Men's and Women's IQ Generally Equal

"Are men smarter than women? No. But they sure think they are. An analysis of some 30 studies by British researcher Adrian Furnham, a professor of psychology at University College London, shows that men and women are fairly equal overall in terms of IQ. But women, it seems, underestimate their own candlepower (and that of women in general), while men overestimate theirs. Furnham talks to NEWSWEEK's Joan Raymond about his findings and why perceived IQ matters."

The above is an excerpt from an excellent article in Newsweek, and I thought it highlighted some possible reasons that there are still disparities in the success that men and women achieve in the workplace. The piece details that men's and women's IQs tend to be relatively similar, but men tend to overestimate their abilities, while women tend to underestimate theirs. As we all know, confidence in oneself is often key to success at work, so it doesn't surprise me that (often) women are passed up for promotions in favor of men; according to this study, men simply exude an aura that they are better suited to the than their female counterparts, whether or not they actually are.

Of course, I don't believe that's the only reason that women are often overlooked in the workplace: the fact that childbearing responsibilities often fall solely to the mother, maternity leave, time off for children's events, that good ol' glass ceiling, etc. all contribute as well. But this article is definitely an interesting read, and I agree with many of the conclusions.

I'm back!

Darn work, keeping me so busy I don't even have time to post intelligent commentary. What on earth do they think they pay me for, to actually work?!? :)

Anyway, John left another well-thought out comment, and I wanted to respond to it, because I think he raises some excellent points.

As a rich white male representative of the phallocracy, my view is inherently pretty biased. ;) I think you can argue that rather than a perceived inequality between men and women, one of the things adult clubs and porn demonstrate is an inherent difference between the base interests of (most) men and women. I'm an economist by training, so I tend to see most things in a monetary sense... if there were more of a demand for male porn, I have no doubt there would be more of it. There's certainly no lack of it now, and contrary to common perception, it's not ALL aimed at gay men. I don't think it's all about the power struggle... men are just more into anonymous sexual encounters than women are. (Is that itself indicative of the power struggle? Biological? Who knows. Different discussion.) Men's Revues tend to be successful in limited runs. Are they different from women's strip shows? I can't meaningfully comment on either, but there is a non-zero demand for porn and strip clubs aimed at women.

Yes, I agree with you somewhat, but I think that these "base interests" of men and women that are so different stem directly from these inequalities between the sexes that have been perpetuated throughout, well, forever. Men have been taught it's ok to objectify women; women have been taught to respect men, and therefore do not (usually) have the desire to partake in what many of us feel is a degrading act (watching men strip, pose nude in porn magazines, etc.). Personally, I believe this is a huge contributing factor to the difference in our interests. And who knows; if these inequalities have never existed between the sexes, if women weren't valued solely for their beauty and sexuality while men were valued for the intelligence and ambition, maybe the "base interests" wouldn't be so different. Then again, maybe they would. It's the whole "chicken and the egg thing;" which came first, the inequalities between the sexes that led to the objectification of women, or the objectification of women which led to the inequalities (and difference in interests) between the sexes? It's a tough call.

However, just because there is a supply and demand for something does not mean what's being supplied is right or good. With slavery, child pornography, cocaine, etc., there is a huge supply/demand. That doesn't mean that these things SHOULD be supplied, even though it's in the "base interest" of those who desire it.

That's not meant to disprove your point re: power imbalances and gender inequity with a counter-example, but I personally see a more pragmatic than philosophical view to the issue. If enough women were into it, the flesh peddlers would make just as much porn aimed at women as is aimed at men. Probably more, since men work cheaper in the skin industry.

I do think it's a shame that people view the world through a distorted lens that favors either gender in the workplace. That's the kind of thing that takes a generation or more to affect, and my fellow "sensitive caring men of the 90s" and I are doing our best to help that along. But changing those attitudes towards porn is tough, and you enter into some odd territory when you talk about implementing any changes. It's not really possible to kill people's desire for a vicarious, non-personal approach to relationships and the opposite sex. (If the specter of AIDS didn't do it, what will?) How do you demonize porn without demonizing sex? Do you just push the porn underground? Isn't it just more dangerous there? The same question applies to most hotbed issues... abortion, drug legalization, prostitution, prohibition, etc. Push them underground, they get more dangerous.

Oh, I agree totally that this shouldn't be pushed underground. I just prefer to educate people regarding the implications of porn and prostitution, with the hopes that they will come to their own (i.e., my ;) ) conclusions and change their behavior accordingly. But you're right; this isn't something that should be outlawed, because if I'm going to stand for ALL people's right to choose--and I do--that means I have to stand for their right to choose something I don't agree with.

Long and short of it, I agree with you... if we could change people's attitudes on the relationship between gender and sexuality, that would be a good thing all around. I just don't see how that happens on anything other than an individual level. Enough individuals = everybody, but that takes a while. Without something akin to the civil right's movement, there's just not the momentum, and ironically the rise of the feminist movement coincided almost exactly with the mainstreaming of porn. It's all a weird tangled mess. Reading back at this comment, I'm not sure we're arguing the same thing, and we're mostly on the same side anyway. So even if the points are tangential, I hope they're interesting. :) Oh, and I forgot to add, shut up, you lesbian bitch. ;)


Haha; thank you ;)

More on the Strip Club Tax

I received the following comment from John regarding my post on the strip club tax, and I thought it was interesting:

Devil's Advocate question: Do strip clubs actually discourage violence against women by providing a safer, legal outlet for sexually frustrated men?

I'm not a patron of these establishments, but it's difficult to argue that they meet a demand. If that demand is not met there, where will it be met? Is it better to have men turning to strippers or prostitutes? You can argue the answer is "neither", but that's Utopian rather than pragmatic. For what it's worth, friends of mine who do frequent gentlemen's clubs tend not to view it as objectification, and prefer a relationship (albeit a brief and artificial one) with dancers. Whether that's their cover story or the truth, I have no idea. But the guys aren't the pigs one associates with strip club patrons.

The tax is probably a good thing. It won't affect demand, in the same way raising the cigarette tax doesn't really get anyone to quick smoking. You could probably triple it and not have an effect. If anything, men will spend the same amount of money and $5 per patron fewer will go towards the female independent contractors on stage, who generally work entirely on tips.

Incidentally, sorry to be spamming your comments section, but you post interesting articles. :)

First of all, John, do not apologize for commenting on my blog; I'm just thrilled I have readers! :) Plus, it's nice to get comments that are actually well-thought out and articulated, as opposed to the angry, "Shut up, you lesbian bitch" comments I sometimes get. :P (I'm neither a lesbian nor a bitch, by the way!)

On to your comment: Yes, at the most basic level, I suppose one could argue that strip clubs provide an outlet for sexually frustrated men, and therefore may reduce the violence against women. Instead of a man going out and trying to date rape a woman he meets in a bar, he can go to a strip club, get a lap dance (and possibly an orgasm, if it's in the VIP room), and be good to go. So yes, I understand where you're coming from.

However, at a deeper level, I don't think this argument works. Sexual violence (i.e., rape) usually has nothing to do with sex and orgasms themselves; instead, it's a way for men to exert power and control over women. If sex wasn't involved, they would find some other way to "rape" a woman by controlling and demeaning her in some other fashion. So just because a man may be sexually satisfied by a stripper or a prostitute does not mean that he won't rape someone else, since the two actions are not, in all likelihood, correlated.

Secondly, I think the fact that these institutions are even in our society (and considered "normal;" typical bachelor party, anyone?) demonstrates the perceived inequality between men and women that still permeates our societal standards. Men are usually (although not always) valued for their intelligence, ambition, and work ethic. If a woman is attractive, she is valued for her looks. It doesn't matter how intelligent she is, how ambitious, or how hard-working; if she's attractive, her looks are what define her. Men who frequent these establishments expect that women will be there to service them and provide sexual pleasure; the women are, in essence, objects available for purchase. How on earth is this supposed to advance our quest for equality? Women, on the other hand, do not (usually) view men in the same manner (nor do I think they should).

The problem is that it extends into other areas of society, as well. Unfortunately, I do not have the source on me right now (I'm at work, and all my college textbooks are at home), but studies have been done that show that men who patronize such establishments or partake of pornography tend to view all women through that lens; i.e., if she's attractive, she's worthwhile, if she's unattractive, she's not. They had both men who consumed pornography/frequented strip clubs and those who did not "interview" various women for job positions. Those who did not take part in such activities remembered things about the woman such as her intelligence, previous work experience, and what they thought she could bring to the table. The men who were regular viewers of porn (or regularly went to strip clubs) remembered more of her physical aspects; i.e., she was big-busted, or unattractive, or too "old," etc. This demonstrates, to me, that men who frequent strip clubs are not just objectifying the women in the establishment (which is disrespectful enough in and of itself), but this objectifying attitude extends to the rest of society, as well, and since men still traditionally hold the positions of power, their attitudes can have a major impact on a woman's life and her career. That is my major complaint with it.

Of course, I am not saying that institutions like this should be outlawed; my pro-choice stance extends to pretty much everything, and that includes strip clubs. I may not like it, and I may not agree with it, but I am not going to try to take away someone's choice to patronize these establishments. What I am hoping for is a change in viewpoint among both the men and women in our society. I wish that both sexes would understand that it's disrespectful, degrading, and will ultimately get us nowhere in the quest for equality between men and women.

Texas Judge Rules in Favor of Strip Club Tax

Good, is all I have to say. This article describes the so-called "pole tax," which will require strip clubs to collect an additional $5 tax per customer, and the proceeds will go to help rape victims and women's crisis centers.

I believe that this is a step in the right direction. Now, let me make it clear up front that I loathe strip clubs, pornography, and anything else in our society that contributes to or reflects the objectification of women. Yes, I realize that people are going to go to strip clubs (and yes, I realize that most women do this to themselves, but I would argue their "career" choices are obviously swayed by our society's warped view of women and sexuality), so why not tax them on it, especially when the tax is going to such a noble cause? If women are going to be ogled and "purchased" like a common object (lap dances, erection, and orgasm, anyone?) society might as well get something in return. That's about the only good thing that can come out of this industry anyway; I can't think of anything else beneficial that arises from continuing to view women as physical objects, available for "purchase" to satisfy the lusty desires of some men. If this industry is going to continue to flourish in our society (and it has no indications of stopping anytime soon), we might as well milk it for all it's worth.

The 35th Anniversary of Roe v. Wade

Well, here we are, 35 years after Roe v. Wade was passed. As I pause to reflect on this occasion, several thoughts come to mind, so forgive me as I try to sort them out somewhat coherently.

First of all, abortion rates have hit a 34-year low (see my post here), and I personally am thrilled. "What's that, you say?" the conservatives ask in amazement. "I thought you liberal feminists were pro-abortion." Nope, many of us are simply pro-choice and hold the ideology that a woman has the right to determine when (or if) to carry a pregnancy to term. That doesn't mean that we are pro-abortion; it just means we don't believe the government has a say in what a woman does with her body. That being said, I am thrilled if abortion rates have a hit an all-time low if it's because of better access to birth control. I can think of nothing more wonderful than if every pregnancy was a wanted one, and abortion became nearly obsolete (that doesn't mean I think it should ever be illegal however; in the words of Bill Clinton, I think abortion should remain safe, legal, and rare.) So I think this is a definite plus for both the pro-choicers and the anti-choicers.

Secondly, I have to wonder how all these pro-"lifers" who want any and all abortion to be outlawed (with the rare exception of danger to the mother) really care about all life. I think of the woman who, if she really needs or desires an abortion, will have no other option except to do a back-alley abortion, where she could very well die because of infection. Just because abortion is illegal doesn't mean that they won't happen; the women who have them will just be at greater risk for death or sterility. But yet no one seems to care about the "life" of the women; it's only the "life" of an eight week old fetus that they seem to respect. Seems a bit hypocritical, don't you think? Is this a commentary on how our society still views women; as breeding machines whose only purpose is to bring children into the world, at their expense? Don't get me wrong; I think motherhood is amazing, and I can't wait to experience it. But I firmly disagree that the government (and pro-lifers) should have any say in when and if women choose to experience this gift.

Thirdly, we need to continue educating our teenagers on the physical, spiritual and emotional consequences of sex, and provide contraceptives for those that become sexually active. Hopefully then the abortion rate will continue to drop.

I hope that in another 35 years, abortion will literally be non-existent, but not because Roe v. Wade is overturned; instead, because men and women express their sexuality responsibly and plan their pregnancies accordingly. That will be a true milestone.

Heath Ledger Died!

Oh my god. Yes, I am one of those crazy people who cares about celebrities. And I just heard (from multiple sources) that Heath Ledger, one of my favorite actors of all time, is dead. They believe (although are not sure) that it was from a drug overdose.

See, it's moments like this that make me realize just how much I despise drugs and their prevalence in society. Sometimes the liberal in me agrees that we need to legalize drugs, under the guise of, "we're wasting millions of dollars policing people for doing something that only affects themselves." But stories like this demonstrate that they're not just hurting themselves; they leave family and friends devastated in the aftermath, with scars that will never be fully healed.

Heath Ledger has a two-year-old daughter; she's two. Can you imagine what losing your father at such a young age could do to a child? I'm a huge proponent of children having strong, positive male role models in their lives, and Ledger seemed as though he fit the bill perfectly (although of course you can never tell what goes on behind closed doors, and obviously if he was involved with drugs, that is not a behavior you would want your child to emulate). And now his daughter was cruelly robbed of one of her parents at an age where she probably does not possess any long-term memories of him. And why? Because (allegedly) of drugs.

So why on earth would we want to legalize it, make it easier to get these lethal substances into people's hands? I don't understand it.

Now, I realize that some drugs (such as prescription drugs) are legal and can do irreparable harm anyway; those are not the drugs I am speaking of. I also firmly believe that marijuana (which I consider to be less lethal than its legal counterpart, alcohol) should be legal; the millions of dollars we spend to throw marijuana users in jail is ridiculous; they are of no harm to themselves or to society. That money could be better spent. But it's the deadly ones, like cocaine and heroin (and remember, I don't know what drug Ledger overdosed on; I'm just speculating) that are a detriment to our society.

Finally, I'm not blaming him; there is no point in that. My tirade is not directed at him, but rather the drugs themselves. I fondly remember a talented actor, a loving father, and a worthwhile human being who was taken from this earth far too soon. Rest in peace, Heath.

What A Weekend!

Well, I just had one of the best weekends I've had in a long time. Plenty to do (but not too much to do), and lots of time spent with family and friends.

On Friday night, Dan and I went to see The Orphanage. It was the scariest movie I have seen, well, ever.... and I loved it! Yes, I was freaked out that night and wanted to sleep with the lights on (Dan said no, by the way), but it was a good, old-fashioned ghost story with a superb twist at the end. I really want to see it again (when I get my courage up, that is). By the way, it's in Spanish (with English subtitles, of course); we didn't realize that when we went. But it doesn't detract from it at all. I highly recommend this movie!

Saturday night I went to my good friend's condo along with 2 of our other friends, and we had a fun "girls' night out" (or in, I guess I should say). We drank flavored martinis and watched Sex and the City, which I have mixed feelings on. I'm all for women being empowered sexually, but I think that sometimes the pendulum swings too far in the other direction, and women go from being prudes (not a good thing) to being sexually promiscuous with random men (also not a good thing), and that's exactly what this show epitomizes. I'm sitting there, watching Samantha have sex with random man after random man, and I'm just thinking, "Holy crap. I could not have any self-respect if I slept with men who just saw me as a pair of breasts and a romp in the hay." But the night was fun overall, and martinis make any occasion (and television show, for that matter), more entertaining.

Then yesterday we went to Sunday brunch, as we usually do, and later we watched a very disappointing Packer game. I'm not even into football, per se, but there was something exciting about the fact that our state's team might be on their way to the Super Bowl! But when that field goal was made in overtime, all hopes were dashed. I did have to laugh, however, because Dan and I often defy "traditional" stereotypes. We were watching the game at my aunt's house, and Dan and my uncle were in the kitchen, cooking and discussing electronics. My aunt and I, on the other hand, were in the living room, yelling at the players as though they could hear us, and overall just getting worked up into a frenzy. I just kept asking Dan, "How can you not be watching this?" He just shrugged and said he'd rather be cooking. :P

Anyway, hope everyone had as relaxing a weekend as I did!

Random Acts of Kindness

Lest we get too cynical about people in the world today (and believe me, I do it all the time), there are certain people who commit random acts of kindness to remind you that the world is not all bad.

Today, it was snowing and icing like crazy here in Madison. I didn't have my scraper with me (for some reason, it was in my other car), and when I left the office, my car was covered in not just snow, but ice. I was sitting there, with my defroster on high, hoping to just melt the snow and ice so I could use my windshield wiper, and the guy in the car next to me (who was also scraping off his car) knocked on my window and asked me if he could scrape off my car.

I thanked him profusely, saying yes, so he did. It was just a little thing, but it made my day! So many people could have just driven off, but he didn't. I love random acts of kindness!

Another Reason NOT to vote for Romney

Aside from flip-flopping on various issues, Romney's anti-choice view is the main reason that I could never support a candidate like him. Check out this article; I found it quite illuminating.

Abortion Rates Hit A 34-Year Low

Here is an excellent article on the declining abortion rate, and a slew of various explanations that can help explain this drop. Some of the hypotheses put forward include better access to birth control (good), decreased access to abortion providers (bad), and changing views with respect to abortion.

If abortion rates have declined due to increased access to birth control, then I am thrilled!! Contrary to what some people think (or say) when I tell them I'm pro-choice, I am not pro-abortion. I would like nothing better than to see every single pregnancy in this country be a wanted one. So if abortion is dropping because people are preventing unwanted pregnancies, then I say that this is a wonderful advancement!

If, however, it's dropping due to decreased access to abortion clinics, well, I'm not so thrilled about that. The fact is that a woman should be able to decide whether or not to carry a pregnancy to term, and her choice should be dictated by her desires and her doctor's input; that's it. Not by her proximity to an abortion clinic or her ability to find a doctor who's willing to perform one.

I'm sure the pro-lifers are ecstatic about fewer abortion providers, however, and this is what irritates me about so many who subscribe to that movement. They claim to be pro-life, but where are they when the baby is born to a single teenage mother who has to drop out of high school to care for her baby? Where are the pro-lifers when the mother is struggling to put food on the table for her child or struggling to scrape together enough money to pay the rent? It seems that so many pro-lifers (not all, of course) are pro-birth, not pro-life. If they were pro-life, they would be proponents of social programs to help unwed mothers get back on their feet and obtain the training necessary to actually make a living wage, even if it meant she had to receive government assistance in the process. But so many pro-lifers are the same ones that say we need fewer government-sponsored social programs, that people should just "pull themselves up by their bootstraps" and support themselves. This is ridiculous! In essence, they are saying that they don't care what happens to that baby after it's brought into the world; all they care is that it's born alive, regardless of the mother's ability to care for it. Now, obviously I know that not all pro-lifers are like that, but unfortunately that vast majority that I have personally met hold this very unsettling mindset. (And before anyone advocates adoption, please realize that among teen mothers, this is a very unlikely choice. According to the article I posted yesterday, "29 percent of pregnant teens have abortions; 14 percent miscarry; of the 57 percent who carry to term, less than 1 percent give up the baby." By the way, the editor in me wants you to know that it should actually be fewer than 1 percent, but that's beside the point.) So the fact remains that if teenagers do not terminate their pregnancies, the likelihood that they will give up their child to a family who is better able to take care of it is practically nil.

Anyway, it's a very interesting article; check it out!

Interesting Article on Teen Pregnancy

I just came across this article, and I found it illuminating in regards to the current teen pregnancy debacle. Teen pregnancies are up 3% (this percentage doesn't sound like much, but considering that the teen birth rate had been dropping for the past 14 years, it is an alarming trend), perhaps largely because abstinence only sex education (which has been proven, in many cases, not to work) is the only sex ed taught in many of our schools today.

It's quite interesting; check it out!

Man Allegedly Kills Daughter because He Wanted A Son

What the hell? Are you serious? Are we in the time of the Neanderthals? A man allegedly kills his four-month old daughter because he wanted a son. Ridiculous.

Aside from the fact that any crime against children is just utterly horrific, this one confuses me to no end. What, exactly, is so much different about a daughter as compared to a son? She has an XX chromosome, of course, while a son would have XY. She has a uterus and a vagina, while a son would have a penis. Other than that.... well, I'm honestly not sure.

Did he want a son to play sports? News flash, sir: female athletes are almost as prominent in the sports world as their male counterparts. Athletics is no longer a "males only" arena.

Did he want a son to carry on the family name? A son carrying on a family name is just a social custom; it could as easily have been the tradition that a woman carries on her family's name.
There's nothing inherent about that custom that is dependent on a person's gender; it's all social construction.

I'm sitting here trying to wrap my mind around this crime. I cannot imagine, no matter HOW badly you wanted one gender, to kill an innocent child simply because they were the "wrong" gender. And I'd really like to know, in his twisted mind, what exactly it is about girls that is so "wrong." I knew sexism and patriarchy still ran deep in our country; sadly, I didn't realize it still ran this deep.

Oh, good grief

All right, so as I'm sure you all can tell, I'm incredibly into politics today. And, since John McCain won the NH primary, I thought I'd research him. Yeah, any type shred of possibility that I might vote Republican is probably gone, especially if he gets the nomination.

I looked at his views on abortion, and, no surprise there, he's anti-choice. In 2000, "On "Meet the Press," McCain said he had come to the conclusion that the exceptions for rape, incest, and the life of the mother are legitimate exceptions to an outright ban on abortions. "I don't claim to be a theologian, but I have my moral beliefs." If Roe v. Wade is overturned and abortion outlawed, McCain said he believes doctors who performed abortions would be prosecuted. "But I would not prosecute a woman" who obtained an abortion.

Oh, ok. Glad to know that a politician's moral beliefs now dictate whether or not I must bear a child. What about my moral beliefs that it's wrong to be an arrogant, pompous, white, male bastard? Can we get that outlawed, too? Ok, thanks.

Anyway, so you would think that since he's against abortion, he'd want to PREVENT unwanted pregnancies as much as possible, right? Well, that's the logical conclusion, but you'd be wrong. He "voted NO on $100M to reduce teen pregnancy by education and contraceptives and boasts that he has "consistently voted against taxpayer-funded contraception programs."

For crying out loud, what do you want then? You want abortion to be illegal, but you refuse to put a good amount of our resources into educating teens and providing contraception so that the majority of these unwanted pregnancies (that often lead to abortion) don't happen in the first place?!?! Are you kidding me?

Get more candidate stances and take a quiz here. I'd love to hear people's results!

The Second Shift Phenomenon

I received the following comment a couple days ago, and I thought it was interesting. I wrote a post back in December about how a man expected his wife to both raise their young children, and keep the house clean. I argued that this is just another exemplification of the "second shift" phenomenon: women work full time 9-5 (either outside of the home, or within it raising their children) and then are STILL expected to do the majority (or all) of the housework. I argued that any man who feels like that is stuck back in the past, and his views need to change. Just because a wife stays home doesn't mean she's not doing anything! Anyway, here is a portion of the comment I received:

Also-think about the effect hiring a maid could have on the children.
Simply being able to buy your way out of a problem doesn't seem like a good lesson to teach your children. It wouldn't be like taking a car into a shop; it would be more comparable to hiring a personal driver. A constant excuse to avoid doing work you're capable of doing, even when time consuming (though, the work he speaks of in the column seems like it requires more self control than work... Hanging things up in the closet, cleaning up "diaper mines". Simple cleanliness isn't that demanding).

Now, I love comments sent to my blog, so keep them coming, even if they don't agree with my views! But the issue I have with this comment is that it somehow still assumes that housework is WOMEN'S work. She's home, raising her children, which is a full time job. No, she doesn't receive compensation for it, but that doesn't make it any less valuable! If she "worked" outside of the home 40 or 50 hours a week, would it THEN be ok to hire a maid (since her husband apparently doesn't think it's any of his responsibility to help run the household)? Why is staying home and raising your children--which is an incredibly noble career, despite its lack of pay--somehow STILL viewed as simply "sitting home and doing nothing"? If she was working 50 hours a week as a CEO, I highly doubt that her husband (or anyone else) would expect her to do all the housework. As a mother, she's working just as much, if not more. If she's any type of mother, I highly doubt she is just sitting around, doing nothing. She's probably, you know, doing that oh-so-important stuff like reading to her kids, etc. (Yes, I realized he said she always found time to watch her favorite shows, but what does that mean? She has maybe two favorite shows, so an hour a week is spent watching them? And while I don't remember the part about basic cleanliness, I DO agree with the commenter that basic cleanliness and sanitation is not that hard.)

Anyway, like I said in my original post, I see nothing wrong with the person who stays home to perhaps do more of the housework, simply by virtue of being there more. But this man's sense of entitlement about what should or should not be done in the house, simply based on the marriage partner's gender, is ludicrous and steeped in outdated stereotypes.

Hillary Won!

I'm thrilled, to say the least, that Hillary took the NH primaries. I just saw that on MSN, and I'm watching her speech on C-Span right now (yes, I should be going to bed, but oh well!) I really admire her views, her poise, her expertise, and her passion. I will be thrilled if she becomes our next president.

Speaking of candidates, I like to research other candidates' views, just to get a perspective on where they're coming from. I went to Mitt Romney's site and I was promptly reminded of why I rarely vote Republican.

In the American values arena, he says that, "The [Massachusetts Supreme Judicial] court forgot that [traditional] marriage is first and foremost about nurturing and developing children. Its ruling meant that our society is supposed to be indifferent about whether children have a mother and a father." (Governor Mitt Romney, Boston Globe, 3/2/05)

Oh, no, Mr. Romney. I'm not indifferent about whether or not a child has a mother and a father. Well, actually I guess I am. I think every child has the right to be raised by two loving partners, but I am indifferent about the gender of these partners. I really could care less if two loving, monogamous women (or men) raised a child in a secure relationship. I DO care, however, about the millions of deadbeat dads who leave their children (and the mothers of these children) with no financial or emotional assistance whatsoever. I'm disturbed about the millions of unwanted children who are born to single mothers every year, and are often left to grow to adulthood in poverty-laden conditions. I'm distraught at the millions of abused children who slip through the system's cracks every year. To me, these issues are much more important to the nurturing and developing of children than whether or not they have both a mother and a father. Let's combat those problems before we focus on the gender of committed marriage partners, mmm-kay, Mr. Romney?

Anyway, sorry I went off on a tangent there. But I'm just thrilled that Hillary (who unfortunately doesn't support gay marriage, but does support civil unions---hey, it's a start, right?) won in the NH primaries, even if it was only by a slim margin. Hopefully she'll take this all the way!

Great blog post!

I just read a wonderful post called When Did Feminism Become a Bad Word? It sums up (very eloquently, I might add), the confusion that many of us feel when someone utters the words, "I'm not a feminist, but...." and then goes on to subscribe to the very ideals that feminists advocate!

Why do people feel that they have to make it clear that they are NOT feminist? I can understand wanting people to know that you're not sexist, racist, etc., but feminist? There's nothing wrong with being a feminist (as opposed to being racist or sexist, which is, unequivocally, wrong and detrimental to society), so why distance yourself from it, especially if you follow the feminist ideals (which, again, are nothing to be ashamed of; simply economic, political, and social equality for all people)? Is it because they're afraid that they'll be called a man-hater (how I hate that stereotype!)? Is it because they think they'll somehow be less "womanly" (or "manly") if they don't subscribe to strict gender roles that frown upon deviation? Who knows? But the point is, one should research a school of thought before vehemently denying it.

Check out the post; it's a great one! (It's from over a year ago, but the writing--and views--are timeless!)

Happy New Year!

Well, it's good to be back... although I don't have much time to post right now, given that my workload at work is, well, let's just say hectic. But I did want to get everyone's thoughts on yesterday's Iowa caucus.

Personally, I am disappointed that Hillary or Edwards didn't take the top spot; they're the two candidates I most closely align with in terms of issues and policies. However, I do also agree with many of Obama's policies, and suffice to say, I would be in no way disappointed if he was to win the presidency.

Here is a handy-dandy quiz to help determine which candidate most closely lines up with you, and, more importantly, which issues you agree with/disagree with them on. I find this extremely helpful, because in my personal opinion, there is nothing more annoying than someone who loves (or hates *cough Hillary bashers cough*) a candidate and/or their stance, but cannot tell you why.

This quiz confirmed, for me, that Edwards and I are in agreement regarding most things (I think the only thing we differed on was social security), while Hillary and I have differences regarding the Iraq war, social security, and immigration. I found this useful, because previously, I was not aware of her policy on immigration, so I was able to research her stance on it. It didn't make me change my support of her, but it certainly helps me be a more informed voter!

Obviously, the quiz isn't perfect (in fact, when I researched her policy on immigration, I found that it was fairly similar--although not identical--to my own views, so I wasn't sure why it said we were in disagreement), but overall, I found it quite interesting!