You know what makes me happy?

Sunday, December 6, 2009

You know what makes me happy?

Feminist dads.

At the beginning of the school year, my head teachers and I let the parents know that they are more than welcome in the classroom, should they want to come in and do art, make music, read a story or cook something with us.

On Friday, one of the dads came in to do a small art project with the kids. He arrived early to set up, and was playing with his daughter and chatting with the English teacher and with me. For whatever reason, all the kids were late that morning (okay, maybe not all of them.....just most), which gave us a lot of time to fill him in on class goings-on and whatever. I mentioned that I found a nifty t-shirt that I want to start wearing to school, to counteract some of the "I like princesses and only want to draw with the pink marker"* bullshit that's going on in the class.
The shirt has a crown on it, and says "Self-rescuing Princess." (available here)

This dad, whose daughter Maggie is a super kid and well on her way to being a kick-ass empowered girl, loved the idea of the shirt. He told us that he was so frustrated at Halloween, because even for little girls, the ready-made costume choices were frilly princess, frillier princess and slutty pirate girl.....oy vey....**

Then he said that last week, when the grandparents were all in town for Thanksgiving, his dad was reading "The Paperbag Princess" to Maggie. Grandpa was a little uncomfortable with the message, apparently, because he finished the book and gave an addendum: "Then the prince went on to Stanford and got an MBA and became a CEO."

To which Dad responded with an addendum to the addendum: "And the princess grew up to get the world to achieve WORLD PEACE!"

I love that this dad is just quietly and calmly going about being a fantastic feminist ally and active partner in raising an empowered feminist kid. He's not reciting empty tropes about "girl power" while encouraging Disneymania. He doesn't work till 8pm all week, then take the kids to the park once on the weekend and expect a cookie for it. He just chooses the books and movies and costumes carefully, buys the striped leggings instead of the frilly shit, and comes into the class to do art with us.

Okay, so when it's his turn to do Maggie's hair it turns out a little wonky, but no one's perfect, right?

I'm so glad that I've got this family in my class, and I wish all our parents were this cool!

UPDATE: Feminist Dad is also insanely good at calligraphy.....my holiday gift (a box of See's chocolates! Woot!) had a lovely, lovely hand-lettered note.

*Maggie ended up deciding that she wanted to be Pocahontas for Halloween, so dad made the costume himself.

**There's only one pink marker, for whatever reason, and I'm sick to death of seeing all-pink drawings. So I hid the marker in the closet. I know, I'm evil.

That's Genius

Wednesday, September 23, 2009

The list of this year's MacArthur fellowship (aka the "Genius Grant") winners is out, and exactly half of the recipients are women. Woot!

Several are older women, several are women of color. Science, the arts and the humanities are represented all represented.

Glad to know that it's not always bad news for women!

http://www.macfound.org/site/c.lkLXJ8MQKrH/b.5410503/k.11CB/Meet_the_2009_Fellows.htm

(one of Boyfriend's co-advisers is a former MacArthur winner.....yay for women in science and engineering!)

Challenging Art and our Eucations

Saturday, September 12, 2009

This post is kind of an extended commentary on another blog post. Sorry if that's too self-referential!

My friend -m- writes the blog Modest and Witty. It's a pretty phenomenal account of her life and adventures. Like me, -m- tends to rant, but in a far more cohesive and intelligent manner than I usually accomplish.

-m- just moved to New York, to go to an impressive music school. Obviously, it being New York and all, there are so many things to see and do that -m- is having quite an interesting time.

A recent trip, to the Brooklyn Art Museum, sparked a mammoth post, the entirety of which can be read here. -m- and a friend saw Judy Chicago's 1974-79 installation piece The Dinner Party.

The Dinner Party is huge. It's an equilateral triangle measuring 48 feet per side (that's a perimeter of 144 feet or 43.89 metres for all you nerds). The triangle is set up like a table, with places for 39 "Guests of Honor." Each place setting highlights the contributions of a woman, whose name is shown on the place mat/table runner. The space inside the lines of the triangle features the names of 999 other women who have contributed to predated the 39 featured women.

Instead of plates, there are intricate porcelain sculpture inspired by butterflies/vaginal imagery.

I have not seen this instillation in person, so the descriptions are based on -m-'s writing as well as the site throughtheflower.org

-m- reacts this way:

I was utterly unprepared for this installation. How could I have expected it? The catalog itself reports it as consisting of:

39 dinner place settings of porcelain flatware (fork, knife and spoon), porcelain chalice, and decorated porcelain plate. Each setting is laid out on a separate embroidered textile runner. Thirteen place settings are on each side (48 feet long) of a triangular table draped with a white felt cloth, with a triangular millennium runner at each of three corners. Each of the settings represents one of thirty-nine historically significant women. The table sits on a floor of 2304 porcelain triangular tiles (in 129 units) inscribed with the names of 999 significant women.

Ok, so it's a big table set for dinner and there are lots of women's names. Cool. This will be interesting. Right. How can I tell you what it was like walking into that room? Rather, walking into the room was just what I expected. Each setting is quite particular, and placed in a mostly chronological order. First? 'Primordial Goddess'

Ok. That makes sense.

Next? 'Fertile Goddess'

Sure.

Of note, the plates at each setting are decorated in personalized floral/butterfly/vulva patterns. I add floral and butterfly to the description mostly because the plaque at the exhibit did so. My impression of the plates was overwhelmingly linked to feminine power, to clitoral and sexual potency, power, depth, mystery, and strength. There were cunts all over this table, each beautiful and different. Each cunt-plate brought its own sacred history to the table.

Next? 'Ishtar', 'Kali', 'Snake Goddess', 'Sophia', 'Amazon', 'Hatshepsut', 'Judith', 'Sappho', 'Boadaceia', 'Hypatia', 'Marcella', 'Saint Bridget'. . .

By this point, I had finished one third of the table, and I was starting to get worried. The women who earned a place at the table were assumedly at the top of the list, a list that involves more than a thousand names. Only 39 received special settings, and I guess I assumed that of those 39 I would know a vast majority. I was discovering how naïve that assumption had been.

'Theodora', 'Hrosvitha', 'Trotula', 'Eleanor of Aquitaine', 'Hildegarde of Bingen', 'Petronilla de Meath', 'Christine de Pisan', 'Isabella d'Este', 'Elizabeth R.', 'Artemisia Gentileschi'. . .

I recognized two of these names, and I could tell you about one of them. The names continued almost in defiance of my ignorance. A grief I had never experienced began to overwhelm me, and I felt tears begin to well up. I have never before cried because of a piece of art. Art has moved me toward thought, toward debate, toward laughter, toward anger, toward many things- but never tears. Of the more than thousand names celebrated in 'The Dinner Party", I would recognize a perhaps generous figure of 100.

Less than 10%.

'Anna van Schurman', 'Anne Hutchinson', 'Sacajawea', 'Caroline Herschel', 'Mary Wollstonecraft', 'Sojourner Truth', 'Susan B. Anthony', 'Elizabeth Blackwell', 'Emily Dickinson', 'Ethel Smyth'. . .

I realized even more so, that at least 50% of the names I recognized belonged to women about which I knew nothing. For example, I could not have told you yesterday (I am very sorry to admit) who Mary Wollstonecraft was or what contributions she had made. A horrifying thought occurred to me: should a similar celebration of man's historical contributions be constructed in such a manner, I would easily recognize at least 50% of the names. I would probably also be able to explain in depth the contributions of at least 15% of them. Of course, that's just a guess.

I don't remember at what point I began to cry, but I know it was after I had left the table settings and had moved to the Herstory Board section- a chronology/brief description of the contributions of every name on exhibit. I felt as though I'd been punched in the gut. Somewhere, deep within, something had been stolen from me. My education had failed me. My culture had failed me. I had failed myself. How could I know so little about the power of the feminine? How had I missed my own history so succinctly? Who was Margaret Sanger? Natalie Barney? Virginia Woolf and Georgia O'Keefe were names familiar to me, but they provided little comfort after the onslaught of the unfamiliar.

I cried. I cried for myself. For my culture. For the education that I and my sisters and brothers were missing. It was a quiet cry, privately witnessed by an almost unending row of names.
I sat down on a bench and tried to center myself, attempting to pull myself back from the brink of destructive self-pity, searching for the redemptive righteous anger that I knew must be on the other side of such a deep wound. While I waited a man came over to the lady sitting next to me on the bench and commented on the 'fascinating' board of names.
. . .

Fascinating.

Even now I am filled with an anger and a hurt that is beyond my ability to capture.

Fascinating.

I understand how a board filled with the history of influential women one has never heard of could be a fascinating concept. I understand and respect this man's ability to recognize a resource he had not previously encountered. I understand to a certain extent.

But it goes so much deeper than the cognitive whimsy of a 'fascinating' history display. This is personal. It is my mother, my great-grandmother, my as-yet-undreamt-of-daughter. It is me. It is the mantle I inherited by being born into this body, or rather more so by living in it. It is the lie that has been perpetuated by silence. It is the gaping holes in my history. In me. It is the lack of acknowledgment of those holes- my previous inability to even conceptualize how many holes there might be.

I knew, of course, that there was much of the history and contributions of women that I didn't know, but I had never before been confronted so tangibly by the vastness of the unknown of feminine beauty, strength, thought, and power.

I am enraged.

I am crying.

I am crying, and I am enraged by the bleeding hole where my knowledge of my grandmothers should be. I have been robbed. So have you.

We, all of us, have been robbed by patriarchal thieves bent on silencing the brilliance of half our forebears. This cannot stand, but who will stand with me?

Why do we allow such silence? What do we do about it? How can I turn this wounded-ness, this anger, into a vehicle for change?

How can we?

***

In order to get a sense of where -m-'s anger comes from, try this experiment. Look at the list of women whose names appear in The Dinner Party (Wikipedia lists them, showing how they are organized in the work) and start counting. I made 3 categories: Know About, Recognize Name, and Huh??

Go through the list and classify the names. Then tally them up. I'm not interested in a competition of who can tell me about the largest number of these women, but rather the internal reflection. Count them up for yourself, then see what it means to you that this list of women who have contributed tons to western society will no doubt feature people you've never heard of.

Now, I realize that unless one was a history major, womens' studies minor, and possesses the memorisational powers of a super computer, its unlikely that anyone would know all of these women. But if a similar list were compiled of men who have contributed to western society, the number of well-known names would undoubtedly be far larger.

*****

Since I haven't seen this work in person, and since it's not like a painting that can be fully captured in a photograph or print, it's a little weird for me to start analysing the visual impact or aesthetics.

That said, I think that the significance of The Dinner Party for me lies not in what it is, physically, but what it represents. I think that all of the vaginal imagery would likely strike me as very heavy handed and overly literal. In general, though, I HATE when people trot out the idea that women's power comes from their fertility, and when people are reduced to their biology. They are ideas that simply do not interest me.

The picky/judgemental part of me needs to chime in:

Also, I'm not sure how I feel about the inclusion of saints/mythological characters/non-people. I can see how, given that most societies have had strong ties to religion, the people or gods that they venerate become important, but it's still a little weird to me. I don't really know why.

Sophia, though? Uh-uh. We're supposed to be talking about WOMEN here, and just because the word "Σoφíα" is feminine doesn't mean that it refers to a woman. Even in ancient Greece, to my knowledge there was not a female character or representation attached to the concept of wisdom. In Orthodox mystical theology, wisdom is associated with the Virgin Mary (Theotokos), but that's not the same. She's being used as an allegory for wisdom.
Shall we start calling all feminine words (words that are feminine in other languages) women? Table? Window? Library?

Sorry, that's really not the point of the post, and is possibly harmful to the point at hand......I just get picky like that. My incredible obsession with accuracy can get in the way of a lot of things. Apologies!

I think my overall point is The Dinner Party would be even more powerful to me if all of the names were people, and people who actually existed, rather than goddesses and mythological figures. It's easy to discount those non-real people if you don't subscribe to that philosophy or religion, and the goal of the work is exactly the opposite of that. It seems to be about NOT discounting and NOT overlooking.

Small bone to pick.

I realize that I haven't really responded to -m-'s anger and call to arms. I think they stand alone, and don't need reinforcement from me. Think about what you can do, though.

Tuesday, January 20, 2009

It's been over a week since work started back up, but my body still has a serious case of vacation time. I never did grow out of that adolescent need for ridiculous amounts of sleep, so the day I get out of work, I go back to sleeping for 10 or more hours at a time. What this means, though, is that I end up going to bed much later that I would ordinarily. Now that I'm back into the full swing of things, though, I'm waking up super early, but still going to bed around midnight. This leads to Not Enough Sleep.....boo.....

Anyway, that's entirely not the point of this post, so I'll get on with it.

I had a really fascinating and interesting conversation with my best friend the other night. She's working on an "assignment," if you will, though it's not for a class or academic pursuit.

She asked me if I have an experience, or thought process, or set of goals that I think are integral or quintessential to my existence as a woman.

I have to admit, I was stumped.

I am going to turn this question over to you, readers, to answer or otherwise chime in on your thoughts on the subject.

I eventually came to the conclusion that no, I don't think I do have anything that I think of as quintessential to the experience of woman, because I honestly feel that as soon as we start to assign things as the very definition of a whole group, we will alienate those whose experiences differ. I think that the spectrum of human life is so great that we can't accurately pin down one thing (or a couple of things) and call it universal.

An older lesbian couple at Molly's synagogue responded to the question with "Well, we all have to pee sitting down. That's pretty universal."

Much as I'd like to sit and sulk that I didn't come up with such a funny quip, I'd like to hear from you all.

The other problem that I see is that many of the existing definitions of womanhood are very much tied to patriarchal ideals. The definitions of mother, caregiver, supporter, whatever, have been imposed on generations of women. Either that or we have been defined, again by patriarchal society, as objects, things, communal property, lays or otherwise LESS THAN.

The inception of feminism sought to throw all that out the window, level the playing field and allow us to be fully independent and individual. We can choose whether to define ourselves as creators, givers of life or nurturers if we choose (no, Rebecca Walker, feminism does not think badly of these things), but if we choose otherwise, that's our prerogative. The feminist movements have attempted to achieve the goal that Martin Luther King set out: to be judged by the content of our character.

I've been thinking about this conversation for several days, now, and have been compiling some reading material for Molly. I've been trying to put together a list of blogs and sites that might help sort out the desire for a sense of personal worth and belonging versus an imposed set of roles and regulations.

The first thing I thought of was, of course, The Woman Identified Woman. "Molly" is straight and married, so the life experience identified within will not immediately recall her own life, but the document is important and significant nonetheless. Besides which, I'm not sure how many people our age are familiar with The Woman Identified Woman (outside of women's studies departments, which neither of us attended), and so I feel a duty to keep it in the collective conscious.

One phrase that really resonates for me is this:

As the source of self-hate and the lack of real self are rooted in our male-given identity, we must create a new sense of self. As long as we cling to the idea of "being a woman, '' we will sense some conflict with that incipient self, that sense of I, that sense of a whole person.

I have encountered enough confusion in trying to define myself that trying to fit that definition into a group identity has been nearly impossible. But that may not be the case for everyone, and so, again, I urge you to share your thoughts.

Many people are working to define themselves in a way that is more real and inclusive than what society expects of them, and they have some really interesting things to say:

First, a vocabulary lesson and round-up of frequent questions from the folks at "Finally, A Feminism 101 Blog:"
http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/2007/04/17/faq-what-do-you-mean-by-not-my-nigel-feminist-abbreviationsjargon/

http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/the-faqs/faq-roundup/

Next, a stop at one of my blog favs, Bitch PhD:

"My feminisms:"
http://bitchphd.blogspot.com/2005/04/feminisms.html

A big challenge of all of your ideas of surrounding parenthood (not really a propos, but interesting nonetheless):
http://bitchphd.blogspot.com/2004/07/feminism-101.html

Moving on, we move over to body issues....(ugh, I know, do I even want to go there....)
I have lots more to say on that topic, but for now, I'll just link to Wimn's Voices (from the organisation Women in Media & News), which shreds several articles in mainstream publications about how plastic surgery makes everything better. Except it doesn't, and the articles are misogynist and misleading.
http://www.wimnonline.org/WIMNsVoicesBlog/?p=1234

Again, not entirely on topic, because I'm not linking to a specific post, is What About Our Daugters. Focusing on issues faced by African American women, and featuring a section called the "Michelle Obama Watch" (which calls out all the dehumanizing crap flung at her), this blog is a really great addition to the internet universe.

Last (for now) is a little gem known as Dinosaur Comics. Yes, that's right, dinosaurs. In comic form.....Okay, shut up back there! I can totally hear you calling me a nerd and a dork. Stop.

The Male Gaze is a phrase flung around quite a lot, which has come to mean anything in the life of women that gets viewed from a male perspective. It originated as a film theory, though, and Dinosaur Comics explain that to us.

http://www.qwantz.com/archive/000859.html

So, dear readers, (if I have any left after my crazy long post christmas stupor hiatus) please chime in, if you feel that you have a "quintessentially woman" experience (any mention of menstruation, however, will be met with sarcastic eye-rolls and imaginary bonks on the head with wet lettuce). If you have other resources to recommend, please do so.

Good God, it's been too long....

Friday, May 30, 2008

I can't even claim that I've been busy, because in the grand scheme of my life, this is not a terribly busy period! Sigh.....I now have the pressure of trying to write a really extra excellent post, to make up for not writing for so long.

I haven't worked at all this week. That really frustrates me, since this is really the last chance for a decent paycheck before summer. The result is that I've been sitting around the house all week without much to do. I don't really do well with free time. I could have been practicing, or cleaning (lord knows the apartment needs it), or writing, or reading. I've done next to nothing. I have no energy nor enthusiasm for anything, and that sucks. I often find that time off does this to me. After about a week I start planning projects for myself. The trouble is that those projects usually involve money, which is going to be incredibly tight for the next few months. When I sit around the house, I start wanting to improve said house. I get the urge to decorate, replace things, engage in DIY projects...

The current urge is to replace the couch. Our futon has its function (giving friends a place to crash when they come to stay), but it also has the problem of being insanely uncomfortable. When you sit on our futon, you can feel the metal bars underneath poking you in the ass....no fun. We've looked at Ikea couches, which are pretty affordable, but not as cushy as we'd like. The thing with me and Boyfriend is that we tend to lounge on the couch, rather than just sit, so a high degree of cushiness is necessary. Real live furniture/department stores are way too expensive. Ideas?

Best Friend (We shall call her Molly. Another of her friends calls her that on his blog, so I'll keep the pseudonym) swears by consignment stores, but then again, she lives in Santa Barbara where such places contain the cast-offs from wealthy SB/Montecito people. I'm not sure that Oakland/Berkeley consignment places will be as promising. Thoughts? Or is anyone in possession of a really cushy couch they need to get rid of?

My next request is for ideas. What should I do to earn some money this summer? I've got my couple of piano students, and hopefully some tutoring, but that's not going to cut it. I plan to put a flyer up at work, advertising my tutoring services. I think that going and getting some dumb retail job is not logical. I'm only available for 1 month and a half, so training in a job that I'd leave immediately doesn't seem reasonable. What do you think readers? (or reader, as the case may be...)

******************

Now, on to the issues that I've been reading about and thinking about but not writing about:

1) First up, a continuation of my Gay Marriage post: It might confuse some of you that I rant and rave about marriage and "wife-dom" and how it freaks me out, but then cheer over the CA ruling. Let me explain:
The gay marriage debate is only nominally about marriage. It's about equal representation under the law. It's about separating civic life from religion (which we should be doing anyway) and granting all people equal rights. Just like with feminism, what gets really twisted and misunderstood is the concept that granting rights to all does not take them away from anyone. That's the whole EQUAL part.

When the conservatives start going off about "legislating from the bench" I get really mad. Sometimes the court needs to assert what's right, because voters often won't.
The courts had to order desegregation. Courts had to order states to allow mixed-race couples to marry. The whole point of the judicial branch is to keep the other two branches in check. Voters will not always do what's right, and frequently "the will of the voters" is hateful, misogynist, and unaccepting. Now, with the clowns that Bush appointed to the Supreme Court, the judiciary is acting on those same 3 principles. Gah.....so infuriating....

Ellen DeGeneres had John McCain on her show just after the CA ruling. It was also just after she announced that she plans to marry her partner, Portia de Rossi. John McCain essentially told Ellen that she's less than he is and we should respect his bigotry. I stole that wording from Sarah at Shakesville. Her analysis of that interview, and loads of other really important issues to consider in the GLBT marriage debate, is right here. For more analysis, Pandagon has been great, and has worded things much better than I could. These three articles are especially good.

2) Feminism getting a bad name. Which it does. Nearly always. One way that it gets trivialized is to paint feminists as "angry." Anger, of course, is nearly always linked to female hysteria and being irrational. It's used as a way to condescendingly pat someone on the head, as one might do to a kitten trying to eat imaginary bugs: "Oh, you silly little thing, you. Don't you know that's useless?" For a useful dissection of anger and how it's perceived, read Melissa McEwan's Feminism 101 post

Next, who better to badmouth feminism that the daughter of one of the 20Th Century's foremost writers and feminists? I think that the world has known about Alice Walker's strained relationship with her daughter for some time. As far as I know, that's not news. This is partially why I found it so weird that there was a huge article in the Daily Mail in which Rebecca Walker (Alice's daughter) blasts everything that her mother has ever done. Again. Now, the Daily Mail is fairly conservative, so that may impact its desire to tear down feminism, but it seems like such a tired subject.

There's so much nonsensical, illogical anger and defiance in Walker's article that it's really hard to figure out where to begin. I really get the feeling that this woman should be dealing with her issues in therapy rather than an internationally read paper. I'm especially bothered by her reaction to divorce:

As the child of divorced parents, I know only too well the painful consequences of being brought up in those circumstances. Feminism has much to answer for denigrating men and encouraging women to seek independence whatever the cost to their families.

Okay, where should I begin? Well, how about with her incredibly awkward writing? Oops, that was mean. Sorry. First of all, I totally disagree with her interpretation of what it means to have divorced parents. Second, she really, really, really needs to stop drinking the Kool-Aid if she thinks that women seeking independence is a negative thing. Third, which is more apparent elsewhere in the article, Rebecca thinks that having a family is and should be a woman's highest priority. Nowhere does she acknowledge that this might not be the case for some people. Here's another choice nugget:

Then there is the issue of not having children. Even now, I meet women in their 30s who are ambivalent about having a family. They say things like: 'I'd like a child. If it happens, it happens.' I tell them: 'Go home and get on with it because your window of opportunity is very small.' As I know only too well.

Ugh....Walker constantly equates feminism with divorce. I think she assumes that all feminists will get divorced. That's part of my "nonsensical" criticism. I really don't get where that's coming from. Basically, I think that Alice Walker probably wasn't the greatest mother, but whining about not being mothered the way you really wanted to be is an argument that can only come from the privileged, and it's not something that should be used to paint an entire movement. The end of the article really left me fuming:

I believe feminism is an experiment, and all experiments need to be assessed on their results. Then, when you see huge mistakes have been paid, you need to make alterations.

I don't even know what to say to that....

3) Polygamy: This whole saga is endlessly fascinating, and I'm not sure why. I also had a really scary moment the other day, which is making me want to call up my genealogy-knowledgeable cousin and ask her to make sure that all of our relatives are properly accounted for.

I'm descended from a polygamist, you see. Yep. My great-great-grandfather, George Q. Cannon had 6 wives. This was right around the time that Utah was pursuing statehood. One of the conditions was that the LDS church give up polygamy. He went to jail rather than give up his wives. Our branch of the family is from Georgie's first wife, Elizabeth Hoagland. I suppose that makes me feel more legitimate, or something.

I really want to make sure that I don't have some long-lost 3rd or 4Th cousin living on one of these rape factories somewhere....George Q was the last polygamist in the family, right??? Please tell me that's right?? Anyway, I just found out that George Q. Cannon has his own Wikipedia entry....wild! But yes, if you're up on the family history, could you reassure me that we're not related to any modern-day crazies?

Here's George:He's in the center with the white hair and crazy beard. Here's his wife Elizabeth. I kind of think that of all my relatives, I look most like her. Maybe I'm wrong, I dunno.

I've got the high forehead, the big nose, the small upper lip...I actually have eyebrows, though, so that's a start...So, that's the stuff that's on my mind lately.

My afternoon will be spent replacing the bulbs in the headlights of our car. 'Cept that Boyfriend didn't tell me where he put the replacement bulbs....grr...wish me luck!

housework, gender, being a "wife"

Thursday, April 10, 2008

Don't go inferring anything about me from that title. I hate housework (do it only to keep the allergies at bay), think gender is mostly a construct, and think that the "w" word is one of the worst 4-letter words there is.

Now, on to the important discussion. Who does housework in America? Well, you would hope that it would me most of the adult population, right? Well, it seems that, even in our enlightened age where everything is golden and wonderful and there's no sexism or classism or racism.....oh wait, sorry, I was talking about Mars.....Let me get back to earth:
In 2008, when we've been mouthing off about gender equality and feminism for some time now, wives still do most of the housework. Not only is it the wives keeping house, but husbands manage to generate housework that the women wouldn't have to do if they were living alone. Some 7 hours of extra work a week. That's a whole work day, right there! And (!) that number is down significantly from where it was in the '70s. Apparently the hours grow exponentially when there are kids. Of course. Wives do 2.8 times more work than husbands, in general, when there are kids. The industrial cleaning crew required to keep smeared applesauce and finger paint at bay apparently has one name only: Mom.

What's interesting is that of all of the categories of men surveyed, the ones doing the most housework were the single ones. This means that the creatures are completely capable of cleaning and tidying. It must. They get married, though, and poof, suddenly, they're doing next to nothing and the wives do a whole extra work day's worth of housekeeping.

Why is that? I'd really like to keep my scepticism at bay and say that there's some reason other than most men thinking that acquiring a wife means acquiring a servant. Really, I would. Somehow, that nagging feeling just keeps coming back.....

The article that I read was from Yahoo. Here it is. Surprisingly enough, a couple of days later, another Yahoo article tackled the issue of gender roles and how they relate to happy (or not) marriages. I'm surprised because the idea of gender constructs doesn't usually make it to mainstream media. The article suggested that tension in relationships (especially when it comes to things like housework) can come up when one partner's idea of roles and expectations clashes with the other's. It brings up the idea that a man brought up with clear ideas of "women's work" might have trouble contributing equally to housework, cooking, whatever. It also has the balls to bring up the theory that "actions speak louder than words." That is, even if mommy and daddy told you that boys and girls can do the same things, if daddy sits on his ass in front of the TV on a Saturday, and mommy cleans and cooks and arranges the babysitter for the evening, the clear, loud image will be that men work during the week, then relax at home, and women clean and cook and don't have outside interests.

The article is not perfect, by any means. It doesn't do much to criticize the gender roles. It brings them up, though, which is definitely a start.

*******************
In 1971 Judy Syfer wrote an essay entitled "Why I want a Wife." It was published in Ms. magazine. It features wonderful nuggets like:

My wife must arrange to lose time at work and not lose the job. It may mean a small cut in my wife's income from time to time, but I guess I can tolerate that. Needless to say, my wife will arrange and pay for the care of the children while my wife is working.

It appears that the traditional role of Wife was akin to butler, majordomo, footman, valet, chamber maid, scullery maid, kitchen maid, cook, housekeeper, nanny, laundress, gardener, masseuse, counselor, coat-rack, entertainment......Seriously! Even imperialist British aristocracy figured out that each of those jobs needs it's own person! With that job description, it's hardly any wonder that it took western society so long to discover feminism. Those who would most benefit had to put revolution somewhere between scrubbing the floor, entertaining the guests and wiping the goo out of the eye of the kid with pink-eye! Of course husbands wouldn't have jumped at the idea of equality, what with the workload of a staff of twenty being condensed into the body of one. Imagine getting all that and not having to pay for it! Damn, I want a Wife, too.

Actually, I really want a dumbwaiter from which food will magically materialize at the table. That would be awesome.

The essay is bitingly funny and also pretty seething. You can read the whole thing over at Maggie's.

So, it's really depressing. I think we've come a long way since Syfer's essay, but so much of it is still totally accurate. Men's expectations have changed tons in some cases, and not at all in others. Remember the jack-ass who yelled "Go home and iron my shirts" at the Hillary Clinton rally? I guess it really speaks to the "why should the oppressor want to change his behavior when he reaps all benefits?" theory.

I've been thinking about the married people I know, to see how they compare to these statistics...I'd like to think that the married people I associate with are all nicely progressive and egalitarian. To a certain extent, the "progressive" certainly applies, and I think that the folks I know are claiming that it's all egalitarian, but I still remain skeptical. Very skeptical.

One conclusion that I have come up with, though, is that I will not raise a family within that structure. I don't even know if I want a family, but if I do, I WILL NOT stay at home while a partner/husband goes to work all day. I will not be left alone with a baby the majority of the time. I will not allow myself to be the primary parent, with the other one "helping out." Helping implies that it's the mommy's job, and the other partner is essentially doing a favor. Rather than their responsibility. I will only go about child rearing in an equal partnership. So there.

**Update**

Since this posted the first time, there has been a lot of publicity from the passing of laws making it easier for husbands to take the wife's last name, and "allowing" new parents to give their kids the mother's name....While that's encouraging, it does hammer home the point that marriage is completely patriarchal. These laws try to make it seem less so, and may placate the "I'm a progressive, but I'm still going to buy into all the bullshit" set (you know, the ones with diamonds on their fingers and babies in yuppie-strollers who are stay at home moms and claim that they chose that in a totally un-pressured way), but I don't buy it.

I think that's all I've got to say for right now....