Friday, November 16, 2007 - Posts
-
sponsorship
If a woman's stressed during pregnancy will she not have a son? A piece in the new issue of the Economist suggests a connection between maternal stress and a baby's gender. Here's the theory: First World women are 5 percent more likely to have a male child than their counterparts in developing countries, but that gap's been closing lately. That could be because women under stress are more likely to give birth to girls. A few studies have shown that women are more likely to have girls when they conceive in war zones, right after natural disasters, or after the loss of a loved one. One tempting bit of association: Fewer baby boys were born to New York City mothers who got pregnant the week after the Sept. 11 attacks.
I wonder how this fits into our discussion on evo pysch. A Danish scientist who's researched the effects of chronic stress on reduced male birth rates (as opposed to stress brought on by a catastrophic event), suggests that the reasons for stressed mothers having fewer boys "might be adaptive" because
the chances are that a daughter who reaches adulthood will find a mate and thus produce grandchildren. A son is a different matter. Healthy, strapping sons are likely to produce lots of grandchildren, by several women-or would have done in the hunter-gatherer societies in which most human evolution took place. Weak ones would be marginalised and maybe even killed in the cut and thrust of male competition. If a mother's stress adversely affects the development of her fetus (as it is likely to do) then selectively aborting boys, rather than wasting time and resources on bringing them to term, would make evolutionary sense.
The "cut and thrust of male competition?" I hear echoes of Dana's monkey-men.
-
sponsorship
Dahlia,
I might not be the best person to answer your question, since I can't picture myself supporting Hillary regardless of what she's calling herself, but I agree that it's hard to imagine how dropping "Rodham" can help her. Jill is right that feminists might overlook the switch as a concession to the greater good of getting a woman into the Oval Office, and that this latest flip flop DOES come across as another example of the calculating and triangulating for which she is so often criticized.
I agree—if I read it right; it was indeed an odd column—with Cary Tennis' assertion that women can choose whatever name they want. (For the record, I happily took my husband's name.) And in this post-feminist era, we shouldn't apologize for reserving the right to stereotypically change our minds, like Sarah Michelle Gellar Prinze. But Hillary's repeated flip-flopping reminds me of what Emily B. wrote about John McCain's "B-word" gaffe. It's a move that tells us a lot about her. Just like in this damning video John Edwards put out after the last debate, when Hillary was caught contradicting herself on Iraq and Social Security and those darn driver's licenses, she changes her very identity depending on which way the political winds are blowing.
-
sponsorship
I can't imagine Clinton's name change really made a difference, Dahlia, though older opinion polls guessing whether it would seem to show otherwise. I suppose Clinton's thinking could be as follows: Feminists who find it backward for a woman to take her husband's name, with no retention of their maiden name, could likely still be Hillary supporters regardless, simply because they're in favor of a woman president. More traditional women who believe the woman should take her husband's name could be swayed by this statement of family unity. But it seems silly to me to think that anyone could be swayed by it as a statement of family unity, given how often Clinton has flip-flopped on her own name. Whether or not to take a husband's name is a question fraught with issues for women--I know very few who haven't spent some time grappling with how to handle this identity change. Speaking as a double-name non-hyphenated adopter like the former Hillary Rodham Clinton, that, to me, seemed like the best compromise for retaining my identity as Jill Hunter, but also allowed me to adopt a family name that my future children would share with my husband and me. Obviously it hasn't proven to be enough of a middle ground for Clinton. Does anyone know what her legal name is? Is it Hillary Rodham Clinton? She hasn't legally changed it each time she's publicly "changed" it, I'm assuming. That might more aptly reflect her true feelings on the subject.
-
sponsorship
I think my husband would rather have a CD, Dahlia, though he would certainly appreciate the cost of a symbolic gift. (Think of the savings!) Rodham or Clinton, Hillary's been called worse, right? And that was just this week. Heckuvan answer she gave on the gender card question at last night's debate, I have to say. Though if it were my first trip to town, I'd wonder why Joe Biden knew the most and said the least; candidates with nothing to lose are always so appealing. And I had to laugh when John Edwards said it was no good replacing a bunch of corporate Republicans with a bunch of corporate Democrats - and CNN's Wolf Blitzer cut in to say, "Senator Clinton, I'm going to let you respond to that.''
-
sponsorship
God, what did we do before there was Feministing?
Today they point the way to funny little item about Sarah Michelle Gellar taking the last name of her husband, Freddie Prinze Jr., as a five-year wedding gift. Yikes. Within minutes, I stumbled onto this odd column by Cary Tennis at Salon on the same subject—the feminist message behind taking your spouse's name. (And no, I was not cheating on you Emily ... ). All of which re-raised a question I haven’t heard answered to my satisfaction: When the Rodham fell out of Hillary Clinton’s name, did it help? Was it an anniversary gift to Bill? I doubt it.
Join the Fray: our reader discussion forum
What did you think of this article?