The Feminine Feminist

Great Article; Sums Me Up Exactly!

2008-02-12T12:06:00.001-06:00

I recently read this wonderful article entitled, "I Am A Feminist." His descriptions, his experiences, and his overall style relay his meaning perfectly: people act like feminism is a dirty word, even though the majority of people today have benefited greatly from this movement (and, ironically, support the values that this movement espouses).

I always have to laugh when people recoil in horror if asked if they are a feminist. If asked if they're racist, the answer is usually, "No, why do you ask?" Ask them if they're a feminist, and their faces contort uncontrollably, and they can barely get the shocked, emphatic, "NO!" out of their choking throats. You might as well ask them if they kill and mutilate babies, or something, with all the horror that they react with.

Now, I can understand that some women (ultra-religious conservatives, old-fashioned women, etc.) do NOT identify as feminists, and rightly so. They believe in conservative gender roles (man outside of the house, woman inside), in being subservient to their husbands, etc. I would not expect these women to identify as feminists; that's not my issue.

My issue is with women who advocate equal education for all; equal social, economic and political opportunities for all; reproductive rights; and careers and wages based on talent and interest, not gender, yet still insist they're not feminists. Why? Feminism isn't a bad word; the media and ultra-conservatives in our society, who are threatened by women who are independent and self-sufficient, have made it out to be a synonym for man-hating, angry lesbians. Are there some feminists like this? Sure thing. Just like there are some Christians who bomb abortion clinics, or some Muslims who organize terrorist attacks on the US. The point is, just because a very small minority acts a certain way does not mean that the entire group does. In fact, it's ignorant to think so.

So I'll proudly proclaim: I am a college-educated, financially independent, self-sufficient, love-my-career, gender-roles-shunning, modern-day feminist. I'm also incredibly feminine & girly, happily married to my soulmate and looking forward to the day when I can be a stay at home mom to our (future) children; I can't think or anything more rewarding than raising up the next generation. See? Feminism isn't a movement full of man-hating, children-hating, scary, mannish women! We're normal, everyday women, mothers and wives, daughters and sisters, who want our potential to be defined by our talents and interests, not our genders; who choose marriage because we've found the partner that completes us, not because we can't survive without it; and bring forth new human beings into the world because we want to raise up the next generation, not because we couldn't afford access to birth control.

Do I Dare???

2008-02-05T12:51:00.001-06:00

Well, Lent is coming up, and a bunch of people around the office are talking about what they're giving up. It made me wonder if perhaps I, too, should abstain from something for the next 40 days, and I decided that it might not be the worst thing in the world. Now, I'm not religious at all, so Lent doesn't really have any spiritual meaning for me, per se, but I figure, why the heck not?

So, what is it that I'm going to give up? My beloved beer... my New Glarus Spotted Cow, which is, hands down, the best beer in the entire world. See, normally I'm not a beer fan. Give me a good Lambrusco or a vodka cranberry any day. But I am lucky enough to live in Wisconsin, which is known for their to-die-for beers, and Spotted Cow is la creme de la creme.

So, HOW do I give it up for the next 40 days without going into withdrawals? (Now, lest my dear readers--all 2 of you! ;)--worry that I'm an alkie, never fear. I could have an entire liquor cabinet stocked full of the top-shelf brands, and I wouldn't touch it for weeks or months on end. No, it's not the alcohol itself; it's the whole Spotted Cow experience.)

So, we'll see how my quest goes. It's only 40 days, right? And this will definitely help with my weight loss, since when I imbibe, I want to order pizza, which, sadly, isn't on anyone's list of health foods. Yes, this will be a good thing. I won't think of it as depriving myself; I'll think of it as doing something good for myself. All right. It's settled. I'm giving up Spotted Cow for Lent.

But you can be sure that Dan and I are going to go all out tonight, as a last "hurrah!" And isn't that what Mardi Gras is all about?

Men Rule; At Least in the Workplace

2008-02-04T09:17:00.000-06:00

"The survey, conducted early this year, found a bonanza of stereotypes among those polled, with many using the optional comment section to label women "moody," "bitchy," "gossipy" and "emotional." The most popular term for woman, used 347 times, was "catty."

There are still few women in the corner office today, and the numbers appear to be declining. Our survey sheds light on one obstacle blocking women from the boardroom: negative attitudes about women leaders — attitudes women themselves still harbor."

This is an excerpt from an excellent article on MSN.com, and the findings detailed within demonstrate, at least to me, that feminism hasn't won the fight yet. Men are still being perceived as better, more efficient leaders, and these stereotypes are, unfortunately, harbored by people of both sexes. Women are internalizing these (untrue) stereotypes, which diminishes their confidence in themselves and in other women in the workplace.

Luckily, researchers agree that the attitudes regarding women and leadership don't accurately reflect women's leadership abilities; numerous studies have shown that men and women are on par when it comes to leadership within the workplace. However, the perceptions are where the problem lies: When asked which gender would be a more effective leader, males were preferred by more than a 2-1 margin by both men and women — even though women got high marks for being problem solvers and providing more supportive work environments.

Yes, we've got aways to go. Equality won't truly have been achieved until people refuse to base their decisions on outdated stereotypes, and instead focus on the person themselves, regardless of their gender.

Men's and Women's IQ Generally Equal

2008-01-31T14:47:00.000-06:00

"Are men smarter than women? No. But they sure think they are. An analysis of some 30 studies by British researcher , 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!

2008-01-31T14:27:00.000-06:00

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

2008-01-25T08:25:00.000-06:00

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

2008-01-24T16:06:00.001-06:00

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

2008-01-22T16:35:00.001-06:00

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!

2008-01-22T16:03:00.001-06:00

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!

2008-01-21T16:08:00.001-06:00

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

2008-01-17T18:33:00.000-06:00

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

2008-01-17T13:13:00.000-06:00

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

2008-01-17T09:01:00.000-06:00

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

2008-01-15T12:39:00.001-06:00

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

2008-01-14T13:49:00.000-06:00

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

2008-01-11T13:15:00.001-06:00

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

2008-01-08T23:28:00.000-06:00

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!

2008-01-08T23:10:00.000-06:00

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!

2008-01-04T12:51:00.000-06:00

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!

2008-01-04T12:33:00.000-06:00

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!

Happy Holidays!

2007-12-22T17:46:00.000-06:00

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

2007-12-18T09:32:00.000-06:00

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!

2007-12-17T11:13:00.001-06:00

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?

2007-12-13T09:44:00.000-06:00

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?

2007-12-11T12:56:00.001-06:00

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...

2007-12-10T09:15:00.000-06:00

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

2007-12-05T10:25:00.000-06:00

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!

2007-12-05T10:12:00.001-06:00

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

2007-12-03T14:37:00.000-06:00

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

2007-11-30T13:14:00.001-06:00

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

2007-11-29T10:49:00.000-06:00

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?

2007-11-28T10:09:00.000-06:00

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

2007-11-28T09:29:00.001-06:00

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!

2007-11-27T12:43:00.000-06:00

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!

2007-11-27T09:21:00.001-06:00

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

2007-11-26T15:53:00.000-06:00

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

2007-11-25T00:01:00.000-06:00

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

2007-11-24T10:52:00.000-06:00

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

2007-11-21T21:49:00.000-06:00

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

2007-11-21T10:27:00.000-06:00

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:

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.
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!)
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!

2007-11-21T09:46:00.000-06:00

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!

2007-11-20T20:54:00.001-06:00

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

2007-11-20T17:27:00.001-06:00

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?

2007-11-20T08:58:00.000-06:00

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?!?

2007-11-19T16:58:00.000-06:00

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!

2007-11-19T11:04:00.000-06:00

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!

2007-11-19T10:59:00.000-06:00

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

2007-11-19T09:22:00.000-06:00

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!

2007-11-17T18:36:00.000-06:00

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.

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.
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?
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.
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?
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?

2007-11-16T11:45:00.000-06:00

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!

2007-11-16T09:59:00.000-06:00

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

2007-11-12T10:46:00.000-06:00

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....

2007-11-11T19:24:00.000-06:00

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!

2007-11-11T10:49:00.000-06:00

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....

2007-11-10T12:59:00.000-06:00

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.

A Blast from the Past

2007-11-09T16:21:00.000-06:00

I just came across this hilarious blast from the past. I'm sure my parents and anyone else who lived during the 70s will get a kick out of this! Strange to see what people accepted as fashionable! All I have to say is, I'm glad I didn't have to shop through that catalog for MY clothes!

Why did they have to do this to me?

2007-11-09T13:12:00.000-06:00

Easter is often my downfall, because for two short months, stores often sell those delicious, crispy, chocolate Cadbury eggs. I'm not talking about the big gooey ones that have some sort of cream filling. No, I'm talking about the milk chocolate ones with a crispy sugar shell. They are my addiction, and I literally crave them during Easter. Luckily, they only come out once a year.... or so I thought.

Yep, my desire to exercise and eat right is going to be severely tested this holiday season (as if it wasn't already!) because Cadbury eggs has now come out with the exact same product.... for Christmas. Instead of eggs, they boast an ornament shape with Christmas colors, but make no mistake: it's the same delicious, chocolate-y, calorie-laden goodness. Part of me is thrilled (namely my taste buds) but the other part of me (namely my waistline!) is groaning. Why did you do this to me, Cadbury? Why?

Bee Movie

2007-11-09T09:46:00.000-06:00

Last night, our local theater was having its 75th anniversary special, which meant that tickets were only $4.00, instead of the (gasp) usual $8.50. So, my husband and I decided to take my two cousins, Kirsti (12) and Rori (4) to see Bee Movie. Dan and I didn't really have any preconceived notions about the movie; we were kind of irritated by all the advertising done to promote the movie, but we figured, the girls wanted to see it and it was basically a two for one, so why not?

I just have to say, we were pleasantly surprised! The movie was very enjoyable for both kids and adults, and all four of us found ourselves laughing out loud at many of the jokes. It was fast-moving, too, and only 90 minutes, which is good when you have a four year old with you! It also had some wonderful messages that I like to teach to children, such the value of hard work, standing up for what you believe in, and the respect of all life, not just human life. This is definitely a must-see!

A Good Deal at Walgreens

2007-11-09T09:32:00.000-06:00

Our Walgreens is having some amazing deals right now. All Cover Girl makeup (and perhaps some other brands; I can't remember) is buy one, get one half off. But for some reason, our Walgreens is doing buy one, get one FREE! Talk about a good deal; makeup can get pricey!

Also, they have some adorable wrapping paper (some as much as 50 square feet) and it's buy one, get two free. That's three rolls of wrapping paper for $1.99! Even though I already have plenty of wrapping paper, I still am going to stock up because, as everyone knows, Christmas is more than a one-time thing :)

Check out other frugal ideas here. This blog is a great resource for frugality and money-saving tips. I may not agree with much else of what is posted (although I do respect her right to say it), but I certainly enjoy tips on living frugally!

A Jaunt down to the Windy City

2007-11-08T15:57:00.000-06:00

Well, despite having millions (ok, maybe more like hundreds) of feminism-related topics on my mind, I thought that I would start out with a relatively light-hearted post, since I highly doubt that I have any readers yet. But, in case I do, and if you happen to be anywhere near the Windy City, I urge you to take a trip down there and check out the musical Jersey Boys.

I had to be in Chicago for a business trip anyway, so when my mom told me that she'd be in town visiting her sister and asked if I wanted to see Jersey Boys, I figured, why not? I've always enjoyed musicals; let's give this one a whirl.

Our night began at a cozy little restaurant called The Village. It's been around for 80 years or so, and it doesn't appear to have changed a bit. The atmosphere is eclectic, and it seemed to draw in a wide variety of people. On top of that, the food was excellent (my recommendation: the mostaccioli with baked cheese and meat sauce), so what more could one ask for?

After we paid our bill, we headed over to the La Salle Bank Theatre, where the musical would be showing. (Luckily, it was in walking distance of the restaurant, so this would be a definite bonus if you were headed there in the winter!) I had no idea that the musical was about Frankie Valli and the Four Seasons until I saw the program, but I figured, I knew some of their music, so this will be good, right?

It wasn't good. It was amazing. The energy, the acting, the exuberance (not to mention the Jersey accents) was beyond almost anything I had ever seen. The actors, portraying these four blue collar boys from New Jersey, captivated the audience. They caused riotous laughter, and even elicited a few tears. The musical was fast-paced, and even I (a child of the 90s, who worships Kurt Cobain and the entire grunge era) found myself swept up in the music and culture of the 50s and 60s. I didn't want it to end, but when it did, I (along with the rest of the audience) gave these young men and women a standing ovation.

So, if you're in Chicago anytime soon, try and get tickets. It's definitely worth it!