, it should be noted, were barely mentioned.) Holt required women to learn the latest research on nutritional matters and adhere to strict feeding schedules, while Hall deputized mothers as his research assistants by issuing lengthy questionnaires on everything from "doll passion" to religious experiences. Gesell issued color-coded charts for tracking urination, playtime, feeding, and weight; anthropologist Margaret Mead's mother (a devout Holtian) filled 13 volumes on little Margaret's development.

These claims are not completely ficticious. Yes, women's roles did change with the shift from rural to urban populations. It is also true that psychologists encouraged women to become scientific observers of their children. However, I question the assumption that the professional advice to scientifically study their children was an attempt to professionalize motherhood because motherhood was teh only palatable vocation for women. In fact, Dr. Malcolm W. Watson of Brandeis University teaches that the focus on scientific parenting came from evolving theories of childhood, not from an attempt to perpetuate gender stereotypes. Isn't it interesting that the same author that points out the myth of parenting experts so uncritically embraces a feminist myth of female persecution?

Women in History

USNews.com: Cokie Roberts on the founding mothers

History books rarely mention the woman who, in a way, signed the Declaration of Independence.

Mary Katherine Goddard was a printer who ran a newspaper in Baltimore. She printed the declaration, and her name is right there on it, at the bottom. She later became the first female postmaster in the country, but then a man wanted her job, and got it.


You include recipes from some of the founding mothers. Did you worry that the recipes would trivialize them?

One of my points is that while they were doing everything else, they were still doing everything women do. I certainly cook every night except when I'm on book tour. It's a point of connection with them. And I highly recommend Martha Washington's crab soup.

In 2004, Cokie Roberts published a book, Founding Mothers: The Women Who Raised Our Nation. I have not yet read it, but it is on my reading list. Once I do read it, I'll publish another post on it if it is worth commenting on. However, I had to briefly comment on this interview from U.S. News & World Report, April 26, 2004 print edition.

One of the positive contributions that modernism has made to historical studies is to get us to acknowledge the contributions of women and of people of various ethnic backgrounds. One of the more annoying tendencies of modernist history is to focus on the insignificant and mundane rather than the big ideas and events that shape history (modernism does not believe in big ideas & events shaping human history). Likewise, feminist studies have done a great service to our understanding of history by drawing our attention to important, influential women in history. One of my favorite women in history is Abigail Adams. She was a model of proper feminism, but also of love and dedication to her husband and family. The letters between John and Abigail Adams radiate love, humor, and the great intellect of both of these great people. On the other hand, feminist studies often stretch well into the mundane to find female contributions to our country's history. I strongly believe that women played important roles in history, but it will take time and study to show real, substantive contributions.

From this short interview, it seems that Cokie Roberts may have actually done a pretty good job in her handling of women in history. I don't know much about Mary Katherine Goddard, and I look forward to studying about her. It seems quite a stretch to claim that she was almost a signer of the Declaration of Independence because her name appears on the first public printing. I hope the interviewer, and Cokie, had tongue firmly implanted in cheek for that statement. To be a signer of the Declaration meant more than simply having your name on the bottom of the document - it meant being involved in the debate, compromises, and worries that went into the formation of that document. However, the importance of printers in gaining support and unity for the Revolutionary War is undeniable, and the story of the first female postmaster would be valuable to study as well. I get a kick out of the question, "You include recipes from some of the founding mothers. Did you worry that the recipes would trivialize them?" Why would recipes trivialize the founding mothers? Is it trivial to be mothers, home makers, and wives? Does the interviewer have such little regard for the familial role of women? Cokie's response was wonderful. I wish historical studies would stress the familial role of men as husbands and fathers more. Such a focus shouldn't trivialize their role in history to know which of our founding fathers were good husbands and fathers.