Happy Birthday, Ian! (We’re not getting you a tie.)
When I’m Not a Feminist
We all read a lot about women having babies and not having careers as a result, and some feminists tend to present women’s inability to have a career and have children as a form of gender discrimination.
But you know, I don’t think it is. I thought that was the point of choice – that women who choose to have babies can, and women who don’t choose to have babies, don’t. The women without babies are then able to work the ungodly hours required of the top strata of high power jobs, and the women with them aren’t.
& I know that’s an unpopular opinion, but I thought that was the whole “revolution” birth control brought with it: that women can CHOOSE whether to have children or not. I wonder often if this assumption – that women need to have babies – isn’t a result of all that “women are nurturing” bullshit. I don’t know. I’ve wanted to be childfree my whole life, and what I see are a lot of women in my life who wanted children – wanted them more than their careers – and made that choice. So why the bellyaching? We all make decisions, and we all have to live with them. To me it’s such a fantastic thing that women have been freed from having to have babies, that there are healthy ways to prevent pregnancy and plan to have a family (or plan not to have one).
I have a funny feeling there’s a privilege thing in here somewhere that might blind me some. I just can’t imagine walking into the universe expecting the world to allow me everything I wanted. I mean, imagine if I wrote an article claiming that it was “discrimination” because I can’t hold a high power job *and* write novels – which I can’t, because of the time required of both. I’d be laughed right off my blog, and well I should be if I made that argument. But some feminists portray having a baby as some requirement of woman-ness, and I thought the whole point was – it’s not. We’ve freed women up to have careers if they want. Or to have babies if they want. & That’s all cool.
I mean, if women want babies and don’t want to give up their careers, adopt and marry a house-husband father type.
Of course it is expected that women raise their children once they have them, & that’s the problem, as far as I’m concerned. The expected gender roles are unfair, because fathers are and can be parents as much as women can be mothers. Is it “fair” that men can have children and expect their wives to take care of them? No. But I don’t see why women can’t decide to have children and expect their husbands to take care of them – especially if the women is the one making the higher salary.
But in speaking to a feminist friend recently, she told me she’s having an absolute blast raising her son and not working so much – but still somehow sees it as “wrong” that she can’t be a litigator at the same time. I just don’t get it. She not only chose to have a baby but to raise the baby; she could have gotten a nanny and gone back to work at that high-powered job. She didn’t. And again, that’s all good. But I don’t see it as discrimination; I see it as a decision. Would she catch some flak if she went back to her fulltime job and left a nanny and her husband to raise her child? Sure. But she could do that, if she wanted.
It’s not like those of us who are childfree don’t catch flak. Or that those who decide to stay home with their kids don’t catch flak. The thing about being a woman is that nothing you do is right: someone, somewhere, will have a problem with whatever choice you make. But for me, being a feminist is in supporting any woman in her choices, and that includes calling her out when she’s complaining about having to make them. Having a choice doesn’t mean you get everything; it means you get one thing & you have to live without the other.
But then again, I was raised by Devo.
Victoria’s Choice
Victoria’s Secret parent company, Limited Brands, announced today that they will stop using paper made from Endangered Forest for its catalogs, and will make sure that their catalogs are made from 10% post-consumer recycled paper.
Yay. Go buy your panties with a clear conscience.
Trans Partners Drop-in Group
Today is the Trans Partners Drop-in Group at the LGBT Center, so come! Here’s the info.
Helen’s Holiday Gift Guide
So. I’ve noticed that two lovely women, Rachel Kramer Bussel and Tristan Taormino, have put up their holiday gift guides, and while they cover our erotic lives, I know every year I’m a loss for what to buy people that won’t stink of consumerism and waste.
That is, I seek to assuage my own guilt about being an overeducated person who lives in a Western country with clean water and half-decent healthcare (unlike most of the world’s population).
As a result, I’ve found a neat list of places who sell cool stuff for good causes:
For you doggie types, Schmitty is a Yorkie whose proceeds to go an organization called Dogs Who Care. The North Shore Animal League, on the other hand, has stuff that makes us cat types happy: Betty and I are getting new PJs courtesy of them! And if you can’t find anything at either of those two places, the Animal Rescue Site also has a store with lots of animal-inspired gifts no matter what types of critters you like.
It’s also easy to go from that site to some others with cool stuff, like the Rainforest Site’s store, where you can get anything from Fair Trade products to Brazilian art works. (Did I mention they have lots of pretty jewelry?)
For lower-impact, good health types of gifts, try gaiam.com for things like yoga videos or light therapy for the depressive in your life. (Just don’t look at their shoes. Only me and a couple of other partners would wear any of them.)
And to round things out, NOW’s store has a bunch of groovy t-shirts and you can buy one that says “Question Gender” to help support the student-run TIC conference.
So go do some good with your money, okay? Just about every organization out there sells cool stuff. If you find anything similarly cool, please post about it in the comments section.
Xmas Fool
Does anyone else cry watching those dumb Xmas kids’ movies? You know, like Rudolph’s Shiny New Year? Or is it just me? It’s pathetic; I don’t even cry at the sad parts. Phht.
Bolton Bolts
And the good news keeps on coming.
Dressed to Kill
Or rather, Dressed to Speak.
As an early Christmas present, I bought my outfit for First Event. I will not have the flippery hair, of course, and I’m not sure about the tuxedo shirt. And no silly shoes, either – I’ll be wearing flat shoes, of course. Mine is not a size 0 or 2 like the one shown in the catalog photo, either (and now I’m wondering if I should be posting this photo at all, since I’ve just realized I will look both shorter and fatter than this lady in the picture.)
I gave in and bought it for two reasons: (1) it was made by Ann Taylor Loft, and their clothes fit me well, and aren’t so bad cost-wise, and (2) because the “tux” I wore for the past two years was not even mine – the jacket was my sisters’s – and wasn’t actually a tux, just a tuxedo jacket and a pair of pants that matched well enough.
But otherwise (ha), voila. The tux in which I will speak.
Betty bought a very pretty black cocktail dress to be my stunning date. Now we just have to figure out who leads when we dance; that’s one we still haven’t sorted out.
But we’re clear that I’m the one who’ll be speaking, no matter how many people call me “Betty” via email.
Floozies v. Clerics
In this month’s Secular Humanist, a report that some Pakistani clerics (belonging to a group called Movement to Cleanse Society) are objecting to the women who work for international relief agencies which arrived in Pakistan in the wake of last year’s earthquakes.
They claim the women are “spreading obscenity in society and trying to weaken our faith by corrupting our women” and charge them, as well, with dressing improperly, socializing with men, and drinking alcohol.
I’m going to take a wild guess that these particular clerics were not made homeless by the earthquakes, and I wonder if anyone has told them to stop worrying about the women and to start building homes for all the people displaced there, instead. Right now, it’s Floozies 1, Clerics 0.
Act NOW
Health and Human Services is considering appointing Eric Keroack, a doctor who is not just anti-choice but anti-contraception, to be in charge of the US’ birth control funding. Basically, he’s an “abstinence only” type – which is, as most of us know, the worst form of birth control around. You can get more information about him from NOW’s site.
NOW has a petition up that you can (and should) sign, and is also asking people to write directly to their reps to get them to keep him from this appointment.
Lunatics running the asylum. This is like us appointing someone hostile to the UN to represent the US… oh, wait, we did that one already.