11D

Big Tent Feminism

It's too bad that blog readership plummets in the summertime, because there are such good conversations going on right now.

A few weeks ago, the feminist blogosphere was in a tither about whether or not feminism has put the interests of middle-class women on hold, while they pursue the interests of poor and working class women. The controversy was sparked by an opinion piece in the Washington Post by Linda Hirshman, who said that feminist goals had become too broad. Feminists should let others deal with social justice issues, while they focus on getting women up the corporate ladder. Less talk about welfare, more talk about glass ceilings. (links when I get the time.)

Last week, some said that feminism was too narrow and had neglected the needs of disabled women.

Today, Megan writes that feminism should include libertarian women, who are lukewarm on abortion issues and aren't supportive of large governmental programs.

What do you think?

Women in Academia

In this month's Perspectives on Politics (for APSA geeks only), Monroe et al. look at gender inequality in academia. They describe the problems that women academics face in gaining top tier positions at research universities.

It's Pearls and Belts From Now On

I haven't been a huge fan of Hillary during this campaign. Her tactics annoyed me, she was no match for the stirring speeches of Mr. Inspiration, and she hung around for far too long. However, there is no question that her campaign was hit several times by torpedoes of sexism. Very quickly we're moving from discussions of women leaders to discussions of pearls and belts. I'm guilty there, too. Shrug.

While I'm waiting around for the new issue of the Atlantic to go online, I thought I would point you to this article on feminism and Hillary in the New Republic and coverage on this topic by the Daily Show. What the heck, check out Indecision 5768, too.

UPDATE: Wow. Big raging debate between Linda Hirshman and younger women bloggers. See here, bean, Jill, and Jen.

Girls and Sports

The Times had a crappy article on girls and sports this week. The cover of the magazine has a picture of girl with her head wrapped in gauze getting bonked on the head with the ball. Ouch.

I skimmed through five pages of stories of how girls are getting terribly injuring playing sports. I was looking for the point somewhere. Way back towards the end of the article after it jumped to the page before the crossword puzzle, it said something about how coaches need to train girls differently than boys and then things will be fine. 

How many people read that article to the end to find that point? How many people saw the cover, read the first couple pages, and walked away saying "girls shouldn't play sports"?

The first paragraph of that article should have been a quote from one of the injured girls talking about how important sports were to her life and how she willingly put up with torn ligaments and stress fractures, because she loved winning games.

My knees are destroyed from running nearly fifty miles a week all through high school and into college. My back was so fucked up in my senior year that I could barely walk at the end of the cross country season. What did I gain from all that pain? A whole lot of self confidence. A work ethic. Leadership skills. It sure beat waving pom-poms around.

I have a box of medals up in my attic and two scrapbooks of press clippings. Each scrapbook has been carefully marked to note which races I won and which ones I earned a personal best. Twenty years later, I still remember my time for the mile, two mile, and cross country.

Warrior-girls rule, even if they limp a little.

Pop Culture Women and Politics

Yesterday morning, I had a 10 pound ham and not much clue of what to do with it, so I googled "ham glaze" and ended up at Martha Stewart's website. She had pages of tips of how to score the ham, what to do with the skin, and how to mix up a lovely brown sugar/cognac glaze. After printing out those pages, I got distracted clicking on other things on her website.

She had a warts-and-all scrapbook of her life, which included mention of her divorce and pictures of her entering court for the insider trading scandal. There's a picture of her leaving prison wearing a poncho that a fellow inmate made for her. Martha is oddly comfortable documenting the bad things in her life.

I've always been fascinated by Martha Stewart. I had a subscription to her magazine years ago. I've got a bunch of vintage dishes in my cupboard that Martha told me to buy. I liked the scrubbed, organized lifestyle that she painted, even as I was wearing black and hanging out in dark bars in the East Village.

Several years ago, Steve and I were at the Pier Show visiting a friend who sells antique glass. Jonah was a toddler sitting on Steve's shoulders as we browsed the mid-century furniture and artwork. We saw Martha in running clothes roaming around, too, so we stalked her for a while.

Martha is a fascinating political subject. Is she a feminist? On the one hand, she preaches a lifestyle that involves women doing painstaking cooking and sewing. She added several steps to the baking of the Easter ham. When my sister in law saw me removing the skin of the ham and scoring the fat in a crosshatch design, she said that there's no way that she would do all that work. If one really wants to live the Martha lifestyle, one must make it a full time job.

On the other hand, Martha has become a very wealthy, powerful woman from knowing how to correctly score the fat of the Easter ham. She may have backed the wrong horse in the Clinton-Obama fight, but she's a mainstay in New York Democratic politics.

There are a few other pop culture women that have a foot in the area of politics.

Angelina Jolie has the philanthropy and foreign-policy angle. I also think she's interesting for putting a dent in the traditional image of motherhood.

Oprah Winfrey certainly gave a boost to Obama's campaign, demonstrating more political strength than Ted Kennedy.

There are several other pop culture women, who have gone beyond the glossy magazine covers to make a real political impact. Their large followings and money have a huge impact on gender politics, the women's vote, and in politics in general. Judge Judy might be one of them. Who else should I add to that list?

More Speculation on Silda

Spitzer resigned this morning. Silda stood by his side again with bags under her eyes and her hands behind her back. As I watched the speech, my eyes were on her, more than him.

I'm fascinated by her reaction, mostly because I'm quite sure that I wouldn't be so cool. I would react emotionally in a Donna Hanover style. It would be unbecoming and loud. Perhaps her decision to stand by her men was motivated by an interest in protecting the children. If that's the case, then I admire her. I'm not sure that I would be so rational and cool.

Others have had their own spin on Silda. Hirshman sees it as a morality tale for opt-out moms.

I agree that staying at home is risky behavior (and so does Allison). I also think that staying at home is worth the risk for some women.

But in this particular case, Hirshman's opting out lecture doesn't work. Silda's problem is the dissolution of her marriage and public humiliation, not poverty. Silda could have her pick of paid positions in politics or in law in a second. Paid employment would not shelter her from the public humiliation that she now faces.

My mom had still another take on events. She stopped by today with some chicken soup for my sore throat.

I asked her if she watched the speech. She said yes.

"How about Silda?", I said. She said, "women are stronger than men."

Dr. Manhattan says that political families have their own rules of behavior that forces them to keep up the public face at all times.

What's With the Wives?

Why do political wives stand by their man? Why do they stoically stand next to their husbands at the podium as the dirtbags admit to sleeping with prostitutes and young men? Most women I know would morph into Loretta Bobbitt in a similar situation rather than Silda Spitzer.

Silda is urging Eliot to stay in office. At this point, I would be throwing his clothes out of the window of their 5th Avenue apartment and letting them rain down on the reporters below.

Silda must have known about the hookers. She must be getting off on the photo spreads for the Governor's green mansion. She must be loving the dinners with Martha Stewart and New York City big shots. She is willing to put up with a creepy husband for all that. Sad.

The View was talking about this yesterday.

The female hosts on “The View” have also had their share of tabloid stories, but most of those scandals followed catfights behind the scenes, not lapses in morality or professional probity. Certainly there were no tears shed for Mr. Spitzer on Tuesday on “The View,” where for once all five women agreed emphatically on almost everything about the scandal.

“Aren’t you sick of men?” Joy Behar, one of the hosts, said. “Viagra is destroying our government.”

Dina Matos McGreevey says that we shouldn't be wondering what the heck is going in the mind of the poor wives.

Why not? We're wondering about the motivations of these women, because their behavior is just bizarre and unthinkable for most women. I'm wondering why Dina still uses her ex-husband's last name.

16 and Pregnant

The movie, Juno, and Britney's sister have put the issue of teenage pregnancy back on the agenda. The biggest buzz happened over the holiday break. Lucky for me, Caitlin Flanagan brought up it again, so it's nice and hot and topical again. Thanks, Caitlin.

Caitlin explains that Juno is a "fairy tale." Most girls aren't able to effortlessly give up their kids for adoption. She points out how unfair it is that girls assume all the blame and responsibility, while the impregnators remain anonymous and continue with their normal lives.

Flanagan writes,

Biology is destiny, and the brutally unfair outcome that adolescent sexuality can produce will never change. Twenty years ago, I taught high school in a town near New Orleans. There was a girls’ bathroom next to my classroom, which was more convenient for me than the faculty one on the other side of campus. In the last stall, carved deeply into the metal box reserved for used sanitary napkins, was the single word “Please.”

That "biology is destiny" line is driving some people crazy.

I haven't seen Juno, so I don't want to comment on its hidden meanings or subplots. I don't give a crap about hipsters anymore. It's a rental.  However, I have been following the Jamie Lynn Spears story, because I'm a shallow reader of tmz.com.

I have been fairly shocked about the level of condemnation that has been heaped on this girl. Yeah, it's rough to be 16 and pregnant, but the press has put the scarlet A on her forehead. Some want her kicked off Nickelodeon. Parents are worried about what they are going to tell their eight year old daughters, who watch Spears's show.

I'm not sure why Flanagan's editorial is irking people. The world still isn't ready for pregnant teens. Pregnant teens still are seen as little sluts who will contaminate the younger girls. And the guys do get off way too easy. It's only the girls that get the cold shoulder, as well as the annoying messy business of being pregnant for nine months.

I would like to see more social supports for pregnant teenagers. High school maternity leave. Colleges with day cares. The boys need to shoulder more of the burden, though I'm not sure how to operationalize that one. I do like the idea that they should have to wear a t-shirt for nine months that says "I'm too stupid to use birth control."

Taking Marriage Backwards

In yesterday's Times, Stephanie Coontz writes another anti-marriage opinion piece. Coontz always goes for the cool and hip, but leaves the logic behind. Someone at the Times must have said, "hey, let's distract people from our snoring columnists. Someone call up that kook, Coontz."

Coontz starts off with a history of how the state got into the business of legitimizing marriage. Actually, I found the history quite interesting.

For 16 centuries, Christianity also defined the validity of a marriage on the basis of a couple’s wishes. If two people claimed they had exchanged marital vows — even out alone by the haystack — the Catholic Church accepted that they were validly married.

In 1215, the church decreed that a “licit” marriage must take place in church. But people who married illictly had the same rights and obligations as a couple married in church: their children were legitimate; the wife had the same inheritance rights; the couple was subject to the same prohibitions against divorce.

Not until the 16th century did European states begin to require that marriages be performed under legal auspices. In part, this was an attempt to prevent unions between young adults whose parents opposed their match.

Government began relying on the marriage license in the 1950s, as a way of distributing social security benefits and health insurance. But Coonz says the marriage license no longer makes sense, because people aren't getting married anymore.

Possession of a marriage license is no longer the chief determinant of which obligations a couple must keep, either to their children or to each other. But it still determines which obligations a couple can keep — who gets hospital visitation rights, family leave, health care and survivor’s benefits. This may serve the purpose of some moralists. But it doesn’t serve the public interest of helping individuals meet their care-giving commitments.

So, Coontz wants us to do away with this marriage license nonsense. There are so many reasons to have problems with this argument that I don't even know where to begin.

I'll let the social conservatives talk about why state sanctioned marriages force feet draggers to get married and that this is good for children and society. Instead, I'll talk about why the marriage license is good for women.

So, Steve and I get married  on a mountain top, by a hippie who got his ministerial license from an ad in Rolling Stone magazine. We have no state license, just a batik print paper from the hippie saying that we're married. We hang out for few years and have a couple of kids. Then he decides that he wants the corporate life and a wife who shaves her legs. He leaves me in the trailer park with the dirty kids. I need to sue him for child support, but now he says that the marriage wasn't binding, because the hippie officiant was stoned at the time. I think he'll have the edge in court.

That marriage license provides women with guarantees for social security, alimony, and child support. Women need these protections, because they are more likely then their spouses to stop work or to take less demanding jobs after the children are born. Women are the most vulnerable to poverty in their older years. A marriage license provides them with certain guarantees that private unions cannot.

It might even be better for women if marriage licenses were written with the details of pre-nup contract. It could provide detailed information about property divisions and proportions of future salaries, if the marriage should dissolve.

Coontz's proposal to get government out of the marriage business might distract us from the latest Dowd column, but it is still a lousy idea.

UPDATE: A different take on this issue from bean. More from Family Scholars. See blogrunner for everything.

It's Hard Work Being a Girl

My buddy, Suze, has done a mid-career shift and gone back to school for a degree in education. As part of the program, she has been observing classes in city schools and helping out in the classroom. She's full of good stories. Yesterday, she called after I came home from teaching and gave me about the latest installment in the saga.

In a high school English class, the teacher gave the kids the 5 paragraph essay lesson. To get them going, he assigned the topic "It is Better to Be ...", pick a gender, and explain why. The students were mostly Latinos from poor to working class backgrounds.

All the boys said that it was better to be a man. That's probably not surprising. But all the girls also said that it was better to be a man. The consensus was that men have less responsibilities, they don't have to clean the house or do the dishes, and they can hang out with their friends. The girls also said that they had to spend more time on their hair and their clothes.