![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Many things to think about today. I slept better, thanks.
Here's an interesting rant about how there seems to be a lot of media attention on attempts to prove that feminists suck. Firstly a study that shows that people who shack up are more likely to get divorced. It mentioned that mostly women want to get married and men don't, so the men are the ones who decide if marriage actually happens. The author made a good point that the study does not show a smidge of causation in shacking up and divorce rates, and it's buried down in there that a more likely candidate for causation is low income.
There's also a reference to some Today Show interviewee who thinks the 'June Cleaver' model is coming back. Because women are happier when they can focus on their kids instead of their careers (which also coincidentally is only possible in higher-income families, as a rule). Now, I have no problem with this on the surface. I am lucky enough to get to play hausfrau in preference to being a career woman... but this has nothing to do with my vaginal status. When hub was un/underemployed, I was the main breadwinner. What irks is the assumption that women suffer because they want to have it all, so they should just get back in the kitchen dammit. Also, it's usually seen as 'family versus career', by the way, where 'family' is assumed to mean children. Spouse is optional. *pthbpbpbpbpbp*
Newsflash- everyone suffers when they want to have it all, regardless of if their bits are convex or concave. The problem in two-parent families comes when 'having it all' means the man has a job and does some yardwork, and the woman has a job and rears the children, cooks, and does all the housework. The division of labor is way fucked-up, and the woman gets blamed for trying to have it all when she just assumed the man was gonna pick up some of the housework/child care duties and he didn't. Then it becomes a communication/expectation issue. I've seen it a bunch of times. Women either have to be 'Superwoman' or they have to cut back on something, and if I was having to choose between giving preference to my career or to my kids, I'd chose my kids. And then catch shit for not being feminist. Men don't seem to have to make that choice nearly as often. I'd also like to point out that there are a lot of other options besides 'career or kids', by the way. I don't have either, yet I manage to keep pretty busy.
I also think a lot of younger people think having kids is not a whole category of lifestyle. They figure they can cram parenting in between classes and/or parties and/or having a job. So, since everyone's supposed to have kids anyway, might as well if you turn up pregnant. It makes for a lot of breeders and not enough parents. That's the impression I get from years of working the abuse hotline and Food Stamps anyway. That's why if I had a bazillion dollars I'd buy a politician to make sure sex education starts really early, every kid (male and female) lugs around a Baby Think It Over for at least a couple of weeks, and put birth control in the water supply (and distribute the antidote at your local Planned Parenthood). Okay, enough ranting, back to the phones.
Here's an interesting rant about how there seems to be a lot of media attention on attempts to prove that feminists suck. Firstly a study that shows that people who shack up are more likely to get divorced. It mentioned that mostly women want to get married and men don't, so the men are the ones who decide if marriage actually happens. The author made a good point that the study does not show a smidge of causation in shacking up and divorce rates, and it's buried down in there that a more likely candidate for causation is low income.
There's also a reference to some Today Show interviewee who thinks the 'June Cleaver' model is coming back. Because women are happier when they can focus on their kids instead of their careers (which also coincidentally is only possible in higher-income families, as a rule). Now, I have no problem with this on the surface. I am lucky enough to get to play hausfrau in preference to being a career woman... but this has nothing to do with my vaginal status. When hub was un/underemployed, I was the main breadwinner. What irks is the assumption that women suffer because they want to have it all, so they should just get back in the kitchen dammit. Also, it's usually seen as 'family versus career', by the way, where 'family' is assumed to mean children. Spouse is optional. *pthbpbpbpbpbp*
Newsflash- everyone suffers when they want to have it all, regardless of if their bits are convex or concave. The problem in two-parent families comes when 'having it all' means the man has a job and does some yardwork, and the woman has a job and rears the children, cooks, and does all the housework. The division of labor is way fucked-up, and the woman gets blamed for trying to have it all when she just assumed the man was gonna pick up some of the housework/child care duties and he didn't. Then it becomes a communication/expectation issue. I've seen it a bunch of times. Women either have to be 'Superwoman' or they have to cut back on something, and if I was having to choose between giving preference to my career or to my kids, I'd chose my kids. And then catch shit for not being feminist. Men don't seem to have to make that choice nearly as often. I'd also like to point out that there are a lot of other options besides 'career or kids', by the way. I don't have either, yet I manage to keep pretty busy.
I also think a lot of younger people think having kids is not a whole category of lifestyle. They figure they can cram parenting in between classes and/or parties and/or having a job. So, since everyone's supposed to have kids anyway, might as well if you turn up pregnant. It makes for a lot of breeders and not enough parents. That's the impression I get from years of working the abuse hotline and Food Stamps anyway. That's why if I had a bazillion dollars I'd buy a politician to make sure sex education starts really early, every kid (male and female) lugs around a Baby Think It Over for at least a couple of weeks, and put birth control in the water supply (and distribute the antidote at your local Planned Parenthood). Okay, enough ranting, back to the phones.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: Jul. 14th, 2005 05:02 pm (UTC)From:The other thing that makes me mad is the double standard regarding appearance. Not only are we supposed to have kids and a job and a spotless house and clean laundry but we're supposed to dress to the nines, have perfect hair, wear makeup and heels. Two of the recent makeover shows I've watched recently were about women who worked and had kids and who had gone to either a uniform style or wearing comfy, baggy clothing.
I agree that they could put a little more effort into looking good when they go OUT with their spouses, but jeez... if they actually spent as much time getting ready as they would have to in order to get the 'look' they'd have to lose an extra hour of sleep a day while hubby snores away. God forbid he should pick up the slack so she can spend some time taking care of herself. Where is this supermom supposed to fit a manicure into her schedule let alone shopping for trendy outfits? Sheesh.
Going back to the ecology thing from my earlier post... a lot of the problems we have now could be fixed with zero or negative population growth. This 'need' to have kids is so bogus. It doesn't make you any less of a woman to opt out - but somehow the same feminists that want you to work full time think you've done something wrong if you 'forgot' to pop out a rugrat. Screw that noise!
Okay, now that I've totally cluttered up your journal with my own rant... sorry. :|
no subject
Date: Jul. 14th, 2005 05:12 pm (UTC)From:no subject
Date: Jul. 14th, 2005 05:49 pm (UTC)From:Sometimes it's nice to not be a breeder, hehe.
no subject
Date: Jul. 14th, 2005 05:54 pm (UTC)From:Actually, shrinks are starting to discover that men get screwed by cultural norms too, just in different ways. Here's one example of a book that talks about it.
no subject
Date: Jul. 14th, 2005 11:35 pm (UTC)From:Me, I'd never trade being a man for being a woman. Except maybe once a month but only to get to play with different genitalia, but that's besides the point. Bleeding and the accompanying emotional release is part of makes us sturdier then men. We can deal with more, we live longer, we get going when the going gets tough much more easily. Besides that men have been having to deal with a fundamental change in their role over the last 30 years...it has to be terribly confusing, besides intimidating. We're just seeing some growing pains with this whole Superwoman bullshit. Me, I don't read magazines or watch TV, so I get to skip the bulk of it automatically.