Anthrocrapologists

"There are certain ideas that are so preposterous that only a professor could come up with them." --Professor Anderson, M.D., Harvard University

And now for my anthropology rant:

My professor said something at the start of class the other day that struck me as true: psychology doesn't take any theory seriously unless it is based on studies which count things. Psychology loves counting. It pretends to be a hard science this way.

Anthropologists, he said, don't try to force fake measurement. They observe and philosophize, as is natural in the social sciences.

Alright, I said. I'm partial to making fun of psychologists myself.

BUT then he began his lecture on attachment. He told the class that attachment to the mother is universal (I wrote a paper on this last semester and concluded that we need a lot more evidence before we can say such a thing). Then he said (essentially) that feminists are responsible for making mothers work 40 hours a week and children who are in daycare will be scarred for life. And that the mother should stay home with her children until they are at least 2. And that our society is going to hell because we all live in small families with very few strong bonds and no support. And that, basically, daycare is ruining America.

The woman sitting next to me and I spent the entire class challenging everything he said.

First of all, psychologists have completed prospective, follow-up studies a few years long of children in daycare. They found that in a high quality daycare (which poor people who work the most don't get, but that's another story), a child is no worse off. What is more important than daycare/staying home is the actual RELATIONSHIP the child has with its PARENT. My professor was basing his hypotheses on absolutely nothing but "gut instinct".

Second of all, a true feminist believes that a woman should do whatever she sees as best for herself and her family. Stay home? Work? Feminism is about CHOICE.

Third of all, fathers or grandparents who care for a child under 2 are just as good as a mother. The child does not need titties. The child needs love, affection, attention and consistency. AND children can benefit from strong relationships with daycare workers as well as mom and dad.

Finally, just because most of humanity lives in extended families and we live in nuclear families does NOT mean we are "worse off". In America, family is who we choose to be family. My aunts who were not technically my aunts helped raise me. My parents' friends were a lot like aunts and uncles. Teachers were mentors to me, I had a strong, consistent relatoinship with one particular daycare worker when I was small and I had an entire branch of family members at my CHURCH. My professor was acting as though the lack of extended family has left a void in American family life. HUMANITY DOES NOT ALLOW VOIDS. When family disappears our affect hunger means that we seek out others to fill the hole they left. If we do not stop needing relationships, we do not stop creating them when needed.

When Professor McSmartSmart started talking about whether or not women are "naturally" better prepared to be nurturing parents, I cleared my throat, raised my hand, and said, "Ultimately, why does it matter? If you admit that we can never be specific enough about human biology to base public policy on it, who cares?", he actually replied "It is an interesting question and it is interesting to try to answer interesting questions."

Yeah.

When he said it was unusual for a man to be involved in his child's birth and that studies showing sharp increases in oxytocin when a man sees his child born were probably only following upper-middle class men, I just tuned out. LALALALALALALALALA.

I learned something today. I learned that psychologists may often try to measure the unmeasurable, but anthropologists get to say whatever they want based on whatever limited and biased knowledge they claim to have.