
500 Days of Summer & Pancake Break-Up
A great article by Sarah Fernandez
Wedding season is upon us and it seems that every bride, new and old, has a horror story to tell about people's children at their weddings. While some people happily include children in their big day, others choose not to, and it's important as parents that we all remember that it's the bride and groom's day. Here are a few etiquette tips to remember when it comes to children and weddings.
Everyone has their own vision for their wedding, and it's important to remember that we are their guests. It is an honor to be invited to be a part of their special day, and the bride and groom have a right to set the terms of their wedding. It may be a giant family affair with many generations or an elegant black tie event, but it's not our decision. As parents, we often have to make tough choices, and sometimes that choice will have to be to skip a wedding if we aren't comfortable leaving our children home, or have one parent stay home. But our burden should not be put back onto the bride and groom. I like to think of weddings as a good excuse for a date night. And even when we were recently invited as an entire family to one of my best friend's weddings, we left the kids at home and took our first vacation without them. I didn't have to worry about anything but having a good time and it was bliss.
IF THERE’S ONE thing I learned in graduate school, it’s that the poet Philip Larkin was right. (“They fuck you up, your mum and dad, / They may not mean to, but they do.”) At the time, I was a new mom with an infant son, and I’d decided to go back to school for a degree in clinical psychology. With baby on the brain and term papers to write, I couldn’t ignore the barrage of research showing how easy it is to screw up your kids. Of course, everyone knows that growing up with “Mommy Dearest” produces a very different child from one raised by, say, a loving PTA president who has milk and homemade cookies waiting after school. But in that space between Joan Crawford and June Cleaver, where most of us fall, it seemed like a lot could go wrong in the kid-raising department.
As a parent, I wanted to do things right. But what did “right” mean? One look in Barnes & Noble’s parenting section and I was dizzy: child-centered, collaborative, or RIE? Brazelton, Spock, or Sears?
The good news, at least according to Donald Winnicott, the influential English pediatrician and child psychiatrist, was that you didn’t have to be a perfect mother to raise a well-adjusted kid. You just had to be, to use the term Winnicott coined, a “good-enough mother.” I was also relieved to learn that we’d moved beyond the concept of the “schizophrenogenic mother,” who’s solely responsible for making her kid crazy. (The modern literature acknowledges that genetics—not to mention fathers—play a role in determining mental health.) Still, in everything we studied—from John Bowlby’s “attachment theory” to Harry Harlow’s monkeys, who clung desperately to cloth dummies when separated from their mothers—the research was clear: fail to “mirror” your children, or miss their “cues,” or lavish too little affection on them, and a few decades later, if they had the funds and a referral, they would likely end up in one of our psychotherapy offices, on the couch next to a box of tissues, recounting the time Mom did this and Dad didn’t do that, for 50 minutes weekly, sometimes for years.
Our main job as psychotherapists, in fact, was to “re-parent” our patients, to provide a “corrective emotional experience” in which they would unconsciously transfer their early feelings of injury onto us, so we could offer a different response, a more attuned and empathic one than they got in childhood.
At least, that was the theory. Then I started seeing patients.
MY FIRST SEVERAL patients were what you might call textbook. As they shared their histories, I had no trouble making connections between their grievances and their upbringings. But soon I met a patient I’ll call Lizzie. Imagine a bright, attractive 20-something woman with strong friendships, a close family, and a deep sense of emptiness. She had come in, she told me, because she was “just not happy.” And what was so upsetting, she continued, was that she felt she had nothing to be unhappy about. She reported that she had “awesome” parents, two fabulous siblings, supportive friends, an excellent education, a cool job, good health, and a nice apartment. She had no family history of depression or anxiety. So why did she have trouble sleeping at night? Why was she so indecisive, afraid of making a mistake, unable to trust her instincts and stick to her choices? Why did she feel “less amazing” than her parents had always told her she was? Why did she feel “like there’s this hole inside” her? Why did she describe herself as feeling “adrift”?
I was stumped. Where was the distracted father? The critical mother? Where were the abandoning, devaluing, or chaotic caregivers in her life?
As I tried to make sense of this, something surprising began happening: I started getting more patients like her. Sitting on my couch were other adults in their 20s or early 30s who reported that they, too, suffered from depression and anxiety, had difficulty choosing or committing to a satisfying career path, struggled with relationships, and just generally felt a sense of emptiness or lack of purpose—yet they had little to quibble with about Mom or Dad.
Instead, these patients talked about how much they “adored” their parents. Many called their parents their “best friends in the whole world,” and they’d say things like “My parents are always there for me.” Sometimes these same parents would even be funding their psychotherapy (not to mention their rent and car insurance), which left my patients feeling both guilty and utterly confused. After all, their biggest complaint was that they had nothing to complain about!
At first, I’ll admit, I was skeptical of their reports. Childhoods generally aren’t perfect—and if theirs had been, why would these people feel so lost and unsure of themselves? It went against everything I’d learned in my training.
But after working with these patients over time, I came to believe that no florid denial or distortion was going on. They truly did seem to have caring and loving parents, parents who gave them the freedom to “find themselves” and the encouragement to do anything they wanted in life. Parents who had driven carpools, and helped with homework each night, and intervened when there was a bully at school or a birthday invitation not received, and had gotten them tutors when they struggled in math, and music lessons when they expressed an interest in guitar (but let them quit when they lost that interest), and talked through their feelings when they broke the rules, instead of punishing them (“logical consequences” always stood in for punishment). In short, these were parents who had always been “attuned,” as we therapists like to say, and had made sure to guide my patients through any and all trials and tribulations of childhood. As an overwhelmed parent myself, I’d sit in session and secretly wonder how these fabulous parents had done it all.
Until, one day, another question occurred to me: Was it possible these parents had done too much?
Here I was, seeing the flesh-and-blood results of the kind of parenting that my peers and I were trying to practice with our own kids, precisely so that they wouldn’t end up on a therapist’s couch one day. We were running ourselves ragged in a herculean effort to do right by our kids—yet what seemed like grown-up versions of them were sitting in our offices, saying they felt empty, confused, and anxious. Back in graduate school, the clinical focus had always been on how the lack of parental attunement affects the child. It never occurred to any of us to ask, what if the parents are too attuned? What happens to those kids?
Species: Labroides dimidiatus
Habitat: laying down the law on coral reefs throughout the Indo-Pacific
If someone has committed a serious crime, most people agree that they should be punished more harshly than if they had committed only a minor misdemeanour. That way, people will be deterred from doing anything really heinous, like molesting children or talking at the theatre.
But this idea that the punishment should fit the crime isn't universal. Humans practise it, and some other animals also punish their fellows for bad behaviour, but until now none has ever been seen systematically varying the severity of the punishment.
Now it turns out that one animal does punish just like a human: the bluestreak cleaner wrasse. But their carefully nuanced punishment of "cheats" is really an elaborate plot to oppress their females.
These tropical fish are one of many species of cleaner fish that remove parasites such as lice from much larger fish. The clients get a valuable service and the cleaner fish get food. Local fish may visit the cleaners every day, and even wide-ranging beasts like sharks will occasionally drop in.
Bluestreak cleaner wrasse have small home territories called cleaning stations. Each male maintains a harem of around 16 females dotted around his territory, who help him service his clients.
These clients recognise cleaner wrasse by their small size and the blue stripe running along their sides. The cleaner wrasse stroke their clients to cement the relationship and ensure that they don't attack them.
But the wrasse have a serious conflict of interest. Although they will eat parasites off their clients, they actually prefer to eat the clients' mucus. As a result, they are tempted to take a bite out of the client – despite the risk oflosing its custom, or even being attacked.
Nichola Raihani of the ZSL Institute of Zoology in London and colleagues reported last year that male bluestreaks punish their females if they bite a client. Deprived of future foraging opportunities, the males chase the females around and try to bite them. In response, the females refrain from further misbehaviour.
Raihani has now found that the males chase offending females for longer when their crime is more serious. She presented captive pairs with artificial "clients" – actually plexiglas plates – that carried two pieces of prawn, which the wrasse love, and either four or eight fish flakes, which they don't like as much. If either fish ate the prawn the plate was taken away, but they could eat as much fish flake as they pleased.
When the female ate a piece of prawn from a plate that had eight fish flakes – thereby depriving the pair of all those fish flakes – the male chased her more than if the plate had only four fish flakes. When a second eight-fish-flake plate was offered, females who had experienced this severe punishment were less likely to eat the prawn.
"Harsher punishment makes them cooperate more," Raihani says. The males must somehow be judging the seriousness of the females' crimes and punishing accordingly, something no other non-human animal has ever been seen doing.
The system may sound just, but it is actually systematic sexual oppression.
All bluestreak cleaner wrasse are born female. The largest individual in a given area changes into a male and dominates the remaining females.
That means each male is under constant threat from his attendant females. If one of them manages to grow bigger than him, she can change sex in just two days and potentially take over his territory.
For a female to grow bigger than her male, she needs to eat more than him. So taking chunks out of client fish could work well for her: she gets a particularly nutritious meal, but her partner gets nothing because the client fish leaves in disgust.
Accordingly, Raihani found that males were more likely to dole out harsh punishments if their partners were a similar size to them. Such large females would have been on the cusp of changing sex, so the males controlled their behaviour more strictly.
For bluestreak cleaner wrasse, fish mucus – the illicit eating thereof – is a feminist issue.