Yes, I consider myself to be a feminist or womanist, yet both those terms often take on different connotations or meanings than the rather simplistic definition I use. Feminism has been defined as everything from women being allowed to make choices to women hating anything that has a penis (or should I say 'womyn'). However, in my definition, I simply reject the sociological construct of gender, as in gender roles. I believe in parity, in egalitarianism, and no special protections based on sociological gender roles.
This is what I find so problematic about so much of the feminist dialogue today. There is a valid argument for equal pay for equal work, yet in the same breath, there is a desire for certain classes of women to get special consideration or special protections. The most oft mentioned of the special class women is the mother.
Mothers, it is felt, by dint of their being mothers, should get special protections. If they are poor, they should have programs that give them housing, healthcare, childcare, job training, etc. If middle to upper SES, then job protection, flexible work arrangements, or validation for being their child(ren)'s primary full-time caregiver (and yes, I realize the last one isn't really a protection, but I think you get my drift).
Still I must ask, how egalitarian and truly feminist is that reasoning? Are we equal in some cases but not equal in others? This is what troubles me. And if the answer is that the benefits listed above are not so much for the mother per se, but are actually for the child(ren), then shouldn't the protections be sought for parents and not for mothers? If we consider ourselves equal, then why bring gender into the equation at all?
Now I don't put this out there to rag on mothers, parents, feminists or anyone in particular. I offer this as an example of how my brain works a bit differently in this regard. To me egalitarianism means that we don't split things along gender lines. We're all just people with different genitalia and physical attributes, but the who of who we are isn't and shouldn't be limited by our sociological gender roles. Yet approaching life this way as a woman is a difficult enterprise when our society remains entrenched in these male/female boxes.
Luckily I work in a place that has a large number of non-traditional women (I hate even typing "non-traditional" since it implies that acceptance of sociological gender roles is indeed the norm…I know that it is, but I hate having to recognize that when it goes so against my grain). These are women who have hyphenated their children's names to reflect both theirs and their husbands, women who work while their husbands are primary caregivers at home and women who with their partners embody the model of equally shared homecare and parenting. They speak up in meetings and can tell you to STFU without any uterine guilt if necessary. It's about strength, confidence, and the ability to be direct. Yet they also possess the "feminine" traits of warmth, nurturance, and giving.
Last week I watched one, who I will call Bridget, stand onstage in front of 1000 people delivering a message of challenge to one of our competitors. This woman, who is only a few years younger than me, and a mother of four, the youngest a year old, is going through chemo for breast cancer but still pushes through every day rocking one sharp headscarf after another. I've seen her on the bad days, the days when she looks like she is two steps away from having it all crashing down. I support her without supporting her, because I know that look…and I know the strength that makes her gut through another day. It doesn't tolerate what feels like pity or help through weakness. Instead, I walk with her and listen to what she is willing to share. And she talks herself a notch stronger.
Work, cancer, motherhood…yet there she stood in the bright lights throwing down the gauntlet to thunderous applause and a standing ovation. The power, the confidence, the resolve…we should all enjoy these qualities in abundance. Yet Bridget, I'm afraid, is more the exception than the rule in my experience of womynkind.
Instead, more commonly seen is the woman looking for permission to claim her own power. As a perfect example, we have a posting from one of my photography boards from a woman looking for help standing up to her clients. I've edited the message for privacy.
I need some advice, and need somebody to pump me up lol to stand up for myself.
I recently started charging for sessions. I feel that I'm at that point but not at the point to charge what other area photographers are charging yet. I am charging a reasonable fee of $60 for a session that lasts an hour and in return as of right now the clients get a CD in return of the images.
There are two ladies that I know and have known for a long time. They are probably 20/21ish now. I know that both of them are flat broke and they have never had nice pictures taken. One of the sisters came to me and asked me what I charged for a family session and I told her $60, but I told her since I've known her for so long that I would do it for $40 with the CD. The first sister set a date and then her sister calls me and wants the same deal for her family. I give her the same deal as well. I told BOTH of the sisters that the money was due the day of the shoot. They live an hour away from me. The day of the shoot, I arrive at their house. Neither family is ready, and I even had to dress one of the kids so we could hurry along. When I get there, I was informed that neither had the money that day and that they would pay me the following week. Since I drove an hour, I went ahead and told them that I would do the session but I had to be paid before they got any of the pictures. The shoot was a week ago this past Sunday and I have yet to see any money. As I said before I arrived at 2:30pm, I did not finish with their session until almost 7pm that night. One of the sisters even got some maternity shots out of me (even though that's a totally separate session) Now she is calling me daily asking me how the pictures are coming along. I keep telling her just fine because I don't have the backbone to speak up and say "they're not because you haven't held up your end of the deal"...she called yesterday and I avoided her phone call.
Since I know this girl, how do I tell her in a firm, but not mean way that she needs to pay me for my service before she can even view her pictures? I just need someone to pump me up so I can tell her how it's going to be, but need advice on how to do it without seeming like a cold rude snob.
Now I read this and immediately thought better of saying anything. I've found that my direct, clear, nontraditional advice seems more often than not, to really throw people off. I'm not one for the "oh that's a tough one" pat on the back or the ever-present ((((hugs!)))). All I could think to myself is, you need help asking for the money you earned taking those pictures? What's wrong with this picture?
Unfortunately, this illustrates the difficulty in being the type of egalitarian feminist/womanist that I am. As a woman, I'm supposed to be sympathetic and understanding about this type of thing, but my brain really wants me to say, no one needs to give you permission to stand up for yourself, no matter what genitalia you wear!
Sigh… And the struggle continues.
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Leonde Delmare
Sandra Stephens
Malusinka
thebloggess
The Subversive Child Therapist
O'Really?
Salon.com
Comments
Regarding special benefits for mothers - currently, when a woman sacrifices her time and her pre-pregnancy body to raise children, she is penalized for doing so with a loss of wages and career advancement. She generally ends up doing the larger part of child care and household work, and if she has taken time off to raise the children, she will never catch up in her career. Because mothers are at a disadvantage, I don't think it unreasonable to even up the playing field by offering them some sort of additional help.
I think we need to be careful. As an egalitarian, I reject the notion that it is about gender/sex, but we as a society are so used to making it about gender/sex that we have trouble (or are unwilling) to separate the two.
Thanks again for being the first to comment.
It's the old 'disease to please' syndrome. I think that the woman set herself up for that fall. First, she didn't take herself seriously by undercutting the going rate...and guess what? If you don't take yourself seriously, somehow the universe knows this and you are treated accordingly. I do agree with the assessment on mothers.
My former work partner always had to take time off to take care of her sick babies, or visit the teachers, etc. I understand the importance of taking care of your family....I've been there, done that and got the t-shirt. Unfortunately, the brunt of the work falls on the usually single or mother of grown kids shoulders...well, it worked out that way in my case. Rated!
And yes, the caregiving burden definitely falls most often on women, but isn't that mostly due to choice? And as such, if men choose to assume the same responsibility, they should have the same provisions, right?
Bsherman: I'm a parent through adoption, so I wasn't entitled to any leave when our two day old came home with us from the hospital. It seems that corporations view pregnancy as you seem to be implying...like a temporary disability, because maternity leave is paid through your disability benefits.
Since I've never been successfully pregnant, I cannot comment on the pregnancy as disability assessment, but I wonder if this is a common sentiment among women. And if so, (thinking as an egalitarian) should everyone be compensated for any temporary disability other than with short term disability pay or again is motherhood somehow different/special in some way that deserves different compensation than say, someone who sustained an injury that led to their being on short term disability status?
Again, not trying to be contentious. But this is how I, as an egalitarian, think.
I can agree with giving parents certain rights at work for taking care of family matters. Fathers should be more involved anyway.
One special need is a private place to go to express breastmilk when nursing mothers go back to work. I had to barricade myself in a restroom with a handpump back in the early 80's and was laughed at. My co-worker has it slightly better these days - she has use of a utility closet and has understanding co-workers.
In that way, women are somewhat superior over men in that they can provide healthy nourishment for their babes, while men can't. Breastfeeding should be encouraged and not made an extra hassle for working moms. Not having a job is not always an option for moms.
One topic that has come up in my workplace is work hours for parents vs. people without kids or with adult children. We may have to expand hours of operation and our new parents are thinking they should perhaps have first dibs on daytime hours. I'm not so sure. I can see their reasons for wanting to keep the kids on their daytime schedules, but as a person without parental obligations, I don't see why the evening shift should automatically be ours.
I don't know that society really feels that way. It feels like we're really two-faced about motherhood. We hold it up as this great thing- yeah and every pregnancy should result in a child also according to some, but the protections you mention are often not there. For many women maternity leave is unpaid. For some non-existent. Job security is supposed to be protected by law, but employers can terminate for any reason and it is very hard to prove discrimination. Mothers very often make less than everyone else. I'm all for egalitarianism. How 'bout we even that playing field a bit first, though?
And yes also to paternity leave and leave for adoptive parents. Supporting one group or gender does not need to come at the cost of the other. We need better family policy in this country all around. I support a group called Moms Rising and they talk about supporting dads and parents and caregivers in general all the time. Family leave policies in general suck.
My father did pretty much everything in his power to reinforce the idea that I will never be as smart, capable, successful or dependable as a man - simply by virtue of my gender. When I succeeded, he presumed I was getting more than I deserved b/c I got lucky. He truly believed my husband was responsible for all the good decisions I made. There was and is just no winning with him - my inferiority is a fact, where he is concerned. This can be a very difficult thing to throw off, once you've internalized it. So I try to have some compassion for women who recognize they need to throw off their own timidity at standing up for themselves. They're trying - that's better than giving up and believing the load of crap about womanhood that so many in society would have them believe.
I like when you write about feminism!
Yet leave should be available for whoever is taking care of the baby. And the way it is currently structured for those companies that offer maternity leave, it is often configured as part of the disability benefits, and thus it leaves out both fathers and adoptive parents. Again, why can't we advocate for paid parental leave of x amount of time to care for a newborn?
JustJuli: Thanks for your comments. I too belong to MomsRising and I struggle with the clear gender bias of the group. It is similar to the "parenting" magazines that are clearly skewed to women. If the goal is to improve policies for families, then the group should be called FamiliesRising, yet the focus is on mothers.
And don't get me wrong. I do understand that the playing field is not level. Yet when we focus on getting protections and accommodations for mothers rather than parents, the issue becomes a women's problem and not a parents' problem. And finding solutions should not be the sole bailiwick of the woman. Both partners should work to resolve issues of work/family balance.
Michael: I need to make myself more clear. When I say equal, it means that irrespective of our genitalia, we are all allowed the full range of ideologies, behaviors, emotions and choices in life. No restrictions by gender. So it goes without saying that there will be those of either sex who will have difficulty claiming their own power.
However, my trouble is that when I look at the distribution of a curve that purports to measure the quality that I'll call backbone in women, I can assure you that the distribution will not be normal. It will be skewed, in that the majority of women will be lower in the backbone quality measurement. And that, I believe, is a function of the "gender box." We need to move out of our little boxes so that our distributions normalize. Does this make more sense?
Sandra: You know that I'm still laughing over the fact that you work in pubic relations. I had a similar typo on one of my pubertal development slides once. Instead of "pubic hair" the slide said "public hair!" Well for some of my patients, the hair was very public indeed!
But to return to your serious comments, what utter crap your father tried to feed you. And wonderful for you that you were able to throw his words off. And yes, I do try to have patience and lead by example, and all the other good stuff. Yet when I realize how immensely the Twilight series seems to resonate for so many women, when all I could see were the myriad antifeminist messages contained within its pages, I realize that either I'm fighting a battle that other women do not want fought, or I just live in Bizarro World...perhaps a little of both.
And so I vent.
Thanks for reading.
http://open.salon.com/blog/sgt_mom/2009/11/10/memoan_effective_response_to_ungentlemanly_attentions
Memo: An Effective Response to Ungentlemanly Attentions.
My favorite quote:
Stand up straight, step up toe to toe, take off the genteel white gloves, squash down all your instinctive ladylike inhibitions…. And be just as crude, offensive and nasty in response. Don’t cry, don’t whine, just go straight for the jugular, or other vulnerable area; think of it as raising his consciousness, or establishing a good working understanding. If these actions are well and effectively performed, he will not grievously offend again, and if he does, you guarantee to serve up his balls on a silver plate, tastefully ornamented with a spring of parsley and perhaps a small tomato carved into the shape of a rose. The offender will be enlightened as to the error of his ways, and apologize abjectly; you will shake hands and never mention it again.
In conclusion, I will remind you again; strong women do not take crap or look to others to fight for them; instead they dish it back with interest.
Too often women are their own worst enemies.
I am really over the term "mom". I think it demeans the parenting role of women. Refer to yourselves as "mother". I see so many bios that state "I'm a mom of four who enjoys..." . It just annoys me. Be a mom to your kids and a mother/parent in terms of society. I really prefer parent, to tell you the truth. Mom diminishes the role of motherhood, to me. "Just a mom!"
Whew! Got that off my chest.
I don't think being a feminist disallows criticizing the actions of "groups" of women - or even one woman specifically. I am facilitating a writing support group for women survivors of sexual assault, and it came up immediately - how to be comfortable with all the differences in how we might relate on a common topic; on common ground. It's interesting to see how women relate in these circumstances - I do a lot of work with rape/crisis intervention so I am ALWAYS dealing with other women. I have my days when I feel like I'm listening to some stupid whining. Honestly. And when we have case review I get to say it to my coworkers.
OK, my experiences are unique, but I work in a field that lends itself to radical feminism, and yet most of us are feminists who are fighting just as hard to find ways to provide services to men who are in crisis - there are none, for the most part .And we can't provide it, although we recently trained a counselor/advocate to have a once a week hotline for men - primarily gay men.
I mean, I talk to men whenever they call, but there is nowhere to tell them to go - there are no services. For DV, rape - there's no rape kit for men here. No safe home or shelter.
I have more to say, but maybe this picture of my take on some of this is a little bit adding to the conversation.
I hope so! Thanks for listening.
however, as you mention feminism is about choice
come women still choose to be home makers
there still should be some social support and protection for that
or for a male home maker too
if the state pays for day care, and affirmative action for women to be policewomen, then a home making mom should also be protected
O'Really?: I've always interacted better with men, but as you've said, that isn't the answer. I just wish we could all move past these limiting gender roles and be the people we truly wish to be. Thanks for your comment.
Aim: Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I agree with you. By making what is truly parenting shift to being a mom, there is a diminishing of the role since it seems to apply to only one gender. Being a parent is an important (though noncritical) role in a person's life. Why does it need to be gendered?
And you also illustrate another consequences of gendering special protections: That women are the only ones who need resources for sexual violence. Sexual violence can be perpetrated against either sex, yet we are poorly prepared to deal when the violence is perpetrated against men.
Kathy: Thanks for commenting. Let me clarify though. Many say that feminism is about choice. My position, however, is that feminism is about egalitarianism of sociological constructs of gender. Thus my feeling is that if there is a need for special protection, it should be applied to the role (SAHP) or event (parental leave) and not be based on gender.
Leonde: So agreed!
Forgive me, but I don't see anything uniquely female about this situation. That woman is just a creep.
I think much of the issue stems from something Sandra mentioned. How we are parented plays a huge role. My father never hesitated for a second to remind me I was smart, able and strong. I had only sisters; I don't know if that altered the dynamic, but I'm sure it did.
It was my mother who took a more passive role - we were smart and capable, unless there was a man around. Sigh.
I've tended to work in traditionally male areas - I'm a auto journalist now. But I will admit; the times I had my two sons were physically and emotionally the toughest years of my life. I owned my own company with my then husband, and didn't face near the crap that most women I knew did, but it was bloody hard.
The most confusing part? Throughout the toughest times, women were my best allies - and my biggest foes. I've often said that we fight each other over the stupidest things, and men, often mediocre men, cut right up the middle and claim the prizes.
I'm raising my sons to be feminists. My father was one, even though he didn't know it, and he didn't start out as one. But seeing what his daughters faced, he was quickly on board in wanting the best for them. And I want my sons to understand that nothing works without mutual consideration, respect and expectation. We can do it, we should do it, and we must do it.
Now it just sounds like you're arguing semantics. The fact of the matter is that most primary care-givers are still mothers, even in this day and age. I would LOVE to see a major shift toward fathers being primary care-givers. I think it would change a lot about our world and I think it is absolutely compatible with feminism to think this way. My husband would love to be a SAHD, but if he did we would be living in a cardboard box on the street because I cannot make what he makes. Equal pay is something feminists fight for, but really would benefit all of us. Most of the things feminists fight for would benefit men as well, but the old "feminists are man-hating hairy lesbians" card gets played all the damn time anyway.
WSFTC: I've had more trouble cultivating female friendships since my ideology is so...uh...bizarre to many. The crap that women can do to each other (as I wrote about in my post Bee-yotch Squared) amazes me. We're all just people. Why must we behave in such passive-aggressive manners? But I think it is because we are not encouraged in our socialization to be directly aggressive, or simply direct.
I hope my kidlet ends up defying society's gender norms as well.
JustJuli: Now it just sounds like you're arguing semantics. The fact of the matter is that most primary care-givers are still mothers, even in this day and age. I would LOVE to see a major shift toward fathers being primary care-givers. I think it would change a lot about our world and I think it is absolutely compatible with feminism to think this way. My husband would love to be a SAHD, but if he did we would be living in a cardboard box on the street because I cannot make what he makes.
But that's just it. I'm not arguing semantics. I'm arguing ideology! Until we stop making parenting about mothers and make it about either whichever parent chooses to be a SAHP or if both work, equally shared parenting, nothing will ever change.
In my mother's day, black women didn't go to medical school. If they pursued any career in medicine, it was nursing. But my mom was like, so what. I want to be a doctor. So in 1963 she became a doctor. And now, it is much less unusual to see black women physicians.
In many instances today, women choose to limit education or careers because of what their gender related beliefs might be. Mothers are seen as primary caregivers and fathers breadwinners. It is rare for people to challenge or flip that script.
But if we pursue a more egalitarian approach, then there will not be those narrow limits. My salary is 2.5x my husband's salary, so he was more than able to be a SAHD if he wanted to. The choice was his. So my point is, what's the harm of feminism advocating for both sexes approaching parenting/homecare/work decisions on equal footing without bringing gender norms into it? If we want to evolve, we have to move past "what we've always done" and look toward removing limits and restrictions based on sociological concepts of gender.
And to everyone, thanks for this great discussion!
I struggle with the popularity of Twilight in the same way I struggle with the popularity of glossy women's mags and plastic surgery, how such a huge proportion of women (and not men) uncritically accept that they need fixing - usually in terms of some sort of restriction of the diet, the body, the foot, the mind 0 to reach a constantly shifting ideal. And all I can think is, it will only stop with education, education, education --- that and laying claim to our full freedoms, as men have them. Women are *not* free in this society - a woman who has sex as freely as a man is a 'slut', sex workers inhabit only the lowest social class, religion seeks to restrict our role in our own biology. Men, meanwhile, walk through the world masters of their own biological and sexual domain. I believe true equality will only come to women when we are on true equal footing in the sexual realm, when our 'morality' is not linked to the enforced suppression of our sexuality.
I hate Twilight because it is selling a comforting anti feminism message, decorated with sexual tension and youthful beauty. The story is a glorification of the sexual imbalance inherent in the current state of female backbonelessness; the woman is helpless, the man is in charge of her sexual purity which is code for the value of her life and her soul. The message is really patriarchal, glammed up with sex and goth: entrust yourself to a man who restrains his appetite for you, and this will save you/your soul. Girls love it because after all this time they are still encouraged not to think, unless it's about their beauty and desirability; Twilight is junk food for the mind - easy to eat because the ingredients on their own are tasty....but they make the indepndent self within fat and lazy and addicted to the hypnotic message to just follow societal tropes about women, it will make things easier for all of us. Twilight romanticizes the ugly reality of gender-based inequality, justifying it with the physical differences of men and women - which the movie supernaturally enhances e.g. the guys are not just strong but supernaturally strong, the girl isn't just sexually attractive to the vampire but supernaturally so, in a way that she is powerless to control so she must rely on his restrain. Young girls watching think it all makes sense, sure it does - the girl needs protecting anyone can see that. Sex for her is dangerous, risky, even life threatening, anyone can see that. Men can't control their supernaturally strong appetite for sex, anyone can see that. Sigh. I hate watching girls eat up this social junk food, this anti-equality arsenic. But I'm trying to give up complaining about it and writing expositions about it (this comment notwithstanding) - I'm trying to change it instead. My first step was to step formally away from organized religion where I believe lies the seat of social investment in inequality and female (reproductive) control.
Maybe we should write a movie.....
Women are not equal. We get less pay, we get less promotions. When it comes to childcare, I think it would be better if we focused on the child and not the gender of the parent. More forward thinking countries do give both parents time off to care for a new child (adoption included) because they realized that a well cared for child makes a healthy citizen when they grow up. It's an investment in the future of their country.
Canada maternity: 55% up to $447/week for 50 weeks (15 weeks maternity + 35 weeks parental leave shared with father). Paternity: 55% up to $447/week for 35 weeks parental leave (shared with mother).
Norway maternity: 54 weeks (12.5 months) (80%) or 44 weeks (10 months) (100%) - mother must take at least 3 weeks immediately before birth and 6 weeks immediately after birth, father must take at least 6 weeks - the rest can be shared between mother and father. Norway Paternity: Entirely dependent upon the mother qualifying for paid maternity leave irrespective of Father's own paid national insurance contributions. 45 weeks (10.5 months) (80%) or 35 weeks (8 months) (100%) shared with mother - father must take a minimum of 6 weeks or else these weeks are lost as paid leave.
US: 0 and 0
I understand women who have trouble placing a dollar value on their work -- I am one of them, which may surprise some people. To this day, it is very hard for me to ask for money because of a pervasive feeling that I'm just not worth it, no matter what the reality. It's even more ironic that I act as a role model and mentor for other young people in teaching them that they ARE valuable. And it is not just girls who need to hear that message as Michael pointed out.
As for egalitarianism between men and women, it is the ideal but I think it's unlikely to ever become a reality. Women ARE different because of their ability to have children and allowances must be made to accommodate that.
I wrote about this at length in my
Like you, I'm inclined to reject gender stereotypes. I'm annoyed when my friends practice it, and I'm speaking of particular women here who talk routinely about "men" and "husbands." It's not just that I don't like it; it's that I disagree with it. Often the characteristics they are lambasting remind me of myself, not my husband. :)
"Mothers are seen as primary caregivers and fathers breadwinners. It is rare for people to challenge or flip that script."
And it's also rare to find too many women who want to be the breadwinners while their husband stays home and cares for the children, honestly. My uncle is a SAHD and his wife works, earning six figures.
The attitudes of many women still, however, are that they want to find a man to "take care of them" so that they can stay home and "raise a family" - I've talked to a lot of fathers who, having lost their jobs in this economy, took over childcare while their wives toil in corporate America with all that entails - the annoying peers, the demanding boss, the forcing yourself to get up every day for a 30-60 minute commute to a soul-sucking job...
The funny thing is, a lot of these dads are discovering that staying home and taking care of the kids is NOT as difficult as holding down a corporate 9-5 job, and that it's a lot more fun to deal with a five year old's activity schedule for the day than it is to deal with an asshole boss. One of my best friends is doing the SAHD thing right now and trust me, while he wants a job simply for financial reasons, if he could stay home and play with his kid while his wife worked he would *jump* at that chance.
The fact of the matter is... for most people, it's a lot more enjoyable to stay at home and take care of your offspring than it is to go and work for Corporate America, or to go toil as a retail worker, janitor, or any other non-glamorous job.
It really bothers me that women who want children, and want to be that 'perfect mommy' think that they should get the same pay and privileges as working women who give their career first priority. It's great to be a full time parent, and great to work, but not everyone can get everything; to pretend otherwise is folly.
As for the email, she never should've taken the pictures! No money, no shutter buggery.
Sandra: I think I've just fallen in love with you! Amen, co-sign and all the rest! So true, so true. And why does this appeal so much to so many women? Is this what women really want? If so, leave me off the list, please.
I don't know if you saw this hysterical deconstruction of the series by a LJ Blogger. Twilight Stonified You must read it.
And there is another YA read called The Hunger Games with a kick-ass female lead that isn't getting a fraction of the press of Twilight, but it deserves it. Fabulous book for teens. At least someone was smart enough to option the rights to that one so it will be made into a movie. Hopefully it wont be watered down and the lead filled with some wifty, unconvincing actress in the role. We shall see.
Women are not equal. We get less pay, we get less promotions. When it comes to childcare, I think it would be better if we focused on the child and not the gender of the parent.
Marcelleqb: Do women get less pay and promotions overall or is it related to the tendency many women have to ceiling their career in favor of family? Not saying that this is wrong or right, but wondering what the etiology of the less pay/promotion issue is. I've been fortunate enough to work in an area where the salary is the salary, gender notwithstanding.
But I'm with you about how the focus should be on the child and not the gender of the parent. Families should be treated as important, period.
Emma Peel: Thanks for your comments. It is indeed critical that children of either gender be raised to feel comfortable with their value and their own agency while not claiming such unearned privilege as to become "snowflakes," however.
Women ARE different because of their ability to have children and allowances must be made to accommodate that.
And again, I was speaking of sociological constructs of gender...not physical ones.
Lainey: Thank you for being one of the few who appreciate directness! Maybe we could go teach the photographer a lesson or two in how to get her money!
It's not just that I don't like it; it's that I disagree with it. Often the characteristics they are lambasting remind me of myself, not my husband. :)
It is very similar for me as well. I don't fit into the "girl" boxes very well...except for the shoe thing. I seem to have that in abundance.
Incandescent: Thanks for your comments.
And it's also rare to find too many women who want to be the breadwinners while their husband stays home and cares for the children, honestly.
While much of that may indeed be due to socialization, there is also a part that has trouble dealing with the WTF attitude that comes up from everyone else on the planet when this "reverse" arrangement is planned/had. It goes from is your husband lazy? to you must not really want to be a mother if you would "let" your husband stay home with them and not you. So even if someone wants to go with this, the external chorus can have an impact as well.
The attitudes of many women still, however, are that they want to find a man to "take care of them" so that they can stay home and "raise a family"
I think there are many men who would love to admit this as well but are shamed into silence since it seems acceptable for women but not for men. And that is unacceptable.
Bikelizard: It really bothers me that women who want children, and want to be that 'perfect mommy' think that they should get the same pay and privileges as working women who give their career first priority.
I think the trouble here comes in with the lack of an egalitarian approach to such issues in the workplace and the fact that there is such an accepted imbalance in home/parenting responsibilities in couples. I mean, the married father can work crazy hours and not have disruptions of his work schedule because he has the wife, either working a less demanding job or working as a SAHM. So there is no effect on his performance.
Yet the married mother does not (generally) have a wife at home she can rely on. And usually she accepts that household and child(ren) are mostly her responsibilities, rather than sitting with her partner and making them joint responsibilities. So because of gender roles, lack of agency, or other factors, she ends up screwing herself. And then the agenda becomes more protections rather than a better division of labor. Yet truth be told, when you are a man with a SAHW, you've got it made as far as a lack of career intrusion goes.
Riswan: OK....
Mary: We are people always trying to create harmony (or the appearance of harmony) even at our own expense. We've got to learn to say, "no thank you!"
Thanks for the great dialogue, everyone!
Sandra: Didn't I tell you?! That was killer!
A sure sign of healthy living, eh?
It's like women who find "confident" men attractive. It lets the women avoid seeing guys as equally human and vulnerable. She seeks a guy who'll make her life easier, yet wonders where the "good guys" are.
Where? They're everywhere. The problem is that women who refuse to risk meeting males NEED males to take action if anyone is ever to meet. A macho muchacho can "pick up" girls (who act like “objects”) because he's learned to stuff feelings. He did so long ago when he discovered that when he showed how he really felt women mocked him. So he mastered "the mask" and now beds women he has contempt for. Why? Because they act like little girls who expect to be pampered. They SAY they want equality, yet refuse to ACT that way.
When the lothario doesn't call back after sex the woman wonders why. Why? It's no mystery. They both got what they originally sought: She a guy who hides his feelings, he a girl who doesn't want guys to show feelings. They both got sex. So why spoil things by letting feelings show since both fear them?
Women wanted access to traditional male domains...often without wanting to know or assume what duties accompanied them. They will say, “Well, I asked one guy out a thousand years ago and he said I was too forward, so I never asked again.” Did she do that with job-hunts? Did she stop after one rejection? The only reason women can opt out of being assertive socially with men is that they expect men to keep asserting despite countless rejections. Even if the woman never dates again she still considers herself in the game.
Delusional, I know. But there it is. But how comforting is it to be a 40-something lonely woman who’s alone because she never learned how to “fish for men”?
Feminists tend to look at "unfairness" only in terms of how women lose out. You rarely hear feminists talking about how society must make up to men the time THEY lost out on with children.
Most men struggle to be assertive. The difference is, they experience more directly the consequences of not asserting. They also face rejection more directly and often. Dating dynamics will do that. A women who "waits" for men to pick her up and/or make the first move also often "waits" to be lauded and rewarded at work. On the other hand, the guy who got shot down a thousand times knows how to take hits, and so is more likely to negotiate better. He can handle disappointment and keep on keepin' on.
Nothing prevents women from learning to be more assertive. They just have to face the same pitfalls men do (while being permitted to show hurt emotions). Yet go to most social gatherings (especially night clubs) and you will see "feisty" women dancing with each other, leading each other by the hand through crowds, going to the ladies room together. That is, being meek sheople instead of people. There is a bit of arrogance, too. They not only count on men doing the hard stuff, they treat men like dirt who aren’t “smooth” and “cocky.” They tend to be younger, too. They’ve not yet had Time turn the tables on them…that period when men stop pursuing them, the better to go after the older females’ younger sisters/daughters.
How odd that women complain about not being treated equally when they CHOOSE to stay on pedestals. They seem not to know (or care about) how men live, or what guys go through.
So, ladies:
Want more pay? Work for it: Same hours/years with the same credentials and skills as men.
Want a raise? ASK for it. Just be prepared to be shot down.
Want to make a LOT of money? Become an Alaskan crab boater. Or miner. Or high-iron worker. Or cross-country trucker. Or oil-rig roustabout. Or demolition expert.
Finally, per for the assertive cancer-fighting woman: What guy is going to attack ANY female in public, especially if she's undergoing chemo? I'm not saying the woman is NOT assertive, just that she might know she's in a protected class. Like the boss' daughter who "somehow" hits a homerun every time she bats at the company picnic. Or the “brave” female who joins the military knowing she’ll be spared frontline combat-grunt duty.
> "step up toe to toe..And be just as crude, offensive and nasty in response."
Be prepared for things to escalate then. Don't write a check with you mouth that your butt can't cash. Or, as Southerners say, you'll be seen as having an alligator mouth and hummingbird ass.
> "you guarantee to serve up his balls on a silver plate"
Why do women think it's okay to threaten men genitally? Should we also urge men to "guarantee to rape women for being uppity, doing so velvet bedspreads"? Can guys talk about razoring the clits of women whom they find offensive?
We is it not kosher to "equally" threaten female body parts...albeit in a "hah-hah" humorous way?
I don't get this immunity women presume upon. How much domestic violence begins with women "just" cursing/slapping men and expecting the guys to take it?
We're talking human feelings here. Size is not the issue. A whale feels as much pain as a sardine. A scorpion is as deadly as a shark. Men feel the same as women do, no matter their height or weight.
If women "get in the face" of men who bug them, expect the same reactions as a men get.
> "strong women do not take crap or look to others to fight for them; instead they dish it back with interest."
Really? Are they also ready for the blowback? What if the guy hits back harder than the woman can?
It's all well and good to talk tough. It's another to not only ACT assertively (which often is different than being aggressive), but take the consequences.
It's also important to know options. Most martial arts experts suggest first avoiding jeopardy, then fleeing it. Kung fu is rarely effective against bullets and you never know what the "other" can or will do.
The trouble is that most women don't walk the walk. So like most inexperienced folks, they over-compensate. It's the black belt in karate who stays calm and collected and lets some insults slide. It's the punk in prison, trying to mask his fear in body bulk (whose self-esteem is a mile wide and 1 atom deep) that feels he must KILL anyone who looks at him the "wrong way."
Any woman who talks about mutilating men's genitals is a contemptible misandrist. Any woman who TRIES it will likely end up severely harmed, or dead.
The "Sarge" needs to learn how to defuse situations, not heat them up more. And letting the offender's stance determine yours is to be weaker and manipulated. A wily man would taunt the woman to act out in front of others while masking his own actions...making HER seem to be the offender.
If countries can learn and practice effective diplomacy, perhaps genders can, too.
Are they facing certain situations because they have penises? That is, are they dating yet? If so, do they ask out the girls...or is it equal? Who pays?
If they are old enough to face Selective Service, how do they feel about girls not having to register? How will they feel if a draft is imposed?
If they are married and divorce, do you think they will be treated equally per their exes? Whom do you think will get custody, whom the bills? If it's "natural" for the wife to keep the kids, isn't it naturally for the husband to keep the cash...each continuing on with what they spend the most time with?
Will society/feminists continue to see it "best" for children to keep men stuck in traditional breadwinning roles, treating guys as feeling-less robots?
Are the schools your sons attend teaching girls how to respect males? Are the females warned not to sexually harass the males?
Feminism's main problem in a nutshell: Blindness to the reality of men's lives. It's assumed that men don't feel the need to "fix" anything. Based on what? Men not using the same metrix? You don't think men try to "fix" their incomes and such to seem more attractive to women? If women's value is based on looks and men's on making lucre, why assume men's not trying to fix their looks as much means they aren't trying to fix things in non-female-centered areas?
Feminists see the overt, not the covert. They think only bullets kill, not poison.
If guys are so happy, why do so many commit suicide?
Feminists say men have "full freedoms." Those freedoms are never defined. Nor are their costs. Instead, we hear that men have "all the power." As if a male CEO didn't have to play political games for 25 years, losing out on a lot of other options (including time with his own children).
Feminists will only be serious about "equality" when they start listening compassionately to men's experiences AND be willing to assume new responsibilities along with their new rights.
Men in England did not get universal suffrage until women did. However, men always had to defend their country with their lives...which voting women still don't have to.
Most feminists don't want equality. They want what they perceive as male perks (without paying the same price for them) while maintaining a death-grip on traditional female benefits.
No, I seriously doubt the woman entered the word prewired for such timidity and needing to ask permission to request money that she's actually owed. I would bet my salary for the next 10 years that socialization had something to do with it.
Next, many of the women on the board were more than happy to give her the atta girls and that's a hard ones that I was not. I'm not her friend. She just another poster on a large bulletin board. And as such I was under no obligation to provide the succor that she was looking for, and received from the other women on the board. So what? My point was and still is that it is a terribly thing that someone needs to give a person permission to stand up for him or herself.
Other than that, your comments have no bearing on my posting on egalitarian feminism/womanism. Either address my words or move along.
Men who act sad or depressed are called wimps, often by women.
Males are sex workers, too.
Religions restrict men's lives, too. Women forced to wear burqas are balance by men forced to grow beards AND join armies.
>"Men, meanwhile, walk through the world masters of their own biological and sexual domain."
Tell that to men in divorce courts who routinely are separated from their children AND saddled with bills.
"I believe true equality will only come to women when we are on true equal footing in the sexual realm..."
When women risk asking men out and paying for dates? When men can have women jailed for rape after touching their genitals without permission?
Again we see calls for equality coming from people who remain blind to the inequality of men. Feminists see only women's half of the world, not men's, yet forever call for inclusion.
How many men are encouraged to be nurses? Why can't male nurses be called medics? How many wives chase their husbands out of kitchens? How many feminists joke about men not being able to feed themselves despite all the male chefs and cooks in the world? How many women "pity" men who are out and about with their children, as if fathers are nincompoops and no male ever wrote a book on raising kids?
You are acting like yet another feminist who talks about wanting equality, yet wants to disregard what men have to say. Why? You want to know why a woman has a hard time asserting herself and I spoke about what guys go through to get "agency." To wit, they often have to stuff their feelings...often starting around age 5. After that they act cool, calm, and collected while churning inside. A guy might face the same problem asking his worth that the photographer did. Only he might have also felt the need to make money for dates, child support orders, etc. So he learns to barrel through, whistling past the grave, etc. That is, he was more likely to HAVE felt the pressure to learn how to get more money. Still, there's a price to be paid if he never integrates the suppressed feeling. Like the hazing frat brother, he's likely to Great Santini the female photographer into "sucking it up" or mocking her for being a wimp. He's not likely to empathize with her, saying how he felt the same way, and show her how to make better decisions. And that might entail her learning to hear No upfront.
What creates a "people-pleaser"? What makes people not ask for what they are worth? What determines one's worth? I'd wager a lot of people-pleasers are folks who weren't loved enough for who they are. What they fear, then, is being "worthless." To avoid that feeling they preempt it by trying to be valuable to others rather than first ask for payment in exchange for work. It's not the money that scares them off, it's what the money means: Their worth. They hear the rejections as being unlovable.
How is that not what you're dealing with?
Bing Crosby was a strict disciplinarian. He also mocked his sons, calling them stupid, fat, ugly, etc. All the sons had multiple marriages, most difficulties with drugs and alcohol. That is, they tried to mute the pain they felt knowing their father didn't love them. Two later committed suicide. One died of cancer. I don't recall how the other died, but it probably was prematurely.
They were singers, not photographers. And males not a female. But IMHO they, too, had difficulty asking for what they wanted. Some lived on trust funds alone after a while, probably afraid to work, deeming "pay" as "love" and fearing they'd not get enough.
Are feminists REALLY ready to see guys as equals, going through the same human condition?
Odd, is it not, that you see what I write as irrelevant to your posts, but references to vampires and sex workers and so on germane. Yet you claim to think the only way to true equality is for men and women to be treated equally. How will that happen if you won't listen to men?
Or do you only want posters to agree with you?
People have trauma. People can heal. Sociological gender only need play as much of a role as you allow it to.
I've not denigrated or devalued men. I've not railed against them. I've merely explained that both genders lose when we lock ourselves into these gender roles.
You, on the other hand, have denigrated feminists, women in general, and me in particular, all in the name of being "heard." Well you've been heard.
Goodnight.