Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The 17 Bottles Of project began with Urs and Sig and a bunch of other people in 1999. Unfortunately, the original, in a blue spiral notebook, has vanished. It was a fun project, though, so we're starting over. Hopefully this one will be a bit harder to misplace.
2011 UPDATE: Word on the streets is that the J.Mo. has located the notebook and has it in her possession. We'd love to see it some day...
Current Locations
Blog Archive
-
►
2010
(36)
- December (1)
- November (4)
- October (2)
- September (3)
- August (3)
- July (3)
- June (5)
- May (8)
- April (5)
- March (1)
- January (1)
-
▼
2009
(49)
- December (4)
- November (3)
- October (4)
- September (10)
- August (2)
- July (7)
- June (4)
- May (3)
- April (6)
- March (2)
- February (1)
- January (3)
-
►
2008
(85)
- December (5)
- November (5)
- October (7)
- September (9)
- August (2)
- July (8)
- June (9)
- May (11)
- April (13)
- March (2)
- February (7)
- January (7)
-
►
2007
(63)
- December (7)
- November (4)
- October (5)
- September (3)
- August (6)
- July (5)
- June (4)
- May (8)
- April (10)
- March (1)
- February (7)
- January (3)
-
►
2006
(55)
- December (3)
- November (2)
- October (5)
- September (4)
- August (9)
- July (3)
- June (5)
- May (2)
- April (3)
- March (5)
- February (8)
- January (6)
-
►
2005
(67)
- December (2)
- November (7)
- October (8)
- September (1)
- August (8)
- July (5)
- June (3)
- May (8)
- April (11)
- March (3)
- February (7)
- January (4)
8 comments:
Um.. I don't know, Sig. I think she kind of missed the boat on most of it.
Feminists did not turn people into stuff-desiring greedhogs. Feminists did not make healthcare outrageously expensive. Feminists did not make the cost of living skyrocket. Look around! The "system" didn't get overhauled. Feminists have never had enough power or societal validity to be able to do those things even if they'd wanted to.
Stay at home moms have never been "valued" in our culture. True, they used to be the norm in middle and upper class families (they have never been the norm in impoverished families). But just because something is "the norm" doesn't mean that it is inherently valued. Stay at home moms were still women, and women were/are only valued under the patriarchy as property. They were worth more safely at home, where their sexuality and independent financial security could be easily controlled. But things got too expensive and then families couldn't afford the lifestyle they wanted without two incomes. Feminists didn't cause that. They fought (& fight) for the rights of women to be hired by companies that didn't want to "integrate" and they fought for equal pay. They fought for bodily integrity and reproductive choice. Feminists are all about personal choice, including the choice to have a stay at home parent, a non-traditional family, or to not have kids and/or husband at all.
By the way, the rape comment irked me. The issue isn't whether or not rape victims report their rapists. The issue is that there ARE rape victims. Because people should not be raping, controlling, owning, or harming anyone else. In an ideal feminist world, there wouldn't be rapists. Or Republicans. ;)
And the gay comment? Seriously??! No, there shouldn't be a choice. There shouldn't BE a fucking closet that anyone has to decide whether or not to "come out of". People shouldn't have to be worried about others finding out who they're attracted to. It should be as non-worrysome as discussing your favorite color:
"Oh, you like yellow best? That's cool. I prefer red."
Not "Oh, you like yellow best? I can't handle the strangeness of this difference in our preferences. Your preference of yellow threatens my preference of red. I'm going to have to fire you/beat you up/hate on you."
I don't know Tina that well, but I feel fairly confident in saying that she'd agree with you.
I don't think she was trying to write about the root of the problems, though. Her point is that there has been progress, much of that progress is due to the 1960s feminists, and she's grateful for that progress. At the same time, that progress has led to the problematic notion that to make "old fashioned" choices (staying at home to raise kids, staying in the closet, etc) is unacceptable. The problem she's addressing is that external pressure to make the "modern" choice, not the underlying problems that have led to the necessity of making choices.
The fact of the matter is that rape DOES happen and LGBT folks DO worry. She's not saying it's OK that those problems exist. She's not saying it's OK that a patriarchal social structure has marginalized a lot of people and normalized a lot of shitty behavior.
I think she *IS* saying that the problems are here and they suck the big stick. When these sucky issues arise in people's lives, they should be able to handle them however they see fit, without ALSO having to worry about being criticized for making the choice that is best for them and their circumstances. If someone doesn't feel comfortable reporting a rape or coming out in the workplace, it *should* be that person's choice to remain silent.
In other words: if coming out to dad will mean that dad disowns you, it should be your right to keep a secret from dad without worrying that the entire LGBT community is going to look down on you for perpetuating the shitty social structure that's creating the problem in the first place.
In a theoretical way, I can see how damaging it is for individuals to make the old-fashioned choice. If a lot of women decide to stay at home, for example, that message can be received by the folks who prefer them there as "See? Bitch belongs in the kitchen. Fuck all those crazy bra-burning cunts. Wimmin love baby-raising." At the same time, on the personal level I can see how damaging it can be NOT to make that choice. It would be really hard to watch your kid call someone else "Mom" (one of the kids my mom baby-sat for called her "mom" for a while), take the first steps at day care, and catch the flu from the baby sitter's kids.
Anyway. Those are my brief and not-very-well-thought-out two cents.
Actually, Constantina is full of fail. I've been told by older entomologists (who are all men, obviously) that women should stay home and have babies. I've been told by my peers that women who step out of line should be mutilated with acid. I've had to laugh at woman jokes, and I've heard people wonder whether women entomologists can really take field work. Following the status quo is always easier.
Also, what Lauren said. Word.
I would LOVE to know when it became unacceptable for women to stay home and have babies. I didn't realize it was suddenly more common for women to be scientists than to be SAHMs. Since women are now all pressured into having high-powered careers against their will, the revolution is over and we can all go home.
Lisa, I'm going to say something that might hurt your feelers, and I apologize in advance for that.
Everyone else, think about the stay-at-home moms you know. How do you feel about their choice to stay at home? Do you feel that they're living up to their full potential? Do you feel that they could be "doing so much more" with themselves?
I have heard people, including myself and my friends, say things like "Why on earth would she choose to stay at home?" and "She's going to have a hard time if she ever wants to work since she raised kids instead of working after college graduation" and "Housewifery is so demeaning." We can pretend we don't wrinkle our noses at the stay at home choice, but we all do to varying degrees. Based on the comments we've made (Lisa aside), that's the truth.
I wouldn't say it's more common for women to be scientists than stay at home moms, but I *would* say it's pretty common for people to look down on a woman who leaves a good career to raise her kids, or at least to question that decision. On the other hand, if a woman never had a career in the first place and stayed at home from day one, it's a lot more accepted.
I also think a lot of this depends on who you're talking to. In the Republican and conservative Christian groups, I think that being a stay at home mom is a much more accepted thing than it is with the uber-liberal crowd.
Personally, I could care less what a woman does. Not because I don't care about women (obviously), but because I place 0% of the "blame" on women for the way society is. We wouldn't have any Ann Coulters if our society did not reward misogyny. I don't hate her. I hate the social norms and traditions that created her. I hate that she hates herself.
Let's face it - women are damned if they do, damned if they don't. In this society, as in so many others, the choices we make are irrelevant (to society). No matter what we're doing, we're doing something wrong. And women learn early on that the best defense is a good offense, so if they can point out the wrongs of another women, they can spare for awhile having the evil eyes staring at them. Like in high school (or jr high.. or elementary school... ) - it never really stops. I get that it's more complex than that, but I think that really sums it up well.
Is she a slut or a prude? Is she a cold & heartless bitch because she wants a career instead of a family or is she a weak, intelligence-lacking baby-making factory because she had kids instead of working/going to college? Is she easy (because she'll sleep with me) or a man-hating lesbian (because she won't)?
And that is why I'm a feminist... because I think the entire system is woefully flawed. It's flawed both outside & in, in ways that are obvious (reproductive choice, occupation, war) and ways that aren't (internalized beauty standards, schools, etc).
I think people spend too much time worrying about the questions that don't really matter instead of getting to the heart of the issues and asking (or trying to answer) the questions that do.
& what Erica has experienced in her male-dominated line of work is not an anomaly. I've come across woman-hating or woman-demeaning in every imaginable context, from house parties & college classrooms to billboard ads and radio/television. Not to mention public schools, all over the internet, the grocery store, and just walking down the street.
If people don't think women should be SAHMs, why does society still push women into the home through workplace policies that are distinctly unfriendly to women? Nevermind the fact that we still make only $0.70 to a man's dollar, and exorbitant childcare costs make working almost pointless if you're not over a certain salary. Academia, in particular, is still modeled on the idea that you can work 80 hrs/week because you've got free maid service at home.
The reason we don't value SAHMs is not due to feminism. It's because the patriarchy devalues work that is traditionally relegated to women, regardless of how important it may be. For example, what do you think of secretaries?
That being said, childcare is not a job that every woman should be doing, any more than every woman should be a doctor or a lawyer or a firefighter. But just because you're not equipped to run a daycare mean you can't be a mother, and it doesn't mean you can't be a good mother.
And we're not asking the most important question. Why is it one or the other for women, and not for men? Nobody expects men to stay home with the kids. And that's the fundamental problem. Why are men entitled to somebody who takes care of their kids and cleans up after them, and I'm not? Fuck that.
Post a Comment