"Women know a lot of things they don't read in the newspapers. It's pretty funny sometimes, how women know a lot of things and nobody can figure out how they know them. I know a Polish woman who works in the stockyards here, and she has been working there for a good many years. She came from Poland when she was a child, cam across the vast spaces of America, with blinders on, you might say, and yet she knows more than anybody I know, because she knows what suffering is and she knows that everyone is like herself, throughout the whole world. . . .
That's the way it is with women. They don't read about the news. They very often make it. They pick it up at its source, in the human body, in the making of the human body, and the feeding and nurturing of it day in and day out. They know how much a body weighs and how much blood and toil goes into the making of even a poor body. Did you ever go into a public clinic to weigh your child? And you feel of him anxiously when you put his clothes on in the morning. You pick him up trying to gauge the weight of his bones and the tiny flesh and you wait for the public nurses to put him on the scales, and you look, you watch her face like an aviator watches the sky, watches an instrument register a number that will mean life and death.
In that body under your hands every day there resides the economy of the world; it tells you of ruthless exploitation, of a mad, vicious class that now cares for nothing in the world but to maintain its stupid life with violence and destruction; it tells you the prices of oranges and cod liver oil, of spring lamb, of butter, eggs and milk. You know everything that is happening on the stock exchange. You know what happened to last year's wheat in the drouth, the terrible misuse and destruction of land and crops and human life plowed under. You don't have to read the stock reports in Mr. Hearst's paper. You have the news at its terrible source.
Or what kind of news is it when you see the long, drawn face of your husband coming home from the belt line and feel his ribs coming to the surface day after day like the hulk of a ship when the tide is going down?
Or, what price freedom and the American Way so coyly pictured on billboards, when you go up the dark and secret and dirty stairs to a doctor's office and get a cheap abortion because you can't afford another baby and wait for the fever that takes so many American women, and thank heaven if you come through alive, barely crawling around for months?
. . . Hunger and want and terror are a Braille that hands used to labor, used to tools, and close to sources, can read in any language."
Meridel Le Sueur
Ripening: Selected Work, 1927
Showing posts with label women. Show all posts
Showing posts with label women. Show all posts
Sunday, September 27, 2009
Monday, June 22, 2009
Is Marriage Obsolete?
I'm home sick today, so I'm watching shows I don't normally get to see.
On the Today show, they had a short (think 30 seconds) interview with a journalist from the Atlantic who wrote an article about marriage being obsolete. To counter her - yes, counter in a 30 second segment - they had a female psychologist who recently celebrated her 20th anniversary.
The argument made by the journalist is that the cultural purpose of marriage has changed, evolving from a business transaction meant to keep men on the farm working, to a necessary social construct when lifespans were short and reproduction was crucial, to a 'companionship' model.
The psychologist countered the journalist by basically saying "since you (the journalist) recently had an affair and went through a separation that's probably why you have these feelings". Rather than addressing the sociological aspect of marriage as a cultural institution, she targeted the journalist for her personal life. Now, the contrast of the experiences between the two women is interesting, but the journalist recently separated from a partner she was with for 20 years. Suffice it to say she perhaps has more prespective on the issue having been both in the position of the psychologist and in the position of someone whose relationship didn't end up working out in the long term.
The psychologist also argued that today people seek to marry because they want a partner for life. I find this logic incredibly flawed as an argument for marriage. First and foremost, science is increasingly showing that humans, like many other mammals, have a tendency toward multiple partners in life. Long-term or lifelong partners do occur, and I think that it does an injustice to us as rational beings to propose that we need a legally binding construct, or a certificate, or a formal ceremony, to ensure that we will be together for life. Based on the rate of divorce in our country and in the world, I have to think that the inherent quality of the relationship determines whether people stay or get married, not vice-versa. It only makes sense to me that if you have a bad relationship, you aren't any more likely to stay together for life just because you get married. However, throughout my life I've known of many families and couples who spend their lives together without ever getting married - a case in which they are life-partners and that status isn't legitimized or delegitimized by their marital status.
That being said, I have to ask as the journalist did - if there is no cultural, constructive use for marriage (beyond the obvious legally/civilly granted benefits) what is the point? If anything, disregarding the marriage institution will take the stress off of social expectations in relationships and focus on the personal and human aspect. I think the civil and legal benefits of a long-term partnerships DO have a place in our society simply for the maintenance of families and communities, but I think this could be addressed by making civil unions the norm. A simple legal designation that opens up the options for combining insurance and health coverage, wills and estates, and care of children. As our society evolves, our social institutions and constructs ought to evolve as well. Just as monarchical and theocratic rule are an awkward fit in today's society - though they had a working purpose centuries ago - the way we construct our communities and families can't stay the same.
I think what I saw this morning on the Today show was the usual conflict when we challenge what we know - in this case the psychologist responding from a place of feeling like this article threatened something that is the core of her life, and not recognizing the legitimacy of the journalist's experience. Sounds kind of counter-intuitive for a psychologist, but we all have a tendency to react personally when it comes to issues of our lives rather than stepping back to take a more rationalized perspective.
just some thoughts. no links because i don't feel like hunting along the net today digging up relevant information and copying, pasting, hyperlinking, and formatting.
On the Today show, they had a short (think 30 seconds) interview with a journalist from the Atlantic who wrote an article about marriage being obsolete. To counter her - yes, counter in a 30 second segment - they had a female psychologist who recently celebrated her 20th anniversary.
The argument made by the journalist is that the cultural purpose of marriage has changed, evolving from a business transaction meant to keep men on the farm working, to a necessary social construct when lifespans were short and reproduction was crucial, to a 'companionship' model.
The psychologist countered the journalist by basically saying "since you (the journalist) recently had an affair and went through a separation that's probably why you have these feelings". Rather than addressing the sociological aspect of marriage as a cultural institution, she targeted the journalist for her personal life. Now, the contrast of the experiences between the two women is interesting, but the journalist recently separated from a partner she was with for 20 years. Suffice it to say she perhaps has more prespective on the issue having been both in the position of the psychologist and in the position of someone whose relationship didn't end up working out in the long term.
The psychologist also argued that today people seek to marry because they want a partner for life. I find this logic incredibly flawed as an argument for marriage. First and foremost, science is increasingly showing that humans, like many other mammals, have a tendency toward multiple partners in life. Long-term or lifelong partners do occur, and I think that it does an injustice to us as rational beings to propose that we need a legally binding construct, or a certificate, or a formal ceremony, to ensure that we will be together for life. Based on the rate of divorce in our country and in the world, I have to think that the inherent quality of the relationship determines whether people stay or get married, not vice-versa. It only makes sense to me that if you have a bad relationship, you aren't any more likely to stay together for life just because you get married. However, throughout my life I've known of many families and couples who spend their lives together without ever getting married - a case in which they are life-partners and that status isn't legitimized or delegitimized by their marital status.
That being said, I have to ask as the journalist did - if there is no cultural, constructive use for marriage (beyond the obvious legally/civilly granted benefits) what is the point? If anything, disregarding the marriage institution will take the stress off of social expectations in relationships and focus on the personal and human aspect. I think the civil and legal benefits of a long-term partnerships DO have a place in our society simply for the maintenance of families and communities, but I think this could be addressed by making civil unions the norm. A simple legal designation that opens up the options for combining insurance and health coverage, wills and estates, and care of children. As our society evolves, our social institutions and constructs ought to evolve as well. Just as monarchical and theocratic rule are an awkward fit in today's society - though they had a working purpose centuries ago - the way we construct our communities and families can't stay the same.
I think what I saw this morning on the Today show was the usual conflict when we challenge what we know - in this case the psychologist responding from a place of feeling like this article threatened something that is the core of her life, and not recognizing the legitimacy of the journalist's experience. Sounds kind of counter-intuitive for a psychologist, but we all have a tendency to react personally when it comes to issues of our lives rather than stepping back to take a more rationalized perspective.
just some thoughts. no links because i don't feel like hunting along the net today digging up relevant information and copying, pasting, hyperlinking, and formatting.
Sunday, March 8, 2009
International Women's Day
Happy International Women's Day!
Re-blogging this from last year, because it is a classic:
Because a Woman's Work is Never Done Manifesto
because women's work is never done
and is underpaid or unpaid
or boring or repetitious
and we're the first to get fired
and what we look like is more important than what we do
and if we get raped it's our fault
and if we get beaten we must have provoked it
and if we raise our voices we're nagging bitches
and if we enjoy sex we're nymphos and if we don't we're frigid
and if we love women it's because we can't get a "real" man
and if we ask our doctor too many questions we're neurotic and/or pushy
and if we expect childcare we're selfish
and if we stand up for our rights we're aggressive and "unfeminine"
and if we don't we're typical weak females
and if we want to get married we're out to trap a man
and if we don't we're unnatural
and because we still can't get an adequate safe contraceptive
but men can walk on the moon
and if we can't cope or don't want a pregnancy we're made to feel guilty about abortion
and...for lots and lots of other reasons we are part of the women's liberation movement
- Joyce Stevens, written for Women's Liberation Broadsheet,
International Woman's Day, 1975
To all the women in my life (a good 98% of the people I know) you are amazing, and you can do anything. Don't ever forget that.
Re-blogging this from last year, because it is a classic:
Because a Woman's Work is Never Done Manifesto
because women's work is never done
and is underpaid or unpaid
or boring or repetitious
and we're the first to get fired
and what we look like is more important than what we do
and if we get raped it's our fault
and if we get beaten we must have provoked it
and if we raise our voices we're nagging bitches
and if we enjoy sex we're nymphos and if we don't we're frigid
and if we love women it's because we can't get a "real" man
and if we ask our doctor too many questions we're neurotic and/or pushy
and if we expect childcare we're selfish
and if we stand up for our rights we're aggressive and "unfeminine"
and if we don't we're typical weak females
and if we want to get married we're out to trap a man
and if we don't we're unnatural
and because we still can't get an adequate safe contraceptive
but men can walk on the moon
and if we can't cope or don't want a pregnancy we're made to feel guilty about abortion
and...for lots and lots of other reasons we are part of the women's liberation movement
- Joyce Stevens, written for Women's Liberation Broadsheet,
International Woman's Day, 1975
To all the women in my life (a good 98% of the people I know) you are amazing, and you can do anything. Don't ever forget that.
Saturday, March 7, 2009
The Ella Project
"Elle a" translates from french to "she has"
I used the name Ella, which means girl, or young girl, as a play on the french phrase.
I attempted to explain the idea behind this project in an earlier post, but I think Dostoyevsky expresses it best:
"We sometimes encounter people, even perfect strangers, who begin to interest us at first sight, somehow suddenly, all at once, before a word has been spoken. "
here is a peek at the pieces, as promised:
1) Heart of the Matter
2) Downpour
3) Beaches/Birches
4) Canned Goods
it's an uneasy feeling to put my work up like this, even though I think the sharing is good for me, so even though they are watermarked I'm not entirely sure I'll leave them up for a long time. Enjoy them while they are here :)
I used the name Ella, which means girl, or young girl, as a play on the french phrase.
I attempted to explain the idea behind this project in an earlier post, but I think Dostoyevsky expresses it best:
"We sometimes encounter people, even perfect strangers, who begin to interest us at first sight, somehow suddenly, all at once, before a word has been spoken. "
here is a peek at the pieces, as promised:
1) Heart of the Matter
2) Downpour
3) Beaches/Birches
4) Canned Goods
it's an uneasy feeling to put my work up like this, even though I think the sharing is good for me, so even though they are watermarked I'm not entirely sure I'll leave them up for a long time. Enjoy them while they are here :)
Saturday, March 8, 2008
Girls Are Strong!
I've identified as a feminist for a very long time. When I was in the bookstore recently I picked up a copy of Jessica Valenti's Full Frontal Feminism, because I am a regular visitor to her website and a loyal follower of the philosophy that feminism is for everyone. Reading the book (which is choc-full of information I'm mostly familiar with, but organized in an incredibly eloquent and informative fashion) I began thinking about the aspects of my life that led me to be a very strong advocate for feminism.
I always thought I was a pretty normal kid. I had two parents who loved me very much, and who have great respect for each other and their children. But when I think back to my "childhood" now I realize more and more that there were specific moments that ultimately helped me define the person I am and continue to become.
I identify myself as a radical feminist - I support all the standard feminist causes and beliefs, but I also believe that the double-standards and obstacles women face are inherent to the structure of our society. Everything from the basis of many mainstream religions to the format of government is built from a starting point of patriarchy. The Bible, the book I was raised to follow, even depicts God as a male supremacist - God is a male, God created man first, God created woman to serve man, God tells man that woman is to be joyous in her servitude and subordination. We've been through 43 presidents in our country and all have been men; now we're having to jump through hoops just to show that a woman can be a legitimate candidate. The government is giving schools and ultimatum to teach abstainance-only sex education, many programs of which are rought with misinformation and literal untruths, and most of which pen teenage girls as the ones responsible for not provoking boys to be sexual. Think about it - a poor school in an area that has low income families, high crime, and high rates of highschool dropouts and teenage pregnancy is given an ultimatum: they can teach abstainance-only sexed and receive government funding, or they can teach comprehensive sexed that informs teens about safe sex, stds and contraception but be even more financially disadvantaged. Finally, it's got to say something about our society when men and women equally qualified doing exactly the same job get paid different salaries, often times within the same company (and men are the ones getting paid more - last I checked women still get paid an average of $.73 for every $1 a man makes).
I'm not a man-hater. That's not what this belief means - I don't think that men are the enemy. I simply think that it is going to take a lot more than just legislation to bust this bad habit. We've been at this as a species for a really long time, and we clearly can't just snap our fingers and be done with it.
Like I said before, I've been a feminist for a long time. I was pushing boys down on the playground when I was in nursery school. I never let them get away with thinking they were better than me. But my first real memory of feeling like a feminist was in first grade, when this boy in my class called me a feminazi. I think it had something to do with some playground discussion about how girls should be able to play baseball too. As much as I want to believe that perhaps I was beyond precocious, I'm much more bothered by the fact that this boy in my class new the word "feminazi" and, at age 7, new how to use it.
The same boy, now grown, tormented me with that word - FEMINAZI - all through highschool. In fact, he wrote it on several occasions in my yearbook at the end of the schoolyear. The older I got, the less the actual phrase really bothered me, and the more his passionate use and disdain for the idea did. Why should I be equated with Hitler just because I want to be respected, just because I speak my mind and don't intend to spend the rest of my life serving a man? Why should I be stuck with a label concurrent with murder and supremacy when in fact the person calling me a "feminazi" is telling me I'm out of place, and that he as a male is my superior.
He wasn't the only male I've run into who has taken that attitude toward me; in fact I'd have to say that the majority of men/boys I've encountered in my life have taken that attitude toward me. One guy a friend of mine was dating looked at me the moment I met him and said "You're very pretty, but boy are you abrasive. Shame."
My mom and dad always told me that I could be anything I wanted to be. When I was little I had books and blocks and crayons. No one ever told me there was a problem with girls playing baseball or knowing where the engine, fan, batter, etc. is under the hood of their cars, or wanting to build things or write or do public speaking or politics. My home life was full of "yes you can."
Thanks Mom and Dad.
Now I've got this unease, this awkward feeling because I'm really proud to be a woman and I tend to think that women are more capable, more deserving and much stronger than they or anyone else allow themselves to be. Part of this comes from spending four years at a woman's college. When everyone around you is female you lose that habituation to men opening doors for you or expecting to earn your time just because they've bought you a drink. At my college we were all women, and mostly all friends, but also fierce competitors and even more fierce challengers. We always said "if you can survive Macon, you can do anything" and it's the truth. That all female environment was tougher than any situation I've ever faced with a member of the opposite sex. But the unease comes from seeing women disregard the fact that they can be more - walking around talking only about clothes and shoes, saying oh they aren't going to worry about that because their boyfriends will take care of it. Or even facing this double-standard in my own life, at work, on the street, in the grocery store.. wherever.
Anyway, I'm making it a point to get to know the women who, in the last century or two, have used their time and energy to make change so that I can be here today writing a blog, reading a book, or walking down the street freely and independently.
There are a lot of different 'types' of feminists (goes back to that whole labeling movement) but ultimately being a feminist is about being proud to be a woman, and taking responsibility and action for your own well being. You can't expect men to know what is best for you, because they've never been you. So stand up for yourself.
I highly recommend Valenti's book, especially if you aren't as familiar with "right now" feminism and the issues to be addressed, but even if you are it is worth the read.
Additionally, there are other names you can look for if you happen to wander into the Women/Gender Studies section at the book store -
Laurel Thatcher Ulrich, Susan Faludi, Simone deBeauvoir, and Betty Friedan have all written feminist cult-classics that are must reads.
You might also check out material about Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Susan B. Anthony, or hell even the wikipedia page on feminism gives a pretty decent run down.
If you're the visual type, check out Iron-Jawed Angels, about the suffragettes.
and of course, DO go to Feministing.com and make it a regular stop on your daily web surf.
Go get educated.
Happy International Women's Day, and Happy Women's History Month!
because women's work is never done
and is underpaid or unpaid or boring or
repetitious and we're the first to get fired
and what we look like is more important than
what we do and if we get raped it's our fault
and if we get beaten we must have provoked it
and if we raise our voices we're nagging bitches
and if we enjoy sex we're nymphos and if we don't
we're frigid and if we love women it's because
we can't get a "real" man and if we ask our
doctor too many questions we're neurotic and/or
pushy and if we expect childcare we're selfish
and if we stand up for our rights we're aggressive
and "unfeminine" and if we don't we're typical
weak females and if we want to get married we're
out to trap a man and if we don't we're unnatural
and because we still can't get an adequate safe
contraceptive but men can walk on the moon and if
we can't cope or don't want a pregnancy we're made
to feel guilty about abortion and...for lots and
lots of other reasons we are part of the
women's liberation movement
and is underpaid or unpaid or boring or
repetitious and we're the first to get fired
and what we look like is more important than
what we do and if we get raped it's our fault
and if we get beaten we must have provoked it
and if we raise our voices we're nagging bitches
and if we enjoy sex we're nymphos and if we don't
we're frigid and if we love women it's because
we can't get a "real" man and if we ask our
doctor too many questions we're neurotic and/or
pushy and if we expect childcare we're selfish
and if we stand up for our rights we're aggressive
and "unfeminine" and if we don't we're typical
weak females and if we want to get married we're
out to trap a man and if we don't we're unnatural
and because we still can't get an adequate safe
contraceptive but men can walk on the moon and if
we can't cope or don't want a pregnancy we're made
to feel guilty about abortion and...for lots and
lots of other reasons we are part of the
women's liberation movement
Sunday, March 2, 2008
I'm In Love With Ellen Page
So, I was super psyched about Ellen Page hosting SNL.
Ask anyone - I promoted that episode like I had written it myself.
When I tuned in, and saw Hillary Clinton in the opening, I thought "it doesn't get any better than this!"
I was wrong. It got better. WAY better.
Thank you Ellen Page, for being brilliant, unabashed, proud, intelligent, articulate, funny, and so many other things. Thank you for having conviction and being deliberate in the roles you choose and in your honesty. Thank you for being beautiful and still wearing converse and skinny jeans and flannel shirts.
Finally, thank you for this:
Ask anyone - I promoted that episode like I had written it myself.
When I tuned in, and saw Hillary Clinton in the opening, I thought "it doesn't get any better than this!"
I was wrong. It got better. WAY better.
Thank you Ellen Page, for being brilliant, unabashed, proud, intelligent, articulate, funny, and so many other things. Thank you for having conviction and being deliberate in the roles you choose and in your honesty. Thank you for being beautiful and still wearing converse and skinny jeans and flannel shirts.
Finally, thank you for this:
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
It's Asshole Day!
Douchebag #1 - Dick Marple of the Concord Monitor in New Hampshire
His article (seen here) online and I suppose in actual print is boastfully titled "Legally, a Woman Can't Be Elected President." You know where this is going.
Douchebag #2 - Lesley Douglas , head of Popular Music at the BBC
masterpiece theater begins here. When was the last time you saw any popular music video produced by a 'man' that contained something intellectual? No, Beck doesn't count.
Douchebag #3 - Tim Gunn, of Bravo TV fame
I knew there was a reason I can't stand Project Runway... insulting my presidential candidate is not exactly the way to win viewers. Special video evidence.
Douchebag #4 - Bill O'Reilly, Political Media Personality (that's the best I could come up with) and veteran douchebag.
I know I'm not the only one who had a problem with this statement by Michelle Obama; even Cindy McCain made a not-so-vague reference to it. But I simply dislike her choice of words, and I come from a "concern for her wording and actual intent" point of view. Bill O'Reilly, however, speaking to...a lot...of people on the air expressed his hatred from a racist point of view. Free speech when it's racism, but not when it's common sense?
His article (seen here) online and I suppose in actual print is boastfully titled "Legally, a Woman Can't Be Elected President." You know where this is going.
Douchebag #2 - Lesley Douglas , head of Popular Music at the BBC
masterpiece theater begins here. When was the last time you saw any popular music video produced by a 'man' that contained something intellectual? No, Beck doesn't count.
Douchebag #3 - Tim Gunn, of Bravo TV fame
I knew there was a reason I can't stand Project Runway... insulting my presidential candidate is not exactly the way to win viewers. Special video evidence.
Douchebag #4 - Bill O'Reilly, Political Media Personality (that's the best I could come up with) and veteran douchebag.
I know I'm not the only one who had a problem with this statement by Michelle Obama; even Cindy McCain made a not-so-vague reference to it. But I simply dislike her choice of words, and I come from a "concern for her wording and actual intent" point of view. Bill O'Reilly, however, speaking to...a lot...of people on the air expressed his hatred from a racist point of view. Free speech when it's racism, but not when it's common sense?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)