Toy store story

Every Thursday morning a sea of strollers covers the entrance to Campusville Toys.  At the back of the shop, the East Coast’s answer to Rolf Harris strums his guitar and sings, egged on by around thirty under-4s. 

Rolf is not a bad performer but, in truth, his uncanny resemblance to a chimpanzee must be a boost to his kiddie X-factor. He takes up his guitar and monkey mayhem ensues.  Pre-crawlers flap arms and down lego pieces and other floor debris, while the more mobile little chimps swing from the rafters.  They snatch toys, pull things off shelves, and bounce around, jostling for position at the front when a favourite tune comes on. Enthusiastic nannies, moms and the odd dad sing along mouthing the words with tremendous gusto.  Probably, like me, they’ve come just as much for themselves as their kids - a little adult contact goes a long way in breaking up long hours spent caring for a young child.  For an hour or so after the event beleaguered shop assistants tiptoe around us stragglers hoovering, sorting and running an inventory of the damage. I wonder sometimes if all this can be worth it for the store, we didn’t even pay to get in after all. But of course it is - the tills have taken more in a couple of hours than the rest of the week combined.

In small town America, it seems that just about every high street big enough to have a post office also has an enticing independent or small-chain toy store. Hosting weekly parent and baby sing-alongs, story-times and coffee hours is pretty standard - a lot see it as their bread and butter. Events typically attract dozens of local families, thus etching out the place of toy-stores as meeting places for young families and community hubs.

We’ve looked to publicly funded Sure Start Children’s Centres and libraries for this kind of thing in the UK in recent years. In the face of radical plans by the new Coalition Government to pay back the deficit and reduce spending, both are now facing significant cuts and potential closures. So, might our toy shops go the American way?  

On one level, its a no brainer.  State provided services shrink enabling small businesses to grow into the spaces they once occupied.  Profits get boosted and children and parents are able to access equivalent services to the ones they used before. The shopkeeper’s community knowledge and desire to get people through the door might even lead to events which are better attuned to the needs and desires of local families.  Its the perfect allegory for David Cameron’s “Big Society” master-plan.

Yet in cultural terms, UK retailers have a distance to travel to take up their spot in the Big Society.  In contrast to the US service culture, some still seem to see their customers as the enemy.  At our local London toy shop, patrons are greeted by a sign on the door that shouts “KNOCK BEFORE ENTRY.  NO TOUCHING.  CHILDREN ONE AT A TIME”.  Once you’re through the door, if you don’t accept immediate assistance, you’ll feel the shop assistant’s eyes burning holes in the back of your head. Its a stoney stare that says in no uncertain terms: your-brat-breaks-anything-and-you-both-get-booted... Thanks very much.

A more serious question, however, is whether families can really draw value from playing along with what is essentially a private business’s marketing strategy.  I don’t think the answer is straight forward.  There are obviously a lot of good things going on at Campusville Toys’s sing-a-long, just the same as they would in a Children’s Centre or library (exposure to language, child social interactions, adult networks being established, etc).  But a toy store is not a Children’s Centre.  It is not designed with child development in mind, and that’s not the priority of the people who run it.  Some of the toys are educational, but a lot are simply designed to be eye-catching.  The sheer amount of toys around is enough to bring on a bout of ADHD in the most focused child - which would explain the rafter swinging.  And the frenzied grabbing at stuff off shelves is not just an unfortunate side-effect from the retailers point of view.  It is the very purpose of the event.  The more children grab, the more their parents buy. 

As services are cut back in the UK, its worth looking at the way things are done in the States where commercial and civic society play a larger role (this is something I intend to do more of in this blog). But as always, its important to drill beneath the surface to see what’s really going on. A dose of toy-lust? A little frivolous spending? A momentary shortening of a child’s attention span?  On the face of it, these trade-offs don’t sound too major.  But writ large they could lead to an undesirable creeping commercialisation of public life.  

Mid-terms: Mom read-out

Following up on my Falling-Mama Grizzlies blogpost, here’s a quick bit of post-match analysis...

Female political representation has taken a pretty bad knock this election.  In line with predictions I reported in my earlier post, all the fanfare around women candidates has amounted to little. Female Republican wins have been off-set by Democrat losses overall and the number of women in Congress is down by three - the first decline in 30 years according to an NPR report.   

Regardless, it might be argued that the whole ‘its cool to be a mom’ tone that was present throughout the campaign has been in of itself a victory of sorts for gender equity.  In last week’s New York Times supplement Judith Warner described the ‘new momism’: ‘being a mom is now frequently spun as a prime career asset... “Mom” in both Democrat and Republican speak is political shorthand now for good common sense and authenticity, an antidote to the effete sensibilities of the so-called Washington elite’.  

But the problem with seeing this election as a success for women even in these terms is that a lot of the candidates who became most associated with the ‘mom’ brand faired particularly badly. The electorate apparently didn't buy the whole authenticity, common sense thing. My favourite young-blood Democrat mom Krystal Ball suffered a harsh defeat in Virginia’s 1st District.  And from the twenty or so Mama Grizzly candidates Palin endorsed, first time women won governorships in three states but the most high profile candidates (Sharron Angle, Christine O’Donnell...) floundered.  Terms such as; shrill, rational, stupid have increasingly been used to describe these women. Deserved or not, this is far from new momism - negative maternal stereotypes have been reinforced. 

One final observation: the greatest impact of this election on moms, and on all of us, will be through policies taken forward - yet the precise shape of those policies is still largely unknown. Much of the uncertainty is down to split party control. Healthcare reform is unlikely to be repealed though is sure to be compromised, but nobody knows by how much. Gridlock is expected on whole range of tax and spending issues - helpful explanation here from the Brookings Institute.  All this has been heavily reported, yet the unpredictability is not merely down to the result... 

The Republicans, whilst repeatedly calling for cuts, have been very elusive about where exactly they’d like to see the axe fall.  When challenged some murmur 'discretionary spending' whilst others, more bold, say 'federal entitlements'.  Stunningly, no-one has managed to pin them down about whether its education, social security, defence or what.  There was a similar scenario in the run-up to the UK election but ultimately politicians were forced to get into far greater detail so that people knew what they were voting for.  The fact that this hasn't happened in the US suggests to me something about how the negative (masculine?) style of campaigning which currently prevails in American politics can obscure important democratic principles.

Creepy Cops

We’ve just got back from the police station.  It wasn’t a pretty experience.  The place was brimming with menacing characters, the walls were blood stained and the air was thick with the voices of screaming children. My main thought was to make it quickly through the maze of corridors and get Little Teadrinker out of there just as fast as possible.  Our crime?  Choosing to attend the annual Campusville West District police halloween haunted house...

Its no exaggeration to say that Americans take halloween very seriously.  The build-up has been going on for weeks now, with temporary costume shops popping up everywhere and frenzied exchanges on Campusvillemoms.com on subjects as diverse as where one can find a lobster costume for a 10 month-old and the most suitable ghoul outfit for a pregnant mom. One gets the feeling that babies born in Campusville General’s maternity ward this weekend will be delivered straight out of the womb into pumpkin suits.

Yet the irony of police here dedicating a whole building and a significant proportion of the local constabulary to scaring small children for two whole evenings (oh yes two), just as UK police face 20% cuts is hard to ignore.  Even when the public purse was flush, such an event would scandalise spendthrift Brits - you can see the headlines now: Cop-Shop Shuts for Fuzz Freak Show. Its interesting that in contrast, in the midst of a financial crisis in a culture where tax is widely regarded as legalised robbery, this particular bit of state sponsored family fun is not something that the community chooses to forgo.

Fall-ing Mama Grizzlies

Sweet, shiney toffee-apples abound, pumpkins sit on doorsteps and the leaves are luminous. Yet amidst Campusville’s clear, crisp autumnal air, there’s an unmistakable whiff. For as sure as Fall is upon us, the US political season has arrived. 

The mid-terms are in less than two weeks - campaign posters are popping up in front yards and every time Little Teadrinker and I pass by the mall, we’re accosted by canvassers - “Are you a Campusville voter ma'am?”.  The asker yesterday morning was a Green Party activist, keen to let me know about the threat to the town’s skyline from large billboards. But in spite of the wide eyed little face staring up at us from the stroller, he failed to make the obvious argument: that I should vote Green for the sake of my child’s future.

   

This is not the kind of mistake you'd expect these days from an activist from either of the two main parties.  Both Democrats and Republicans are keener than ever to appeal to voters’ maternal instincts. With their swing-voter tendencies, moms have long been a key target. But since Sarah Palin arrived on the scene in 2007 they have risen dramatically in the consciousness of US electioneers and spin doctors.  

On the Republican side, the approach has been less dog-whistle politics and more a loud-as-you-can-bare-it cat call.  Palin’s Mama Grizzly video  is a case in point. Speaking in San Diego last week she made a rallying call for all Grizzlies to “rise up on our hind legs and say no”. The party is now trying to capitalise on her fan-base with Palin endorsed Mama Grizzly nominees standing for office across the country.  But while their brand is unmistakable, their policies are pretty indistinct from the wider far-right/Tea Party movement within the Republican party.  They tend to be driven by Christian values (most are anti-choice) and are fiscally conservative (all oppose the Health Bill).  They provoke a mixture of devotion and scorn but it is not very clear how their demands will meet the needs of America’s great many over-worked, under-paid and currently financially insecure moms. NY Times columnist Maureen Dowd recently described them as “the ideal nihilistic cheerleaders for an angry electorate”.

The Democrats were late-comers to the momification of political marketing but have now cottoned on that while the Hilary Clintons and Nancy Pelosis of this world are  highly skilled champions of women’s policies, to win votes younger female faces are needed from outside the traditional political elite.  The most promising poster girl for this is the Democrat Congressional nominee for Virginia’s 1st district.  She is impressive 28 year old mother of two, entrepreneur and software designer Krystal Ball who has nobly fought off  sexist internet smears.  If she wins, she will be the youngest ever female congress woman. However, much of the Democrat effort to win female voters is based on slating the Palinites and even Ball seems shy about using her platform to tell a positive story about what has been achieved and where we must go next in terms of issues such as fair pay, education investment, health reform and maternity rights.     

Before the last leaves turn, we will know much more about whether all this mom-talk has really changed anything.  But looking at some of the polling data from the last few weeks, prospects do not look promising.   Three major points of note: 

• Beyond Palin herself, the “mama-grizzlies” are failing to win-over Republican women. For example, Fox has reported that in  in Connecticut, Delaware and Nevada, Palin-backed Republican female candidates are polling behind Democrat men. 

• Women across the spectrum are becoming disaffected with politics, more so than men. Since the mid 1980s women in the US have turned out to vote in greater proportions than men, and the gap in voter participation between male and female eligible voters reached its widest in 2008.  But the latest data from Gallup suggests all that might be about to change.  When asked about their enthusiasm to vote, US women now lag 13 percentage points behind men.

• The number of women in Congress looks likely to fall for the first time.  Independent analysts are predicting 5-10 fewer women, despite the Republican party putting up a record 128 female candidates.  Susan Page of USA Today explains that this is to do with voters, both male and female, turning away from the Democrats (who have greater female presence) and opting for what they believe to be a “safe” pair of male hands in these tough economic times. 

So, after all the noise it seems as if America may be no closer to achieving a political system which is genuinely responsive to the needs of women.  Disappointing? Yes. Inevitable? Maybe.  The idea that the huge appetite for change that existed in America in 2008 has crumbled under the weight of financial crisis is now widely accepted.  Just as Obama’s Rooseveltian moment has passed, so it could be argued has the moment for a new mom-politique. But this explanation on its own feels too fatalistic. Even in hard times, it must be possible for politicians to speak directly to the needs of moms, and women in general. But, unlike a lot of what we've seen, the approach needs to be serious and content driven. Eye-catching and insubstantial is fine for a toffee apple, but it won't do for women.

New York, New York

Hello from a sunny Union Square, Manhattan. We’ve come here for a couple of days as Mr TD has a conference on. Its the first time I’ve visited New York as a mum and I’ve found the city surprisingly family friendly. There’s an astonishing amount of stuff on for kids, crossing the road with a pram has proved far easier than doing so without one and a number of locals have even found time to stop and coo at Little Teadrinker. They are also positively brimming with parenting advice. So far this morning I’ve had: “Your baby needs to get oudda da sun”, “You awda cover her feet”, “Dat’s bread ain’t sowft enough for her”... Its at least reassuring to know that, despite American aversion to nanny statism, Hilary Clinton’s favourite African proverb has some currency round here: “It takes a village city to raise a child”.

Sadly, my enthusiasm for the city appears to shared by ever smaller proportions of those living here. Two million New Yorkers have left the State over the past decade and census data shows that New York leads the nation with net out-migration of 20 to 35 year olds. In other words, many are going at about the time they start to think about becoming parents.

What’s driving the exodus? The picture those I've spoken to paint feels familiar enough to me as a Londoner. People with kids leave Manhattan, and then New York looking for more space. They leave because childcare is expensive and they’re nervous about the public school system. And they leave because they want to be able to afford to spend less time with their nose to the grind stone, and more with their children.

A quick look at home economics suggests that the pressures on New York families could well be more accute than for their counterparts in London. The University of Washington, who calculate the New York “Self-Sufficiency Standard” every year, find that to get by with a basic standard of living a Brooklyn family with two adults, a school-aged child, and a preschooler, for example, needs to earn $68,288 a year ($5,691 a month).  That works out as $16.17 (£10.13) per hour for each adult and is more than what half the workers in the city earn.  The Greater London Authority’s London Living Wage, which is the London equivalent, is by contrast pegged at a mere £7.85 ($12.53) per hour. And of course, Londoners on low wages are likely to be able to access a far greater range of benefits and tax breaks. In the US, financial support for a family of this size doesn't generally kick in until they have an income of less than around $22k - less than one-third of the Self-Sufficiency Standard.

In the aftermath of "The Great Recession", prospects for turning this round don't look heartening. Job creation is a major New York Mid-term election issue, but from a glance at the campaign literature low wages and the high cost of living don’t even figure. Lets hope the political masters turn their attention to the issue before the rush out of New York becomes a stampeed...

Health, wealth & happiness

Little Teadrinker has had an ear infection this week initiating us into the wonders of US health care. Having taken our lead from Campusvillemoms.com, we chose a recommended pediatrician down the road who works from a primary care clinic. The clinic is open 7 days a week and has specialists from 35 fields, all available at short notice. An impressive array of educational toys and a tropical fish-tank kept us entertained in the waiting room, although within 5 minutes we were whisked away by a nurse in Mini Mouse scrubs for a temperature check and a weigh-in.  Next it was straight to Dr Kim for an unrushed and comprehensive examination.  After writing a prescription for antibiotics she typed up a detailed note containing a number of practical tips for managing the pain until the antibiotics kicked in. We were asked to come back in ten days for a follow up,  and booked in for comprehensive 9-month and 12-month check-ups.

It seems that for those able to access it, US healthcare provides a top-rate service. Contrasted with the sort of treatment we have been used to on the NHS, it is nothing less than luxurious. Obama’s Health Reform Bill, much of which came into force last week, promises millions of less well off American families access to such services for the first time.  

Stunning as it might seem to a Teadrinking Mom from the old country, the Bill is proving one of the most divisive in years. The latest polls show that over half of the country are opposed.  A majority believe that it will benefit the poor exclusively, and that they’ll pay the price in taxes. Two thirds don’t think it will benefit them at all.  Most shockingly, 1in 3 elderly people still claim to be influenced by the ludicrous socialist death panel accusations which were put about by some of the rightwing press and members of the Tea Party last year.  The Republicans say that if they do well enough in the November Mid-term elections they will repeal the Act.

Its tempting to put this down to a political culture that is instinctively more individualist and hostile to the state than we are used to in Europe, where the ethos of collective responsibility is generally an accepted wisdom. (See Seymour Lipset’s 1996 book on American Exceptionalism for a brilliant explanation of the roots of these values). Wasn’t Obama always going to struggle, as Bill Clinton did before him, with a Bill that prioritised state regulation as a means for helping the poor?

There must be more to it than this though.  After all, America voted for Obama only two years ago and healthcare reform was one of his stated priorities.  The proposed reforms are small fry compared to welfarist policies successfully sold to the American electorate in the past such as the introduction of social security. 

What’s more, the Democrats have made a good crack of ensuring that the reforms benefit the many and not just the few.  Their analysis shows that the estimated $940 billion outlay will be more than recovered over 10 years through a package of measures in the bill, although some contest their figures.  And there will be a serious clamp down on the most ruthless practices of insurance companies that anybody can fall prey to. No longer will US parents have to endure sleepless nights because they can’t get cover for a daughter with a minor long-term health issue, or can’t foot the bill for a chronically ill son who’s been dropped by an insurer who deems them too costly.  

A quick Campusville dinner party poll reveals a good deal of consensus about what’s really going on: the Democrats are failing to get their message across to “the squeezed middle”.  A plethora of books have come out on the subject in the last couple of months penned by US politico-celebrities such as Arianna Huffington, Robert Reich and Joan Williams.  The thinking is that majority in the middle of the income distribution, and most particularly the white lower-middle/working class, have seen their lifestyles and opportunities decline over the last 30 years and are now being pushed to the limit by the economic crisis.  They are in no mood for listening to reasoned arguments by mainstream politicians, least of all Democrats. 

A little more scrutiny is needed before we accept this theory.  Nonetheless, it is unusual for Americans to make a class analysis - more often they seem to think of class as a quaint British habit, that has no meaning the Land of the Free.  The fact that they are arguing now that a significant class fault-line has emerged seems worth focusing on. If they are right, the Health Reform Bill won’t be the last we see of it.  One for Teadrinking Mom to return to...

Motherhood & Apple Pie

Little Teadrinker has just made it successfully through her first full week in daycare.  After 8 months at home together it feels like a wrench, but looking at the moms around Campusville I'm reminded of how lucky we've been. The UK maternity deal may be average by European standards but it wipes the floor with the measly twelve weeks of unpaid job protected leave on offer to American women (and that’s thanks only to the relatively recent efforts of the Clinton Administration).  The US is the only Western country where women have no statutory right to paid maternity leave.  

You'd be forgiven for assuming that America's less appealing national traits are rooted in this epic failure to support parent/baby bonding in the critical first year of life.  But it doesn't seem so. According to the Professor teaching the sophomore psychology course I’ve been auditing, around 2/3 of children are “securely attached” – i.e. when stressed they go to their primary care giver for reassurance - and this is consistent across Europe and the US.    

So how come US children seem unaffected by such early separation?  A recent US study suggests that going back to work brings benefits to income, relationships and mental health that outweigh the negative effects *. That sounds like apple pie, but I can't help thinking there must be more to it.  A couple of features of family life on Campusville give pause for thought...

First, the moms here hug their babies tight.  Baby-sling wearing is such big business that the European designer pram fetish seems to have passed many by. I've not seen a single Bugaboo, or for that matter a single newborn in a pram. According to the New York Times there are now at least 30 companies promoting designer baby carriers in the US, and between 2006 and 2008 sales of carriers rose 43% . 

Second, the women here pump like daemons.  By the time they go back to work many have produced enough breastmilk to fill all the teacups in New England.  But it doesn't stop there. As of this year, women's rights to pump are protected by Federal law and increasing numbers of employers have “mothers' rooms” specifically designed for the purpose.

Third, the ready supply of low-wage migrant labour here seems to mean that better off families have their pick of talented and dedicated nannies. Latinos are unsurprisingly the most common - hiring someone who speaks Spanish to your children all day is seen as a bonus - but recently Tibetans have been gaining popularity.  And crucially, its not uncommon amongst the nanny hiring class to appoint a nanny before the child’s been born, allowing the baby to get familiar and  form attachment from day one.

So women here, like women in adverse circumstances around the world, do find a way to make it work for them and their children. And there are no doubt things that early returners in Europe could learn from their US counterparts. But personally speaking, I'd take nine months maternity pay over office pumping any day.

*Note that this study looks at the effects of going back to work in the first year for American Moms - i.e. Moms who do not have an alternative of paid maternity leave available.  It does not offer any rationale for cutting UK maternity benefits in case you were wondering Mr Osbourne...