2020年10月7日 星期三

Parenting Was Never Meant to Be This Isolating

Nuclear families have always relied on a community for practical support.

Parenting Was Never Meant to Be This Isolating

Kiki Ljung

“Everyone seems to forget that being a parent is, for most people, a choice.”

“I understand these are uncertain times, but I can’t tell you how many pre-pandemic complaints I’ve heard from parents about the care of their own children. Your kids are not someone else’s responsibility.”

“When we were raised, one of our parents stayed home and raised us. They didn’t drag us off to a stranger’s house at 6 a.m. so both of them could be ‘fulfilled.’"

These are some of the comments generated by an article about tech workers without children, who were griping that colleagues who are parents have received an unfair amount of leave during the pandemic. The notion that selfish parents get too many perks and benefits yet still complain about kids who should be their sole responsibility isn’t new; that idea was around pre-Covid.

But as our entire country is under duress, with massive job losses, the threat of illness and various other uncertainties across the board, I have noticed more people expressing these kinds of thoughts, especially whenever I write about mental health issues among parents.

What this criticism fails to grasp is that throughout basically all of human history, parents have never, ever raised children in isolated nuclear units the way they have been doing for much of 2020, with little to no hands-on family or community support. Individual families being completely responsible for children “is absolutely unheard of except in total emergencies,” said Stephanie Coontz, an emeritus professor of history and family at Evergreen State College in Olympia, Wash., and the author of “The Way We Never Were: American Families and the Nostalgia Trap.”

As far back as we can go in prehistory, parents engaged in what biological anthropologists refer to as “cooperative breeding,” said Robin G. Nelson, Ph.D., an associate professor of anthropology at Santa Clara University (and an old friend of mine). That’s the idea that family and community members would help with holding, grooming and sometimes even feeding your baby. Sarah B. Hrdy, an anthropologist, called these helpers “alloparents,” and her research suggests that shared child care may have been “the secret of human evolutionary success.” Dr. Nelson called group living “part of what it means to be human.”

ADVERTISEMENT

When you go back to the beginning of American history, the same facts hold: From Colonial America through the early 20th Century, there were almost no parents whose days were dedicated to just child care without support. Poorer parents worked alongside their children as young as 5 in crowded tenement sweatshops, textile mills and in the fields, while older children and other family helped care for children too young to work. And wealthier white families were not doing the child care without household workers. “Middle-class women were able to shift more time into child rearing in the 1800s only by hiring domestic help,” Coontz noted.

In fact, one parent (the mom) staying home and only spending her time on housework and child care was “a historical fluke,” for the white middle and upper classes that began in the 1940s and 50s, “based on a unique and temporary conjuncture of economic, social and political factors,” Coontz wrote in “The Way We Never Were.” As she points out, during World War II, Americans saved money at a rate that was “three times higher than in the decades before or since,” and real wages increased more in the 50s than they had in the previous 50 years.

And they were not “alone” the way many parents are during this pandemic. Middle-class mothers who stayed home with their children did so in communities of other mothers like them — the children would be pushed out to play in suburban neighborhoods. Even in the heyday of the American nuclear family, only the wealthiest white families were able to live that Donna Reed life — as Coontz points out in her book, one-third of nonimmigrant white families “could not get by on the income of the household head.”

Black families were excluded from this vision, and were fighting for basic civil rights in the 50s and 60s. As Dr. Nelson noted, even the idea that children are an active “choice” for most people erases the history of forced sterilization of Black, Native American, Asian and Latina women. Just last month there were reports of a whistle-blower calling out potential unwanted hysterectomies performed on immigrants at an ICE facility earlier this year.

ADVERTISEMENT

Even before the pandemic, modern mothers and fathers were spending more time with their children than they did 45 years ago. As my colleague Claire Cain Miller has pointed out, mothers were spending five hours a week doing things like reading to children, ferrying them to activities and helping them with homework, compared to 1 hour and 45 minutes in 1975, and they have less solo leisure time than their midcentury counterparts.

Those parents “complaining” about caring for their kids are possibly doing so because this is not sustainable. Parents are sending their kids to “a stranger’s house” for child care not because they want to be “fulfilled,” but because they need to afford basic necessities for their families, or if they’re lucky, they are saving for retirement and college. At this point, many parents who remain employed are scared to lose their jobs or be pushed out of them to care for children — analysis from the National Women’s Law Center suggests that of the 1.1 million workers who dropped out of the labor force last month, 80 percent were women.

But despite some very loud griping about parents on the internet, Coontz believes that most people are “pretty damn sympathetic to mothers and fathers.” In my real life, not my virtual life, I have received so much support and kindness from colleagues and friends during this time, regardless of parental status. Living through a pandemic weighs heavily on us all: We cannot hug our loved ones, there are over 200,000 dead and an estimated 1.8 million Americans are grieving the loss of relatives. We should be extending grace in all directions, instead of fighting for scraps.

P.S. Follow us on Instagram @NYTParenting. If this was forwarded to you, sign up for the NYT Parenting newsletter here.

ADVERTISEMENT

Want More on Parental Stress During the Pandemic?

  • A new poll from NPR, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health suggests that “60 percent of households with children across the country have lost jobs, or businesses, or have had wages reduced during the pandemic.”
  • The stresses on parents and their kids, particularly the ones struggling to make ends meet, are intense. In a previous newsletter, Pooja Lakshmin, M.D., a clinical assistant professor of psychiatry at George Washington University School of Medicine in Washington, D.C., said that we need to be treating the pandemic as “a mental health crisis, and one that does not have an end we can see.”
  • Considering the state of the world, no wonder parents need something to take the edge off! “My hobby is doom scrolling and learning the science of Covid and smoking weed and sitting on the toilet staring at the wall,” Julie Kortekaas, 36, a mother of two children ages 10 and 18, and a health-food restaurant owner in London, Ontario, told me. “I just hide in my bathroom and vape.”

Tiny Victories

Parenting can be a grind. Let’s celebrate the tiny victories.

My 17-month-old only cried the last hour of a five-hour car ride. Sharon Jakopchek, Washington, D.C.

If you want a chance to get your Tiny Victory published, find us on Instagram @NYTparenting and use the hashtag #tinyvictories; email us; or enter your Tiny Victory at the bottom of this page. Include your full name and location. Tiny Victories may be edited for clarity and style. Your name, location and comments may be published, but your contact information will not. By submitting to us, you agree that you have read, understand and accept the Reader Submission Terms in relation to all of the content and other information you send to us.

Need help? Review our newsletter help page or contact us for assistance.

You received this email because you signed up for NYT Parenting from The New York Times.

To stop receiving these emails, unsubscribe or manage your email preferences.

Subscribe to The Times

Connect with us on:

facebooktwitterinstagram

Change Your EmailPrivacy PolicyContact UsCalifornia Notices

The New York Times Company. 620 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10018

歡迎蒞臨:https://ofa588.com/

娛樂推薦:https://www.ofa86.com/

2020年10月6日 星期二

On Tech: WeChat unites and divides in America

The app, which unites families but also spreads Chinese propaganda, faces a ban in the U.S.

WeChat unites and divides in America

Simoul Alva

Take the good and the bad aspects of using Facebook and magnify both.

That’s WeChat, the do-everything app from China that is also used by millions of Chinese speakers in the United States to stay in touch with family members and form bonds in America.

Like other social media, WeChat can magnify divisions. There’s also the added complication of the influence of Chinese government censorship and propaganda shaping what people read and say on the app.

I spoke with my colleague Nicole Hong, who wrote this week about Chinese immigrants and the diaspora using WeChat, about the productive and destructive uses of the app, and how those who have used WeChat feel about it possibly being banned in the United States.

Shira: What do people in the United States get out of using WeChat?

Nicole: Capturing the multitudes of WeChat is complicated. It’s like asking an American whether texting is good or bad. It’s both.

People say that WeChat has accelerated the formation of bubbles among Chinese immigrants, but I was also surprised by the role that WeChat played in helping them adjust to life in America. Some people said that the translation functions in the app have improved their English.

WeChat has also been a huge force in activism movements among Chinese people in the United States. When a Chinese-American police officer in New York was convicted of manslaughter, many Chinese immigrants felt it was unjust. Some people came out to protests for the first time in America because they heard about it on WeChat.

What are the bad elements?

Like on Facebook, people can insulate themselves in echo chambers of contacts who think exactly like them, and rumors can race through the Chinese diaspora in minutes.

ADVERTISEMENT

But on WeChat there’s also the added complication of information getting filtered through the lens of Chinese nationalism. In a large WeChat group, if a Chinese-American criticizes the Chinese government, they might be called a traitor.

And the hot topics on WeChat are often divisive ones, like issues that tend to pit Chinese people against other minority groups, including Black and Latino people or even other Asian-Americans.

How do people who use WeChat in the United States navigate the Chinese government’s censorship?

Active WeChat users know to tiptoe around certain taboo topics like Tibet so their accounts don’t get disabled or blocked. And the propaganda creates an environment in which people don’t know what to believe and mistrust one another. I interviewed someone who said he was alarmed that his mother believed the one-sided propaganda she read on WeChat about the democracy movement in Hong Kong.

How did those you spoke to feel about the app possibly being banned in the United States?

It varied. People who had large numbers of family members in China said that despite the app’s flaws, there was no other way to communicate with relatives. For the elderly in America who struggle with English, WeChat can be a tremendous source of comfort and emotional support during retirement.

ADVERTISEMENT

Others were more focused on the propaganda and political arguments that they saw on the app. Some said they switched from WeChat to Telegram after the ban was announced and were actually relieved because they didn’t have to fear talking openly about China’s leader, Xi Jinping.

If you don’t already get this newsletter in your inbox, please sign up here.

Don’t blame Facebook (for this one thing)

A new analysis of misperceptions about voter fraud suggests that online hot spots like Facebook and Twitter don’t deserve as much blame for being a source of false information as they typically get.

Rather the researchers found that misinformation about voting originates primarily from President Trump and other powerful people who spread a false narrative of rampant election fraud, and news outlets that amplify those messages. (Voter fraud is extremely rare in all forms, including mail-in voting. Here is a guide.)

ADVERTISEMENT

The in-progress research paper from the Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University suggests that I and other tech obsessives have fixated too much on whether Facebook and Twitter should add context to misleading messages or remove dangerous posts about voter fraud, and that we have overstated the harm from trolls on these sites sowing inaccuracies about the reliability of voting by mail.

The researchers make some important points. The problem, in the researchers’ telling, comes from the very top and filters to most Americans through conventional news media, particularly outlets like local TV stations that are influential with people who aren’t glued to political news all of the time.

“The primary cure for the elite-driven, mass media communicated information disorder we observe here is unlikely to be more fact-checking on Facebook,” the researchers wrote. “Our observations offer reason to be cautious about how important online misinformation and disinformation really is in American political communications.”

The researchers aren’t absolving social media sites. Powerful people use those sites to amplify false information about voter fraud online. And the researchers said Facebook does play a significant role in other societal problems, including online organizing of violent acts.

But if misperceptions about the reliability of casting a ballot aren’t primarily because of online hot spots, it suggests that it’s counterproductive to focus the bulk of our attention and resources there. The problem is that it may be easier to get Facebook to change than it is to get American political elites to change.

Before we go …

  • Agreeing (mostly) on the problem but not a solution: Members of Congress are mostly united on the dangers of tech superpowers acting in ways that harm competition. But they disagree along party lines over possible legislative fixes, my colleagues Cecilia Kang and David McCabe wrote.
  • This will surprise zero women who use the internet: An analysis of Twitter and Facebook posts directed at members of Congress found that abusive messages accounted for more than 15 percent of those directed at each female lawmaker analyzed, compared with about 5 to 10 percent of the men, The Washington Post reported. (Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the majority leader, received an unusually high share of abusive messages for a male lawmaker.)
  • Everything is politics today, sorry: Dating apps have become a battleground for protests in Thailand opposing the military government and the royal establishment, Foreign Policy reported. The government’s restrictions on Facebook and other social media sites have pushed protesters to other arenas, including Tinder, to promote their message.

Hugs to this

You definitely want to watch Maple, the beaver, munching away on a Halloween pumpkin.

We want to hear from you. Tell us what you think of this newsletter and what else you’d like us to explore. You can reach us at ontech@nytimes.com.

If you don’t already get this newsletter in your inbox, please sign up here.

Need help? Review our newsletter help page or contact us for assistance.

You received this email because you signed up for On Tech with Shira Ovide from The New York Times.

To stop receiving these emails, unsubscribe or manage your email preferences.

Subscribe to The Times

Connect with us on:

facebooktwitterinstagram

Change Your EmailPrivacy PolicyContact UsCalifornia Notices

The New York Times Company. 620 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10018

歡迎蒞臨:https://ofa588.com/

娛樂推薦:https://www.ofa86.com/