Strollerderby : feminism

Katie Roiphe Doesn't Like You Or Your Kids

Brett Singer — Mon, 01 Jun 2009 03:00:00 GMT

If you use a photo of your child on your Facebook profile, Katie Roiphe thinks you are not a good woman.

(For some background on who Katie Roiphe is, read this Wikipedia page. One of her claims to fame is a book called "The Morning After" in which she argues that women are partially to blame in cases of date rape. She is now a professor at NYU and a respected writer.)

I usually hate arguing with academics. One reason is that they know how to do it better than I do, because that's a big part of their lives. I have but one degree, and it isn't from an Ivy League school. I've never taken a Philosophy class. I can spell Socrates but couldn't tell you much about the Socratic method.

So taking on a respected writer like Katie Roiphe is a bit daunting. I don't have the level of education that she has. I'm not a professor at NYU. (Although I did once guest-lecture at Yale. Take that!) For that matter, I'm not a woman, and Roiphe's article is about feminism. So why did this article at DoubleX.com get me so fired up?

One reason is because I firmly believe that when it comes to feminism, a lot of women attack their own gender in the name of defending them. That's what I see in Roiphe's article, which is titled "Get Your Kid Off Your Facebook Page" and asks "Why do women hide behind their children?" Roiphe seems to think that Facebook is an incredibly important part of a woman's personal identity, and that if a woman uses a photo of her children instead of herself, she is "hiding".

There are so many things about the piece that rub me the wrong way. I think I could literally go over it line by line, like The Iliad, and find something annoying every couple of sentences. Here are a few thoughts; let me know what you think.

Roiphe has a habit of putting herself next to great and important writers, such as Edith Wharton (in a 2007 New Yorker article), and this time Betty Friedan. I have no idea what Ms. Friedan would say about women putting photos of their kids on their Facebook pages. But I think there's a chance that she would say that it was far more important to worry about the gap between men's and women's wages. Or, to take an extreme example, women in third-world countries being raped. It's even possible that Ms. Friedan wouldn't give a hoot about Facebook.

Roiphe is also inconsistent. In the DoubleX piece she all but attacks women who have the nerve to talk about their children at a party. But in a 2007 New York Magazine article about her divorce, she writes the following about her daughter:
"Others will be quick to point out—others have been quick to point out—that this kind of closeness is unhealthy, that she and I are too connected. And to that I offer only that if you take out the unhealthy closeness, the pathological intimacies, you will have taken out many of life’s wilder joys."

So which is it? Are we not allowed to talk about our children? Are you the only one who can?

Roiphe very arrogantly writes: "The mystery here is that the woman with the baby on her Facebook page has surely read "The Feminine Mystique" in college, and "The Second Sex", and "The Beauty Myth". She is no stranger to the smart talk of whatever wave of feminism we are on, and yet this style of effacement, this voluntary loss of self, comes naturally to her. Here is my pretty family, she seems to be saying, I don’t matter anymore."

Or maybe she doesn't define herself the way that you do. Is it possible for a woman to actually make a choice to not read these books, or to read them and not think they are as important as you seem to? Or perhaps -- perish the thought -- she went to a community college! Or even -- I hope you're sitting down -- she didn't go to college at all. Does that make her less of a woman?

Roiphe's idea of a "brilliant, accomplished woman" is very specific -- a woman "who wrote her senior thesis in college on Proust, who used to stay out drinking till five in the morning in her twenties." Wow. Someone who wrote a college paper? Someone who used to drink a lot? That's very impressive. Much more impressive than raising a child.

And that's not all:
"Many of these women work. Many of them are in book clubs. Many of them are involved in causes. But this is how they choose to represent themselves."

First of all -- book clubs? Really? Isn't that a huge stereotype? Why not add "many of them watch 'Oprah' and read romance novels?" Frankly, if a woman's identity were wrapped up in her book club, I would think that was much worse than being consumed by her child. And what if they do work? Or if they don't? How does that factor in to the equation? Maybe for some women, Facebook isn't about work. (That's what LinkedIn is for. Ha ha.) Maybe they use the site specifically to show off their children. It doesn't mean that they are "hiding behind" them. The idea that anyone's identity is based exclusively on what photo they post on a social networking site is asinine.

Again, I'm no academic. But I see a huge flaw in Roiphe's argument. Focusing exclusively on women who use their kids' pics on Facebook profiles allows her to make a point about feminism. But fathers do the same thing. What then? Did they read "Iron John" and participate in drum circles in the early 90's, but are now "hiding behind their children"?

If Roiphe wanted to talk about parents who choose to create their identities around their children, that would be one thing. Instead she picks a trendy topic -- Facebook -- and incorporates it into what she usually talks about, which is feminism. Bully for her. Emphasis on the word "bully" because that's what she's doing to the women she's talking to.

To sum up: In general, Roiphe seems to have a very immature view of the world (she calls herself "Katie" for Pete's sake) and feminism in general. You don't have to be an Ivy League professor to know that there are many different kinds of women, and that they express themselves in different ways. It's not about what you did in college, or how often you read Proust, or how much you used to drink. And it certainly isn't about your Facebook page.

So. What do you think?

Source: DoubleX.com

Babble Talk Radio Live - Friday May 29 - Listen Here

No Hugs For You At Some High Schools

Mama's Got History

JeanneSager — Wed, 06 May 2009 16:01:00 GMT

If you haven't noticed Mother's Day is coming, get thee to a calendar.

In honor of all things mom, we're going old school at Babble. REALLY old school.

Backstory: The American History Guys, a radio show produced at the University of Virginia, managed to squash three centuries of motherhood into an hour-long show.

It's worth a listen simply for Ann Hulbert explaining why mothers in the 1920s were instructed "not to smother their children with love." No whirring helicopters in those roaring twenties, apparently.

Then there's the tragic story of Anna Jarvis, mama of Mother's Day, a West Virginian feminist in the nineteenth century and her daughter, Anna Marie Jarvis. The latter Jarvis wasn't a mother, but she loved her mother - and she loved her mother's ideals. She worked tirelessly to make her mother's dream of Mother's Day a national holiday about social justice. By 1914, she'd gained the national holiday for mother's. But why was she unhappy with it, railing against it for the latter half of her life? You'll have to listen to the American History Guys' Mama Tried: A History of American Motherhood."

What about you moms, do you like Mother's Day?

Image: Backstory

Girls' School, Boys' School: Does Single-Sex Education Work?

Kate Tuttle — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 16:32:00 GMT

In this case, it's girls' classroom, boys' classroom -- a public elementary school in the St. Louis area has been experimenting with single-sex education and so far both parents and pupils seem pleased. At the Carman Trails School boys and girls are offered the option of single-sex classrooms starting in the first grade -- the program, now two years old, extends to the third grade but it seems likely it will expand upward.

According to an article about the school, the girls' classroom is filled with the sound of singing, while the boys' room features lots of shouting, standing up, and running around. Parents of boys say they are glad their sons are no longer described as being unable to concentrate, now that they aren't bound to what some feel are unrealistic behavioral expectations. It's not mentioned whether parents of girls feel there's any advantage to how their daughters are being taught, but the usual point raised by advocates of single-sex education is that girls feel freer to express themselves in a classroom cleared of competitive male energy.

As the mother of a boy and a girl, I have mixed feelings about this. On the one hand, I gew up with two brothers and never felt that I was any less competitive or rambunctious than they were. On the other hand, I can see that at times each of my children might have benefited from at least some time spent in a single-sex environment. Certainly my daughter's summer camp, all girls, has been a perfect setting in which to learn leadership skills; my son is too young yet to know, but in a preschool classroom dominated by girls he is sometimes quickly blamed for any rough behavior, even if his female classmates are just as rough. As a feminist, I reject the essentialist point of view that says boys and girls are just born different, with distinct interests, temperaments, and physical and emotional needs. But I do see that girls and boys are socialized so differently, and have to each learn to exist in a world that expects different things from them, that this kind of classroom experience might make sense.

Single-sex education has long been a staple of Catholic and other private schools. These days it's reported that around 500 public schools are trying it out. What do you think? Would your son or daughter do better, learn more, reach his or her potential more easily, in a classroom filled with others of the same sex? Or does this kind of gender segregation harm kids, at the very least by reinforcing sexual stereotypes?

More By This Author:

California Daycare Closed; Worker Was Mocking Kids' Genitals

Bad Science: How The Autism Vaccine Scare Snowballed

Preteen Accused of Shooting Dad's Pregnant Girlfriend

North Dakota Passes Law Establishing "Personhood" at Conception

Generation Xers Break From the Boomers in Work-Life Balance

Amy Kuras — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 23:06:00 GMT

Most of us, I think, plan to parent differently than our parents did to some degree. And sometimes that can whip itself into something that really seems generational in nature versus just simple family dynamics.

For example, the GenXers, people my age, pretty much parent differently than our own parents, the baby boomers did.

Balancing parenting with careers is one of the major ways those generational differences assert themselves, according to this blog by Tammy Erickson from the Harvard Business Review. For Boomers, successful parenting meant having successful children, that everything you did was with an eye toward giving your children a leg up in the chase for success and status.

For us, though, we’re less willing to work extra hours or do extensive travel to climb the corporate ladder, and instead prioritize time with our kids above all else. We try much harder to incorporate our parenting life with our work life, which means taking a Blackberry to the playground, for example.

I’m sure some people would use this to continue the tired stereotype that GenXers are just lazy slackers, and I give the writer lots of credit for not doing so.

As a card carrying Xer, I think it’s a couple of things: one, this is not my first recession. I graduated from college into a big one in the early 1990s, and watched my dad go through two downsizings at the company he’d given much of his work life to, at some cost to our family. Most of my friends experienced the same. By this time in our lives, many of us have been laid off once or twice already ourselves. When companies are not loyal to us, we’ll be damned if we’re going to sacrifice our children’s happiness to be loyal to them.

Secondly, I think it’s the feminists in the 1960s and 1970s who really dug into the world of work and made it possible for women my age to take those pauses to raise kid, here the career takes a back burner either by staying home, going part time, or just not killing yourself with long hours and crammed schedules. If you’ve clawed your way up from the typing pool ala Peggy in Mad Men, you’re not giving it all up even if you want to. When you’ve been treated as equal to a male employee since your first day, you feel a lot more comfortable saying “Time out.”

What do you think? How do you balance work and family differently than your parents did? And why do you think that is?

Girls More Confident Since Presidential Election

Hannah Tennant-Moore — Sun, 01 Feb 2009 20:35:00 GMT

50 percent of girls ages 12 to 17 have more confidence since the presidential election, according to a study by the Girl Scout Research Foundation. The study of 3,284 adolescent girls also found that half of young women now believe they will be able to achieve their goals, and 55 percent feel more comfortable speaking their minds.

The Girl Scout Research Foundation speculates (unsurprisingly) that the inclusion of two female candidates—Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin—drastically affected young girls for the better.

I would guess that the election of the nation’s first black president has also increased girls’ confidence in their chances for success. Seeing an African-American family in the White House is a wonderfully concrete demonstration that glass ceilings can be shattered to smithereens.

Photo: Jezebel

How do we love Michelle Obama? Let us count the ways!

Shannon LC Cate — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 23:30:00 GMT

Heather Rudolph gets us started with her top five list at Sirens Magazine Rudolph's number one reason ALL women "should" love Michelle Obama (whether they voted for her husband or not) is that Michelle is a good mother. Also on her list are: 2) She's Smarter than You 3) She's a Realistic Fashion Icon 4) She's a Feminist (frighteningly, perhaps 80% of you won't find that admirable) and finally, 5) She is a Black Woman.

Rudolph gives her own argument for each point and I am thoroughly convinced. Even more convinced am I of Michelle's feminism and smartness, having read Geraldine Brooks's blog post at The Daily Beast this morning, proclaiming Obama a stealth influencer of important public policy, hiding behind a "mere mom" facade.

If we know anything here at Strollerderby, it's that there's no such thing as a "mere"mom.

But since we've got the "she totally kicks butt in the smarts department" covered, I'll add my shallow number six: The woman knows what to wear, how to wear it, and where to find it on a budget. Be still my heart!

Why do YOU love Michelle O?

Post-Election, Women Hate Sexism Almost as Much as Feminism

Hannah Tennant-Moore — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 21:34:00 GMT

A recent survey on post-election attitudes to sexism reveals that a majority of Americans live in La La Land. For starters: While most men don’t believe there is gender bias in the media or at home, almost half (4 in 10) “freely admit to having sexist attitudes towards a female president.”

Espousing similarly mind-boggling contradictions, the vast majority of women believe that Sarah Palin and Hillary Clinton were treated unfairly by the media—but would be mortified to call themselves “feminists.” Only 20 percent of women identify as feminist, and even fewer (17 percent) would be supportive of their daughters’ using the label.

Merriam Webster defines feminism as “the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes.” In other words, most women are embarrassed to label themselves as people who believe in gender equality, but are outraged over the media’s coverage of Palin’s hair. Only 48 percent of women believe that the media treated Clinton fairly, and far fewer female respondents (29 percent) believe that Palin got fair treatment. (Perhaps Palin seemed to get harsher gender-based media coverage because Clinton wasn’t, say, buying $150,000 worth of clothes on the GOP’s dime?)

Sure, some high-profile activists may have given the term “feminist” a more extremist connotation than many women would like it to have, but that doesn’t necessitate rejecting the whole theory. I don’t agree with many of PETA’s over-the-top tactics, but that doesn’t mean I stop calling myself a vegetarian.

Ready for more oblivious sexism? 39 percent of men feel that the role of president is more “naturally suited” to a man than to a woman. I guess that explains why so many more men than women (two-thirds to less than half) believe there is gender equality in the home—the wife just does all the housework because she is more “naturally suited” to it.

On the upside, the poll was relatively small, with 1,000 respondents.

Photo: Jezebel

Dudes for Palin: Vote for the Hot Chick!

Woman Auctioning Off Her Virginity Calls Herself a Feminist

Hannah Tennant-Moore — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 21:15:00 GMT

And yet more proof that you can use feminism as an argument for anything. Today, 30 years after the women’s movement has achieved absolute victory (in much the same way we accomplished our mission in Iraq back in 2003), women are not only able to freely sell their bodies via the World Wide Web, but are able to intelligently discuss their prostitution goals with supermodels like Tyra Banks, who clearly insinuate that virgins shouldn’t dress so “sexy.”

Just like Palin, 22-year-old Natalie Dylan (pictured) is living proof that anyone with a uterus can brand herself a feminist, even as her actions risk setting the women’s movement back about 50 years. Speaking on the Tyra Banks Show, Dylan explained that her interest in making some big bucks at Nevada’s Moonlight Bunny Brothel by auctioning off her virginity (the highest bid so far is $3.8 million) is mainly academic, stemming from her commitment to feminist studies. Dylan is writing her college thesis on “the dichotomous relationship between virginity and prostitution.” That is indeed quite a dichotomy—just the kind of dichotomy that the friendly fellas over at the Moonlight Bunny Brothel will be very interested in, I’m sure.

Check out a clip of Dylan speaking to Tyra on Jezebel.

Photo: pandasunite.wordpress.com

Palin: Women Who Don't Support Other Women Go to Hell

National Organization for Women President Endorses Palin

Hannah Tennant-Moore — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 16:10:00 GMT

Remember that video of Sarah Palin misquoting Madeline Albright at a rally in California? Well, the faux feminism gets more and more outrageous. Guess who introduced Palin? Shelly Mandell, the president of L.A. National Organization for Women, who has endorsed the McCain/Palin ticket.

I attended the March for Women’s Lives in Washington, D.C. back in 2004, which Mandell organized. It was one of the most unifying, uplifting experiences of my life, to be surrounded by thousands of women peacefully demanding reproductive freedom. The fact that Mandell would go on to endorse a staunchly anti-choice presidential ticket is not the only reason her judgment should be seriously questioned. Jezebel has done some digging on Mandell and it turns out that she’s got some skeletons in her closet, including helping to get a fellow NOW rising star arrested.

In her introduction for Palin, Mandell pointed out that Palin will be a champion for Title IX because she plays sports. I'm all for Title IX, but will having an athletic woman in office help other women when her running mate opposes equal pay, as McCain has already done? Will the fact that Palin played basketball in college help women when she fights to make abortion illegal even in the case of incest or rape?

If it were up to Mandell, the National Organization for Women would need to change its name to the National Organization for Powerful People with Female Genitalia. Fortunately, it’s not up to Mandell. The California NOW president has issued a statement that says, in part, “I can assure you that there is no local or state affiliate of NOW, including LA NOW, which endorses or supports the McCain/Palin ticket.”

Photo: Jezebel

Palin: Women Who Don't Support Other Women Go to Hell

They Say: It Really Is Mom's Fault - But That's Not Always Bad

JeanneSager — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 16:33:00 GMT

Sorry Dad. She might be your little girl, but what she really wants is approval from Mom.

A new study published in the British Journal of Educational Psychology claims daughters achieve more when their mothers are proud of them. Researchers from the University of London followed more than 3,000 kids born in 1970, and found the girls whose mothers expected them to succeed at school are more likely to have higher self esteem as adults and more likely to have pursued higher education. They found no real affect for the boys, deducing mothers of daughters may be more likely to push their girls when it comes to education.

I can't help but wonder what they would have found if they'd looked beyond education. After all, the '70s stand out in the history of women's lib - and not just in America. England had its own version of the Women's Liberation Movement that fought for equal pay for women. Moms who may not have gotten much support to be all they could be as kids were suddenly learning, hey, being a girl doesn't have to hold you back.

But considering our parents are our first role models, it's no wonder girls look to Mom for approval of how we're doing on the path to being a grown up. She's our first example of what it means to BE a grown up. And other studies have already shown that when a mom is depressed, negative or anything BUT supportive, her daughter is more likely to struggle as an adolescent.

So Mom, have heart. She might slam the door and shove the iPod buds in her ears, but she still cares what you think . . .

Images: California State University

Part I: Why Parents of Girls Have it Better

What Bristol Palin Can Expect, After Baby Algebra

They Say: To Teach Teens, You Really Have to Scare Them

Banned Books Week: Little Women

Amy Kuras — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 02:59:00 GMT

Let me explain to you how important Little Women is in my personal history: I was named Amy for the youngest March sister. My daughter shares a name with another, and the other two March girl’s names were top contenders. I’ve probably read this book, no lie, 100 times since I first picked it up when I was 8 or 9 years old.

Which is why I found it mystifying when I looked over this list of most frequently challenged children’s books and found Little Women included. I immediately grabbed it for my entry in our Banned Books Week coverage. I found it absolutely, positively mystifying that those incredibly wholesome book – a book which, it must be noted, even author Louisa May Alcott herself found a little much – would be offensive to anyone.

As it turns out, I couldn’t find anything that outlined a specific challenge. As an iconic book for young girls and the progenitor of an independent, intelligent, strong-minded heroine in Jo March, Little Women has been exhaustively discussed in feminist circles, and about the only thing I could find was a passing reference in a fairly whackjobby article to “radical feminists” trying to ban the book. And it is (fairly, to my mind) criticized for pulling its punches on Jo – that our independent heroine ends up married to some fat old guy. Alcott herself never married and actually never intended Jo to either, but so many girls wrote her pleading for her to marry Jo off that she decided to pay a little joke on them in the character of Professor Bhaer.

I’m sure my daughter – a strong willed, temperamental, bright, loving girl much in the manner of Jo herself – will find the 19th Century tone and misty-eyed sentimentality ridiculous when I make my attempt to force the book on her in a few years. But I love it beyond reason anyway --and maybe she'll be able to see beyond the dated language and oh-golly-gee-ness and love it too.

Banned Books Week: In the Night Kitchen

Banned Books Week: Smother the Fire and Read a Banned Book

Feminist Men Earn Less Than Ward Cleaver

Shannon LC Cate — Sun, 28 Sep 2008 15:57:00 GMT

Last week a quiet article in the Washington Post almost slipped right by me in my preoccupation with the latest bank buyouts and the off-again, on-again presidential debates. But the economic news in this article is worth a second glance.

According to a study recently published in the Journal of Applied Psychology, "Men with egalitarian attitudes about the role of women in society earn significantly less on average than men who hold more traditional views about women's place in the world." The study looked at people in four groups, men with traditional gender beliefs, men with egalitarian gender beliefs, women with egalitarian beliefs and women with traditional beliefs. (For shorthand, the authors of the study used "women belong in the home" as a definition of a traditional belief.)

The wages of these groups pretty much followed that order, with traditional men making the most and traditional women making the least. Egalitarian men made slightly more than egalitarian women.

"Sure," I thought to myself, "men with traditional gender ideas are corporate executives and women with traditional gender ideas are stay-at-home-moms. Of course it shakes down like this." But the study looked at people in all four categories who, regardless of their beliefs, held similar jobs with similar organizations and had similar educations and experience and were working similar hours. This is about differing pay for the same work, not differing choices about work itself.

The study posits a few theories about how this could happen, some of which include employer attitudes and the possibility of discrimination against feminists of any gender. I was tempted to throw my support behind the theory that men with traditional gender ideas feel most entitled to make lots of money and women with traditional gender ideas feel least entitled. The men at the top are probably negotiating harder for better pay than the women at the bottom or anyone in between.

maybe so, but personal experience sheds light on other possibilities, too.

I once took a half-time job in an office for $20 per hour and was thrilled to get it. It was almost double what I was making in my retail job at the time. After six months of work, I was asked to train a new hire in the same job. He and I became great friends. Though he was twice my age, he was two years behind me in the same graduate school program and we had previously known of each other, but not known each other well.

One day over a sushi lunch splurge we were commiserating over how hard it was to live in the city on our pay. "Yeah, he sighed, $25 per hour at half-time just isn't enough to make ends meet." Subsequent investigation led me to find that he had not negotiated for better pay than me. He had been offered more at his interview. All I could determine was that my employer assumed a middle-aged white man wouldn't work for less than $25 per hour, while he assumed I'd happily take $20.

I'd like to say I told my coworker about the discrepancy and we both stormed the boss's office demanding justice. But I didn't. I acted like a girl, got embarrassed and spent three weeks worrying about what to do. By the time I had worked up the courage to confront my boss, my coworker and I had been downsized out of our jobs anyway.

Lesson learned? Ask for more, girls. And feminist men? Talk salaries with your female coworkers. The Powers That Be want salary talk to be taboo for one reason: divide and conquer. Traditional-minded women: Wherever you'd prefer to be, if you are working outside the home, make sure you are fairly paid. You deserve every penny that man next to you is getting, most especially if you are sacrificing what you'd rather be doing to make ends meet in your family.

More Power for Women in the Household: Feminist Progress or Yet a Third Shift?

Shannon LC Cate — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 16:46:00 GMT

Though it purports to be about remote controls and television habits, this article in the Washington Post on a recent Pew poll of control in families is really about the work women are doing for their families, many of whom are already working all day away from their families.

Now, in addition to a paid job, housework and manager of the children's lives, women are gaining power in the four areas of finances, weekend activities, big-ticket purchases and television. (The television category is misleading, however, given that most people have multiple televisions and are retiring to separate rooms to watch them rather than squabbling over a family set.)

Finances? Read: balancing checkbooks, researching mortgage refinancing, budgeting for school supplies, winter coats and shoes. Weekend activities? You mean soccer games, dance recitals and religious observances? Big-ticket purchases? Oh, washer/driers, refrigerators and dishwashers?

Sounds like the usual round of women's work to me.

It strikes me as odd that the pollers are acting as if women being responsible for these things is some kind of fabulous feminist progress, because it wasn't like this half a century (and more) ago. Says Andrew Cherlin of Johns Hopkins University, "It's not the same as the 50's and '60's, where 'father knew best'."

Can I get a "duh?"

In this world, women doing more work is not really news. That work--or "control"--as the article calls it getting compensated in the same way men's work is compensated would be real news and real progress.

Abortion Blogger Gives Liberal Parents a Bad Name

Hannah Tennant-Moore — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 21:22:00 GMT

The popular new blog “What to Expect When You’re Aborting” may be the worst thing that’s happened to the choice movement since Sarah Palin. And, in a shout-out that promises to make anti-choice Republicans proud, the writer thanks her “lefty parents” for forming her beliefs.

The anonymous blogger is an anti-choice caricature of the kind of woman who would choose to have an abortion. She is a financially stable white woman in her early twenties; she has been on the pill since she was 13, though she has been "pretty f***ing lax" about it; she glorifies alcohol consumption (beginning her description of the day of her abortion with the headline, “Let’s get some cocktails and de-brief, shall we?”); and she takes glee in parading her hatred for all religion. I don’t have a problem with any of these things in and of themselves—I just don’t want this young woman to be the spokesperson for reproductive rights.

When the blogger sees her fetus, which she refers to as “Tumor,” in a sonogram, she writes, “This was not my Juno moment, where all of a sudden I bit my lower lip and recognized the ‘life’ inside of me. If I could have I would have ripped the f***ing thing our [sic] with my bear [sic] hands on the spot.” She is only concerned that the “tumor’s freakshow head” will mean she’ll be in more pain during the procedure.

The way a woman reacts to a pregnancy is entirely personal: she may feel nothing but relief to have an abortion, or she may decide, at 16, to become a mother. But I don’t want to hear a callous woman broadcasting her hatred of her fetus as an example of why reproductive rights are important, any more than I want to hear an evangelical teenage mom self-righteously defend her choice as heroic or moral.

This blogger, not surprisingly, minces no words in expressing her rather juvenile hatred for the “culture warriors.” She’s got no time for intelligently discussing policy issues (though she does occasionally include a meaningful quote from more nuanced thinkers); she just loathes the bastards and she takes joy in making that perfectly clear, entirely unaware that she is only giving anti-choice activists lots of grist for the self-righteous hatred mill.

This blog epitomizes my concern about the attitude amongst young people that it’s cool not to care too much about anything. If this is what teenage girls stumble upon on the Internet as they try to navigate the very difficult questions surrounding sex and relationships, parents need to work doubly hard to raise thoughtful, intelligent young women.

Photo: What to Expect When You're Aborting

Should Raising a Feminist Son be The Goal?

Amy Kuras — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 23:00:00 GMT

If you have a son – and aren’t a raving douchebag yourself – then thinking about how to raise a boy without him being one is something you have been thinking about since you first heard the words "it's a boy."

It seems like there is a lot of information out there about raising strong, independent, feminist girls, but very little about raising boys to respect women, discourage dehumanizing attitudes among their friends and generally be guys who see women as equal to themselves and deserving of the same rights and opportunities (including the right to not be harassed walking down the street, commented on and otherwise judged).

So this post by Annabel about raising a feminist son on Feministing was thought provoking. The comments were interesting as well, with several people saying that trying to encourage her son's sensitivity will get him chewed up and spit out as he gets older, as will allowing him to indulge his love of pink.

I agree with one commenter, though, who said the best thing she can do is talk to him about how to handle it if he does get mocked for wearing a pink sweater to school for example – to give him strategies for feeling different and encourage his self-esteem and self-acceptance.

And I think almost all of the commenters missed the role of fathers here. While I wouldn’t consider my husband a "feminist" man exactly, he respects and values my independence, plays physically with our girl as much as he does with our boy at each age, and just as importantly, shows our son as much affection. You can't raise your children (of any gender) exactly the same, of course, but he comes close.

In many ways, I think that modeling of how not to be a douche, of seeing boys get treated the same way as girls, of responding to your child as an individual versus a gender, is the most important factor in raising compassionate kids. Which I would say is art and parcel of feminism, and more important than "feminism" per se.

For a good marriage, women need to stay home

Brett Singer — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 14:00:00 GMT

That's a slight exaggeration, but not by much. Jezebel has a clip from the Mike and Juliet Show where Dr. Scott Haltzman (author of The Secrets of Happily Married Men) offers up marriage advice. His notion that wives need to "make their husbands feel like superheroes" and "nurture their needs" is enthusiastically backed up by Ro' Black, a stay-at-home wife. Ro' says that, "her marriage works because her husband gets a home cooked meal every night." She also picks up his stinky socks after he works out. Dr. Janet Taylor, another expert, goes so far as to suggest that marriage is a partnership and that perhaps Haltzman is going a little too far (gee, ya think?). Dr. Scott disagrees – he wants a pat on the back for making coffee for his wife every morning, and also wants his woman to get off the damn phone when he gets home from work, because he feels like he just "conquered the world" and would like this feeling to be acknowledged. According to the good doctor, he used to come home and "sulk" (his word) when she didn't immediately drop what she was doing and give him her full attention; now she does what he wants and he's happy.

What century is this?

I have no problem with a married couple that prefers a more traditional marriage, one where the husband works and the wife takes primary responsibility for the kids and the house. In fact, most of the people I know have situations that are exactly like that. Mine isn't, which may be why I'm more sensitive to the sort of idiocy being espoused by Haltzman the Hunter and Ro' Black.

Or maybe I think that some men might actually be mature enough to handle coming home and finding the Missus on the phone. Some men might even be okay if their wife makes more money than he does. Some men might even – wait for it – cook dinner for the family. Or – oh no, don't go there – do a load of laundry. Some men don't even have jobs! Of course, those marriages are doomed to fail, but nobody's perfect, right?

I'm not a feminist; I'm not sure a man can be a feminist, frankly. But I do think that the notion that the only way to have a happy marriage is for the wife to keep the husband happy, and that the only way to keep said husband happy is to cater to his every whim, is borderline psychotic. But hey, you know, live and let live. Go to Jezebel to see the clip. Fair warning: it might make you mad.

source: Jezebel

image: millsaps.edu

Egyptian woman gives birth to septuplets because she wanted a boy

5 reasons it's a good thing I had boys

Volleyball hasn’t come a long way, baby

Matthew McConaughey keeps placenta

5 things that would make parents' lives easier

No dinero for Dina

Is it fair to take pictures of Britney's kids?

Sad footnote to sad story

Woman goes to jail for adopting children to get money

Would You Respect A "Stay-At-Home Wife"?

Amy S.F. Lutz — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 12:02:00 GMT

After my husband and I married 11 years ago, I was home for about a year and a half before our first child was born. I taught a couple of college classes, but that didn't keep me very busy, so I had plenty of time to go to the gym, and do whatever else I did during those idyllic pre-kid days.

But we were trying to get pregnant from the beginning. I'm not sure how my husband would have felt if I wanted to stay home and NOT have kids.

Apparently, such stay-at-home wives represent a growing group. Many highly educated women are choosing, when their financial situation allows it, to stay home for different reasons: to pursue advanced degrees, to explore creative outlets, to do charity work, to manage health issues, or just to focus on traditional homemaking activities, such as baking, sewing, gardening, etc.

Do these women, by depending on their husbands' incomes without taking on the (allegedly) higher purpose of caring for children, reject everything feminism has worked so hard to achieve? Maybe. Daniel Buccino, a social worker and psychotherapist at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, calls such women the ultimate "status symbols," since their lifestyle alerts the rest of the world that the husband makes enough money for the both of them. And the men involved in these arrangements are often happy because, instead of sharing chores equally, their stay-at-home wives manage the domestic front themselves.

Look, I would never judge another woman's choices. But I have to say, it would probably give me pause if one of my daughters came to me in twenty years and told me that all she wanted was to spend her days cooking, cleaning and basically taking care of her husband.

America's Main Problem? Men Are Oppressed

Hannah Tennant-Moore — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 18:58:00 GMT

Normally I’m not one to draw more attention to the Ann Coulters of the world—people who get famous by writing books making the most inane, controversial arguments they can think of. But this Jezebel rant on one such book is so much fun, I’d thought I’d share.

I believe Kathleen Parker's intelligence level is pretty clear from the book cover pictured. The provocative subtitle, mysteriously written in all lower case letters, is, "why men matter; why women should care." Unfortunately, this is not a witty spoof of the most ridiculous book topic ever. Parker actually believes that America’s problems are due to the fact that men are oppressed. And by oppressed, she means not able to learn male-centric history in school, to be free of contact with the hate-filled female sex until they’re 30-years-old, and even sometimes forced to do housework.

Parker credits her two sons with teaching her about how sexist the United States—unlike Thailand, which is clearly the epitome of gender paradise. What lucky boys her sons are.

Photo: RealClearPolitics

S&M Barbie

Brett Singer — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 19:00:00 GMT

Let me take you through my reactions to this story.

Hello, what's this? S&M Barbie? The toy? The overdeveloped, underfed doll? The one dating a man with no genitals? That seems… odd. Let's take a look.

Yowza! Barbie in fishnets! F'real! All right. We had the high heels for babies. But those were supposed to be a joke (not a funny one, but still). This is just bizarre. I hate agreeing with the Christian Right, but when they say, "Barbie has always been on the tarty side and this is taking it too far," I'm tempted to agree.

I have to admit, though, that she sort of looks like Black Canary from DC Comics…

Wait a minute! That IS Black Canary! So it's Barbie, dressed up like Black Canary. That… still seems odd. Why would they choose her? For a non-JLA fan (that's Justice League of America, in case you are yourself one of those non-fans), she's a bit of an obscure character. Why not someone better known, like Wonder Woman? Black Canary is a blonde, I guess. Well, actually she's a brunette but she wears a wig instead of a mask… I'm sorry, did you fall asleep? OK, I'll stop geeking out.

So it's Black Canary, which makes it an action figure. But there already is a Black Canary action figure. Actually, there are several, but here's one for comparison purposes:
Source: flickr

For what it's worth (excuse me while I geek out again) Black Canary is, despite her appearance, a fairly positive female role model. She's considered one of the best hand-to-hand fighters, male or female, in the DCU (that's "DC comics Universe") and is currently the leader of the Justice League. She takes no crap, kicks major ass, and asks questions later. Barbie once said, "Math class is tough!" (source) So you could make an argument that Black Canary is a better role model than Barbie, and therefore the doll is empowering.

I don't really see the point of doing this, especially since Barbie's target audience is young girls. So while I think the Vast Christian Right Wing Conspiracy is a bit over the top, I do think it's kind of an odd choice for a Barbie doll. What's next, Big Gay Ken? Oh wait, they did that already.

Source: flickr

A commenter on Boing Boing says that this is a collectible meant for an "older" audience and that young girls don't play with such things. Another commenter says "uh-uh, they totally do." (Not a direct quote.)

So there you go.

It's weird, but is it really offensive? Would you buy one of these for your daughter? Is this sexist, empowering, just a bad choice for a doll?

image: boingboing.net

Jim Abbott is a ballplayer you can look up to

Hulk want puny blogger to review Hulk movie

Breast Self-Exams May Do More Harm Than Good

Foster Care Worker Pregnant with Teen's Baby

Topless Barbie Leads to Man's Arrest

Top 5 Worst Sweet-to-Sexy Toy Makeovers

The Latest on Barbie v. Bratz

Pole Dancing Kits and Other Modern Toys

Hannah Tennant-Moore — Wed, 21 May 2008 22:30:00 GMT

Padded bras for first graders, bikini waxes for eight-year-olds, pole dancing kits sold alongside Etch-a-sketches in the toy store—excuse me, but how did this happen? How is it affecting girls' self-image? And, um, what happened to feminism? These are a few of the questions tackled in a recent Salon interview with M. Gigi Durham, author of “The Lolita Effect: The Media Sexualization of Young Girls and What We Can Do About it.”

As her book title would suggest, Durham places the burden of sexualizing girls at increasingly young ages squarely on the media’s shoulders. She argues that many companies are looking to exploit tweens’ increasingly significant contribution to the commercial sector by selling them traditional messages about femininity that the older generation of women has by and large rejected.

Interestingly, Durham connects the commercial sexualization of young girls with women’s inability to enjoy their sexuality later on. The abstinence-only sex education programs that have become increasingly prevalent in the Bush years combined with media’s message that “You must look like Barbie to be sexy” creates a very confusing, potentially dangerous backdrop against which young women come to understand their sexuality. Even as teen girls are encouraged to ignore their own sexuality, they’re told, “If you’ve got it, flaunt it. And if you don’t have it, spend a lot of money until you get it.”

Durham’s advice to parents? Discuss, but don’t censure. For instance, instead of forbidding your daughter to read Seventeen magazine, ask her what she thinks of that model’s look or that article about how to make boys like you. And she says that this dialogue about media propaganda should start, in modified form of course, as soon as your kids can talk. Anyone out there tried this method?

Photo: Girlshop.com

Political Nanny: Obama Calls Reporter 'Sweetie'

Madeline Holler — Thu, 15 May 2008 12:01:00 GMT

Barack, honey, listen to Political Nanny. This habit of yours, calling women "sweetie," you're going to have to break. Like, yesterday.

Wrong generation, wrong gender, wrong social standing, wrong, wrong, wrong. It's not charming, it's not collegial, it's not anything but cringey for women to hear from anyone but Grandpa or a waffle-hauling waitress (and she better be a good 20 years older than the so-called "sweetie.")

You apologized to the reporter, Peggy Agar. This is a good start. Now, stand in front of the mirror and practice. American English affords its speakers the luxury of not having to use parenthetical phrases of address when issuing commands, know what I mean, babe? So if you don't know the reporter/factory worker/ardent supporter older than 5's name, drop the "sweetie" and just say "hold on!"

Readers, if you must, the video:

Photo: WXYZ.com

'Ira Sleeps Over' and Other 70's Faves

Rachael Brownell (Redsy) — Tue, 13 May 2008 19:01:00 GMT

The best part about reading children's books from the 70s is how authors manage to sneak in messages about girls' lib, divorce, and alternative lifestyles amid a sea of harvest gold and avocado green. And if you've never appreciated the lovely comforts of a shag-rug nap, while contemplating your parents' EST circle, then I venture you're probably not yet looking up the nosehairs at 40, you sly boots, nor have you likely heard of children's books like "Ira Sleeps Over," about a boy who goes for a slumber party and finally admits to still needing his teddy bear for a good night's sleep.

Children's books in the 70s weren't just about girl firefighters and boy ballerinas, though. They brought us grand vistas and adventures far greater than career choices and "Billy has Two Mommies":

Harriet the Spy - She's a girl. She's a spy. I can't fathom a more wonderful adventure for an 8-year old than imagining her explorations on a secret dumbwaiter.

Are You There God? It's Me Margaret? - Judy Blume taught us so much about puberty, sex, and other blushful things in the 70s, but this book is the best of the best.

Free to Be You and Me - "There's a land that I see, where the children are free..." Less book than manifesto/cultural zeitgeist, FtBYaM defined a generation of free kids, playing records while sitting on brown corduroy couches, while Mom hosted her NOW meetings, or macramed.

J ulie of the Wolves - Another power-girl story...

Other decades have wonderful children's books as well, but the books we read when young hold a special place in your heart. And it's a joy to share these same books with our own kids.

What's a Mommy Wars Foot Soldier to do?

Madeline Holler — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 22:03:00 GMT

There's a new Mommy Wars book on the market, this one issuing an order to cease and desist with all the trivial fighting between working and lounging mothers. Opting In: Having a Child Without Losing Yourself, has a "Calgon, take me away" title, but it's written by feminist author Amy Richards so, you know, it's surely not all about the power of the mani-pedi.

However! As a ground soldier in the Mommy Wars, having been stopped-lossed with my second kid just as things were easing up with the first, I have to say I was taken aback with this description of the book's aim, as summarized by an interviewer who spoke to the author on Salon:

If motherhood is going to be a less harried and more equal enterprise, she suggests, it has to be about more than changing diapers. It has to be about changing ourselves.

Well, see, I don't want to change myself so much.

Sure, I'm an imperfect mess. And I can accept that. But after seven years and two tours of duty -- with no end in sight -- I would submit that change starts -- or at least picks up -- outside the home, not within it.

I'm not asking "society" to fetishize my kids. No, I don't want you to fill in for me -- just one more time -- while I run out for a soccer game and ballet performance. But I would like this culture of personal responsiblity over societal obligations to change just enough that let's me and my husband (and you and your partner) work and have a family and afford a house and good -- no, we'll settle for decent -- schools for the kids and, for God's sake, some fucking affordable, flexible, quality (and, yes, I mean subsidized) childcare for the babies, all babies, and preschoolers, each and everyone that wants some!

I think that would go a long way in letting women decide for themselves -- as the author encourages -- what they want. Because there would be actual options available to the masses. I would submit that work/career issues are the catalyst for all the personal shit that can take over our new lives as parents.

Here's what Richards says:

When I titled the book "Opting In," I meant to say, opt in to your own life, make yourselves aware of the options that are available to you. Because I think women approach motherhood rather passively and just let it happen instead of seeing themselves as the active agents they are or could be. So I have chapters about our relationships with our friends and mothers, as well as our husbands or our same-sex partners. I'm trying to show how parenting affects all aspects. Assuming it only affects the workplace trivializes how much parenting takes over our whole lives.

I haven't read the book and maybe she's all over the idea that women with the biggie jobs have more options than those who don't. In which case, yay. And maybe her book really isn't coaching us on evenly splitting housework (the LEAST of my worries). I hope her take on the Mommy Wars conflict winds up being less about me, the mom, and more about us, all of us, the adults -- the ones who make stuff happen, the ones who are in charge.

What do you think? Does our culture keep us in the trenches, fighting battle after battle in an unwinnable war? Or am I being a big baby?

Photo: defenselink.mil

What the World Needs Now Is Chastity Belts

Adrienne Martini — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 18:00:00 GMT

Just the other day I was thinking to myself, "Self, the world that my daughter stands to inherit is slowly becoming a more equal one, the sort where she will be judged on the content of her character and not on the plumbing in her pants." Then I woke up and read the news. And, no, it didn't involve Miley Cyrus.

Chastity belts have become the rage in Indonesia, where they are slapped on women masseuses before they see their clients. Because it wouldn't make any sense at all to put them on the clients, who appear to be the ones who can't control themselves. No, no, it's better to put them on the women for their own good, the poor, simple creatures. Let's just toss a burqua on 'em because men just can't keep their hands to themselves.

Lest you think it's only far off lands where women are still just one intellectual step above children, new abortion laws in this country make it clear that those with two X-chromosomes are too feeble minded to make choices.

Wow. We've come a long way, baby. Can I go back to bed? I'm taking my daughter with me.

Photo credit: totallychoice.com

Women Not Having It All, Having It All, Had Enough

Kelly Mills — Mon, 28 Apr 2008 21:29:00 GMT

Meg Wolitzer has a new novel called "The Ten-Year Nap". It's about moms, mostly moms who left the workforce to stay at home with kids. It sounds good, and she says, "In fiction, stay-at-home moms have often been [subject to] mockery, and I think it's very sexist: the stay-at-home mother whose children are oversubscribed, who has reduced her entire brain to trivial things." We can totally use some better depictions of SAHMs. But I have to speak to the fact that once again, we are gonna get a small wave of "Can women have it all?" headlines and I'm over it.

'Kay, look, I'm going to answer the question of whether women can have it all: It depends. I mean, we aren't having a giant collective female experience here, are we? So some moms have to go back to the workforce whether they want to or not, while others can't wait to get back, and still more choose to be home with the kids full time. I know some SAHMs who partly made their decision based on the fact their jobs were low-paying and tiring (like teaching) and they preferred being at home, not just because they wanna be with the kids. I know moms who found being at home with the kids was so not for them. And I know moms who like their jobs and made choices based on the fact that their careers don't allow for much of a break.

I know moms who went back to their careers after the kids went to school, who work from home, who have part-time jobs, who work two jobs, who care for several kids, who are single, and who are the breadwinner with a partner staying at home. You know, not everyone has a really fulfilling career, mom or not. Not everyone finds parenting fulfilling. And things change over time for people. Whether or not you can "have it all" probably depends on what you want, and where you are, and I bet the answer to that question is different for everyone.

Look, I'm irritated because the "have it all" stick is used to beat women for selfishly wanting things or passively not wanting things. It implies that women want too much; and yet asserting that women can have it all ignores that many women are going to have to make a few trade-offs along the way. Rather than get into that, could we get equal pay and better childcare and a little respect for our individual choices? Thanks ever so much.