Strollerderby : sexism

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

Sarah Palin Speaks To Esquire About Kids And Things

Brett Singer — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 04:15:00 GMT

Sarah Palin is back. In truth, the Hockey Mom/Lipsticked Pitbull/former Vice-Presidential candidate never left. So before anyone hits me with a "Why don't you leave that nice woman alone!", remember that all of these quotes are from Palin herself, via an interview in Esquire Magazine. It's not like people put a camera in her house. We'll stick with the quotes that are about her kids. Here we go:

On Trig:
I'll tell you, yesterday the Anchorage Daily News, they called again to ask — double-, triple-, quadruple-check — who is Trig's real mom. And I said, Come on, are you kidding me? We're gonna answer this? Do you not believe me or my doctor? And they said, No, it's been quite cryptic the way that my son's birth has been discussed. And I thought, Okay, more indication of continued problems in the world of journalism.

Now, I don't want to feed the beast here. And there are certainly problems in the world of journalism. But in that paragraph, she doesn't say that she's Trig's mom. I understand what she means. But she doesn't actually say that she is Trig's biological mother. Just sayin'. (UPDATE: per the comments below, this was meant as a joke, not serious journalism.)

On Bristol's pending nuptials:
This is what I've been telling Bristol, before she gets married, is, Bristol, there are definitely gonna be tough parts in marriage. You have to look at those tough times and remember that you have essentially a business contract with this person. You've signed an agreement: You're going to be together. And you look at it that way as you work through the tough times, because I guarantee the better time is there on the other side. That's how we've looked at it.

To quote another song by Heart (who sang her theme tune, Barracuda), what about love? I kind of hope that there was more to this one because if that's how she feels about marriage, that's kind of a bummer. Not that I'm all flowers and puppy dog tails when it comes to marriage. But it's more than just a "contract." Isn't it?

On Bristol's name:
Two meanings in Bristol's name: I worked at the Bristol Inn, and Todd grew up in Bristol Bay. But also, Bristol, Connecticut, is the home of ESPN. And when I was in high school, my desire was to be a sportscaster. ESPN was just kicking off, just getting off the ground, and I thought that's what I was going to do in life, is be one of the first woman sportscasters. Until I learned that you'd have to move to Bristol, Connecticut. It was far away. So instead, I had a daughter and named her Bristol.

OK. Hang on. First, she says "two meanings" and then provides three. Second – ESPN? Does that mean that she considered naming the girl Boomer, after Chris Berman? This might seem like another opinion from a "pathetic blogger" (another quote of hers), but that's a strange choice. I mean, I like the Cartoon Network but I'm not naming my son Mojo Jojo. (I did suggest that the name Luke, so I could say, "Luke! I am your father!" But then my wife hit me really hard and I gave up.)

Lastly, a general comment on parenting and kids:
A courageous person is anyone who loses a child and can still get out of bed in the morning.

No disagreement there. I do wonder what prompted her to say that, but that's one thing she and I can agree on. (She was really worried about finding common ground with me, y'know.)

One thing that can't be said enough – when Palin says that she wants us to leave her kids alone, she has to realize that she puts them in the spotlight every time she does press like this. She doesn't have to do the interview. And if she does the interview, she doesn't have to mention her family all the time. I said it before and I'll say it again – if you don't want people to write about your kids, you should stop talking about them in the media.

There's a lot more, including the statement "Everything I've ever needed to know I learned through sports," a bit of "y'all" and "ya", and that she doesn't think of herself as "hot." Oh, and to make a good chili, you need mooseburger. The full interview is online at Esquire.com. G'wan. Read it. You know you want to. Y'all. Ya.

Source/Image: Esquire

Bart Simpson-Scientologist

Sarah Palin Says Leave My Kids Alone

Ann Coulter Says Single Moms Are Bad For Society

Octuplet Mom Wants TV Career

Little White Whales Going, Going...Gone?

Parents Ripped Off On Inauguration Trip?

Sarah Palin Says Leave My Kids Alone

Brett Singer — Thu, 22 Jan 2009 19:00:00 GMT

Remember Sarah Palin? Republican Vice-Presidential candidate, kind of overshadowed John McCain for a while, said the word "maverick" a lot? Tina Fey did an impression of her on Saturday Night Live? Ring any bells?

She's back. Well, to be fair, she never went away. But the Associated Press has published a story talking about how Palin "is going on the offensive against news organizations as well as bloggers she says are perpetuating malicious gossip about her and her children." They say she has, "personally reached out to media outlets such as People magazine and The Associated Press to complain about information she claimed is wrong."

What information? Well, that her daughter Bristol Palin and her fiancee, Levi Johnson, have dropped out of high school. She says that isn't true since they are taking correspondence courses. That sort of thing. Palin says that she is doing this to "set the record straight" and not because of political ambitions.

American University professor Leonard Steinhorn, described as "an expert on the presidency," isn't buying it. He says that Palin is positioning herself to run for Prez in 2012, and is "attacking the media as a way to generate support among a base she hopes will support her." (He's an expert, so he must be right.)

Here's the thing. I don't think it's fair to go after her kids. But someone needs to explain to the Governor of Alaska that if you don't want "the media" to talk about your family, you probably shouldn't invite them into your home, which she did with the Today Show in November after losing the election. No one forced her to do that. And if she wanted to do the interview, she could have done it alone. But she chose to do it in her kitchen while she cooked dinner. She clearly wants to have her family be part of her image, but she also wants to pick and choose what people write about them.

The problem is, it doesn't work that way. You can't have your cake and bake it on national television too. There are plenty of ways to keep your family out of the spotlight. One of them is very simple: keep them out of the spotlight.

Source: AP via HuffPo

Image

Parents Criticize Schools for Celebrating Inauguration

Obama Says His Kids Are Cooler Than He Is

Sarah Palin Calls People About Grandson Tripp

Morning News - Obama, Limbaugh, Cheese

Video and Pics: Lego Inauguration

Obama Wants Kids To Have a Normal Life – Good Luck With That

Smackdown: I Don’t Care If My Daughter Has Sex as a Teen

Miriam Axel-Lute — Thu, 22 Jan 2009 15:01:00 GMT

Progressive, feminist, supposedly sex-positive parents are, of course, pretty well united against the absurd excesses of abstinence-only education and the religious no-sex-until-marriage frenzy.

What continues to amaze me though, is how little the positions they do take really vary from the underlying values of the abstinence worshippers.

As a parent, I keep running into a nudge, nudge, wink, wink understanding that even though we know it’s not good to base policy on it, of course really we all want to put off our daughters’ sexual awakenings as long as possible (or at least until they’re out of the house). There are jokes about chastity belts and not letting boyfriends come over until age 30. Every once and a while I feel the urge to get out a calendar and check the year.

I confess that I don’t get it. Not a smidgen. (And neither, for the record, does her father.) I don’t think this is just a matter of my having a defective freak-out gene. I really think that this attitude is not in our daughters’ best interests.

Concerned and thoughtful parents like my colleague Shannon, argue that it’s not really about the squick factor. They think it’s important for their daughters to put off the confusion and emotional drama of sexual relationships in order to get solid in forming their own identities, to make sure that they don’t get distracted by serving other’s needs first.

It sounds good at first, but I have to disagree. It’s not sex that hampers girls’ development, sense of self, or progress toward a career. It’s negative, hysterical, sexist attitudes about sex. (And the unintended pregnancies, abusive relationships, etc. that follow.)

The self-esteem argument is really the religious right’s argument minus the God and marriage specifics. It says this: “Sex is such a god-awful big deal that it will necessarily consume you when it happens and so you must wait for some future time at which you will miraculously be able to handle it.”

I don’t buy it. Sex is a powerful force, sure, but we have a fair amount of control over how much power we really give it. Making it something dangerous to your very identity gives it just as much power as making it central to your very identity.

I think this attitude is partly to blame for teens continuing to mistake sex for love. It also still places far too much emphasis on the importance of the “first time,” leaving girls (and women) feeling attached to first lovers who don’t deserve a third glance (or feeling like failures for choosing a less-than-perfect first lover).

In its usual gender-specific form, this attitude also perpetuates the idea that girls can’t really want sex for their own reasons, that they must be succumbing to the media hype and trying to please someone else and they will automatically lose their sense of self in a sexual relationship.

(Yes, clearly, far too many girls are getting pushed into sex they don’t want. But telling them they should never say yes does not help teach them when/how to say no.)

Of course I also have to wonder why, if people think sex is such an overwhelming cognitive thing to get started at, the conclusion they draw from that is that it’s a good idea to put it off until kids leave the nest and are distanced from familial support systems and previous friends, have easier access to alcohol, are first learning to live on their own, and are facing academic and/or job pressure. Or, for that matter, until they are 30, feeling their biological clocks and suffering pressure (internal and external) to find “the one” and settle down.

Obviously I wouldn’t argue that everyone ought to start having sex in high school. “Ready” is a super complex and individual cocktail (and takes two). Not everyone over 18 or 20 is ready. Not everyone younger isn’t. But high-school does have some potential advantages: financial security, parental backup if needed, and some extra time to be processing, daydreaming (or angstfully writing in a journal). That could all actually form a safer place to experiment than newly adrift in the “real world.”

Of course we all use our own experience as a touchstone. I starting “fooling around” at 15 and having sex at 17 with someone trustworthy I’d been dating for many months and who served, as good friends and partners do, to help me learn more about myself as well as how to have a relationship. I made out with a jerk or two in there first and lived to tell the tale with my self-esteem intact. In fact, those early experiences gave me a very clear and relatively safe tutorial in the difference between attraction and love, flirtation and friendship, passion and trust that has served me well.

If my daughter has the chance to do the same—armed with the facts to protect herself and the solid knowledge that her worth doesn’t depend on her choosing one way or the other—it won’t bother me in the slightest.

Photo by Made Underground, via Flickr.

The Other Side:

Smackdown: Sex Before Twenty? Hopefully Not My Kids

More by this author:

Do You Have an Easy Bake Oven in Your Vagina?

Miriam Axel-Lute — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 23:00:00 GMT

Though the post is fairly long and rambly, I couldn't resist sharing this call-to-arms by Renee at Womanist Musings about lingering gender assumptions, especially by schools:

"The education system seems to think that this is still 1950 and that mothers are at home with tons of time on their hands to participate in bake sales. This request is never gender neutral, even though Daddy has two perfectly good hands himself. Why is this still the norm when most women work a double day? Even if a woman is a stay at home mother how does a vagina translate into the ability to bake? Do I have an easy bake oven stashed somewhere in my vaginal opening that I was not aware of?"

She has a larger point about the very narrow defintions of acceptable motherhood, but the comments are filled mostly with horrific stories about teachers telling single and/or working-outside-the-house and/or non-crafty moms that a purchased stocking/Valentines cards are not good enough, or that a married working mom couldn't interrupt play group for a work call while a single one (or a married dad) could, because for her a job was choice. Would like a little judgment with your assumptions? Or the other way around? Yeesh.

It's all a bit disheartening. And she's writing from Canada, too. Aren't they supposed to be more evolved than we are? (I'm kidding. Don't answer that.)

Photo by Tracy Hunter.

More by this author:

Working Parents Smackdown: SAHM vs SAHD

Working Parents Smackdown Part 2 – Dads With Jobs vs Moms With Jobs

Brett Singer — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 17:00:00 GMT

Part 2 of Working Parents Smackdown (read Part 1 here). This time we focus on the workplace:

When men work late, they're just doing their jobs. Women are neglecting their children.

Women are often made to feel guilty about working late, sometimes by their spouses. Men probably are too but it seems like its easier to avoid.

Women who work risk "emasculating" their husbands. "Femininasculating" isn't even a word.

The "Mommy Wars" are definitely a thing. There are no "daddy wars."

If a woman works "outside the home" and has children, people ask "how does she do it?" If a man works, no one ever says "outside the home", and nobody wonders how they do whatever "it" is.

No matter what, mom is the first point of contact for any school issues. That's not to say I have a problem with that but that's what I see happen. This includes general PTA-type matters, actual issues such as coming to pick the kid up due to illness, and of course Mom's Night Out. (Note: I am NOT angling for an invite to Mom's Night Out. I vastly prefer Dad's Night In, especially when there is a football game on.)

These aren't necessarily sexism or something-ism. It's more of an assumption of gender roles. Which is technically sexism. But it doesn't feel quite as insidious as, say, discrimination in the workplace. Of course, these assumptions can easily translate into more dangerous actions in a job setting, such as when a woman is passed over for a promotion because her boss assumes that she will eventually leave her job to have children. So maybe it is the same. I don't know.

I do know that the last time my friends teased me for being a stay at home dad (who, for the record, works) I was able to silence them by saying, "Have fun at the office on Monday, guys." Haven't heard any teasing since then.

Last word: I find it infuriating when anyone gives a woman a hard time for being a primary caregiver. (Although I use the term frequently, "staying home with the kids" is kind of a silly term once the rugrats are old enough to go to school or even daycare.)

Last word number two: Feelings of emasculation are in the brain of the man. That doesn't mean that the feelings are invalid, nor does it mean that there aren't women who can be cruel and try to make their menfolk feel small. But often the issue is in the guy's head. (It was with me; that's a topic for another time.)

Last word number three: I hereby vow to look up the meaning of the word "last".

Image: edmbookstore.com

Matt Lauer Talks To Sarah Palin In The Kitchen

Teacher Has Affair With Student, Parents Say Keep The Door Open

Grown Kids Try Forcing Dad To Divorce Second Wife In Court

They Say – Most Toys Are Toxic

Et Tu, Scholastic?

editors — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 16:11:00 GMT

These two books came into the office the other day:The Girls’ Book of Glamour: A Guide to Being a Goddess and The Boys’ Book of Survival: How to Survive Anything, Anywhere. Ha-ha, we thought, how retro and ironic and . . . OMG, THEY ARE TOTALLY SERIOUS.

The jacket flap copy on the girls’ book: “Be confidant. Be glamorous. Be gorgeous . . . Be the goddess you were born to be!” On the boys’ book: “Be brave. Be prepared . . . Be a hero!”

Now, our son loves trucks, planes and dinosaurs. Our goddaughter loves tutus. BUT. STILL. Our son has been known to dance around in a skirt, and our goddaughter has been known to play with dinosaurs. The truck books do not say, “TRUCKS FOR BOYS.” They say, “TRUCKS TRUCKS TRUCKS. TRUCKS.”

We read both of these books to make sure they are as bad and reactionary as their covers suggested. In fact, they are worse.

Girls are instructed to “accessorize fabulously.” Boys are taught to “survive an avalanche.” Girls are told how to “give yourself a mini-facial.” Boys are given instructions for making a dugout canoe.

The major theme in the boy book: Be ready for anything! You’re a leader! (“How to Be a Good Leader,” p. 12) The girls’ theme: Be pretty! Also, friendly! (“How to Have the Best Manners,” p.81) And “jazz up” that “boring ponytail.”

For realz? This is the publishing house that gave us Hermione Granger? For shame. — Ada Calhoun

Working Parents Smackdown Part 1 - SAHD vs SAHM

Brett Singer — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 17:00:00 GMT

Definitions:
SAHD = Stay at home dad
SAHM = Stay at home mom

I've been thinking about some of the differences between these two types of parents. (See also Part 2, Dads With Jobs vs Moms With Jobs.)

Now:

At a party, SAHDs are asked, "What do you do?" SAHMs are not.

If a woman chooses to be a SAHM, she is:
- a lazy throwback
- not fulfilling her potential

If a man chooses to be a SAHD, he is:
- making a sacrifice
- taking a break from work

Men who stay home are doing something great for their wife and children. Women are just, you know, doing what they're supposed to do.

SAHMs are "homemakers." SAHDs are "musicians."

Men who stay home with their kids are special and unique. Women are ordinary and perhaps even bad for their gender.

To sum up: women, whatever you do, you are wrong. If you work, you suck. If you stay home, you suck. Guys: whatever you do, you're OK! Rock on! Write that novel! Play that funky music, SAHD!

I'm exaggerating somewhat, but I'll put it out to the crowd. Am I exaggerating? If so, how much?

Image: theonlymanofthehouse.com

Matt Lauer Talks To Sarah Palin In The Kitchen

Teacher Has Affair With Student, Parents Say Keep The Door Open

Grown Kids Try Forcing Dad To Divorce Second Wife In Court

They Say – Most Toys Are Toxic

Do You Have an Easy Bake Oven in Your Vagina? (by Miriam - one of the greatest blog post titles ever)

Male Blogger: Laboring Mom Not a 'True Emergency'

JeanneSager — Fri, 05 Dec 2008 17:56:00 GMT

You're about to give birth to your second child. Your contractions are three minutes apart and holding steady. Oh yeah, and your car is stuck in bumper-to-bumper traffic. What are you going to do now?

According to a blogger at the Volokh Conspiracy, you call an ambulance and meet them at the next exit because, well, he doesn't consider this a "true emergency." Excuse me, David Bernstein, do you want to deliver a baby in the middle of the Mass Turnpike? Methinks you'd be yelling "help, emergency," about then.

I hate to take anything into the "man" vs. "woman" range, but this is one of those examples of a guy climbing on his high horse to tell us how a pregnant woman's body is going to work. Hate to tell you buddy, even WE don't know how the whole birth process is going to go. Bernstein's prime evidence for why he thinks Jennifer and John Davis were reckless and refused to just call an ambulance? The baby didn't come for another five hours.

Think of that. A baby that came in its own darn good time. No wonder they call the site the Volokh CONSPIRACY.

Alright, maybe I'm taking this a little hard. I actually have never had the frantic drive to the hospital. My labor had to be induced to encourage my daughter to come out of her comfy little cave. I agonized about the possibilities because of the area where I live and the timing of my due date: we're nearly a half hour from the hospital, and I was set to deliver right around the Memorial Day holiday in a highly trafficked tourist area.

I also dealt with a highly put out male co-worker who wanted to plan a vacation, and couldn't believe that our editor couldn't pin down a date when I'd begin my maternity leave. I was still working the day before I went into the hospital to have a nurse begin my pitocin drip. Trust me, I tried my darndest to get her moving earlier. She had the same stubborn streak then that makes for such pleasant morning interactions now.

Or maybe it's simply being a parent that made me feel for the Davises. In the Boston Herald article Bernstein took to task for its pro-parent tone, Jennifer Davis says her husband maneuvered into the breakdown lane to continue the rush to the hospital. Two state troopers gave them the go-ahead to keep going. A third, however, detained the couple and went back to his cruiser to look up John Davis' driving record (six traffic infractions in twenty years, by the way), and made them wait until he was done writing out another motorist's ticket. He then quizzed the contracting Jennifer, making her unzip her jacket to prove she really had a pregnant belly under there. He finally issued a citation before letting the couple go - the $100 bill arrived in the mail the other day.

The Davises, by the way, had actually pulled over to ask the trooper if they could continue in the lane to the exit where they'd get off and choose another route to the hospital. This was hardly the case of a trooper pulling over a speeding driver in the breakdown lane and diligently investigating suspicious activity. This was a police officer forgetting his mission is to protect AND serve.

Yes, I'm taking the side of the parents in this one too. Now what do you want to bet David Bernstein will find a conspiracy here?

Image: Boston Herald

They Say: Prenatal Folic Acid Not So Good After All

Christian Parents Opt for Religious Circumcision . . . Even if It's Jewish

Say Hi To Grandma Through the Screen

No, the Vagina Doesn't 'Heal Up and Close' from Disuse

Should Dads Cosleep?

Miriam Axel-Lute — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 21:00:00 GMT

Can dads sleep safely with their infants, or should that be left to moms and their "natural protective instincts"? The photo I posted with my report on the British study saying cosleeping doesn't increase risk of SIDS (reposted here) generated some passionate back and forth on this topic in the comments.

On the one hand, the official word from many cosleeping advocates is that it should only be the mom (and only a breastfeeding mom at that, yo). In fact, they even say that a cosleeping baby should not be placed between mom and dad, but between mom and a bedrail. Folks taking this position generally say that breastfeeding mothers are more "tuned in" to their babies, aware of their location, instinctually place them in a safe sleeping position, and wake in tandem with them throughout the night. Ccertainly if you are breastfeeding, one of the points of colseeping is having the breastfeeding mother right there to increase lactation and nursing frequency and duration.

On the other hand, I haven't actually seen any studies of specifically dads and cosleeping, but I've certainly known plenty of dads who describe for themselves perfectly my own experience of being hyper-aware of the presence and location and motion of their infants, even as they sleep. Is it possible that advocates on the defensive against "cosleeping = death" hysteria are being overcautious/biased on this one?

It's worth noting that dads, at least engaged ones, do actually go through hormonal changes themselves as they begin to parent, including modestly increased levels of prolactin, the lactation hormone. (I'd wager this probably also happens for non-bio moms in queer couples.) It's not like we're talking random person off the street here. But it's also not biological motherhood either.

What do you think? Is the only-moms-should-sleep-next-to-baby thing an acknowledgement of basic biology, or just more sexism trying to sneak in under the cloak of science?

Photo by davef3138, via Flickr.

More by this author:

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!

Matt Lauer Talks To Sarah Palin In The Kitchen

Brett Singer — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 13:35:00 GMT

Sarah Palin is off the campaign trail but not out of the spotlight. Now that she isn't running for anything, she's doing interviews left and right (that's not a political reference, by the way). This morning, NBC aired the first part of Matt Lauer's interview with the Alaska Governor; part two airs tomorrow, and there's even more coming on NBC Nightly News.

Sarah sat down with Matt in Alaska for a traditional interview (as morning news gigs go, I think Matt Lauer has it the worst – dude has to travel a LOT). He also spent some time at the Palin home, sharing a salmon and halibut casserole, which he said was quite tasty.

Some of the video is below (click here if the embed doesn't work).

Here are some highlights:

Matt says that the Palin family was, “down to Earth.” Palin herself is, “a working mom...making dinner for her family.”

As for Governor Palin, she was thrilled to be, “representing middle-class, hardworking American families” as part of the McCampaign. (I'm waiting for a candidate to say that they represent lazy people who don't care about money.) She “did not know” that the media scrutiny would be as intense as it turned out to be, and she was upset about the rumors that Trig was not her son. Still, it was all worth it because, “I knew we were on the right path...offering me and my family in service of my country.”

Todd weighs in, kind of. Asked about how the Palin family dealt with the crazy campaign schedule, the First Dude said, “our family is very adaptable.” As for the criticisms? It's just “part of the business.” It sounds like Sarah was more interested than Todd in tearing some of her critics a new one. Still, the Governor says that it's all, “part of this beast called politics in America.”

So what about all of the post-election mud that's been flying around our heads? And did the McCampaign keep her from doing interviews? Palin doesn't want to get into “inside baseball” with regard to “who was calling the shots in the campaign.” She makes it pretty clear that she, “loves doing interviews” because she wants to tell the American people what she plans to do to/for them. “You have to be able to speak through the media.” Lauer points out that she answered his question, “without answering it.”

Then we hear from Piper. She awkwardly answers Matt's questions about the campaign, saying that the hardest part was going to the rallies. She missed “a lot” of school, and its been hard to catch up now that she's home again. How would she feel about another campaign, like, say, in four years? “I don't know,” is the 7 year old's answer. Then mom jumps in and asks her daughter, “Would you want to do it again, sister?” Piper, without missing a beat, says, “Yes.” (UPDATE: apparently Piper was wearing high heels.)

I have several thoughts about this of course, but one thing comes to mind immediately. Governor Palin expressed frustration with what she calls a “double standard” regarding how the media covers her. “I don’t know if anybody’s asking Barack Obama, for intance, ‘Who did your makeup before you went on stage?’ But they’ve been asking me.” True. But when John McCain goes on Jay Leno tonight, I don't think he's going to be doing a cooking segment. Live by the mixing bowl, die by the mixing bowl, y'know?

Source/Image: NBC/MSNBC

Sarah Palin Gets Pranked By Canadian Radio Hosts – Video

Palin Speaks Out On Special Needs Trusts

Morning News: McCain's Camp Starts Dishing On Palin

7-Year-Old Piper Palin Sports High Heels on The Today Show

With Hand Raised, Palin Swears 'I am Trig's Mom'

The Obamas Are a Great First Family

Babble Podcast for November 10, 2008

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.

The Biggest Driving Mistakes Moms Make

Amy Kuras — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 20:32:00 GMT

As responsible parents, we'd never drive drunk, tailgate out of road rage, try to apply makeup or read while driving, right?
But turns out some very common behaviors are just as dangerous. According to this story from MSNBC, a recent University of Utah study found that subjects using cell phones in a driving simulation had three accidents, while those who were drunk had none (although I take major issue with the story for this: "Tempting as it may be to use free minutes to schedule a playdate…." Sure. Because everything we do as mothers has to be about our children. It's not like we have jobs or friends or volunteer activities we might need to check in with, no, we're just shopping, cooking, cleaning, playdate-scheduling machines.).

Other dangerous behaviors are eating behind the wheel, drowsy driving, and tending to our kids while in the car (passing out snacks and handing over sippy cups, for example). It all comes down to driver distraction. Distractions of just three seconds cause fully 80 percent of accidents.

I know so far, I've been lucky – the multiple times I've reached or glanced back to tend to my kids while driving have resulted in other drivers not hitting me, (but probably wishing they could because I'm driving like an idiot). I must say, my cell phone's been broken for about a month now and while I miss the convenience of catching up on calls while I am out and about, I'm glad I have had a chance to break the habit.

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

Dads Get Screwed For Staying At Home--Just Like Moms!

Kelly Mills — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 21:01:00 GMT

Here's a problem many women who took a break from working outside the home to be with the kids have faced for a while: How to explain the blank space on the resume? The fact that being a SAH parent isn't given much respect, and the unfair impression some employers have that it means you aren't serious about your career have meant women have had a harder time breaking back into the paid workforce. But hey, problems like this aren't just for the ladies anymore. Ain't equal treatment grand?

With increasing numbers of dads opting out to raise the pups, now some men are trying to explain that baking cupcakes for 22 kids and getting three children to soccer practices means they can prioritize well and multi-task. And interestingly, many of the guys are hoping to find inroads along the path former SAHM's have blazed. I think very few people get less respect than the excellent SAHDs out there. Men who leave the workforce are still considered especially suspect to some employers, so guys have had to do things like maintain a side business and do volunteer jobs to keep a tight resume. Maybe the best bet for the guys is to find a hiring person who understands--like a mom who stayed at home for a few years to raise her kids.

Today Show Uncovers the Obvious

What a WAHD

Women Not Having It All

Saudi Women Treated As Children

Cole Gamble — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 14:02:00 GMT

A report released by the New York based Humans Rights Group says adult Saudi Arabian women hold the status of “perpetual childhood” with their husbands and the male members of their families. Among the other rights not afforded to Saudi women are the right to drive and the right to health care unless given permission.

What this means for Saudi mothers is not being allowed to make even the most simple choices for their own children, because they, after all, have the same status as their children. They can not enroll their children in school or travel with their children without the written permission of the child’s father. By the way, the year is 2008.

Photo: BBC News

5 Reasons Wives Do More Housework

Cole Gamble — Tue, 15 Apr 2008 13:00:00 GMT

A recent study found wives do seven times more housework than their husbands. As I write this post my wife is folding laundry, and I wonder, can this be true? Do wives really do more housework? Nah, crazy talk. Oh honey, while you are tackling that mound of freshly laundered clothes, could you grab my coffee mug? It’s sooooo far away.

Okay, okay who thinks this comes as a big surprise? It's a stereotype, a running joke, a real screw job for women, but I think I have some legitimate reasons why women do more around the house.

First, let me give you a little background. I am actually quite domesticated. I grew up in a house where the father cooked more than half the meals and definitely did his share of chores. It's funny, because I thought this was normal. I think many guys of my generation grew up under similar circumstances; homes where both parents work and so the men were needed to pitch in to a greater degree. So in an age of more enlightened men, why do women do more? Here are my theories:

Old Fashioned Sexism. Not until I met my in-laws did I discover some people really see a difference in “women's work” and “men's work.” Dishes, vacuuming, windows—my father-in-law won't touch them. The only kind of chores he'll consider are those masculine enough to present a potential for physical danger (i.e. changing lawn mower blades, knocking down a hornet's nest). I would suggest he wash all the knives in the house after having five or six whiskey sodas if he requires that Fear Factor element, but I don't think he would buy it.

Men simply have a different tolerance for disarray than women. I see it whenever my wife goes out of town. Am I disgusting when I am left to my own resources? Do I allow plant and animal life to flourish in pools of spilled orange juice on our counters? No, but I certainly don't do much in the way of housework but every other day (a thought that cause's my wife's throat to close up and sends her into coronary palpitations). Where am I saving time? Oh, I suppose one could start by not making the bed in the morning (I'm going to mess it up in fourteen hours anyway). Simple corner cutting practices like this streamline my life when I am on my own so I can literally drive to work still half asleep. When it comes to finer cleaning like water spots on the mirror or dust on the bookshelf, women might think men just don't give a damn. Not necessarily true, we are just unaware of it. When my wife says, “This place is a dump” I look around and see a perfectly ordered house with everything in its place. I literally can not see the squalor she sees. For a man to see the dust, it has to be within six inches of his nose, so unless he finds himself trapped under a collapsed bookcase, said bookcase will not see Mr. Pledge until the dust is as thick as a dictionary.

Women don't like how men do it. I mentioned my wife is folding laundry. Help was offered by me but Nicole declined it. She usually does, as did my step-mother when I was a kid, because both women can't stand how I fold laundry. I honestly don't know what I am doing wrong; there is some kind of perfect geometry to underwear folding I apparently can't get my head around.

Some chores have higher point values. My wife has zero interest in cleaning the cat box. Who does? So the job falls upon me and because of the sheer grossness factor of the chore we've agreed my turd sifting contribution is worth three of her preferred tasks.

Women just want to take care of us because they love us so much. Do I really mean this, or am I just baiting for comments?

Photo: www.theage.com

Political Nanny: Naughty Chair for Kentucky Bigots

Madeline Holler — Mon, 14 Apr 2008 22:32:00 GMT

Posted by Political Nanny

At a Lincoln Day dinner in northern Kentucky, GOP lawmakers had a fun time criticizing Democrats. But as one blogger who was there reported, the comments went a bit far.

From the NYTimes:

Congressman Geoff Davis, took the criticisms of Mr. Obama a few steps further, likening the change slogan to the pitch of a “snake oil salesman.” He then relayed to the audience that he had taken party in a “highly classified, national security simulation” with Obama.

“I’m going to tell you something: That boy’s finger does not need to be on the button,” Mr. Davis said. “He could not make a decision in that simulation that related to a nuclear threat to this country.”

Was it Barack Obama's youth that prompted the congressman to call him "boy"? Or, perhaps, habit? Either way, the comment is making the Internet rounds. But Political Nanny isn't waiting for an apology, though one was issued to Obama. She's putting Davis in the Naughty Chair.

The GOP guys kept up with the demeaning sexism and said this with regard to Hillary Clinton:

While saying her candidacy seemed to be teetering on the brink, he added “I hear she hasn’t been this worried since a new Hooters opened” near her home with former President Bill Clinton.

That's another five minutes for the guy who said it and anybody who laughed. No official apology has been made to Clinton or her campaign for the poor choice of "comedic" material.

Open Letter of the Month: Dear PR People...

Kelly Mills — Tue, 08 Apr 2008 22:35:00 GMT

Greetings PR people!

First, let me say I'm so glad you love the site, I appreciate that compliment. And I know your job can't be all easy, sending e-mails to bloggers and not knowing if you will be well-received or if some rogue is gonna mock the product or event you are pitching, though I suppose publicity is publicity. So let me just say a couple things and you can take or leave it, but I do mean this kindly.

First, I should warn you that I'm not such a fan of receiving e-mails that start, "Dear Mommy Blogger." I know many are fine with that term, but even my kid doesn't call me mommy (I'm "mama") so there you go. And believe it or not, we actually have real live men working here who have spawned children, and while some of them are better mothers than I'll ever be, it might behoove you to address your stuff using the more inclusive "parent blogger" or even (gasp) the name of our blog.

Same goes for products you think are a "mother's best friend" or "a boon to moms everywhere" or whatever. We like the dads here, and we'd like to think dads everywhere are participating in childrearing. Sticking with just the moms is limiting your market. Also, telling us your product was invented by a mom or moms is fine, but you should know that does not put you in the minority at this point, so it's kinda lost the selling power.

Now, some parent bloggers like it when you demonstrate you read the blog by mentioning a post or two. I don't care so much about that myself, but if you do plan to do this, double check your e-mail to avoid sending something that literally says "I like your post on x" because it wouldn't be the first time someone forgot to fill in the blank and it makes us all feel silly. The faux-friendly tone sometimes is a little grating too: I like it when you get to the point without pretending we snuggle each other. And it should probably go without saying that a somewhat sexist riff on a cleaning product or stereotyped site mommies will adore or a kit for clueless dads is probably not going to be well-received. I mean, send us things by all means, but some of this is just fair game for us.

Finally, it's great that Gwyneth Paltrow uses your solid gold rattle or JLo is gaga over your high thread count wipes, but that is not such a selling point for me personally. All it says to me is that you sent out free stuff to celebrities, and don't they already have enough free stuff? Now, if you told me you donated a hundred of whatever you are pitching to needy parents, that might sway me. Celebs? Not so much.

Anyhow, have a great day, and I look forward to hearing from you soon.

Kelly

Because Womenfolk Like Babies, Not B-Ball

Amy Kuras — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 20:02:00 GMT

Does this sound like a ridiculous barking dog to anyone else? Yes, Discovery Health's Baby Madness, billed as the mom's alternative to basketball's Final Four.

Because of course I would never want to watch basketball. Because I am a girl. And I like babies. Ha! Ha! Babies! Cute.

Not basketball. Not like my husband probably decided I was the one for him due to my excellent trash talk the first year we were dating, when my school met his in the first round (the same year, I might add, I won a statewide journalism award for a sports story I worked on). Not like I spent much of last year's tourney several notches ahead of my best guy friend in his own tournament pool. And I'm not even especially a sports fan.

No, I forget my place, I am a woman and a a mother and so of course I would rather watch babies do cute things on television (because hanging with my own cute baby and his cute preschooler sister all day long is apparently not quite enough of watching kids. Ha! Ha! Chicks! We can’t get enough babies!).

Not only do we ladies like babies, not basketball, we also like "celebrities" even if they are so D-list I can't even use the word without the snarky little quotes. Because this gem of counterprogramming also gifts us with advice and observations from "celebrity" moms of multiples Kate Gosselin (of "Jon and Kate Plus 8") and, wait for it, Michelle Duggar (on second thought, not even going there).

But still. Is it too much to ask that we stay away from stupid gender stereotypes? From assuming that because you're pitching a program to, say, mothers that we're all cute and fluffy and girly and baby-crazy would sooner get advice from Michelle Duggar (oops) than watch hoops?

Your Girls Can Be "Bimbos" Online!

Kelly Mills — Tue, 25 Mar 2008 23:02:00 GMT

Sometimes you see stuff and think, "Is this fer real?" When I read about the Miss Bimbo game, I kept thinking, "Oh, in a minute they'll say the game is for adults." But no, in fact the majority of the 200,000 players are between the ages of 7 and 17. But let me back up: There's a virtual "fashion" game for girls where they get a "Bimbo" and have to navigate her through boob jobs and diets and so on to make her the coolest bimbo of all. Girls can dress their dolls in sexy outfits for clubbing, and are encouraged to keep them waif thin through diet pills and plastic surgery. Niiiice.

Most of the accounts I read focused on the weight and cosmetic horrors of the game, but I personally was more disturbed by the fact that the bimbos are supposed to find a rich boyfriend so they don't have to work. Like, it's one of the goals of the game. Now that is just creepy. For god's sake, we don't even read "Cinderella" without some irritable commentary about how Cinderella ought to stand up for herself instead of waiting to be rescued. So the idea of having girls finding a sugar daddy through the game is icky. It simultaneously asks them to identify with and look down on the bimbos, and frankly, it seems strangely angry to me.

Here's the best quote from the game's creator: "It is not a bad influence for young children. They learn to take care of their bimbos. The missions and goals are morally sound and teach children about the real world." Frigging excuse me? But it goes on: "The breast operations are just one part of the game and we are not encouraging young girls to have them, just reflecting real life." Well, that's a relief. For a minute there I was worried. Yeah, these are totally the lessons I want my kids to learn. Why does it smell so strongly of misogyny in here?

Controversy: Nature/Nurture

Amy S.F. Lutz — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 21:30:00 GMT

Madeline's post this week expressing frustration and despair at the blatant sexism in her Target circular definitely pitted the feminist theorists against the . . . I don't know, what do you call those who pretty much said, "Chill out, it's just a Target circular"?

I too was raised to think of gender as a cultural construct. My mom drilled into my head that girls like pink and dolls and dresses and boys like blue and trucks and guns because society tells us we should. And I believed it.

Now, can I hear from all of those who thought as I did until we had children who thwarted our every expectation? Because I KNOW there's a lot of us out there.

You know who you are. You wear track pants every day, yet somehow end up with a girly-girl who won't wear anything but dresses and patent-leather Mary Janes to school. Or, conversely, you know how to put on eye shadow and own trendy ballet flats in six different colors, but your daughter is philosophically opposed to brushing her hair and spends all her time playing soccer.

The fact is, if Piaget can conceive his entire theory of child development from observing his own three children, then I feel perfectly comfortable declaring, after watching the seven kids who live in my house, NATURE RULES. It doesn't mean that boys and girls will always fall into traditional gender roles, although I think that happens the majority of the time. It means that, as martinsgirl noted, "kids like what they like."

Take my twins, Aaron and Gretchen, the youngest in a household teeming with toys, with two older girls and three older boys to serve as role models. By 15 months old, Gretchen was obsessed with baby dolls. She played with them appropriately, pushing them around in buggies and feeding them bottles. Aaron couldn't have cared less. I've also watched my two nephews (3 and 2) become so consumed with sword fighting that they spar with their forks at the table, while their older girl cousins look on, appalled.

I still fight against gender stereotypes. When my girls tell me Minnie Mouse is for girls and Mickey is for boys, or that princess lunchboxes are for girls and Bob the Builder is for boys, I tell them anyone can like anything - and they don't argue with me. That doesn't seem to have much impact on what they like, however.

Did the Washington Post Say Our Girls Are Dim Or Not?

Kelly Mills — Tue, 04 Mar 2008 23:35:00 GMT

The other day I was discussing the women's suffrage movement with my daughter. When she asked why women couldn't vote in the past, I cited a number of reasons, including the fact that many people thought women were too emotional and less intelligent than men, and therefore couldn't be entrusted to make good decisions. She looked dumbfounded, and asked, "Well, since the women knew that wasn't true, why didn't they just take over?" That led to another involved discussion, and it came up that some women also bought the stereotypes about themselves. Hey, and then the next day the Washington Post printed this idiotic thing on how women are dumber than men.

You may have heard that the Outlook editor John Pomfret says the piece ~~of crap~~ was intended to be "tongue-in-cheek." I dunno, I thought a key element of satire was that it was supposed to be funny, but I'm a woman, and therefore maybe a little slower at getting these things. I guess it's not like anyone really behaves like women are less intelligent, or prints stupid studies about sex differences that imply the weaker sex is, well, essentially weaker in certain key areas, right? Or that stereotypes about women are just fine to trot out regularly as other stereotypes become more taboo? Good thing we don't have to hear about how we are too emotional, how we must love "chick flicks' and "chick lit," and how we are all gonna vote for Hilary because she's a woman and she cried and we care most about our shoes and our wrinkles and having babies before we turn 35. We are from Venus, aren't we? See, I guess women aren't just unfunny (and the WaPo article certainly serves as evidence towards that assertion) but we also lack a sense of humor.

Ms. Allen, when it comes to pitching humor, you throw like a girl.

Older Moms Do It Better

Kelly Mills — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 20:31:00 GMT

If you follow this sort of thing, you know that older moms have been lambasted in the media lately because of the drop in fertility and the fact that they have a higher risk of birth defects and miscarriage, blah blah blah. There's been some members of the medical community and a couple of female columnists exhorting women to stop waiting so long to have kids, saying ladies should maybe settle for a less-than-great mate in order to spawn early and safely or risk being alone and childless. Those wicked older moms. Why, a group of mothers hasn't been this villified since...um, single moms?

Lowri Turner is mad and she isn't gonna take this crap anymore. She argues, among many other things, that perhaps there ought to be more attention paid to the dearth of suitable guys available to women in their thirties, rather than picking on the ladies. Now let's review. If you wait until you are ready to have kids and that doesn't happen until your late thirties and early forties, you are selfish. If you opt to have a kid without a guy, you are selfish, and so are lesbian moms. However, women should all want to have children, otherwise you are selfish, and you should find some whatever dude and have kids early--but not too early, teen moms are selfish. Oh, be careful, because once you have kids, both going back to work to pursue a career and getting a divorce from your husband are selfish too.

Wow, it almost feels like there's a kind of myth of the perfect family with a stay-at-home young mom who sacrifices all for her kids but finds motherhood completely fulfills her. And the criticism of anything else is targeted solely at women. Why, it's like women are being singled out because of their sex. Oooh, I know! We could call this phenomenon, "sexism."