What I'm Watching: 'The Flat'

Recently I signed up to Netflix, eight hundred years after everyone else as usual, to expand my treasure trove of foreign films. I'm glad I did because one of the first films I watched was this brilliant documentary from Israel "The Flat". The director, Arnon Goldfinger, uncovers the secrets of his grandmother's life as he and his family clear out her Tel Aviv flat after her death. 

As his grandmother was a Jewish woman who had lived in Berlin in the 1920s and 30s, her life inevitably turns out to be rather interesting. Goldfinger deftly traces back through his grandparents' early lives in Germany and in particular a trip they took around Palestine in the 1930s with the distinctly  Prussian-sounding Leopold von Mildenstein and his wife.

It turns out - spoiler alert - that his grandparents were in fact very good friends with the von Mildensteins and even remained in touch with them after the war. Even after his grandmother's own mother was murdered at Auschwitz. 

Their friendship seems impossible to fathom to our modern sensibilities. Goldfinger goes in search of the von Mildenstein family in Germany, near Wuppertal, and tracks down their daughter, now elderly, and her husband. She is well aware of the friendship between their two sets of parents and is very welcoming towards him. He is a little hesitant, however, given what he knows about his great-grandmother's fate and the uncertainty about von Mildenstein's activities during the war.

There follows an excruciatingly awkward scene where Arnon Goldfinger and his mother try to make small talk over some 'Sekt' in Frau von Mildenstein's back garden and at the same point bring up the inevitably dreaded question of 'what did your (grand)father do during the war?' Toe-curling prevarication ensued from the von Mildenstein side.

It was an amusing scene for me to watch because most Germans I know are refreshingly blunt, happy to be very frank when discussing any issue. They do not stand on ceremony. It was unusual to see Germans pussy-footing around an issue, speaking in platitudes and allusions. 

This spoke to the awkwardness of the topic of course. It turned out that no-one could give Goldfinger the straight answer he wanted and so he turned to the Bundesarchiv, the German national archive to dig deeper on von Mildenstein's background. There he found out that, contrary to what his daughter knew (or claimed to know?), von Mildenstein had in fact been employed with Goebbels' Propaganda Ministry throughout the war. To what extent he was a devoted Nazi remained unclear but the discovery was an emotional one for the director.

Why had his grandparents remained friends with an employee of Goebbels? Why had they continued to take trips to Germany and Austria from Israel even after the war? Goldfinger's grandparents had clearly been very well integrated into the German bourgeoisie. They also left Germany relatively early, around 1935, as voluntary emigrants to Palestine. Given that background, they would not have witnessed the extremes of anti-Semitism unleashed by the Nazis, only the earlier years of insidious prejudice and ill-feeling. Germany would have been their home as much as it was the home of Leopold von Mildenstein.

At the end of the film, I felt sorry for the director's grandparents. They cut a sad figure in their desperation to retain some link to Germany. It also was a reminder of the sad reality that many Jewish people in Germany before the Nazi era were as German as their Christian and secular neighbors, speaking only German and following German cultural practices. Kurt Tuchler, Goldfinger's grandfather, had served his country in World War One, like many Jewish men of his generation.

The director's family seemed to have entirely suppressed any personal experience of the Holocaust, never even mentioning that his great-grandmother had died in the gas chambers, for example. This seems to be a common experience with populations that suffer trauma. There is a complex psychology attached to suffering. It becomes a source of shame to have been a victim and so suffering is repressed and not talked about.

Typically only the third or fourth generations are ready to confront the suffering in the family's history   and find out the family secrets. Unfortunately, by then the generation that has the most secrets to tell has passed on. 

News From Across the Pond...

On my usual lunchtime read of the New York Times, I was confronted with the following front page:

The center headline announces the birth of the first child of the daughter of a party planner and the scion of an obscure German duchy. News of this baby's arrival has been much anticipated even here in the US, although with not quite the level of hysteria typical of the UK media. 

Call me a curmudgeon, but I find it a little disappointing that a country as large as the United States that is founded on republican (small 'r'!) principles takes such an interest in the 'Royal baby' story. They did kick out the baby's ancestor for very good reasons 250 years ago, after all. Celebrity baby stories are always good click-bait, however, so we can assume that the free market is more of a motivator here than any change in American political sentiments. 

What should be of greater interest to all Americans is the story to the left of the 'Royal baby' story on the New York Times front page, 'Location Seen As Barrier in Climbing the Income Ranks'. It details a new study that reveals how important location can be in determining economic outcomes for low-income Americans. In the poorest parts of the United States, such as Atlanta, social mobility is lower and being born into the lowest income percentiles more or less guarantees future poverty too.

The study provides further evidence confirming that the United States is one of the most unequal developed countries in the world. Other developed countries such as Denmark and Canada have better social mobility than the USA. It is interesting to note, however, that within the United States itself there are pockets of 'Danish' or 'Canadian' equality with the Midwest of the country and wealthier metropolitan areas providing more opportunities for upward mobility than poorer parts of the US. 

This makes sense because when jobs are scarce nepotism tends to come into play. Growing up in Ireland with a 25% unemployment rate at times, the only way to get a good job was to know someone. In an increasingly competitive economy, this phenomenon seems to be more widespread than ever. In the same edition of the New York Times, an opinion piece 'Who's Your Daddy?', points out that a more unequal society becomes a vicious circle eventually. As life becomes more and more competitive those who enjoy relative privilege in the top quarter of earners feel unwilling to make way for the less fortunate. It becomes more acceptable to engage in nepotism and shy away from hiring unknowns.

The writer gives the example of Rolling Stone's Jann Wenner appointing his son Gus to be head of Rolling Stone magazine's online presence. At the ripe old age of 22. News of this kind of aristocratic-style appointment based on little more than primogeniture are disappointing. At least we still live in a society where business magnates like Rupert Murdoch and Jann Wenner, who set their sons up to inherit, are still obliged to explain their decision-making to shareholders and the public. Also, there are still examples out there of fantastically talented young people, like Tavi Gevinson, who have achieved success on their own steam. 

Nonetheless, if the economy keeps going in this direction, maybe it won't be long until Americans find themselves reading about endless hype about the birth of a Zuckerberg or Parker baby, with the event hailed as securing the future of an hereditary business empire and the sale of Facebook-Birth memorabilia that gullible subjects citizens can spend their hard-earned dollars to collect.

Celebrities Playing House

Every so often, a wealthy, successful woman comes out with some clanger on 'traditional' gender roles, guaranteed to drive up page views and click throughs and traffic. Recently we had this gem of wisdom from the multi-millionaire model, Miranda Kerr:

"If you're really an alpha female, you don't allow [your partner] to have the space to feel like the man in the relationship. Maybe I am too traditional, but men feel important when you ask for their help, instead of thinking you can do it all on your own." 

To be charitable here, we have to recognize that models are not known for their intellectual credentials. They are paid to look good, after all, not for their brainpower.

Women like Miranda Kerr do have a high profile, however, and serve as a role model for some misguided souls. Other rich and successful women even trade off the idea that they play a traditional role in their home lives, despite their high profiles. Beyoncé has controversially pitched her most recent world tour under her married name, 'Mrs Carter', confounding feminist commentators. 

Gwyneth Paltrow is another example of someone who has enhanced her personal brand with appeals to 'traditional' values. She likes to portray herself as a homely wife and mother, having dinner ready for her husband when he is home, as in this quote from a profile in Harper's Bazaar in 2011:

"She... remain[s] positive about the relatively traditional role she plays as a wife and mother, with her husband's career commitments currently taking precedence over hers. "I have little kids in school. I want to maintain my marriage and my family, so I have to be here when he comes home.' "

Does anyone really believe that Gwyneth Paltrow lives the life of a 'traditional' wife and mother? Her filming schedule -  the three Iron Man movies and a number of independent films in the last few years alone - is not compatible with a 9-5 schedule and neither is her musician husband's touring schedule.

It begs the question why these women feel the need to be so vocal about the so-called 'traditional' values that they follow in their personal lives. These are successful women in their own right with high profiles and personal fortunes built on years of hard work.

To me, I think a lot of these pronouncements come from guilt. None of us feel like we are doing the best job we can do as parents. If you are a movie star or celebrity, it's inevitable that you will need to rely on childcare and tutors and service personnel to maintain your home life and raise your children.

These women, like many career women, for some reason feel like they have to apologize for this. And so they 'play house' for the public, pretending to maintain normal home lives just like the rest of us regular schmoes.

What they do not understand, however, is that regular schmoes are actually working and sacrificing time with their families because they have to. For most people, having dinner on the table for a husband or giving their partners space to 'be a man' is the least of their worries. Most people have no help at all and work long hours to just make ends meet.

It is ironic that when celebrities say these things about maintaining their marriages and what they think is a normal family life, they are only revealing how far removed they are from the concerns of their fan-base.

Instead of trying to espouse what they think are normal family values, these women should instead be thankful that they are wealthy in their own right, independent of their husbands, have successful careers and can afford all the help they need to make things run smoothly at home. In doing so, they are living feminist values that many other women cannot afford. Maybe that explains why they in turn are so cavalier about those very same values, taking their freedom and good fortune for granted.

Newsflash: Talking To Babies Makes Them Brainy

Parental talk is back in the media. This 'Lexicon Valley' podcast from Slate talks about a 1995 study by researchers at the University of Kansas that studied the home environments of 42 families, ranging from professional, upper-income families to families living on welfare. The findings of the study, carried out over ten years, demonstrated that the upper-income children developed a much wider vocabulary than the lower-income children and that this gap in cognitive skills was set before the age of three.

The researchers noted four key differences between the upper- and lower-income family environments:

1. The upper-class families used better vocabulary with more complex words and usage of those words than the lower-income families

2. Praise and positive reinforcement was common among upper-class parents

3. Upper-class parents were more likely to ask their children questions and give them choices to facilitate decision-making rather than simply ordering them to do something e.g. 'It's cold outside. Do you think you need your jacket?' rather than 'Put your jacket on'.

4. Professional / upper-class families were much more likely to respond to and continue a conversational thread initiated by the child, rather than only speaking to the child on their own terms.

Upper-class parenting talk 'suggested a culture concerned with names, relationships and recall, with symbols and analytic problem-solving' whereas lower-class parenting talk was full of imperatives, prohibitions and parent-initiated talk, 'suggesting a culture concerned with established customs, with obedience, politeness and conformity', according to the study's authors.

So much for that. When I looked into the details of the study (I can't actually read it as it's $70.00 to buy online...), it struck me that the sample size is pretty small and the data does not tell us anything earth-shattering. I'm not sure why the Lexicon Valley guys are surprised that the study didn't get wide coverage at the time. It's a pretty small study from a small university, hardly a nationwide cohort study with vast policy implications.

Of course it makes sense that talking to your baby will improve his / her mind and most of us try to make the effort to do that as much as possible. If you have a lot of children, however, and limited resources  due to your 'lower socio-economic status' aka being broke then you will simply have less energy to do this. Upper-class children will always have an advantage over lower-income children as their parents have far more resources and support. Vocabulary is only a small slice of that story.

Piecemeal projects, like this Providence, RI scheme that I have previously been skeptical of on this blog, will not make a huge difference. The real way to try to improve preschool children's cognitive skills outside of the home is to offer subsidized or government-run childcare that is affordable for lower-income households. Instead of paying lip-service to the stay-at-home mom as a social ideal, politicians should start to offer struggling parents, many of whom are low-income single mothers, the kind of support they and their children need: good-quality childcare. Why not make preschool something that all children can access, not just the children of the rich who probably need it the least?

Does Motherhood Make You Poor?

Stephanie Coontz raises the valid point in this op-ed from the New York Times that, while women have made significant gains in the workplace since the 1960s, there is still an earnings gap and that earnings gap largely falls on the shoulders of mothers. Women without children are almost at earnings parity with men by now. Motherhood imposes significant costs on women.

So what? you might say. Having children is a choice. If you choose to start a family, something has to give. You work more flexible hours. You can't travel as much. You become less committed to your career as children and their concerns take over. Isn't that just obvious?

It's obvious because of the way we understand motherhood. It's assumed in our society that when women become mothers they have to sacrifice something: their earning potential, their time, their bodies, their pelvic floors at the very least. It is not questioned that a man can become a father without much sacrifice on his part. Biology has programmed us to accept that women bear the brunt of the cost of reproduction because that is how Homo Sapiens happens to procreate. We're not plants or bees (more's the pity).

This has created a world where motherhood can mean the end of a woman's career while fatherhood has no effect on a man's career or can in some cases even increase his status and earning potential. We accept that as a fact of life, something 'obvious', caused by the woman's 'choice' to have a baby. 

Biology is destiny then, certainly according to certain male decision-makers like Paul Tudor Jones, who caused offense with his recent comments about women's inability to focus on their careers once they become mothers. There is a grain of truth in his words in that the biological aspects of being pregnant, giving birth and nurturing a highly dependent child for a year or more can be overwhelming. What's questionable is the way he assumes, as many people do, that these few years of intense biological investment somehow determine a woman's path for life. In this view of things, motherhood is a transformative, all-or-nothing state for women whereas fatherhood is just incidental for men.

This is the kind of prejudice that pushes women who become mothers into poverty while their non-parent peers maintain their career trajectories. Motherhood can be all-consuming but it doesn't have to be. It depends on the child, the child's age and the mother. The early intense years don't last forever (thank Christ). The expectation that motherhood will change a woman's priorities and limit her ambitions can in fact be more damaging than motherhood itself.

Gay Married Terrorists Are Saving America!

This clip of Fox News dinosaurs experiencing some kind of male hysteria (testeseria?) about female breadwinners is very amusing. What could these boys have their boxers in such a twist about? A Pew Research study showing that four out of ten US households now have a female breadwinner. Their comments reveal a deep rage at the idea that almost half of American households are no longer  economically dependent on men. 

'We're watching society dissolve around us!!!'

'Something is going terribly wrong in American society - and it's hurting our children!'

'The male typically is the dominant role... the female is a complementary role. It's bad for kids and bad for marriages. It's tearing us apart!!'

'Bottom line: it could undermine our social order!!'

(Exclamation points added to convey testeserical tones in which these statements were delivered.)

Erick Erickson's reaction is the most revealing, with his weird belief that nature has ordained a certain order to male/female relations that this trend of female breadwinners is turning on its head. That one is as old as the hills. It must be wonderful to have such certainty that you belong at the head of a structure, playing a dominant role and that 'science' has ordained it to be so. 

Nobody go telling this guy about bees now! Or birds or bears! Or even large primates, for that matter, who live in groups where, yes, there is a dominant male but where the rearing of the young takes place in the group and the group as a whole forage for food and resources.

What is possibly ordained by nature for humans is a hunter-gatherer scenario where men and women live in a tribal group of closely related people. The children are cared for in a group setting and resources are sought and shared within the group. The modern equivalent of this 'traditional' way of life would be homeless people who move from place to place to find food, dumpster diving and 'grazing' at food banks. I hope this Erickson guy is prepared to give up his home and cooked meals and don a pair of fingerless gloves and a dumpster diver's satchel so he can stop destroying America and start living a traditional way of life that is ordained by science. It would certainly help him to lose a few pounds anyway.

I have some good news for the Fox talking heads, however. A recent article in The Atlantic magazine shows that one group in American society is fighting to save traditional values: gay married couples. 

In debating this issue, Slate podcast commentators note that Mundy's research showed that there are more stay-at-home parents among gay couples than among straight couples. Whether it's because gay men tend to be higher earners and so can afford a single-income household or whether it's just because gay couples feel less oppressed by the housewife stereotype than straight couples do, this is a growing trend among gay married couples. My guess is that it might be due to the fact that many gay couples adopt their children and having a stay-at-home parent helps their chances in being considered as adoptive parents.

As Hanna Rosin comments: 'We're choosing the conservative, traditional path and gay people are finding a way to make it cool for the rest of us'. 

So men of Fox news: take heart! There are still 'traditional' marriages in America. They just might not seem that way to you at first glance.

What I'm Listening To: 'Walking Across America'

This American Life is one of my favorite podcasts. Every Monday morning, I look forward to loading it up on our Apple TV and finding out what new stories Ira Glass and his team will have for me. 

I discovered This American Life completely by accident before I ever moved here. It was one of the top podcasts on iTunes so one time I downloaded a few episodes out of curiosity. When we had just moved into our new house and had no internet connection yet, I listened to an episode while setting our new kitchen to rights and was instantly hooked. It was the slow storytelling that drew me in and the sheer quirkiness of some of the stories featured. Most of all, however, it was the slow pace of the show, the fact that every story was given its chance to unfold as it needed to without the pressure of advertising and soundbites and zingers and driving web traffic. 

Now that I actually live in America, my appreciation of 'This American Life' has changed as I can set it into its cultural context. It turns out that Ira Glass is not a twenty-something guy doing a low-key public radio gig, as I thought when I first heard the show, but is something of a left-wing cultural icon. It turns out that NPR is a national cliche for being right-on and wholesome, although you could kind of tell that from the content of the show already.

I have noticed recently that TAL has been running more repeats or re-hashing old episodes and splicing them together with newer material so that does make me wonder if the show is being affected by budget cuts or if this was always the case and I'm just noticing now because I've been listening to the podcast regularly for a couple of years.

This week's episode, Hit the Road, was a great example of how good This American Life can be when it airs fresh material from new writers, however.

The first part was dedicated to a project by a new writer, Andrew Forsthoefel, who decided that, at 23, he would walk across America instead of continuing in his graduate job. What's interesting about his journey is that he spends his time listening to people's stories along the way and gathering their memories of their own lives. He wore a sign 'Walking to Listen' on his back throughout his journey. Something about this story really appealed to me. It had a very Studs Terkel feel to it, focusing on individual experiences to build a picture of local history. 

The whole project is available here with videos and photos of his trip. Forsthoefel is also planning a book about this journey and, I say, more power to him.