What A Weekend!

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

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

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

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

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

Random Acts of Kindness

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

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

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

Another Reason NOT to vote for Romney

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

Abortion Rates Hit A 34-Year Low

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

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

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

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

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

Interesting Article on Teen Pregnancy

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

It's quite interesting; check it out!

Man Allegedly Kills Daughter because He Wanted A Son

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

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

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

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

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

Oh, good grief

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Second Shift Phenomenon

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

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

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

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

Hillary Won!

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

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

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

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

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

Great blog post!

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

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

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

Happy New Year!

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

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

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

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

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

Happy Holidays!

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

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

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

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

Having Boys As Friends Can Boost Girls' Drinking

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

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

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

It's A..... Girl!

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

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

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

The Good Old Days?

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

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

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

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

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

Womb for Rent?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some men...

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

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

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

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

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

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

Women in TV

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

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

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

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

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

Winter is most definitely here!

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

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

Some Eye-Opening Experiences Christmas Shopping

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

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

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

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

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

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