Happy Holidays!

Hello everyone! Sorry that I've been away for awhile; you know how hectic the last couple of days before Christmas can be! On the bright side, we're home in Utah with my family, and Christmas is just the same as it was when I was a kid. I love it (and I love that my mom goes to such an effort to make Christmas such an enjoyable time for her family). So it's definitely a blessed time of year!

Of course, there are the little issues that always pop up (such as when my parents' dog, Shila, tried to kill my cat, Maxine... ok, maybe I'm being a little melodramatic, but I can tell you that these two definitely don't like each other!) Then there was the issue trying to print out the pictures for our Christmas cards; we couldn't really find a good one, and then when we did, we couldn't get the red eye out. Combine that with the relentless traffic and the people who act like their world will end if they don't grab the last item off the shelf, and I ended up feeling pretty crabby.

Then I stopped to put it all in perspective. I'm here, in my childhood home (which is full of the Christmas spirit, if I do say so myself), with my beloved husband and soulmate, my wonderful parents and brother, and Dan's sister and brother-in-law right down the road. We're all healthy, we DEFINITELY have enough to eat (have you seen the dinners my dad makes?), and most importantly, we're all together, enjoying each other's company. Do the little things like crowds and red eye in a photo truly matter? I think not. I'm so blessed, and I hope that we all remember how lucky we truly are. (And, if you have a chance to bless another family who is in need, please do so. I can't tell you the joy we felt when we delivered our angel tree presents to the little boy we "adopted." I loved buying gifts for my family, of course, but the joy of buying for a child who lacks even the most basic things in life was overwhelming.)

Once again, merry Christmas and a happy 2008! I hope to be on here sometime in the coming week, but we all know how Christmas celebrations can take up a lot of one's time :) So, if I don't "see" you all before then, I'll see you once again in 2008!

Having Boys As Friends Can Boost Girls' Drinking

I read a rather disturbing article here on MSN today. Researchers have found a link between having friends of the opposite sex and increased underage drinking, especially for girls.

I wonder why this is? Is it because girls are more likely to be socialized to be compliant and agreeable, so they go along with their friends' (usually guys) suggestion to drink, even if they don't want to? Is it because girls want so desperately to be accepted by the opposite sex that they'll do whatever it takes to be considered "cool"? (Obviously boys have that issue, too, but it seems to manifest itself differently).

I found this study very intriguing, and it really caused me to think exactly how the interactions between adolescent boys and girls are so fraught with tension and the desire for acceptance. So what can be done to prevent these friendships from facilitating negative consequences? Well, we need to, first and foremost, raise our girls to say "no." This applies to drinking, having sex, and anything else that is potentially harmful to our daughters. We also need to raise our sons to respect women, so if girls say, "no," our sons know they mean it, and it's not something "fun" to do to try to convince them otherwise. And what about good old-fashioned parental supervision? I think today, parents are too often removed from their children's social lives, and that is a definite factor in underage drinking and teen sex/pregnancy.

It's A..... Girl!

No, not for me, sillies (although I wish!) Helena Bonham Carter and Tim Burton recently welcomed their second child, a girl. Yep, I'm one of those people who likes to follow the lives of celebrities. Not because I'm obsessed with them, but because their actions often provide good blog fodder (Britney Spears, anyone?)

But I really like Helena Bonham Carter, because I think she's a perfect example of how a woman can be strong, intelligent, capable.... and still a very feminine, very beautiful individual. I've loved her in almost everything I've seen her in, and I can't wait for Sweeney Todd to come out. Of course, I also adore Johnny Depp, who I firmly believe is one of the best actors ever, and with Alan Rickman and Sacha Baron Cohen, how can the movie be anything but a success?

Speaking of Bonham Carter, that reminds me. I also need to check out her portrayal of Anne Boleyn, my all-time favorite historical person ever, in the 2003 made-for-TV movie Henry VIII. I would imagine that she would portray the part wonderfully. After all, she has all the right traits: striking beauty, fiery temper, and an aura of intelligence. Hmmm, I guess I know now what my plans will include over Christmas break: Sweeney Todd and Henry VIII. Quite the entertaining (and, at times, bloody) combo, wouldn't you say?

The Good Old Days?

I've been reading some rather disturbing comments on another bulletin board I frequent. The topic is Hillary Clinton and her presidential race. Now, I have no problem with people disliking/disagreeing with Hillary (after all, wouldn't it be a boring world if we all agreed?), and I'm not even 100% sure yet that she'll get my vote; I have to research her policies some more. But what disturbed me was comments made by women that said, "Women should never be president."

This threw me for a loop. I can understand if you don't want Hillary to be president, but women in general? I would think comments like this would come from white, conservative Christian 80-year-old men, not women in their 20s and 30s.

When pressed as to why exactly women shouldn't be president, many responded with, "There are some things men are better at, and leadership is one of them. In fact, I miss the good old days, when we had respectable men leading our households and treating us women like ladies."

Ahhh, yes, the good old days. When husbands and wives were considered, in the eyes of the law, to be one person: the husband. When corporal punishment inflicted on wives by their husbands was accepted, after all, he was only looking out for her best interests, correct? When marital rape was unheard of; after all, the husband and wife are the "same person" so he can do what he wants with "his" body, correct? Nothing says love like forcing your wife to have sex against her will. When white, middle class women had no other option but to be a homemaker. When minority women had to slave away at menial jobs and still do the "women's work" at home, because that was beneath the husband. When women couldn't cast a vote for lawmakers who would determine the policies and laws that women would be required to obey. Gee, sounds very idyllic, doesn't it?

All I can say is, thank God we've come as far as we have.

Womb for Rent?

This article on MSN is pretty interesting. It describes a clinic in India, where women from the US can go to have someone else carry their baby via surrogacy (they choose the Indian clinic as opposed to US clinics due to the country's less restrictive laws surrounding surrogacy). As I was reading it, I had a million different thoughts bouncing throughout my mind, so I thought it would be beneficial to write them down.

My first worry was exploitation. Are these poor women in India volunteering for surrogacy because they want to, or because they feel forced to? Luckily, that fear was soon put to rest; many of the women interviewed said they eagerly volunteered to be a surrogate because the money they would receive ($5500) was equivalent to 10 years salary for them. Many women wanted to use their earnings to buy a brick house, provide for their daughters' dowries, or provide education for their children. For women who often make $25 dollars a month, as one woman did, or $1.20 to $1.45/day, as another woman did, I can understand that the money they receive from surrogacy will allow them more opportunities than they'd ever dreamed.

My second thought, however, was, "How is this any different than purchasing a woman for prostitution? Or how is it any different than objectifying a woman via pornography?" Yes, the intent in this case is not sexual, but you're still purchasing a woman's body. I'm not saying I'm entirely against it (I can understand where these women are coming from), but at the same time, it makes me a little uneasy that women are being reduced to mere breeders. Yes, giving life to another human being is one of the greatest joys a woman can experience, but I tend to look at it differently when it's a mother pregnant with her child, rather than just a stranger acting as an incubator. The first instance is noble, the second.... well, I'm still undecided on that.

Thirdly, the doctor involved in this clinic refuses to provide services for gay and lesbian couples. This really struck me the wrong way; yes, she's entitled to determine whom she will assist, but it seems so discriminatory; much too discriminatory for my tastes. Trust me, with all I've seen in the news recently (Baby Grace, anyone?) heterosexual couples most definitely do not have the market cornered on being excellent parents.

Finally, I just have to ask, what on earth is wrong with adoption? Yes, I understand the desire to carry a biological baby to term is very strong (ask my husband; it's one of the things I talk about the most). Yes, I can't wait to be pregnant, and yes, I would be devastated if I couldn't carry a baby biologically. But if I couldn't, I know for a fact that I would not be doing surrogacy, IVF, or any other such procedures. Why? Well, I'm a firm believer that you don't have to give birth to a child for it to be yours. As long as their are children languishing in orphanages in China, Guatemala, Korea, Russia, and countless other locales, I am going to procure my family that way (and, for the record, we plan on adopting a child regardless of if we can have biological kids or not; our ideal plan is to have two biological kids and adopt one). Our reasoning for this is simple: why not help a child who is already on this earth? Why not give them the life that every child deserves? Why does it HAVE to be a biological child? That's what I don't understand.

Of course, it goes without saying that I am pro-choice in all areas, so if women want to become mothers via the surrogacy route, I wish them all the luck in the world. But I wish that women (and men) would realize that a child doesn't need to possess the parents' DNA in order for it to be their child, and there are plenty of children out there who need loving homes.

Some men...

I was reading an advice column in the newspaper last week; I think it was Ask Margo (which is written by Ann Landers' daughter) or something along those lines. The letters that are printed continually shock me and cause me to reflect, "What century are we living in again?"

This little gem was from a man with four children (and one on the way), and he was angry because his wife didn't do the housework. He then went on to say that they could afford to hire a housekeeper, but he didn't want to pay money for doing what he considered to be his "wife's job."

This irritated me on so many levels. First of all, why is it the wife's job to clean? Ok, I agree, if one person is a stay at home spouse with no children, then yes, she (or he) should do the majority of the housecleaning, simply by virtue of being home more. Of course, they shouldn't have to do it all, because once the working spouse comes home, the duties should be shared equally. It's certainly not fair for one spouse to work 8 hours a day, and the other be required to work (for no pay) 24 hours a day.

But when children enter the picture, all bets are off. Does this guy not realize that raising children IS a full time job? Sure, if he just wants them plunked down in front of the television all day, I'm sure his house could be spotless. But that's not how you raise children. Truly raising children involves reading to them, learning with them, taking them out to experience the world. If I am blessed to be a stay at home mom, our days will be spent at the library, the children's museums, the zoo. Sure, I'll try and tidy up, and the kids can help me as part of their chores (and it'll be a great opportunity to teach my son(s) that both guys and girls do housework). But housework is not going to be my main focus; I want to spend those precious childhood years actually raising my kids, not just watching them while I keep the house spotless. Whatever housework I don't get done during the day will be split equally between Dan and myself once he gets home.

Finally, this guy has some warped ideas about what is expected of his wife. Just because she has two X chromosomes doesn't mean that she has some intrinsic cleaning capability wired into her brain. And if she doesn't want to do it, and they can AFFORD a housekeeper, then why not? You would think that would be a great way to show his love for his wife. My husband, for example, changes all our cars' oil, rotates the tires, and fixes the brakes when needed. It just so happens that he loves doing this. But if he didn't, and we could afford to take it to a mechanic, I certainly would! There is no way I would say, "You have to do the car maintenance, because that's a husband's job. I'm not paying for a mechanic even though we can afford it." So why is this guy expecting a woman--a pregnant one, no less--to watch four young children and keep the house spotless? Seriously, he has some warped priorities. If I were him, I would be grateful that my wife was a stay at home mom who can raise our children with our specific values and morals; what a noble career! I would be thanking her for raising up the next generation; never once would the thought of criticizing her for the housework not being done even enter my mind!

No wonder some feminists see marriage and family as bondage. I personally think marriage and family are life's greatest blessings, but if I had a husband like the one listed above, I very well could think differently.

Women in TV

The other night, I was watching a rerun of Friends (I admit, I never really got into this show at all; I was watching it solely because there was nothing else on). It was supposed to be a "what if" episode; what if Phoebe was a successful business woman, etc. What bothered me is that Monica's storyline was, "What if Monica was an obese 30-year-old virgin?"

This irritated me at MANY levels. First of all, why is it that the "fat girl" is the virgin? What, nobody would want her because she weighs more than 120? Why wasn't Phoebe the "successful, business-oriented 30-year old virgin"? Why does a person's weight have to correspond to their sexual attractiveness?

And just as I hate it when women are objectified just because they are thin, young and beautiful (think Playboy; blech), it irritates me just as much when women who weigh more than the cultural ideal are mocked and made fun of. It wasn't like Monica was obese but still beautiful, sexy, etc. Nope, she had dowdy hair, an annoying voice, hideous clothes and was constantly stuffing her face with food. So all of these traits are common in obese people? Wow; who knew? /sarcasm. No wonder women have body issues and constantly feel the need to weigh a certain amount; who on earth would want to be the obese woman that television constantly portrays? What about showing a larger woman who IS beautiful, well-dressed, desirable? Trust me, there are plenty of them!

And finally, what's this big obsession with a woman's virginity? That has to define her? She's not a 30-year-old New Yorker who works as a chef (I think? I told you; I don't know Friends). Nope, she's a 30-year-old obese [defining a woman by her appearance] virgin [defining her by her sexual status]. Why would this even be an issue? Is this really how we categorize women?

Don't get me wrong; I think there is nothing wrong with waiting until you find the right guy to lose your virginity; I waited until I met my future husband, and I am so glad I did. I, personally, am a firm believer in waiting until you're in a committed, monogamous, loving relationship to have sex (and this standard applies to both sexes; not just women). So if the fictional Monica hadn't found the right guy yet, who cares? That's really supposed crucial to the storyline? Why do we have to define a woman by her virginal status (or lack thereof)? This is just another manifestation of the Madonna/whore complex that plagues so many women today. You're seen as prissy/undesirable if you're a virgin, and you're a "slut" if you have sex. Gee, that's a great way to define women, isn't it? Yet our society does, and it's no wonder, since we see it perpetuated on TV constantly. When is that going to change?

Winter is most definitely here!

Well, my usual 12 minute commute took almost 45 minutes last night; I don't think I went over 18 mph the entire way home. Yep, it was snowing that bad, but I honestly didn't mind it (after awhile, anyway. At first I was definitely frustrated!). As I was inching along, my mind wandered to those people who lived hundreds of years ago; going 18 mph in a coach or on horseback would have seemed amazingly efficient, but to me, it was frustrating. But then I thought, "Why? What do I HAVE to do that is so urgent? Why are we always in such a rush?" We often move through life way too fast. Everything is at the speed of light, and we don't take time to just stop and enjoy the moment. So, last night, as I was driving slowly home, I took time to enjoy the beauty of the snow around me, the twinkling Christmas lights, and the crisp night air.

And it was beautiful. And calming. And refreshing. I think it's increasingly important, no matter how fast or slow our life seems to move, that we take time and truly enjoy the moment. Because, right now, that's all we have.

Some Eye-Opening Experiences Christmas Shopping

Today, I decided to use my lunch hour to get some Christmas shopping done for my husband (honey, if you're reading this, you might want to stop now, unless you want your surprise to be ruined. Ok, thanks.) Anyway, as this is our first Christmas together as a married couple, I wanted to get him an ornament commemorating that milestone.

I was disappointed, however, because all I found were ornaments that said, "Our first Christmas together." No, this isn't our first Christmas together; it's our first as husband and wife, yes, but it's our eighth Christmas together.

I think the reason this bothers me is because it somehow paints the unmarried relationship as less important, less tangible. Now, let me be the first to say that I think marriage is a wonderful, beautiful thing, and it SHOULD be celebrated. But why is it that just because we signed the piece of paper, we now are officially a couple? What about the previous 7 1/2 years, in which we were committed, monogamous, and completely in love? Do those years and milestones not count for anything? Why is everything measured solely from the date of marriage? It seems as though that would invalidate the many tangible and real experiences leading up to one's wedding.

And what about those who choose, of their own volition, to abstain from the legal aspect of marriage (such as Kurt Russell and Goldie Hawn, or Tim Robbins and Susan Sarandon) while still living out the ideal of marriage in every other way? It also seems to be a slap in the face for the many homosexual couples across the nation, who, as much as they would desire it, can't get married. We're saying, "Sorry, guys (and girls), it's only the LEGAL marriages that count. Your relationship? Well, sorry, but that's not real."

Even when we were looking for wedding invitations and the like, it bothered me. There was this one GORGEOUS invitation, but I was irked by the wording of (something along these lines), "From this day forward, I promise to love you, honor you, and forsake all others." Now, I don't have a problem with the loving, honoring, and forsaking all others part (indeed, that's what we put in our vows), but I do have an issue with the first part of the sentence. So it's only from the wedding day forward that you need to love, honor, and be faithful to your partner? The many months or years before the wedding somehow don't count, because, what, you don't have the piece of paper? You can go ahead and treat the relationship as somehow "less real" because you haven't had the big wedding and reception yet? (This is also my main issue with bachelor parties, or "the groom's last night as a single guy," as some men like to claim. No, his last night as a single guy was the night before he met his future wife. It's most definitely NOT the night or two before his wedding, and it's most certainly not an excuse to have naked women dancing lasciviously all over him. But I digress). Dan and I were as in love and as committed to one another from the time we met in 2000 as we were on our wedding day earlier this year (and, indeed, still are). All a wedding does is make the relationship legal; it shouldn't make it any more valid or committed. If it does, then you probably shouldn't be getting married.

Some may say I'm reading too much into this (and that could be a definite possibility), but it just sort of rubbed me the wrong way. Not too much, of course, and yes, I still ended up getting Dan a cute ornament. It's a snowflake that says, in silver writing, "Our first Christmas together 2007." We'll hang it every year on the tree, and when our kids ask about it, we'll say that was the first year we were legally married, but we'd been married in our hearts from the moment we met.

Baby Grace, aka Riley Ann Sawyers

You know, stories like this just make me sick. Children are the most precious gifts that anyone could be given, and this is how parents treat them? I have tears in my eyes right now for this little girl. I can't even imagine how she must have suffered. What was she feeling, when the person she trusted more than anyone in the world (her mother) allowed someone to beat her senselessly? For not saying please and thank you? Are you kidding me? People like Kimberly Trenor and Royce Zeigler make me furious and irritated and heartbroken all at once.

First of all, what on earth was Trenor thinking when she married someone (stories say it was only a month prior to Riley's death that she and Zeigler were legally wed) who would abuse her child in such a way? Since when is it more important to have a man in your life than it is to make sure your child (a human being you brought into the world) is treated well? This is why I cringe when I hear of blended families, children living with their bio mom and their stepdad. I'm sure plenty of these families are healthy and happy, but unfortunately, statistics show that abuse is much more likely to occur in a home without BOTH biological parents (I'm going to be doing a post on that this weekend, so I'll provide the source then. I don't have it on me now. But I digress). This is obviously what happened here; a young 17 year old gets pregnant (why on earth wasn't she on birth control, or, better yet, not having sex while she's still in high school?), has a daughter, and then after she and the bio father break up, she's on to someone else.

This someone else obviously doesn't love his child as his own (I'm seriously wondering right now if he is capable of loving anyone at all). Abuse ensues, but instead of being out of there at the first sign of abuse (such as I would have been), she stays. And stays. And stays.

And allows her daughter (her TWO YEAR OLD daughter) to be beaten with leather belts. To have her head pushed underwater. To be thrown across the room. And yet she does nothing to curb this abuse? What is wrong with these people? Oh, I forgot; she said that "there was no intentional desire to kill Riley." Well, that makes it all better then, doesn't it? I cringe when people abuse animals, for crying out loud, and I don't understand how anyone could do it. Abusing a two year old CHILD is just unfathomable.

(Oh, and by the way, the mother is supposedly pregnant again. How lovely. I wonder if this child will be treated in the same loving manner that its sibling was?) I'm not usually one to advocate government intrusion in our lives, but people like this almost make me wish for forced sterilization.

So what do I propose? Well, sadly, nothing can be done for Riley, except to have BOTH of her parents punished to the fullest extent of the law, if they are found guilty of the charges against them. But in the future, the following policies should help protect the weakest members of our society (our children).

• Encourage high schoolers to wait until they are out of high school and in mature, loving, monogamous relationships before having sex. This isn't coming from a religious standpoint; it's common sense. You're more mature and more able to handle the physical, emotional, and spiritual consequences of sex. Why take on this very wonderful gift (when it's with the right person) before you're ready?
• That being said, I in no way favor abstinence only education. I truly believe that children should be taught to wait, but if they do not, to use both condoms and some type of birth control. Some say that this is just teaching them to have sex before they're ready; I disagree. If someone is going to have sex, they're going to have sex. Might as well make sure they have protection. Likewise, if someone is going to wait, they'll wait. (By the way, I was taught about all sorts of contraceptives in high school, and it didn't make me run out and have sex. Instead, I had already decided that I would wait until I was older, and I didn't lose my virginity until I was 19, to the man who is now my husband. Any talk of contraceptives had no effect on my decision whatsoever.)
• Teach teens about what a big undertaking (and how much work!) a baby is. I know that babies seem so cute and cuddly (and trust me, I can't wait to have one), but they are a lot of work. Perhaps if teens understood this, they would be more careful about avoiding pregnancy.
  
• Encourage adoption (or, in rare cases, abortion) when teen moms find themselves pregnant. For crying out loud, if you're going to allow your child to be abused, give it up to someone who wants it!
  
• If they choose to keep the child, encourage educational opportunities that will allow them to support themselves and their child comfortably. Who knows, perhaps Kimberly Trenor was with her husband because she had no other viable career opportunities in which she could have successfully raised her child as a single mother (still doesn't make it right, though).
• Most importantly, we need to make sure that people report any sign of abuse to CPS, and CPS needs to take action! Riley's abuse on the day of her death wasn't a one-time thing; it was over a period of quite awhile. Why on earth wasn't someone reporting that? (And if someone DID report it, why didn't CPS take her out of there?)

My blood is still just boiling. I have less than no respect for a man such as Royce Zeigler, who would use his physical strength to inflict suffering and death on a child. I also despise Kimberly Trenor, because once you become a mother, your child comes first. I don't care how much she "loved" this man (and how could she?); once she saw that her daughter was abused, she should have been out of there. And where on earth was the biological father? He's just off in another world, not in contact with his child or his ex-girlfriend? Did he not even pay enough attention to his child that he knew what was going on? Why are men not taking more responsibilities for their children?!? Having kids takes two to tango, you know. Even if fathers no longer live under the same roof as their children, they still need to do an EQUAL share of raising them.

I don't even believe in a hell, but I hope there is one so Trenor and Zeigler both rot in it.

Disclaimer: Of course the old adage "Innocent until proven guilty" applies here, yada yada. I'm just going off what the news reports claim to have happened.

The Beauty of the Feminine

People have wondered at the name of my blog, arguing that one cannot be feminist and feminine. Well, I'm here as living proof; I am one of those feminists who loves anything feminine, and I love the things about being a woman that make me unique. Some say that embracing our femininity leads to the continued inequality between men and women; I counter that it can only lead to our empowerment.

Do I think that men and women are really that different? Well, I definitely think that we are MUCH more similar than people like to believe. But I most definitely don't believe we're identical, as some feminists would like to argue. I think that there are certain wonderful qualities that women, on average, are more prone to possess, just as I think there are certain great qualities that men, on average, are more prone to possess. Of course, I'm also a big believer in individual differences, so I never say, "All men are like this, or all women are like this." I recognize that many men have qualities that may typically be described as feminine (my husband and my uncle are two of the most nurturing people I know), just as many women have qualities that can typically be called masculine. Nor do I ever say that it's an either/or issue; it's not as if by utilizing her feminine qualities a woman can't utilize her masculine ones. Good lord, I am probably one of the most nurturing people you'll ever come across (a typical feminine quality), but I'm also one of the most assertive (a typical masculine quality), especially when it comes to issues I'm passionate about. So these two aspects do not have to be contrary to each other.

As you can see, I'm more of a believer in the spectrum; we all (no matter what our gender) possess both masculine and feminine qualities, but some qualities are more obvious and better utilized than others, depending on whether we are male or female. Do I think this is nature or nurture? Well, I think it's probably a combination of the two. The point is, I don't think using our feminine talents or qualities is anything to be ashamed of; it's only society that says these qualities are inferior to those of men. That assumption could not be further from the truth.

To be honest, I have never quite understood those feminists who abhor anything feminine and go out of their way to emulate men in any way possible. To me, this isn't advancing equality for women. True equality for women comes from saying, "Yep, men and women are different [although not nearly as different as society makes them out to be] and each have their strengths and weaknesses. All human beings, regardless of their gender, deserve equal educational, social, economic and political opportunities, because they are human beings." By women trying to be more like men (whether in appearance or attitude), it's not truly advancing the noble cause of equality. Instead, it's saying, "Women deserve all the same rights as men...... as long as they look/act/think like men." How on earth is this equality? The implication here is that women are inferior, so they have to "step up the ladder," so to speak, to become more like men, who are superior. What woman in her right mind would advocate that?

I've had disagreements with other feminists on this issue, and they truly can't see my point of view. So let's put it another way. Say I'm black (I'm white, by the way, but just go with me on this), and I demand equality for blacks. I argue that blacks have too often been put down, oppressed, and marginalized in society, and I want that to change. All of this is well and good, right? (And I do truly feel this way). But then imagine that I go on to say, "In order to get equality, we must look like white people. Bleach your skin, straighten your Afro, and make sure you talk just like white people. The only way to get ahead is to ignore our heritage and mimic theirs." People would be scratching their heads, saying, "Why would they deny themselves and their uniqueness like that? Why would they ignore the very wonderful things about their heritage and culture? Do they not think that black people, in and of themselves, deserve the same opportunities as the rest of us? Or do they only think that white people, or those who strive to emulate white people, deserve equality?"

That's what I feel like whenever I see a woman who denies her femininity in an obvious attempt to be more masculine. Now, I'm not one of those who says that all women should wear makeup, dress a certain way, etc. (I, in fact, am most definitely NOT like that). No, I'm talking about the women who ignore the very aspects of ourselves that make us, as women, unique, and try to become as much like a man as possible. In doing so, they're saying that only men, or those people who act like men and despise anything feminine, deserve equality. And that is most definitely not the case.

The feminine is a very important and crucial element of our society (as is the masculine). Our feminine traits are nothing to be ashamed of; they are to be praised. We deserve equality because we are women, not in spite of it.

Refusing to have babies because they're not eco-friendly?

Wow. I just came across this article, in which a woman says that she was sterilized so as to never have any children (because she considered having children contrary to her desire to "protect the planet").

Now, anyone who knows me knows that I'm pro-choice, so if this is what people want to do, by all means, they should go ahead. (And I would much rather have people get sterilized than have unwanted, potentially abused/neglected children). However, I despise the underlying tone of this article, that children are a burden and anyone who procreates is automatically selfish.

Since when did the noble and wonderful calling of having a family become a "burden"? Yes, I most definitely agree we need to do things to protect our environment; use energy-efficient light sources, recycle as much as possible, drive fuel-efficient cars, etc. But not have children? I can't even fathom the idea.

It's not that the birth of children themselves affects the environment; it's the way that we (and these children, as they grow) treat the environment. So instead of advocating a cessation of children, why don't we teach the children we have or will have how to protect and care for their environment? That, to me, seems much more noble (and effective) than sterilization.

Toni Vernelli, one of the women cited in this article, said, "We used to say that if ever we did want children, we'd adopt, as there are so many children in need of a loving family. At least then, we'd be doing something positive for the world, rather than something negative."

Now, I don't take any issue with the first sentence in her statement. Our plan has always been to have two biological kids (because we desperately want to experience the miracle of pregnancy and birth) and then adopt one (because there are so many children in need, and we don't necessarily need to give birth to a child in order to consider it ours.) And in fact, I wish more people would utilize the adoptive route, rather than popping out 17 biological kids (the Duggars, anyone?) I really wish that more people would create their family through both biological and adoptive means. But to each their own.

But it's the second part of her statement that I take offense to. Bringing children into the world, into a loving home where they will be nurtured and cherished, is somehow negative? Please. I can honestly think of no greater joy! And that's all right if she doesn't agree, but there is no need to characterize it as a negative.

She then goes on to say that she and her husband have a "much nicer life" as the result of not having children; they are able to go on long trips and vacations (they recently got back from South Africa). Now, I love to travel as much as anyone (we went to France for our honeymoon in May; LOVED it!), but doesn't it seem rather materialistic to say, "We're so glad we didn't have children because now we're able to go on more vacations"??? I, personally, would rather have a happy home life with my husband and children rather than jet all over the world (although, in a perfect world, I'd have both :)). But, ummm, speaking of environmental impact, isn't jetting all over the world not exactly eco-friendly, either? I don't know, I guess I don't get it.

I'm all for people making their own choices, and if this is their choice, so be it. But I also wish that the world would begin to reclaim the nobility of motherhood, fatherhood, and family and realize that this is what our society is made of.

A Public Service Announcement

Please, people. I ask very little from you; I just have the following requests:

• Use your turn signal! It's not hard, I promise! It's a handy little gadget right by your steering wheel, and it allows other cars to see that you are turning. Need help finding it? Email me, and I'll assist you.
• Do NOT pull out in front of me when I am the only car coming. I understand if there's a long, long line of traffic, sometimes you just have to seize the chance when you can, but when I am the only car coming, you really can wait two seconds for me to pass. There's no need to pull out in front of me, making me slam on my breaks and yell a string of curse words that a feminine person such as myself really shouldn't utter.
• When we're in line at the store, please do not stand so close to me that I can feel your breath on my neck. I promise, no one is going to cut in front of you in the 18 inch space that is available between us, so you can back off a little.

There, can you tell I had a rather frustrating time as I was running errands last night? :)

On the bright side, I finished up our Christmas shopping for our angel tree/giving tree (I never know what to call it) boy. On his card, it said that he liked Sesame Street and learning toys, so I got him this adorable book called Global Grover Travels All Over (because really, if a book isn't a learning toy, what is?) I also got him a cute Sesame Street coloring and sticker book. So he's all set! I just wish we could see his face on Christmas morning. I'm such a cheeseball, but I love, love, LOVE helping others!

Also, for those of you in Madison, WI, the Big Lots on East Wash is closing, and everything is discounted 20%. Normally, I don't like a lot of their stuff, because it looks kind of cheap. But they have the same toys, etc. that Target does for a lot less (you can get Barbies for $8.00). So I think I'm going to go back and get a few for Toys for Tots. So, if anyone is looking for cheap but high-quality toys to give to those less fortunate this season, this would be a good place to go!

I'm moving to Iceland!

Ok, not really. But I did just read this article that said it is ranked the best place in the world to live, so I was slightly intrigued :)

Norway was ranked first for the previous six years but has now slipped down to number 2 (still an admirable ranking, especially considering the US is 12th!) I hardly think it's a coincidence that the majority of the top countries to live in (Iceland, Norway, etc.) have fantastic PAID maternity leave. Norway, for example gives you 52 weeks at 80% pay (or 42 weeks at 100%). Iceland's benefits aren't quite as good, although they certainly beat what's given here in the US. In Iceland, mothers and fathers are EACH given three months of leave, and one parent can take an additional 3 months, giving 9 months total (which can be spread out over the first 18 months after birth). 80% of their wages are paid during this time.

Ireland, Canada and Australia rounded out the top five places to live (not necessarily in that order), and all have some type of paid parental leave (with the exception of Australia, which does still offer one year unpaid leave). Canada, for example, offers 17 weeks of maternity leave at 55% of wages and 35 weeks of parental leave (either parent or shared within the first year), also at 55%.

Now, I am sure some of you are sitting there scratching your heads, thinking, "How did she go from posting about the top places to live, to maternity/parental leave?" Well, it's simple. It's a proven fact that the way society treats its women, children and families is a direct correlation to the health and success of that society. I don't think it's at all coincidental that four of the top five countries recognize the importance of the parent/child bond and PAY new parents a portion (or all) of their wages for a substantial amount of time in order to allow new parents to bond with their newborn child. (And of course, I love that it's not just mothers who receive pay; it's parents.)

When is the US going to realize that new parents (especially mothers, who are often recovering from the stress of childbirth) deserve more than just a brief (usually unpaid, unless the parent uses their precious sick leave/vacation time) six to 12 weeks at home with their children before returning to work? When is the US going to realize that stable, bonded families are at the core of a successful society, and in order to better facilitate such families, improved parental leave policies must be implemented? We really need to catch up with the rest of the world, wouldn't you say?

On the bright side, at least we don't live in sub-Saharan Africa, which boasts (for lack of a better word) all of the 22 bottom countries. In 10 of these countries, two children in five will not reach the age of 40. I feel for these children and families, I really do. I cannot imagine bringing a child into the world, knowing that it has little better than a 50/50 chance of making it to middle age. I can't imagine the pain parents must feel as they watch their children succumb to easily preventable (with the right nutrition and medication) diseases.

So as much as I complain about the substandard parental leave policies here in the US, I am so grateful that I do not have to bring children into a country with such a dismal life expectancy. If the US is going to meddle in other countries' affairs (as we've been prone to do) I really wish we would do it for a definite and beneficial cause. Instead of fighting a pointless war (that we've spent billions upon billions on and started under false pretenses), how about we use even a fraction of that money to help those Africa? Hell, let's use it to help those right here in our own country that are suffering from substandard health care, no insurance, and lack of education. Hmmm? Anyone?

How Cute!

Your kids can email Santa, and he'll reply back! How fun; I think I'm going to do this with my four year old goddaughter; she'll get a kick out of it!

Can anyone tell that I absolutely love the holidays?

Another Pet Peeve

Yes, I have many :) Anyway, I was watching TV the other day, and a couple had just been married. When they entered the reception, the best man said, "And here's Mr. and Mrs. JOHN Doe."

Now, I really don't care one way or the other if women take their husbands' names. I don't see it as some sign of oppression if women do (I understand the desire to have the same name as the husband and kids), nor do I think women are somehow "rebelling against or rejecting" their husbands if they keep their maiden name (I totally understand the desire to maintain your pre-marriage identity). So it's not the actual taking of the husband's name that bothers me.

No, what irks me is when a married woman is referred to as Mrs. JOHN Doe. She took his last name; she didn't take his first, for crying out loud. Does she no longer have a name of her own? It's a demeaning tradition steeped in the Victorian era, when the married couple was assumed to be, in the eyes of the law, one person (and that one person was the husband). So, you had Mr. John Doe, and then you had his wife, Mrs. John Doe. How degrading, how insulting, to be considered little more than an appendage, just because you renounced the single life for the married life! In the eyes of society, you are no longer an individual with your own ambitions, personalities, etc.; instead, you're just a man's wife.

Now, let me clarify that I love marriage, and I think that there is something so beautiful about the coming together of two people who truly love each other. And I think that being a wife (and a husband) is a very important calling. But to diminish a woman's entire essence to being her husband's Mrs. is ludicrous. The husband is still the same person he was pre-marriage. His name, his titles and society's perception of him do not change with marriage; why should the woman's? Trust me, even if men, as a general rule, took their wives' names, I can guarantee that NO ONE would be calling them Mr. Jane Doe. Why? Because men are still individuals in the eyes of society. So why isn't this the same for women?

Women can take their husbands' names or keep their own; I really don't care either way. But to allow yourself to be called Mrs. John Doe is just a symptom of the deeper issues prevalent in society; i.e., women are defined by their men, while men are defined by themselves. And this needs to change.

Playboy and Other Experiences Christmas Shopping

So we were doing our Christmas shopping today, and we went in to Barnes and Noble, because we love to buy books as part of our Christmas giving. Well, lo and behold, as soon as we walked in, we noticed "Playboy in the 50s" right at the front of the store. Sure, the look had changed from more current Playboys, but the basic premise (posing women as sexual objects, there solely for the viewing pleasure of the male sex) was the same. The whole time, I'm just thinking, "WHY have women put up with this for 50 years? WHY do we somehow believe this is "ok" and acceptable?"

So there's my pet peeve for the day. On the bright side, we got a lot of our shopping done, and we got a bunch of Christmas lights for our tree. Plus, we picked a name from the Angel Tree in the mall (a two year old boy) and we got a ton of stuff from him. We bought him two outfits (two pants and two shirts) , diapers, and a toy dump truck. I'm so excited; I love helping others! This is a VERY worthwhile cause, so the next time you're in the mall, if you can afford it, please be sure to check out the angel tree. There are so many folks in need; I told Dan that if we EVER won the lottery, I'd take ALL the names :) We don't have any more "extra" money this pay period, but next week, I'll probably go back and get another name. There's a lot of names of older people; I noticed that a 94 year old woman wanted old mystery DVDs; a 56 year old man wanted a journal; and there was a 21 year old who wanted a pajama set. So often, we focus on the kids during the Christmas season (which is great; they deserve a Christmas too!) but we tend to forget the older folks. So if you can find it in your heart to get a few simple things for an older person this Christmas, I know they would greatly appreciate it!

Stay at Home Dads

I just read a great article on stay at home dads in Madison, WI. I was pleased to see such a well-written article on such an important topic.

As anyone who knows me knows, I am a huge advocate of a parent staying home with their children (although I by no means think that all parents should stay home; I recognize that there are many personal and economic factors that drive one into the workforce, either by choice or by necessity). However, as much as I think staying home and raising your children is a worthwhile and commendable pursuit, I loathe the assumption that it must be the mother who stays home, because it just reinforces outdated stereotypes that women are by nature so much more nurturing.

Now, I think, as a general rule, that women are more nurturing. However, I don't think the difference is NEARLY as vast as people make it out to be. For example, on a scale of 1-10, I think that, on average, women are perhaps an 8, while men are a 6. Not that much of a difference, is there? Especially when you take into account that there are going to be women in that average with a nurturing capability of zero, and there are going to be men who are a perfect 10. So to assign such a valuable job as raising one's children to someone just by virtue of them having a vagina is ludicrous.

And the men in this article were all thrilled with their occupational choices. One commented that sometimes, it was hard, because men are "raised" to believe that they need to have a job and provide for their families. I love the way he phrased it, because I don't think there is anything inherent that prevents men from being happy, fulfilled stay at home dads, but rather, it is societal pressure saying they must provide economically, by virtue of their gender. This ignores their individual personalities and talents, often to the detriment of the family.

Of course, one thing that stood out to me was the fact that the women often lamented the fact that they couldn't spend as much time with their children. Now, I would totally feel the same way, but I just thought it was interesting, because I never (or rarely) read articles that describe how men feel about being away from their children for 8 to 10 hours a day. So again, this implies that women must love and have a need to be closer to their children than men do, which is totally not true!

But all in all, it's a great article; check it out!

A Shameless Brag

Ok, I am so excited. I just found out that one of my posts was published in the 48th Carnival of Feminists!

Yay! Ok, ok, I know it wasn't a Pulitzer Prize or anything, but I'm still very excited :) Check out the blog; it's wonderful, and very thought-provoking.

Giving Thanks for the Opposite Sex

I just came across this humorous piece on MSN.com about giving thanks for men (and, of course, there's a counterpart on giving thanks for women). Oddly enough, I wasn't offended by it and actually found quite a bit of truth in it!

Women are encouraged to give thanks for men because:

1. We can squeeze their arms as hard as possible during a scary movie, and they don't mind. Trust me; I've done this with Dan many a time. I admit, even though normally I'm the "independent, do it yourself, modern day woman," if I'm watching a scary movie, there's nothing I like better than to feel protected by my husband.
2. They keep us up to date on all the latest gadgets (this is so true in my marriage! I honestly could care less about HDTV, how many channels a stereo has, or whether it's in Dolby Digital or Surround Sound, but that's Dan's forte!)
3. They always make us laugh

I especially liked the part on giving thanks for women, because instead of demeaning or trivializing the very qualities that women are more prone to possess (whether by socialization or some inherent predisposition), they praise these qualities, such as sympathy, our listening skills, and our maternal instincts. So often, some (not all) feminists try to say that men and women are "all the same." And while I do agree that we are much more alike than we are different, there are still some differences between us, and these differences are to be celebrated, not ignored. My other complaint with feminists such as this is that in saying that men and women are identical, they ignore or disparage the feminine qualities, so in reality, instead of saying that men and women are identical (i.e., possessing the same qualities), they really just say that women are identical to men. This ignores the wonderful and very real contributions that we, as women, make to society. So I was thrilled to see this article on MSN.

It's rare that I like (and agree) with contemporary articles, but this one was light-hearted and had the ring of truth. Check it out!

Help End Hunger!

This is pretty neat. For each word you get right, Free Rice will donate 10 grains of rice to the United Nations to help end world hunger. I got 20 words right, so 200 grains are going to people in need. It doesn't sound like a lot individually, but it all adds up. Think about it; if just 100 people got 20 words right, that's 20,000 grains. Wow!

And luckily, a lot more than 100 people have been doing this. Since October 7, 2007, 3,059,177,080 grains have been sent to people in need. Let's remember in this time of Thanksgiving that there are others who are not so fortunate. Please do this one incredibly simple thing to benefit those in need. (Plus, you'll expand your vocabulary; who wouldn't want to do that?)

Good!

Utah polygamist sect leader Warren Jeffs is sentenced to jail time. As a proud Utah native, I always was irritated by those who thought that the state and the practice of polygamy were interchangeable. Honestly, in the Ogden and Salt Lake areas where I grew up, polygamy was literally non-existent, just like every other state. And the mainstream LDS Church (or Mormons, as they are often known) excommunicates anyone who is found engaging in this practice. However, the religion's polygamous roots run deep and have developed several different offshoots. One can't ignore the fact that while illegal in Utah (just like everywhere else) polygamy, unfortunately, still rears its ugly head occasionally, especially in the less populated areas.

According to the article, "Washington County prosecutors said Jeffs enticed Elissa Wall into marriage and sex against her will by telling her that the relationship was commanded by God and that any refusal would place her salvation at risk." Niiice, buddy. Way to use your patriarchal position to scare someone into marriage. Isn't it romantic? Oh, and did I mention that the victim was 14 at the time? At 14, I was crushing on Gavin Rossdale and daydreaming about my college years. No 14 year old (or anyone, for that matter) should be forced into a sexual relationship against their will.

I have nothing but disdain for the practice of polygamy; the very premise is based on inequality between men and women. Men do not have to share their wives' affections; no matter how many women are in a "marriage," all the romantic affections felt by the females are given to the husband. The women, however, have to share their husband with many other women, which leads naturally to jealousy, heartache, and, ultimately, a feeling of worthlessness (are they not enough for a man? Why does he need more than one wife?) It's just another example of how patriarchy is often used to further the oppression of women. When are we, as conscious, law-abiding, moral citizens, going to stand up and demand an end to this practice?

And, by the way, I also advocate gay marriage; I know a lot of people say that if you advocate gay marriage, you have to advocate polygamy. I disagree. I passionately support one, and vehemently abhor the other. I'll explain this apparent contradiction in a future post.

Man Vs. Woman

No, that's not some ultimate fight that I'm advocating; it's just a silly game on the morning talk show on WOLX. Perhaps silly is the wrong word; I do enjoy listening to it. But the premise is just rather "off" to me.

The whole point of the show is to ask the female contestant traditionally "male" questions, and the male contestant gets traditionally "female" questions. (The funny thing is, I usually am able to answer them both equally. Go figure.)

What makes this "odd" to me is that it just reinforces outdated gender stereotypes, because face it, anyone can be talented at something, regardless of their gender. One of the questions asked to a male a week or so ago was, "How many tabs are on disposable diapers?" The guy actually asked the DJ to make it into a multiple choice question! Hello?!? First of all, common sense would tell you two (one for each side, right?) Secondly, is our society still so behind the times that men change so few of their children's diapers that they don't know how many tabs are on them? Thirdly, knowing how many tabs are on a diaper isn't some inherent talent known only to those with XX chromosomes; it's something you learn, preferably by doing it. So the fact that this guy didn't know right off the bat (even though he had said he had kids) is a sign that household duties and childrearing responsibilities (while worthwhile pursuits and very important to a happy home life) are unfairly divided between the sexes, and that needs to change.

I asked my husband the question about diaper tabs, and he looked at me and said without hesitation, "Two." Hmmm, how'd he know that? Because he is a man who's not afraid to take on "traditional" female duties, and he's changed more of our goddaughter's diapers than he cares to count. Why, oh why, aren't we raising more men to be like that?

Likewise, they asked the female contestant who the current commissioner of major league baseball is. She had no idea.... but I did: Bud Selig (granted, it might help that one of my publications is a sports magazine, but still). The funny thing is, I asked Dan that, and he had no idea. So here's my husband, who is by no means a "wimpy, girly" man, and yet he knows waaay more about diapers than he does about baseball. The funny part is, he likes it like that.

They also tend to ask female contestants cooking-related questions, and most of the time, I'm sitting there in my car muttering, "I don't know. Roux? Brew? What? I don't even know what they're saying. Where's my cell; I'm calling Dan." Then I ask Dan, and he's so quick on the uptake. "Roux? Oh, that's a base you use to make fondue, usually with some sort of flour and liquid." It's hilarious to us, because so often, we totally do not fit the stereotype about what men and women "should" like (although to be fair, we often do. I hate working on cars, which is what he loves, and he's not exactly a huge fan of shopping, which, if I had more money, I'd be doing all the time). However, I still maintain that women and men, while there are some differences between us, are more alike than we are different. So why do inane game shows assume that "all" men know one thing, and "all" women know another?

I know, I know; it's just for fun. And like I said, I enjoy listening to it. But when you take it at more than face value, and really dig into the premise behind it, it is kind of strange that we still assume that men and women (and their interests) are so vastly different. Especially when you consider that the perceived difference between these interests and talents is used as justification for unfairly sharing household duties and other things along that line.

What Is Wrong with Kids Today?

I know, I know, I sound like some old granny shaking her cane and muttering, "Kids today." But I honestly can't believe the way some kids today are turning out! I'm not one of those people who believes the "good old days" were so much better; they definitely had their share of problems (child and spousal abuse being at the top of the list, followed closely by racism and sexism), and there's no way I'd want to return to those times. But as far as I know, eight and nine year old boys weren't raping girls back then, either.

Yep, you read that right. An eight year old and a nine year old boy raped an 11 year old. Rape? At 8 and 9 years old? Good lord, my brother and I didn't even know about sex until those ages (and we're only 25 and 23, so it's not like we grew up in the 50s).

What kind of values are parents raising their children with these days? Where on earth would eight and nine year old boys, who should be playing with their Transformers or out in the yard playing catch, get the idea to rape someone?

Parents, please. Please teach your children respect for themselves, for others, and the world around them. Please teach your sons that sex is a wonderful, life-giving force when in the context of an adult, loving, monogamous, consensual relationship. Please teach them that women are their equals and are to be valued; they are not there to be humiliated sexually in an act of violence such as rape. And, most importantly, please begin teaching these values right from the start.

Edited to Add: I should have been clear that these boys are accused of rape, and as the saying goes, "All people are innocent until proven guilty." Thanks to Judge Rufus Peckham for pointing that out!

Woman Sentenced to Jail, Beating for.....Being Raped?!?

Does anyone ever watch Saturday Night Live Weekend Update? If you do, you know how Seth Myers and Amy Poehler sometimes have that segment called, "Really?!?", where they end every sentence with an incredulous, "Really?!?" That is what I feel like doing after reading this article.

I just want to say, "Really?!? A woman is GANG-RAPED by multiple men, and you want to punish her because she was in the car of men not related to her? Really?!?"

So many people act like you can never criticize another country's religions or laws under the guise of "religious freedom." Well, I'm sorry, but I'm not going to hold hands, sing kumbayah and pretend that it's ok that a rape victim is savagely beaten (as part of her punishment!!!) and then jailed, just because Saudi Arabian Islamic law forbids unrelated men and women associating together. That is ridiculous!!

Fine, she "broke" the law about associating with unrelated men (which I don't even buy, since I highly doubt she CHOSE to associate with her rapists. But whatever). But this is the punishment she gets? How incredibly insulting! Is she no more than chattel; a virgin vessel that must be rigidly guarded so as to not lose its purity and bring the family dishonor? And once she does, she needs to be punished more severely than her tormentors, so that she'll "learn" to not do it again? Puh-lease.

It is so appropriate that I came across this story as Thanksgiving nears, because I am so grateful that I live in a country where, although the laws concerning rapists/victims may not be perfect, an injustice such as this would never occur. In America, a rape victim may not be believed (which is terrible, don't get me wrong), but that is usually the extent of her worries. Never, will any woman in our country, be subject to a jail sentence and a brutal beating (which very well could kill her) for the "crime" of being raped. What is wrong with people in these countries, that they seem to tolerate such treatment of women? And, more importantly, what can we do to stop this?

Help Your Husband Live to Be 100!

Yes! I just came across this article on Yahoo, and it says that having 4 kids can help a man live to be 100. Well, honey, if you're reading this, you know what this means.... our previous "3 kids limit" is out the window, because I want you around as long as possible!

All right, all right, I'm not going to force Dan to have more kids than he wants to. I'm not going to lie, though, I think it would be fabulous to have four children (no more, however)... perhaps two of each? I know that some people have this perception of feminists as angry, man-hating women who shun motherhood and anything feminine. Perhaps there are feminists like that, but in my personal experience, they're definitely not the norm!

I love children, I adore family, and I think that having a strong, stable home life is one of the most important things people can do as parents to benefit society. I think that too often, both men AND women get caught up in their careers at the expense of family. Now, I believe that careers are (obviously) definitely worthwhile pursuits, and I am not one to issue a blanket statement that advocates women staying home, just by virtue of their gender (see my post here).

No, what I'm advocating is a call for ALL people, both men and women, career parents and stay at home parents, to realize that while careers are important, the home and the family must be valued in our society above all else. By recognizing this and spending time cultivating a home life that leads to happy, well-adjusted children, parents will, ultimately, produce well-adjusted and productive citizens, which is exactly what our society needs.

A New Layout!

Well, as you can see, I found a new layout at Pyzam. They have wonderful layouts that deal with all sorts of different topics. I decided to switch, because as much as I loved my other layout (I thought it seemed very scholarly and old-fashioned), Dan told me it didn't look very feminine. Well, that put me in a conundrum right there, because having a not-so-feminine layout would contradict the very title of this blog, right? So I headed over to those fine folks at Pyzam, and voila! A new (and very feminine, if I do say so myself) layout. Check them out if you're looking to spice up your myspace or blogger accounts.

Mr. Magorium's Wonder Emporium

Well, Dan and I took my two cousins (12 years old and 4 years old) to see this movie yesterday, and we were both surprised by how much we liked it! It was very visually appealing, and I loved the subtle reminder to always, no matter how old you are, believe in magic. This one would be a great one to see over the Thanksgiving weekend, as you get ready for the Christmas season!

THIS is what is wrong with our lawmakers!

This article, which I came across as I was perusing Echidene of the Snakes' blog, is an excellent example of lawmakers trying to impose their societal and familial ideals on the general populace, without concern for individual circumstances.

Idaho Rep. Steven Thayn is currently the chairman of the Idaho House of Representatives' Family Task Force, and "he and others are considering controversial solutions such as repealing no-fault divorce laws and finding ways to encourage mothers to stay home with their children." The article goes on to state the Thayn argues that more two-parent homes and fewer working mothers could be "both a societal and economic boon. The Emmett Republican sees the breakdown of the traditional family structure as the root of societal ills such as drug abuse, crime and domestic violence."

Let's see. Where do I even begin to state the many problems apparent in his proposal? Well, let's take it one by one.

1. The assumption that it is the mother who should (ahem, must) stay home. Let me be the first one to say that for my personal life, I cannot wait to have children and be a stay at home mother to them. I most assuredly think that staying home to raise one's children is as worthwhile and fulfilling as any paying career. However, what I object to is the blanket statement that all women will be (and should be) fulfilled by staying at home. Hasn't this guy heard of a little thing called "individual personalities?" Some women are more fulfilled by working, and therefore are better mothers to their children than if they stayed home all day at the expense of their personal happiness.
   
2. And, going off that first point, why does he ignore the very real fact that many men (maybe not as many as women, but still a substantial amount--my husband included!) would be incredibly fulfilled by staying home with their children. I wish Rep. Thayn would tell me exactly what he thinks a "traditional" family, anyway. If the family has two parents (of the opposite gender, I'm sure), but the mother is a breadwinner and the father stays home, do they still get the gold star for being the traditional pillar of society? Or is the fact that the mother is supporting them while the father stays home mark them as one of those families that leads society into decline by thwarting "god-ordained" gender roles?
3. What about homosexual couples? (Oh, I understand they are leading society into demise, right, Rep. Thayn?) What if one of the partners wants to stay home with the couple's children, but is not allowed to do so, since under current law, many companies deny health insurance coverage and benefits to domestic partners? A woman or man who may desire to stay home and raise his or her children may not be able to, and may be forced into the workplace in order to obtain health benefits for them, and perhaps, their children. What would you rather have, Mr. Thayn? A homosexual parent (oh, excuse me, a mother) that stays home with her children, because the updated laws allow her to be covered under her partner's health benefits? Or would you rather preserve the "traditional" heterosexual family at all costs, even though there may be a spike of kids in daycare because gay couples may have to put their children (perhaps unwillingly) into child care because the laws don't support gay couples? You can't have it both ways, Mr. Thayn.
4. I honestly have no idea how having fewer women in the workforce is supposed to be an economic and societal boon. Women comprise roughly half of the workforce; who is going to take over these jobs when women retreat to the private sphere of the home? Many professions (such as teaching--especially at the elementary school level--nursing, and child care providers) are arenas dominated by women. If even 10% of the women in these professions left the workforce, Idaho would be left with a gaping hole in many necessary occupations. How do they plan to fill that hole?
   
5. As Echidne says in her blog (and this really sums it up for me, as well): Will all mothers be paid the salaries they forfeit? Will all of them get health insurance for themselves and their children? Will their retirement funds be taken care of? When their children are viewed as acceptably mature, will their retraining costs for the labor market be covered? And when the re-enter the labor market, will their fair treatment and promotion chances be guaranteed?
   
   I suspect not. And this is an important feminist point: The problems this Task Force sees with Idaho families are to be fixed by the mothers, essentially for free. Even a non-feminist reader of the proposals might spot the difficulty in expecting women to stop working when their families depend on that money. But a feminist interpretation gives the woman some rights over and above those of the eternally self-sacrificing mother. It also casts light on all the different costs that the mothers are supposed to bear (in silent submission, I guess).

I fully understand that as a parent, one must make sacrifices for their children, and indeed, they should do so willingly. What I take issue with is the fact that it is solely the mothers who are expected to make these sacrifices, at the expense of their personal happiness, which will ultimately have an adverse effect on their families.

When, oh when, will lawmakers stop trying to wedge their way in to our personal lives? If Rep. Thayn wants to make it easier to have a parent stay at home, perhaps he should advocate raising the living wage (which would make it easier--not easy, but easier--to raise a family on one income), issuing more educational grants to college students so they can complete an education and begin their family with a higher starting salary (minus the massive college debt), and continuing to ensure safe, legal access to birth control so that families who so desire can limit their family size, thereby making it easier to get by on one income, if they so choose. This makes much more sense to me than an inane task force that has vague objectives of "encouraging women to stay home" while ignoring the very real economic and personal factors that drive women into the workplace in the first place.

The Good, The Bad.... and the Bridal?

Whoever says that feminists are all masculine, angry women who decry anything feminine and dressy obviously never met me! I am enthralled with the dresses, the frills and the fashion that are unique to women in today's society (although I realize that what is acceptable dress for men or women is socially constructed, for the most part, but that's another post).

MSN.com has a wonderful slide show of some of the craziest, dressiest, and most unique bridal gowns you'll ever see. While some are fashion creations that I wouldn't touch with a ten-foot pole, and others look like bathrobes made out of roadkill, I must admit that there are some dresses featured here that I am dying to be able to wear! (Sadly, I'm already married--and plan to stay that way--so I don't know when the opportunity will present itself!) This one is my ultimate favorite, which makes total sense when you consider that I adore the fashions of the Tudor, Renaissance, and French Revolution eras. This dress gracefully combined many facets of all of these eras, and I love it! This one is also amazing, although a little unconventional in its amethyst color.

Check these out; they're quite interesting!

You know, as much as I am pro-choice in all areas of life, that doesn't mean that someone can't make a choice that just disgusts me. I'm talking about this article on MSN.com.

You may remember the controversy about the woman who was kicked off a Southwest flight for having clothes that were too revealing. (To be fair, I saw the outfit in question, and I didn't really think it was something to get kicked off a plane for. But I digress.) Now, this woman is capitalizing on the controversy surrounding her story by posing in Playboy. Playboy's website says something to the effect of, "She was too sexy for Southwest, but she's perfect for Playboy."

Now, anyone who knows me knows that I am not one of those feminists who advocates any and all pornography (with the exception of child porn) under the guise of "sexual freedom." I'm all for sexual freedom, all right. To me, this isn't it.

I don't understand why, in this day and age, women are still allowing themselves to be viewed as sex objects. Kyla Ebbert, the woman in question, says, "The photos are very tastefully done. I don't see anything wrong with the female body." Well, neither do I! But just because I don't see anything wrong with it doesn't mean that I think it should be flaunted for millions of men who don't care about the woman as a person; to them, she is just an object.

And let's be honest; does Playboy showcase any and all female bodies, because there is nothing "wrong" with them and they are all so "acceptable" to society? Nope. It's only the thin, the young, the fit. This is a double slap in the face; on the one hand, beautiful women are viewed as mere objects, whereas older women who don't conform to the societal ideal are not considered sexy, in the eyes of the public.

There seems to be a consensus among some people that Playboy is somehow "better" than other types of pornography. While it certainly may not be as vulgar as other magazines and media outlets, it's still in no way "beautiful" or "classy," as some like to advocate. It is a primary factor in the demeaning of women; the women in these spreads are there to be viewed by others, without seeing these viewers. The women in these spreads have nothing to say; to the men (and women) who look at this magazine, she has no thoughts or ideas of her own. She is often portrayed as coy and childlike, with a hand over her mouth, symbolizing the stifling of her thoughts. Because really, do the men who view pornography really care about what the woman thinks or says? In a word, no. They just view it for the pure sexual pleasure of it, reducing the women to the state of an object.

The article goes on to say, "Ebbert worked at a Hooters in San Diego [hmmm, are we seeing a pattern here?] but said [she] wants to become an attorney, and doesn’t think posing nude should get in the way of her professional aspirations." Really?! Perhaps posing nude won't get in the way, but I speak only for myself when I say that I would be very hesitant to hire a woman who thought that taking her clothes off for money was an acceptable pursuit. To me, that demonstrates that she values her physical attributes more than her intellectual ones, and that is not the type of woman I would want working for me.

Now, some people have told me, "But there's nothing wrong with sex and sexuality. So what's the big deal with this?" First of all, sex/sexuality are not synonymous with pornography. Sex/sexuality, when in a loving, committed, monogamous relationship, is completely natural, spiritual, uplifting, and satisfying for both parties. Pornography simply degrades this very important aspect of our humanity, and takes the spirituality and relational aspect out of the act, making the woman an object instead of a unique individual. The viewing of pornography can often spill over into other aspects of men's lives, as they expect the women they date in real life to match the unrealistic ideals put forth on the pages of these magazines. These are my primary issues with it.

Pornography makes the societal inequality that exists between women and men so apparent. While there are a few pornographic magazines that feature males, there are nowhere near as many as the typical "men's" magazines like Playboy, Hustler, etc. You don't see men, no matter how good-looking or attractive they are, degrading themselves by posing nude in order to "get ahead." No, men are valued for their intelligence and talents. Why, then, in this day and age when women can be and are just as educated, talented, and intelligent as men, are many women still valued solely for their physicality? And, perhaps more importantly, why do women, such as Kyla Ebbert, seem to think this is acceptable? I truly believe that inequality will continue to exist in our society until men and women are ALL viewed as human beings deserving of dignity, rather than mere sex objects.

A Vindication of the Rights of Woman

As you will see, I have added another book to my current reading list. My brother bought me A Vindication of the Rights of Woman for Christmas, and I've been looking forward to reading it for quite some time now. So, I'll be posting my thoughts daily on the subject matter therein.

I'm thrilled to be delving into this, because I realized this past weekend that although I've studied quite a bit about feminism, there is much more that I need to learn. From liberal feminism to separatist feminism to anarcha-feminism... I never realized there were so many offshoots of first wave feminism! Some of these I agree with, some (like separatist feminism) I most decidedly don't. So, I figured I'd start from the relative beginning, and see how Mary Wollstonecraft's landmark work from 1792 influenced and shaped the first wave, second wave, and third wave feminist movements. If anyone has any experience with this piece, please jump on in and share your thoughts!

And They Say Women Are More Domestic....

Tonight, Dan and I decided to make corned beef in the crockpot, and I thought I'd make some Pillsbury crescent rolls to go along with it. It seemed easy enough; the instructions said to just roll into crescent shapes and place on the baking sheet. So the dough drops out of the tube, and I didn't even think to unroll it! I just started to rip it apart where it looked like there were perforated lines. But somehow, it didn't work out, and I couldn't think how on earth I was supposed to shape it into crescent shapes, so I called up to Dan, "Come help me!"

He came down and just started laughing when he saw what I had done. He said, "Honey, you have to unroll the dough first, before rolling it into crescent rolls." Hmm, well, how was I supposed to know that? It didn't say anything about unrolling it. Sigh. I really am an intelligent person, I swear! But somehow I can't even make pre-made Pillsbury crescent rolls. But Dan stepped in like a pro, like he does with 85% of our cooking (I must say, though, that I am pretty darn good at making the remaining 15%!) But somehow cooking is deemed a woman's job? Not in our house, it's not! Cooking is definitely not some inherent talent I possess just because I have XX chromosomes! Meanwhile, Dan (along with many other males I know) happen to excel at it! So, in light of personal experience, I must insist that cooking and many other "domestic" talents (while certainly worthy pursuits!) are not talents that are inherent to the female sex. On the contrary, it depends on the individual, not the gender. And in our house, it definitely Dan that possesses this talent, and oh, how grateful I am!

How Lucky Women Today Are!

As I mentioned in the welcome on this site, I am an avid history buff. Especially the Tudor and Renaissance eras--those are my passions. Currently, I am reading a wonderful book that my husband bought for me, called The Boleyn Inheritance. It centers on the lives of three women: Anne of Cleves (Henry VIII's fourth wife), Katherine Howard (his fifth) and Jane Boleyn (Anne Boleyn's sister in law, who is still an influential person at court). It's a fascinating piece of historical fiction, and I find myself getting swept away by the author's use of words and imagery.

I am now towards the end of the book, where Katherine Howard is being accused of adultery, and, as any Tudor buff knows, it doesn't end well for her (I didn't need the book to tell me that). While I don't condone adultery in the least (on the contrary; I abhor it!), it still strikes me how lucky women today are, in that we don't have the vast inequalities and powerlessness that women years ago suffered. Yes, Katherine committed adultery. Yes, that was wrong. But now she will pay for her life, while the king (and most other kings throughout history) took numerous mistresses and flaunted them openly? Why is that not considered adultery?

Oh, yes, it is because a wife had to remain pure so as to ensure that any child that resulted from the marriage was truly her husband's, while a husband's extramarital affairs had no bearing on the lineage of his progeny. That just opens up a whole other can of worms and makes my blood boil. How demeaning, how insulting, it must have been for those women (and some women today, depending on their part of the world) to be considered nothing more than a brood mare! Her sexual satisfaction, her desire for intimacy didn't matter to the men; all that mattered is that she conceived, preferably a son.

Perhaps this is why some of the stereotypical feminists today seem to scorn and abhor marriage and motherhood, as well as anything else associated with femininity. They perhaps see it as bondage and a perpetual enslavement of women. I, however, see it as a commentary of past times rather than a reflection of the actual states of marriage and motherhood themselves. Marriage, in today's world, is not bondage; it is wonderfully and incredibly freeing. What greater joy can one know, than to have someone in life who loves him or her unconditionally? How wonderful it is to know that someone is there for you, through the peaks and valleys of life, and that they have committed to be there for you through thick and thin. This isn't bondage; this is the greatest freedom one could know!

Likewise, motherhood is one of the greatest joys a woman could experience (and, for the men out there, I believe that fatherhood is equally wonderful). How fulfilling, how amazing, to see a little person (that you helped create) enter this world with a blank slate, but by your teaching and mothering, has emerged into a compassionate, caring member of society! I can honestly think of no greater joy.

I am so blessed that marriage and motherhood, which have existed throughout time, have evolved into a state of equality and freedom for both husband and wife, parents and children. Perhaps some of the stereotypical feminists who decry these institutions should realize that the bondage and enslavement that characterized these roles throughout history are no longer present (for the most part), and when they do exist, the women in developed countries are free to leave and seek respect and love elsewhere. That equality is what feminists like myself advocate; we do not desire to rid society of these institutions; rather, we advocate equality for both parties within these institutions. Only then, when both members of a marriage are valued as complete and equal partners (and valued as equal human beings, deserving of dignity and respect) can society truly advance.

My grandpa died....

I don't even know what to say; I feel so sad right now. He had a stroke on Wednesday, the 7th, but we thought he was doing better. He was awake and talking and recognizing his kids (my dad and his brother and sister). Then I guess he had another stroke either late last night or early this morning, and he was gone.

I am having a hard time dealing with this right now; I'm 25, and I've never had anyone close to me die (my great grandma died when I was 4, but I was so young I didn't really understand). I just can't believe that this summer was the last time I'd ever see him. Yes, he was 87, but he was so healthy and alert that it just seemed like he'd go on forever. I can't believe that I hung out with him this summer for a weekend, talking and laughing and sharing his (our) family history, and now he's gone. I'll never talk to him again, never hang out at his lake house with him there. It hasn't even sunk in yet.

Going to his house on the lake was a treat every summer, and we'd done it ever since I was little. Austin and I loved the fact that his downstairs refrigerator was FILLED with pop. As kids who were allowed maybe one pop a week, we were in heaven! And we loved to go fishing up there (well, I loved to be on the boat and read; Austin took over the fishing aspect!) I just have so many fond memories of going up there and even just reading in their sunroom, while they watched TV. We didn't even have to say anything to each other; it was fun just hanging out in the same room.

My grandpa came down to my college graduation from UW-Madison in 2004, and I was so happy he was there. He seemed so proud of me (well, all his grandchildren) and he was so happy that I graduated from the same college as his two sons. I still laugh at the image of my two grandpas sitting there talking about everything under the sun; neither of them lacked for anything to talk about!

I am so glad that I spent time with him this past summer. While I was there, I was reading a book that some distant relative had put together about our family, and he and I spent a lot of time talking about our ancestry and the different relatives in the book. He also shared some humorous stories with me (like how my Aunt Missy got her nickname) and how he and my grandma couldn't agree on a name for my dad, so she threatened him by saying she was going to name my dad after his two grandfathers (Percy Aner (!)). My grandpa laughed that he chose the name Terrence pretty darn quick; he said that anything would be better than Percy Aner (and I think I'd have to agree)!

He was also so proud to give Dan and me my grandma Eleanore's sterling silver set. We spent a lot of time going through it all, and I could tell he was so happy to be giving us such a wonderful, sentimental wedding gift. So not only is the set gorgeous (which it is!), it meant a lot to me that it was something so special to my grandpa, and it meant a lot that he was so happy to be passing it on to me. So every time I use it, I will think of him and my grandma Eleanore.

I feel honored that my middle name was after his beloved wife, and Dan and I have always considered naming our first daughter either Kate Elisabeth or Kate Eleanore. I was hoping that my grandpa would still be around when she was born (especially if we made her middle name Eleanore) so that he would get to see his great-grandchild named after his wife.

But luckily, I do believe in some sort of afterlife, and the only thing that makes me feel better right now is that I know he is with Eleanore again. I can't explain how I know, but I know. I could tell, when he talked about her, that he still loved her deeply even though she's been gone for 31 years, and I know they must be having a joyful reunion right now. And I'm glad of that, really I am. But it doesn't make it any better for those of us left behind.

For those of you who knew my grandpa Cal, please feel free to leave a comment. I'd love to hear it.