Mar

17

Bottles, Breasts, and Mothering “Choices”

Filed Under Class Classism and Economic Inequality, Family Issues, Gender and Sexism, Media Praises and Critiques, Original Essays and Analysis, Pregnancy and Childbirth | 5 Comments

A few months after my boys were born I stumbled across a message board for twin moms, I really started to enjoy the tips and the sense of community that I gained from reading and posting on the site.  One of the things I enjoyed most was the forum for breastfeeding mothers, which gave me a strong sense of belonging and encouragement, and at that time, I needed encouragement.  Breastfeeding was and is a struggle for me.  I don’t know how things would be different if I was trying to feed only one baby, but I know breastfeeding two babies is one of the hardest things I have done.  While the Mommy message board is a great source of support for breastfeeding, it’s also a place where many of the most contentious elements of motherhood and womanhood are laid bare.  Sometimes it’s the stereotypical Mommy Wars– women in the paid labor force and women not in the paid labor force– but one of the more contentious debates is the bottle vs. breast debate.

As Hugo points out one subset of the Mommy Wars, is the “boob wars”:

And I’ve become aware of what might, for lack of a better term, be called the “boob war” — a sub-conflict within the larger “Mommy War” that continues to rage, exasperating and frightening and dividing women. And into this fight comes a bombshell article in the new Atlantic Monthly: Hanna Rosin’s The Case Against Breastfeeding. More on the article later. (Cap taps, belatedly and with apologies, to Rod Dreher and to Scott.)

The term “Mommy Wars” generally refers to the public and private debates, common among the middle and upper-middle classes of the developed world, about what makes a “good” mother. For years, the chief front in these wars has been the battle over daycare and work outside the home, though other conflicts rage in areas like nutrition and natural childbirth….

I read the Rosin piece; someone posted it on the twin Mommy board.  I felt a great deal of sympathy for the mother who posted it.  She said it helped her to feel less guilt about not breastfeeding, and from that point a discussion ensued with many formula feeding mother’s talking about how they feel that breastfeeding mothers are looking upon them unfavorably.

I’ll be frank; I don’t like the article, but there is one part of the article that stands out as true to me1 :

In her critique of the awareness campaign, Joan Wolf, a women’s-studies professor at Texas A&M University, chalks up the overzealous ads to a new ethic of “total motherhood.” Mothers these days are expected to “optimize every dimension of children’s lives,” she writes. Choices are often presented as the mother’s selfish desires versus the baby’s needs.

I have a great deal of empathy with mothers today who are striving to mother under a mothering ideology that demands perfection.  What I also find fascinating is how both breastfeeding and formula feeding mothers really have the same underlying feelings; both groups feeling that their decision on infant feeding is not respected.  Anytime these kinds of issues come up the Mommy board mantra is “do what works for you” “don’t judge each other’s parenting.”  The down side is that this places limitations on honest communications between these mothers, and the upside is that mother’s, who are already operating under ideology that demands parenting perfection, feel validated.

Nevertheless, topics like this are hotly contested on Mommy boards, and one thing I find most fascinating is that many Mommies blame each other, not the dominant ideology.  Here’s how I respond to the debate over this article on the Mommy board:

Women’s “choices” are often very heavily scrutinized, I wouldn’t say it’s primarily from women but from the entire society, and the hidden radical feminist in me says it’s because women as a class are not truly free. Every behavior that we engage in is held to a different set of standards than our male counterparts, and as you say we damned if we do and damned if we don’t. The can be extended to the abortion debate, the SAHM (stay at home mom) vs. working mom debate, debates over women and domestic violence, debates over women and plastic surgery, debates over hormone replacement therapy, and the list could go on and on. And I guess what bothers me is that we consistently divide women into dichotomies–e.i. virgins/w*hores, good girls and bad girls, bi*ches and nice girls. Thus, all of our behaviors are viewed in this context. I use the term choices loosely because I think that society convinces us that we have more choices than we really do. So many of our behaviors (or “choices”) occur in a societal context where we are so heavily scrutinized that our freedom is limited. It’s limited by peer pressure, it’s limited by sexism; it’s limited by patriarchal ideology; it’s limited by bottom line capitalism; it’s limited by racism; it’s limited by poverty; and I’m sure I could come up with a host of other factors that tell us “choices” are not just personal decisions.

Unfortunately this is where this crabs in a barrel problem comes in because we all feel heavily scrutinized but rather than blaming the social system that creates this mess we blame each other, and no matter what our so called “choice,” the constraints on our full personhood are still there.

I’d be remiss if I didn’t also say that constraints on mothering are radically different in diverse groups of women.  For example, the breastfeeding vs. formula feeding debate has much different meaning for middle and upper income white women living in the US than it does for poor women of color in developing countries.  The the structures of gender, race, class, sexuality, and nationhood operate simultaneously.

I’m not one who think women all have to tow the line and agree with each other, but what gets lost in translation is how social forces much greater than us shape our “choices” to formula feed, breastfeed, or combo feed our kids.

  1. I have several critiques of the Atlantic Monthly article that I would like to touch on in another post. [back]

Feb

2

I’m Gonna Watch This Michael Phelps Marijuana Controversy

Filed Under Black/African American Issues, Media Praises and Critiques, Pop Culture, Uncategorized | 19 Comments

You know if this was a black athlete smoking marijuana, we’d get to hear how terrible he is, and how he’s no role model, blah, blah, blah.

But instead we have a white athlete and this is what we get:

“I engaged in behavior which was regrettable and demonstrated bad judgment,” Phelps said in the statement released by one of his agents. “I’m 23 years old and despite the successes I’ve had in the pool, I acted in a youthful and inappropriate way, not in a manner people have come to expect from me. For this, I am sorry. I promise my fans and the public it will not happen again.”

Anyone notice a trend here?  23 year old white guys, especially ones who are presented with a middle class veneer, are always “youthful.”  Remember when George Bush was drinking and driving, even though he was in his 30s, it was a youthful indiscretion.  I’m not disputing that Phelps is young, but if this were a black athlete at 23, people would be talking about how this man needs to take responsibility and act better.

You know the drill right?

Jan

31

Let’s Not Get Too Excited About The Idea of Octuplets

Filed Under Demography, Family Issues, Media Praises and Critiques, Original Essays and Analysis, Pregnancy and Childbirth, Sexuality and Heterosexism, Sociology, Uncategorized | 11 Comments

Everyone is talking about the California woman who gave birth to octuplets. Yes, my friends, that’s 8 babies, and it looks like they will all survive. While the news media is gushing, my own response is a little more subdued. We don’t know all of the details surrounding the birth and conception of these babies, but the likelihood of having this many babies at once without some type of intervention is slim. The birth of high order multiples (HOM), while it is amazing, it’s troubling.

First, it’s very dangerous. I can speak first hand as a mother of multiples. Multiple pregnancies are closely monitored, and I routinely went for ultrasounds and stress tests during the last 2 months of pregnancy. This monitoring is because the risk of nearly all major complications for mother and children are higher. I was lucky to have no complications and to go full term–that makes me part of the minority of twin moms. If the risks are this high for twins, can you imagine how high the risks are when a woman is pregnant with 8. The risks to mother and children are very high.
Another ethical issue that arises with an HOM birth is the difficulty that arises in giving adequate care to that many babies. In talking with other twin moms who formula feed, they estimate that formula would cost over $200 a month. Even if this mother is providing some breast milk, the cost for just food would be nearly $1000 a month. By the time you add the cost of other basic necessities, paying for these kids would be nearly impossible. The other issue would be basic care. When my twins were born, I spent nearly all of my time feeding, diapering, burping, and clothing them, and I had help. My spouse was here, and my mother was here for the first week. It was a daunting task, and my twins were full term. Since these babies are micro-preemies, their care will be even more challenging. They will need to eat often, probably every two hours, and there is no way possible that one or even two people can feed all eight of these babies. Plus, the babies will likely have feeding and breathing difficulties associated with low birth weight and prematurity. Moreover, reports indicate that this family already has 6 children. Taking care of 14 children, including 8 preemies is a nearly impossible task.
There are also social and economic costs that the larger community faces in cases like this. The hospital and insurance costs in these cases is huge, and I can’t help wondering if care for other babies in that hospital is suffering. Who knows maybe the hospital has some additional temp nurses to handle these babies, but I wonder if the care of other infants is being compromised because the extreme burden this is placing on the staff. What about the costs of insurance, assuming the family has health insurance? Will all of this medical care be covered; how will the financial burden be shifted around to others. I also cannot imagine in the long term that this family will get by without significant amounts of public assistance. The octuplets will be automatically eligible for early intervention programs, which are often government sponsored programs for children with disabilities. I don’t have a problem with people getting public assistance, but I worry that a case like this is a very heavy burden on the system.
I’m hesitant to comment of the specifics when it comes to ethical fertility practices because we don’t know the exact details of this conception. However, I do worry, as do many fertility doctors, about the ethics of HOM. It’s not likely that a doctor used in-vitro fertilization in this case, but I wonder about the monitoring in this case. In cases where injectible fertility drugs are given, doctors often closely monitor the development of follicles, and the release of eggs. I’ve also heard some speculation about black market fertility drugs, but clearly, we don’t know enough details to focus on the specifics of this conception. Nevertheless, we do know that mainstream fertility doctors do not consider these HOM births a success. Here’s quote from MSNBC:

It’s fine to celebrate the healthy delivery, said Sean Tipton, spokesperson for the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. But, a pregnancy resulting in this many babies is “clearly is not a medical triumph. Eight babies is not an outcome anyone should want.”

Unbridled celebration of these multiple births ignores the risks that this type of pregnancy can bring and the huge costs to the medical system and the parents, say experts.

This leads to my last point. I understand that people are fascinated with multiples. I can personally attest to the public reaction to twins. When we are out with the babies, numerous people approach us and provide unsolicited (sometimes nice and sometimes not so nice) comments. Multiples are a spectacle, and it is understandable because it’s different, but media coverage of multiples treats them with wonder, but generally ignores the challenges. I’d like to see more media coverage that is realistic. After all we rarely hear of HOM pregnancies that result in the death of the mothers or babies. I found this case from the UK that highlights a multiple pregnancy gone terribly wrong. I know for every one success story there are other stories that are not so happy.

While multiple pregnancies may be fascinating or interesting, the challenges shouldn’t be glossed over, especially when we are talking about high order multiple pregnancies. From child care issues, to medical and financial challenges the difficulties and risks are numerous. Parents, doctors, journalists, and the general public need to grapple publicly with what these HOM births mean for society. Unreflective celebration and freak show voyeurism seems to be the dominant way of viewing HOM pregnancies at this time.

Jan

23

Now That We Have a Black First Family

Filed Under Black/African American Issues, Family Issues, Media Praises and Critiques, Original Essays and Analysis, Race and Racism | 3 Comments

I saw this article by John Blake on CNN’s website. The author discusses how having a “married” Black first family could potentially affect African American relationships.  The basic argument is that the Obama’s are good role models because they are a married and financially successful Black couple, who are openly affectionate and loving.

I’m often struck by these kinds of articles–the underlying notion is that Black Americans are in desperate need of role models.  I’m down with role models, but if we want to address the problems of racial inequality and black families, role models are a small piece of the puzzle.

The high rates of divorce and single parenthood in the African American community probably will not decline because we have a married black couple in the White House. Addressing poverty, educational quality/opportunities, and racial discrimination will go a lot further to provide stability to African American families.  I’m not one that thinks the government should spend our tax dollars promoting marriage and I don’t think single parents should be demonize.  My sense of it is that parents and children benefit from loving, stable, and (relatively) happy realtionships.  Much of the resonsibility for maintaining those happy/loving/stable relationships rest with parents, but we also have a societal responsibility to promote and create conditions that help make families happier, more loving, and more stable.  As long as poverty rates, unemployment rates, and other indicators of socio-economic standing lag behind those of whites, its going to be much harder for the typical black family be like the Obama’s.  The Obama’s are clearly a privileged Black family.  They have numerous resources at their disposal that will help them maintain their relationship.  Wouldn’t it be nice if we did more to help create the social conditions that would lower the racial gaps in poverty, divorce, and other family related problems.

Sep

12

More Diverse Pundits Although the White Guys Still Run the Shows

Filed Under Black/African American Issues, Gender and Sexism, Media Praises and Critiques, Original Essays and Analysis, Politics, Race and Racism, Sociology, Uncategorized | 2 Comments

When I was reading Racialicious a while back I ran across this New York Times article, which notes that political pundits are more diverse than ever before:

Both MSNBC and CNN this election season have given new prominence to a handful of contributing commentators from varied backgrounds and perspectives: blacks, Hispanics and women. Whether such moves signal real progress in diversifying the punditocracy or merely reflect the needs of a particular news cycle is the question, some media experts say. The most prominent positions on television remain overwhelmingly with those who are white and male, and some critics note how striking that non-inclusion can seem during this election year.

As someone who has watched political shows for years, this is the first election where I have seen many panels with multiple white women, multiple African Americans, or any African American women (besides Donna Brazile). Overall this is a good sign.

There is still room for improvement. First of all, it appears that women of all races and men of color are not getting to be the primary host for political related shows. For example, take MSNBC, which had had a huge surge in viewers and is attempting to have a more liberal bent than the other networks, all but one of their shows has white men as the primary host–Keith Olbermann, David Gregory, Tom Brokaw, and Chris Matthews. The lone exception is Rachel Maddow, who is the new kid on the block. While the people who appear on those shows as commentators have become diverse the hosts still are not. A brief trip around the Sunday morning political shows reveals the same phenomenon. I also rarely see Asian American or Native American pundits, which is an other area where there can be improvements.

One of the more interesting observations I have about the racial make-up of Black and Latino political pundits– is that conservatives are overrepresented. I frequently see conservative Black and Latino pundits. If the pundits matched the political inclinations of these two groups, one would expect conservative Black pundits to be rare (definitely less than 20%) and conservative Latino pundits a little more common, but still less than half.

In spite of the areas for improvement that I identified above, I am very impressed with the dramatic difference over previous presidential elections. I’m not sure what the exact reasons are for this. Maybe it helps that we have had one black man and two white women who are knocking their heads on the glass ceiling that has kept everyone but white men out of our highest political office((Obviously, wealthy white men.)) . Maybe the networks were already trending in this direction–I tend to think they were moving in this direction, but they got a little jolt from the emergence of Obama and Clinton as groundbreaking candidates.

What do you think?

Sep

2

Personally, I Find the Attacks on Sarah Palin’s Teenage Daughter Deplorable

Filed Under Family Issues, Gender and Sexism, Media Praises and Critiques, Sexuality and Heterosexism, Sociology | 5 Comments

I don’t have the time to write something coherent, but personally find the hatchet job over at Daily Kos to be one of the most offensive hit jobs I’ve seen in a long time. If you click on this link you can see some of their handy work. They even have a tag dedicated to Palin’s daughter.

Is it really necessary to go out of our way to attack a child because we don’t like her mother’s politics. We know that abstinence only doesn’t work, but we don’t need to make this young woman the poster child for that political position. Attacking a pregnant 17 year old is way too much.

Here are what some others are thinking:

I personally agree with most of what Lauren at Feministe, says.

And I like Amp’s quote in the comments over at Alas:

I do think that this story will implicitly make it harder for Sarah Palin herself to argue for abstinence only education on the stump, and that’s good. (Assuming, for the sake of argument, that Palin’s kids were given abstinence-only education.)

But I don’t think there’s any need for people to talk about her daughter, for that effect to apply. It’s enough to have it be an unspoken elephant in the room whenever Sarah Palin discusses abstinence-only.

Also, I think the political downside for Democrats trying to make hay of this is obvious.

Mandolin at Alas, has also collected several posts on the subject. Including a very relevant point that Amanda Marcotte makes,

I find it interesting how the McCain/Palin campaign tried to shut down the P.R. disaster that is Bristol Palins pregnancy by calling for privacy, which was, just short of their invocation of choice, about hiding behind feminist values to assault feminism itself, since they wish you and your family have neither privacy nor choice when it comes to management of your life. But what I find especially interesting is that privacy was not actually a feminist value until it had to be in order to get reproductive rights established. Which isnt to say that Im against respecting peoples privacy (and really, this is the last mention of the Palin thing in this post*), but that rooting reproductive rights in the value of privacy instead of autonomy and self-determination has actually created some massive problems for us.

Privacy is a double-edged sword. Outside of its use by feminists to get what we want (reproductive rights) without scaring people by arguing for womens equality, privacy is generally a patriarchal value. It shields rapists and wife-beaters. The sense that women are the private property of men is still more ingrained in our society than the idea that uteruses are the private property of women.

All of these posts and subsequent discussions are quick to point out the relevance of this issue as it relates to public policy, specifically the republican opposition to comprehensive sexual education.

Personally, I feel we can talk about these issues without making this one pregnant 17 year old the center of the discussion.

Aug

30

The Olympics–a few thoughts on Global Inequality, Gender, Patriotism, and Multiculturalism

Filed Under Class Classism and Economic Inequality, Gender and Sexism, International Racism, Media Praises and Critiques, Original Essays and Analysis, Pop Culture, Race and Racism, Sociology, Uncategorized, Xenophobia and Immigration | 10 Comments

When I first started teaching I taught a class called “Prejudice and Discrimination,” in order to get my students to examine race, class, gender, and sexuality issues (later I added disability) I gave them an assignment where they had to watch a TV program, and analyze it from a sociological perspective. Basically, I wanted them to apply a theory from sociology to the program they chose. It was 2000, and one student did his analysis on the Olympics. He decided to use what I’ll call a functionalist multicultural perspective. In sociology, functionalism is a conservative theoretical view that argues that society is made up of interrelated and interdependent parts, which work together to create stability harmony, and order. Functionalists generally want to minimize change, and they tend to see everything having a functional purpose. The competing theory is conflict theory. Conflict theorists see a society that is driven over competition for scarce resources–in particular they see conflict stemming from the competition between society’s haves and have nots. Since conflict theory is inspired by some insights of Marxism, conflict theorists believe that social change is necessary.

In my student’s view, the Olympics were great because they brought all the people of the world together. Furthermore, everybody was competing on an equal playing field. He also felt that the spirit of the Olympic movement wiped out race, class, gender, and sexuality issues. In other words, the Olympics made all of these things moot, and nobody cared about any of these things when watching the Olympics.

Sarcastically, I asked myself–is this student watching the same Olympics as I am. I suppose when we take a functionalist view, the Olympics is a sample of stability and harmony, but I don’t see how we can watch the Olympics without noticing the haves and have nots of the world. While one can see some functionalist elements at the Olympics; you have to be deliberately obtuse to miss how Olympic competition is just as much about the social inequalities between groups.

Let’s start with gender. If you watched careful, there were a few occasions when I saw events for men labeled in a neutral way–i.e. the basketball finals– but events for women were labeled as women’s events–i.e. the women’s basketball finals. Isn’t it interesting that even though women participate in most sports at the Olympics, the men’s events are still central in most of those sports. I’ve also noticed that some countries have significantly fewer successful women athletes, and that is often related to the limited number of opportunities for women to compete in those countries. Think about those Kenyan and Ethiopian runners–it has only been recent that women in those countries have been recruited and trained to run like their male counterparts. I also couldn’t stand looking at yahoo during the Olympics where butt shots of women’s beach volleyball players were consistently in the top 10. Don’t get me wrong these women were talented, but it was obvious that their skimpy uniforms were part of the reason the networks had them in primetime.

What about Patriotism and ethnocentrism? As a very public sociologist noted in the thread last week, the US media listed the medal count as opposed to the gold medal count. China ran away with the gold medal count, but I guess it makes us look better to note that we won more over all medals. You could also see the bias in coverage. For the most part if the US wasn’t doing good in an event, then the coverage of that event was either non-existent or relegated to a sound bite. I’ve always felt that the Olympics is largely about Patriotism; it’s a way for countries to feel good about themselves and their people, a way to show strength (quite literally). In the 1936 Olympics, Hitler wanted to prove how great the “Aryan” race was, but he was upstaged by the great African American athlete Jesse Owens. This was the classic example of the political clashes that often occur at the Olympics. Don’t get me wrong, there are events that symbolize coming together in spite of our differences–this year the Georgian and Russian competitors in the Women’s air pistol certainly would be an example. But overall, the examples of countries trying to upstage each other or athletes coming to be representatives for the social and political causes of their nations are probably more numerous. The Olympics are a competition after all.

The other issue that I’m reminded of is global inequality and it’s connection to immigration. I was struck by how the US and China dominated the competition, but one thing I noticed in particular is how many top athletes representing the US were born in other countries and, in many cases, competed for those countries in the past. I noticed a former Chinese ping pong player, a former Kenyan distance runner, and a Trinidadian sprinter. Under the 1965 immigration Act, these immigrants are given the fast track to citizenship because of their special skills.1 The US obviously benefits, as do many other Western countries. These athletes are able to leave poor countries and head to wealthier ones. When we are talking about science and occupations, this is called the brain drain. Perhaps in sports it should be called the “muscle hustle.” Wealthy countries siphon off the top athletes from poor countries; moreover, many of the athletes from poor countries train, compete, and live in wealthy nations. I don’t know how many people noticed how many of the West Indian (such as Trinidadian, Jamaican, Bahamian) sprinters attend college and train in the US. I’d be curious to know how many of these athletes are able to stay in the US because of their skills.

Now I haven’t even touched on racism in this already long post, so I’ll keep it brief. Sport is often used as a way to reinforce racial stereotypes. Rather than connecting the racial make-up of an Olympic sports team to social opportunities, many try to assert biological distinctions between races, ignoring those who defy racial stereotypes and ignoring economic and social factors that result in racial differences. (Feel free to share your own examples for this one.)

What do you think? How does conflict theory play out at the Olympics? What ways do you think the Olympics represents a functionalist world view?

  1. This is also applied to scientists, artists, and people in some high demand occupational fields. [back]

Aug

15

Those Chinese Gymnasts

Filed Under International Racism, Media Praises and Critiques, Pop Culture, Sociology | 22 Comments

Anybody who follows the coverage of China in the American media should be ready to hear about some grand Chinese conspiracy. I discussed this in my top trends of 2007, and of course, the trend continues in 2008. This year’s conspiracy involves the ages of the Chinese gymnasts. It is widely rumored that many of the gymnasts are under the 16 age limit. Judging from their looks alone there is a good chance they are underage, but is being underage really that much of an advantage? I know people age out of that sport when they are young, but mental maturity is also an asset.

Furthermore, I remember it was not that long ago that the age of a prominent US gymnast was under scrutiny. Apparently, the age limit was raised after this US gymnast participated in Olympic competition. Nevertheless, all of the sniping about age limits for Chinese gymnasts seems a little ironic when the US has sent very young girls into competition as well. I suspect if we could get away with it we would bend the rules too. I really don’t think those folks complaining are terribly worried about the welfare of Chinese gymnastics teams; they are more upset that the Chinese are so good. I think there are some sour grapes in all of that whining.

Jun

7

Serious Question…About Obama, Clinton, Racism, and Gender

Filed Under Black/African American Issues, Gender and Sexism, Media Praises and Critiques, Original Essays and Analysis, Race and Racism, Serious Questions, Sociology | 5 Comments

Let me start by asking a question. Did anyone see Clinton’s, McCain’s, and Obama’s Tuesday night speeches in their entirety?

I watched Clinton and Obama both, but I missed McCain. One thing that struck me about Clinton and Obama is that I didn’t notice either one of them make note of the historic significance of having the first black nominee for President on a major party ticket. In contrast, both of them noted the groundbreaking campaign by Hillary Clinton, arguing that she was blazing a path for women, but I didn’t hear the same for Obama. Isn’t that an interesting distinction between racial politics and gender politics? The colorblind ideology silences almost any public discussion of racism by black candidates, who are vying for white votes. In contrast, we don’t have as much silence on the gender front (from the candidates). That has been a fairly consistent pattern in this Presidential election over the past few months. I’m not saying racism or sexism is a greater barrier to being elected President, but I think it is clear that they operate in different ways.

Furthermore, any complicated analysis that examines the interactions and intersections of race, gender, age, sexuality, and class are almost always missing from pundits and candidates analysis. I remember the point in the election when Hillary Clinton talked about getting pushed around by the boys (apparently it was on the Ellen DeGeneres show). While I can relate to being pushed around by the boys and having that make me stronger, I don’t believe for one minute that Hillary was being pushed around by any black boys. I know I sure wasn’t. I was getting pushed around by the whites boys who I went to school with. They were all white, presumably heterosexual1, and from class backgrounds remarkably similar to my own. I never heard any TV pundits point this out–Clinton wasn’t being pushed around by black boys.

All that said, why do you think there is a difference in a candidate’s ability to talk about his or her groundbreaking accomplishments in relation to race and gender? Do you think the political realm is exceptional in this way? Or do you things may be different in other fields? Why do you think it is so difficult to have a discussion that captures the intersections and complexities of various forms of social inequality?

  1. Some of them may not have been heterosexual, but I definitely could say that the boys that had the most normative gender presentations and were able to create a perceived heterosexual identity were the most likely to be the ones I argued with. [back]

Jun

3

How Much For My Baby Pics?

Filed Under Family Issues, Interracial Relationships, Media Praises and Critiques, Original Essays and Analysis, Pop Culture, Pregnancy and Childbirth, Sociology, Uncategorized | 8 Comments

I know many people love baby pictures. I do anyways. From little scrunchy newborns to running toddlers, I enjoy looking at the pictures but, I find it a little offensive how obsessed this culture is with celebrity baby photos.

Not long ago, I was standing in line at the grocery store when I saw several tabloid photos of Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt. The stories all surrounded the impending birth of the couple’s twins. I’ve notice some gossip shows and websites suggesting that Pitt and Jolie are going to get upwards of $10,000,000 for their babies’ pictures. How decadent can we get?

The celebrity baby photo competition is out of control. This site gives out a few of the exorbitant prices that tabloids have paid to get the first photos of various celebrity babies. Imagine how many of the world’s poor children could be fed and vaccinated for the money given to these celebrities? In fact, I would hope that, if Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie really do care about the children in poor countries, they would donate that eight figure income to help children who really need food, shelter, and basic medical care.

I also have to make a personal connection because ever since I put up my last update on my pregnancy my number one search has been for “interracial new born baby pics.” Nobody has offered any money for my babies’ pictures. I think there is a gawk factor with mixed race babies and celebrity babies. People want to know about celebrity babies because they want to feel connected to stars. Plus, everyday folks can emulate the latest “baby trends,” like $750 dollar strollers or organic baby clothes. The gawk factor with mixed race babies is different. Since interracial sexuality still is surrounded by taboo and mystique, some people are curious about how mixed race kids look. This doesn’t translate into a paycheck like it does for celebrities, but it certainly translates into internet searches.

What’s fascinating about these examples is that they show how we assign value to people from the moment of birth. One’s value is directly connected to who their parents are; how much money those parents make; their nationality; their race; their popularity, and so on.

Next Page →