Posts filed under ‘Marriage’

Some Things Never Change

A young girl kisses a baby on the cheek.

Image via Wikipedia

A recent Gallup poll surveyed Americans about their preference in the sex of their children. Just as in 1941, Americans prefer boys.  Perhaps the only change since 1941 is that it’s the men who are causing our preferences. Women basically have no statistically significant preference either way. They are split pretty evenly with about a third preferring a girl, a third preferring a boy, and another third having no preference whatsoever.

Men want boys. Just why is that? Is it because they hate girls? I like to think not, but you have to wonder with nearly 50% of American men having a clear preference for boys. Maybe they just wish the best life for their children and prefer to have boys so that their children will have more opportunities and have a better chance for a happier life. That argument makes sense. Men still make more money, hold more positions of power, and do far less work around the house. It’s pretty cool to be a man, or a husband, at least.

Maybe they just think boys are easier to raise. You don’t have to worry as much about them being molested or raped or getting pregnant. No Doubt’s “Just A Girl” perfectly illustrates the difference between growing up a daughter versus growing up a son in America. Boys cause trouble; they don’t get into it. Or at least, that’s the prevailing myth.

I was on a manosphere website once where one of the participants commented that women were using abortion in order to practice sex selection as a form of gender genocide. I kid you not. However, this article sounds like, if anything, the opposite is happening. Couples are using technology to ensure the selection of boys. If this is a significant trend, it will have disastrous consequences in years to come.

There is another possibility besides plain old misogyny or wanting a better life for your child…there is the possibility that American men prefer boys because they will carry on the family name. Maybe their reason for wanting to procreate is to perpetuate the family name, carry on the family line.

This brings me to another example of sexism in our culture. Women get married and take on their husband’s names. They willingly do so. But why is it that no one ever asks why the family name has to be the husband’s name? I wonder how many men would still prefer boys if their sons didn’t carry their names but their daughters did.

Follow me here. What if two people get married and instead of the wife taking the husband’s name and the kids taking the husband’s name we did something different? What if a man named Smith marries a woman named Johnson. They become the Smith-Johnson family. Any female children get the last name Smith. Any male children get the last name Johnson. Maybe they go by Smith-Johnson until they strike out on their own or until they get married when the boys drop the Smith, and the girls drop the Johnson to include a spouse’s name.

It’s much more equitable. I don’t expect to see it in my lifetime, anymore than I would expect to see the Equal Rights Amendment passed. The fact is that women have shot themselves in the foot. Right now we’re a little over half the population of America. If we wanted to mobilize and get to the polls and vote we could have passed that law a long time ago, or any other law you care to name. We could have formed our very own political party. But we traded all that for the dangling carrot of a princess wedding and a diamond ring.

http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2011/06/23/gallup-americans-prefer-boys-to-girls-just-as-they-did-in-1941/

June 28, 2011 at 11:32 pm 8 comments

Love Should Be Multiplied, Not Divided

Sister wives

Image by Elizabeth Haslam via Flickr

The recent popularity of HBO’s series about polygamists in the Fundamentalist Mormon Church has spawned a TLC reality show. Again, Wal-Mart has corrupted me into buying immoral DVDs with a ridiculous price of $13 for the entire first season of Sister Wives. Why, why, why do I feel compelled to watch such trash? Well, it seemed like a kind of interesting sociological experiment for $13 and also seemed like a series that might be full of fodder for a feminist dissection.

The problem is that these people are so wholesome and loving and sane that it’s just impossible to have a bitch fest on them. I can’t do it. The lifestyle isn’t for me. I see the appeal, and not just from a reproductive standpoint. Obviously, a man with more than one wife can produce more children than, say, the opposite scenario. But the appealing thing is having more than just two adults to share household duties and obligations with. Hillary said it takes a village, and these people are their own village.

In the beginning we meet Kody Brown and his three wives, Meri, Janelle, and Christine. We meet their thirteen children. We get to see old pictures and hear the courtship stories of all three women. This isn’t some compound where boys are abused and girls are married off to old men at the age of 12. All three wives were adults who made the decision to enter a plural marriage.

The first wife, Meri, knew that she would not be the only wife when she married Kody. In fact, she seems to be the jolly matchmaker. Janelle jokes that Meri is in mergers and acquisitions, and no one gets to Kody without first bonding with Meri.

Janelle works outside the home, and Meri works and attends college. All three women say that they just want to raise healthy and happy, productive members of society. If the children choose not to engage in polygamy or to leave the faith of their upbringing, that will be okay as long as they are making their own choices. Above all, they want their children to have the freedom to choose for themselves. Janelle even lectures her girls that they will be finishing college before they get married.

I’d like to denounce these people for their “perverted” lifestyle, but it’s just not the case. Everyone’s needs are being met. Sure, the women experience some jealousy, especially when Kody brings on a fourth wife, Robin. But all four of these wives have a loving and considerate husband. A lot of other women would give up 100% of their one shitty husband to trade for 25% of a good one. And I realize that it’s a reality series. How ideal their domestic bliss seems probably has more to do with the editors than it has to do with “reality.” But these women seem significantly happier than Kate Gosselin, even after she dumped Jon.

Like I said, it’s not for me. I wouldn’t endorse the lifestyle or the religion. However, this is America. As long as the adults involved are consenting and no one is being abused or coerced, the children are well provided for, and the welfare system isn’t being abused…then what business is it of ours?

May 12, 2011 at 11:26 pm 3 comments

Buy Jesse James’ Book, Get Bonus Free Ticket to Hell

Jesse James pauses for his wife Sandra Bullock...

Image via Wikipedia

At the risk of seeming shallow I am going to write two posts in a row about celebrity gossip items. This time I’m going to harp on Jesse James again. He’s just written an “autobiography,” and the publicity whore is going on any talk show that will have him in order to promote it. You can bet the book was actually written by a ghostwriter. I’m not giving you the name of the book because I don’t want WordPress to link to it, and also because I don’t want to give him any more free publicity than this rant is already giving him.

Yes, I’m going to say it. If you buy Jesse James’ book, you are going straight to hell. Do not pass go. Do not collect $200. I don’t care if you read free excerpts on the internet or if you glance through it at your pathetic friend’s house, but, by God, do not give that creep any of your hard earned cash!

This guy is a POS. I am embarrassed that I live in Austin. Can’t he just move back to LA where his kind of douchebag so naturally flourishes? Please?

We all know that the real reason that he moved out here had absolutely nothing to do with any stepmothering and absolutely everything to do with winning back Sandy. Unfortunately for him, Sandy doesn’t like eating shit. So, he got shot down. Now he’s bitter about it

Within a matter of a few short months he’s engaged to his new best friend, Kat von D, another trashy, tattoo covered second rate reality show celebrity like himself. That’s because his love for Sandy was so constant, unwavering, and eternal. Kat will also sell her soul to the highest bidder for some publicity, going on the Dr. Drew show to discuss how much Jesse’s changed. Honey, he hasn’t changed. He just hasn’t had enough time to show his true colors. Just wait ‘til he asks you what kind of bread you like on your shit sandwich. Those two deserve each other, though. She also has a history of cheating.

Here’s what I don’t understand about Jesse James. He says he’s written this book so that America will be more sympathetic toward him. He wants us to be able to relate and to understand that any marriage involves two people. It takes two people to make it work and two people to make it fail. He also wants us to know that the sex scandal caused by his numerous infidelities was more hurtful for him than it was for his wife.

Really? Jesse, are you absolutely certain about that? You think your wife wasn’t privately devastated AND publicly humiliated by YOUR selfish actions? He says that he doesn’t want to blame Sandra Bullock, but actually, that’s exactly what he is doing. He’s saying he never believed Sandra loved him and that he felt trapped in the marriage and that being unfaithful was a way to assert his independence. Huh. You couldn’t just join a bowling league or do some fantasy football? And if you felt like you were never yourself around Sandra and that if you had been yourself that she wouldn’t have loved you, just how exactly is that HER fault? I fail to see the logic.

You know what else Jesse’s saying? He says that he can’t worry about Sandy anymore because he worried constantly about what she thought and felt for the 5 years that they were married. I think the problem was that he didn’t think enough about Sandy’s feelings. Because if he’d thought about anyone besides himself, then he and Sandy would still be married.

He’s continuing to be the same douchebag he’s always been. He won’t ever change. And Sandy was smart enough to get out from under that albatross. This book and his interviews, including a tacky trip to the Howard Stern show where he confirms that Kat von D is a “100%” better lover than Sandra Bullock, are clear evidence that Jesse James has all the emotional maturity of a flea.

I read a commentary about all this shit on the internet where the writer said basically that Jesse James was using this opportunity to further humiliate Sandra Bullock. I beg to differ. Jesse James is not humiliating anyone but himself. Sandra has had the class to remain silent and respectful of a man who doesn’t deserve the consideration.

Jesse, do yourself a favor. Hire a PR rep. Get someone to help you keep your big mouth shut. Because if you thought you were the most hated man in America before your book came out, you were definitely wrong. However, since Osama bin Laden’s death coincides with your book tour, I think you just might have earned that title now.

May 6, 2011 at 11:04 pm 3 comments

What Is Marie Osmond Thinking?

Marie Osmond holding a custom made LSR/Steinbe...

Image via Wikipedia

Yesterday legitimate news sources confirmed what had been rumored in supermarket tabloids for months. Marie Osmond remarried her first husband nearly 30 years after their first marriage. She wore her first wedding dress, which is supposed to make us go, “Awww,” but which I just find thoroughly creepy. Is there anything about this story that doesn’t scream, “Marie, please take your meds!”

Marie’s first husband is Stephen Craig, a former semi-pro basketball player. They married in 1982. They separated and reconciled twice. Then they divorced in 1985, with her claiming “mental cruelty” and amidst rumors of infidelity on his part. Apparently, he was disciplined by the Mormon Church for his behavior during the marriage.

After that unhappy union, Marie remarried not even a year later, to music producer Brian Blosil, or, as he is otherwise known, Mr. Marie Osmond. He adopted Stephen’s son, Stephen Craig, Jr., and together he and Marie had two biological children and adopted five more. They also separated and reconciled after Marie’s very public battle with post-partum depression.

In 2007 they jointly announced their intention to divorce. He’s apparently such a winner that one of their sons refused to retain his last name, and he didn’t attend that son’s funeral after he killed himself. Reportedly, the other children didn’t wish for him to attend, either. He sounds like a really swell catch.

Remember how Mr. Blosil adopted Stephen Craig, Jr.? Well, apparently, Stephen Craig, Jr. has been in contact with his biological father, and, following her divorce from Blosil, so has Marie. Stephen Craig is now a motivational speaker, and he’s been courting Marie and family at her home in Las Vegas where she now performs in a musical revue with her brother Donny.

I love Marie Osmond. I used to watch The Donny & Marie Show when I was a kid. I had a Marie Osmond Barbie doll. My brother and I had a really lame storybook about Jimmy and a robot. I bought one of her books and read it (not the one about the depression), and I watched her on Dancing with the Stars. I watched the talk show she had a few years back with Donny. I defy you not to like her. And for 51 years old, she’s smoking hot. She’s always been a very attractive woman, but ever since she lost that weight on Nutri-System or whatever, I would think she’d have the silverfox Mormon men crawling out of the woodwork for a chance at that.

Why does she feel the need to jump into the magical time machine that is her wedding dress and relive a grave and obvious error in judgment? I also love how she’s reconstructed her history. Like the redeemed villain of a soap opera, this cheater has swooped in to save Marie from a life of depression and loneliness. Everything will be strawberries and whipped cream this time around!

Remember again how Brian Blosil adopted Stephen Craig, Jr.? You should. This is the third time I’ve mentioned it. Here’s her official quote on Stephen now:

“I am so happy and look forward to sharing my life with Stephen, who is an amazing man as well as a great father to my children.”

If he’s really such a great man, then why did you divorce him the first time around? And if he was really such a great man, then why did you say he was guilty of “mental cruelty”? That doesn’t sound like he’s such a great man. If he’s really such a great man, then why did the church sanction him based on his behavior during your marriage? Was it just a case of the LDS Church being afraid to bite the hand that feeds it? Or was he legitimately immoral, unethical, and cruel? And finally, if he’s such a great father, then why did his biological son have to be legally adopted by the kind of father who wouldn’t attend his own son’s funeral?

Of course, it’s Marie’s privilege to not answer these questions for us. In fact, it would be inappropriate for her to do so. Some things should remain private. But I hope she’s asked them of herself. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints believes that a temple marriage seals spouses together for all eternity in a celestial marriage that not even death can tear asunder. I hope that she’s not yoked herself to a cheater.

I wish you well, Marie. And I sincerely wish that I am dead wrong. People can change, and you married young the first time around. Maybe you’ve both matured. Congratulations!

May 5, 2011 at 11:42 pm 6 comments

A Woman Under the Influence

A Woman Under the Influence

Image via Wikipedia

This movie was one of the first truly independent films. John Cassavetes, the writer and director, couldn’t find a distributor that would take it on. He called individual movie theaters himself to see if they would play the movie. It was made for a shoestring budget and produced by Cassavetes and the film’s stars: his wife Gena Rowlands and Peter Falk.

A Woman Under the Influence was released in 1974 when I was 3 years old and Gena Rowlands was 44. Cassavetes couldn’t get a studio to make the film because they all said that nobody wants to watch a middle-aged dame go crazy. Well, he proved them wrong because once the movie hit The New York Film Festival plenty of people wanted to pay good money to watch a middle-aged dame go crazy.

The movie is now considered a part of classic cinema, and it’s probably part of the required coursework for many women’s studies departments. When the film was released it was adopted as a sort of anthem of the feminist movement. Audiences booed Peter Falk’s character. Ironically, Cassavetes wasn’t trying to make a statement about feminism, and he didn’t consider the title character to be crazy. Cassavetes saw Mabel as eccentric, and he thought his movie was an unlikely love story.

I don’t want to give away too much of the plot, and I’m sure that with the benefit of a modern perspective I’ve read much into the movie that wasn’t intended to be there. For instance, Mabel’s inappropriate affection with men, including her own father, made me uncomfortable. She’s taken advantage of sexually in a sequence near the beginning of the film. I began to wonder how much of her eccentricity might be explained by childhood sexual abuse.

Falk’s character Nick doesn’t deserve to be booed. He’s just a working stiff, caught between his mother (played by Cassavetes’ mother) and his wife. He sends Mabel mixed messages, telling her one minute just to be herself and then raging against her later when she does just that. In at least a couple different instances, he gets violent with Mabel. Rowlands’ Mabel tells Nick, across the dinner table that she will be anything he wants her to be. He only has to tell her what he wants and she will be that. It’s not hard to see why this movie resonated with second wave feminists.

Another great scene involves Mabel asking her father to stand up for her. He takes her request literally and stand up. She tells him to sit back down. No, she means she wants him to stand up for her. Again, he stands up from his chair. It’s Mabel’s mother (played by Gena Rowlands’ own mother) who finally understands her daughter’s intent.

In the end, the movie is a love story. Nick genuinely loves Mabel. No man would put up with all that shit if he didn’t. The title does beg the question: Under the influence of what? Mabel does a lot of drinking in the movie. She takes pills. But I don’t think that Cassavetes meant for this to be a tale of addiction. And I know (from a radio interview included with the DVD) that he didn’t write a tale of insanity. Something tells me that even though he didn’t write the movie specifically as a feminist statement, the influence that he was referring to was that of Mabel’s society.

Mabel is stuck in a world where no one understands her, not even her own husband. And that is part of the tragedy because Nick is attracted to what he can’t understand. It is Mabel’s uniqueness that draws Nick to her. Mabel is okay with being different. What she’s not okay with is her husband’s growing discomfort with her failure to live up to his society’s expectations.

April 11, 2011 at 11:21 pm 1 comment

White Diamonds

1965

Image by dovima_is_devine_II via Flickr

“I don’t entirely approve of some of the things I have done, or am, or have been. But I’m me. God knows, I’m me” – Elizabeth Taylor

I’m loathe to write about Elizabeth Taylor because there’s nothing I could write about her that’s not already been written. However, it seems a shame to allow her death to pass without commenting on it. She was, after all, the first woman to be paid $1,000,000 salary for a movie, an exorbitant amount of money for the time. Taylor was widely reported, for many years, to be the world’s most beautiful woman. She was famous for her violet eyes, her many marriages, her soap opera-tabloid lifestyle, her entrepreneurial successes, her philanthropy, and her jewelry collection.

She hastened the end of the marriage of Eddie Fisher and Debbie Reynolds (let’s face it; those two would have eventually divorced anyway), and she was denounced by both the Catholic Church and the United States Senate for her affair with Richard Burton. The affair with Burton hastened the end of her marriage to Fisher, and ended Burton’s marriage to his first wife, Sybil.

But it began a new and tempestuous marriage that spanned a decade, two weddings and two divorces. It also gave us the great performances we see in, “Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf?” Would a movie version of Edward Albee’s play have been nearly as fascinating with anyone else playing George and Martha? I hope we never have to find out.

For all her addiction issues and flights of excess, sexual promiscuity and sense of entitlement (she was famously demanding, spoiled, and difficult to work with), she will also be remembered for her courage to speak out against AIDS at a time when no one was doing so. She was, by all accounts, an excellent mother, and this will be one of the many parallels that cause people to compare her with Angelina Jolie. She had a sense of humor about herself and would famously poke fun of herself on talk shows and with her friends. For instance, she stipulated that her coffin would arrive fifteen minutes late for her own funeral.

She had a great love for the gay man, and what gay man wouldn’t love Elizabeth Taylor? She was an icon and a diva. She had a longstanding and close friendship with Roddy McDowell, with whom she starred in one of the Lassie movies. As a young woman she fell helplessly in love with Montgomery Clift, and even though he preferred men, they remained close throughout his lifetime. She was Rock Hudson’s friend and his champion. When AIDS was denounced as a punishment from God for being gay, Elizabeth Taylor stood up and called that viewpoint nonsense. She was, above all, a spectacularly loyal friend, and her steadfast devotion to Michael Jackson proves that beyond a doubt.

Elizabeth battled lots of continuous health issues and went to rehab more than once. In her middle age and beyond, her metabolism caught up with her, and she battled  the bulge many times. Sometimes she won, and sometimes the bulge won. But even as a woman in her 70s, suffering from pain, poor health, and mobility issues, she was still famously beautiful. If you could find anyone in the world who didn’t know who she was, they would have inevitably been struck by the thought of what a striking woman she must have been when she was young. She was the kind of woman that you literally couldn’t help staring at, at any age.

What I most remember Elizabeth Taylor for is that she shared my father’s birthday. My dad was born on the same day as Elizabeth Taylor. He’s five years older than her. He liked to say that the gap between their ages increased over the years but given her childhood stardom, I find this unlikely. It’s probably just my dad’s sense of humor. Elizabeth Taylor’s death reminds me that true beauty, like life, is fleeting. Appreciate it while you can.

April 1, 2011 at 12:31 am Leave a comment

A Generation of Peter Pans

1846-single-bachelor-solitude

Image via Wikipedia

The Wall Street Journal recently published an article on their website called, “Where Have the Good Men Gone?” The author’s name is Kay S. Hymowitz, and she is a social commentator who lives in Brooklyn with her husband. She is the mother of three grown children. She writes about gender issues, poverty, racism, and the decline of the American nuclear family. I’m sure there’s more, but that’s what I found on my initial sweep of the internet.

The article has been very popular. In it, Ms. Hymowitz points out that girls are outperforming boys and that a whole new generation of men is literally failing to attain adulthood. Ms. Hymowitz is making some great points, and she is a gifted writer. While she doesn’t directly implicate feminism with turning full grown men into a generation of Peter Pans who still live with their mothers or bunk with their friends and spend their free time drinking beers and playing video games, the inference will be made, whether she means for it to be or not.

I read some of Ms. Hymowitz’s other articles. She writes on gay marriage: against, on traditional marriage: for. Here is someone who at least makes a good argument, whether you agree with her viewpoints or not.  The Manhattan Institute, which currently employs Ms. Hymowitz, is a conservative think tank, and so we should expect Ms. Hymowitz’s views and insights to fall in parity with an American conservative political agenda.

In an article on the decline of the institution of marriage, she points out that amongst college educated women who are marrying later in life, the marriage rate is good, and the divorce rate is significantly lower. It’s the females who are marrying younger, and who are less educated who are generally either preferring not to marry at all or not to stay married. So, while some may blame feminism for the collapse of the American family, it seems that amongst the women who have benefitted from feminism, marriage is still very much alive, well, and healthy.

Do we care that American men are now destined to become slackers? We should. These people are the future of America. It’s not enough to just say tsk, tsk and shake our heads at how sad this is. Young men are failing to live up to any responsibilities or potential, and an entire generation of young women will be forced to look to men who are old enough to be their fathers to find suitable mates — or be relegated to being single.

Of course, the third option is settling for sperm donor slugs. I doubt if the kind of guy who’s not motivated to graduate from college or look for a job is going to make an effective Mister Mom. Let’s face it. Parenting is hard work.

I wish that instead of just reporting on the problem that Ms. Hymowitz would propose a solution. However, maybe she has, and you just have to plunk down $25 for her new book in order to get it. How do we motivate young men to succeed without demoralizing our young women? What can we do as a society in order to lift up our boys without putting down our girls?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704409004576146321725889448.html?mod=WSJ_hp_mostpop_read

http://blogs.forbes.com/bonniemarcus/2011/02/22/as-women-advance-are-young-men-stuck/

http://www.city-journal.org/html/16_1_marriage_gap.html

http://www.city-journal.org/html/14_3_gay_marriage.html

http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/hymowitz.htm

February 23, 2011 at 1:14 am 5 comments

Women and Food

Two women cooking

Image via Wikipedia

A few months ago I wrote a blog post about how I learned to cook when I was a girl while my dad got to sit on his ass and continue to brag about how he could only make steak and popcorn. This blog post was actually kindly featured by a woman named Addie Broyles, a professional journalist for the Austin American-Statesman. She’s a food and film critic, but she usually writes about food. She has her own blog, which she calls feministkitchen.

At the time I remember that I thought it was odd that someone would combine the topics of food and feminism and have enough to maintain a blog. She may have thought the same thing about Christianity and feminism with regard to my own blog.

I started thinking about Addie and her blog and how my most recent blog posts would fit in quite nicely with what she’s doing. With my last post about the blatantly sexist research article that tries to implicate working mothers for the childhood obesity problem, I thought about just why it is that women do the bulk of cooking in American households?

Most couples nowadays marry later in life. They’ve been out on their own for a while before they settle down. Presumably, the men would have to eat. Do they just make sandwiches and eat out all the time? I don’t think so. Most of the men I’ve known could cook on some level.

I always kind of thought that was sexy. One guy I had a crush on in my late 20s actually made baked beans from scratch, and the idea kind of got me excited. When I say from scratch, I mean he soaked the dry beans in water overnight and then cooked them and then stuck them in a dish with bacon and seasonings, Martha Stewart style. God, he was hot! He was a little blond accountant geek with wire rimmed glasses, but those baked beans made him Adonis.

So, we’ve established the fact that men can cook. Why don’t they? They do when they live alone. They do if they get paid to cook. Most highly paid chefs are still men. The most famous chefs are men. That’s not exclusively their domain; women are also professional chefs, but the majority of upper echelon professional chefs are men. Clearly, not only can men cook, but if we pay them to do so then, if you can judge their abilities to cook based solely on their career success and pay rate, they can cook better than we can.

To my mind, there are several possible reasons why women usually do the cooking:

  1. Society expects women to do the cooking, and therefore women feel that they have failed as women if they are not doing the bulk of the cooking. Maybe it’s women who actually insist on doing the cooking because they don’t want to feel like they’ve failed as wives and mothers.
  2. Men want women to cook because they simply prefer not to have to do so. As such, the woman does the cooking or it doesn’t get done. Women cook by default.
  3. Men want to do the cooking, but they defer to the women in their lives because the women prefer to do the cooking, which may have something to do with reason #1.
  4. Men don’t cook, unless it involves a grill or a smoke pit, because slaving over a stove isn’t “manly.” They don’t want to be seen as a wuss. So, men insist that their wives do the cooking because if they did the cooking it would make them less of a man.
  5. Men would cook, but they aren’t sufficiently motivated to do so. Obviously a big fat paycheck motivates them. But you don’t want to have to pay your husband to cook, so what else do big-time professional chefs get out of their careers besides money? They get praise and recognition.

I suspect the real reasons why women usually do the cooking are as varied as the couples themselves and their own attitudes towards food and gender but that the bulk of the reasons could have something to do with some combination of the reasons listed above or it could just have to do with the fact that men, on average, work longer hours in the workplace than women do. It averages about 42 minutes more per day, which is just about enough time to cook a meal and put the food on the table.

Do I think most men really want to work 42 minutes more than women do? No. I think some men find their jobs satisfying and fulfilling and do this out of choice, but I also think that there are probably even more men who toil in crappy jobs in order to support themselves and their families.

Why do they do this? Someone has to pick up the kids, and it makes sense that the person who picks up the kids is the person who makes the lesser amount of money. This means the woman usually picks up the kids and puts food on the table so the man can get an additional 42 minutes of pay at a higher rate.

This is why gender equality is in everyone’s best interests. If women averaged the same work for the same pay, then it would make sense for mom and dad to take turns cooking and cleaning and picking up the kids. Men would have less stress at work, since they’re not working as much, and they’d have better relationships with their wives and children because they’d have more time to spend with them.  The key to male and female satisfaction is in a more balanced relationship. This means that changes have to take place in both our private and public lives.

http://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2007/jul/wk1/art01.htm

http://www.saveur.com/article/Kitchen/Gender-in-the-Kitchen

http://athome.harvard.edu/food/bio.html

February 5, 2011 at 10:54 pm 4 comments

Working Moms Cause Childhood Obesity; Yeah, Right! And I’m the Pope!

Crop of Children with various body composition...

Image via Wikipedia

I found an article on the internet today that’s just plain silly and blatantly sexist. Not surprisingly, it’s featured on Fox News. The article mentions a study conducted by a female graduate student that attempts to correlate the amount of hours a mother works per week with her child’s increased chances of being obese, as compared to moms who stay at home.

This article is so biased it incensed me. You know, in American society most of the time a man and a woman have a child together, and then they, together, have to feed and care for the child. That is a joint responsibility that all too frequently ends up on Mom’s checklist. Dad’s checklist hasn’t changed: go to work and bring home the bacon, mow the lawn, take the trash out, and fix stuff when it’s broken. Mom’s checklist has changed: care for kids and husband and make sure they have food and medical care and a clean, warm, comfortable home, and bring home the bacon.

Don’t get me wrong. I think it’s great that women work. If you’re a stay at home parent of either gender, I applaud you as well. If you can afford to do so, then children are always better cared for when a loving parent stays home with them. But not everyone has that luxury. The single dad doesn’t. The single mom doesn’t. The couples who work for low wages don’t.

Why didn’t the study attempt to correlate the amount of time that parents spend working with childhood obesity? Why didn’t the study take into account stay at home dads? Why didn’t the study also look at gay and lesbian couples who raise children? Why are we once again targeting mothers as being solely responsible for their child’s well-being and not calling fathers to task as well?

I’ll tell you why. This is the feminist backlash at work once again. Keep those women barefoot and pregnant! Don’t give them career options, fool! Marry them young and hot and make sure that they don’t ever crawl out from under your thumb. If they can make as much money as men can, then they will figure out that they don’t need men. The sad thing about the feminist backlash is just how many women help some men to perpetuate this inequality, ones like the stupid bitch woman who conducted this study.

Many women don’t need men nowadays, but that’s not a bad thing. We still want them. We still love them. And wouldn’t it be a better feeling for both sexes to know that we’re in relationships with people that we respect and love instead of people that we want to merely use for their wallets or their housekeeping services? Wouldn’t you like to know that your woman has choices, and she chose you just because you’re you?

There may be a connection between women working and children being obese, but it doesn’t mean that there’s a cause and effect relationship. The cause of children, or anyone, being fat is taking in more calories than you burn. If you want to lose weight, then eat less and move more. It’s that simple. It has nothing to do with whether or not your mom works or how many hours she does work.

The article surmises that women who work don’t have time to prepare healthy meals, and so the childrens’ diets suffer as a result. Why is this automatically the mom’s fault? Where is dad in this equation? Did he skip out? Is he working, too? How come he can’t help out and make a healthy meal? Did he lose the use of his hands?

I sometimes wonder on this blog why I seem to be in the tiny minority of people in the world who can recognize this injustice for exactly what it is. I told the woman who sits next to me at work how I felt, and she understood. She’s expecting a baby in two more months, and she and her husband can’t afford for either of them to quit working. These aren’t frivolous people. They own one car that they share, and they live in a one bedroom apartment in a reasonably priced neighborhood. She gets it.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/04/childhood-obesity-_n_818385.html

February 5, 2011 at 12:11 am 18 comments

The Oscar Curse

Men in the manosphere constantly bring up the fact that in reality women have equal opportunities to men. One cited a Forbes article that did show that women who made equal sacrifices for their career to what men do often make more than their male counterparts. What he didn’t factor in is how often women in the general population make sacrifices for mate and family that account for the difference in the wage gap between men and women.

The real reason why men make more money than women in general is because women make choices at the expense of their careers, often in order to further the careers of the men in their lives. Why do they do this? Because women know that they have a choice: have a happy family life and a peaceful relationship with their spouses or have a fabulous career. We haven’t come very far from the 1980s when the Supermom concept was first bantered about. Women do have careers, but they put their husbands and children first while men don’t have to make such a choice at all.

How do I know this? Well, you only have to look around and know some married women to see the principle in action, but there are actual statistics to back this up. Men are uncomfortable with their women being more successful than they are. Yes, you can have a career. You can even have a successful career, but you still better clean the house and have dinner on the table. And don’t surpass your husband with your career accomplishments because to do so means that you probably won’t have a husband for very long afterward.

If you don’t believe me, then just read this article from the Huffington Post about the so-called Oscar curse. The same thing happens in the general population. We won’t really have equal opportunity until the attitudes of men change. When they are truly okay with women having equal status, then men won’t feel threatened by women who equal or surpass them, and women will no longer have to make a choice between career and family. Men will make equal sacrifices for the family, and more wives will make more than their husbands. Hopefully, it all evens out in the end.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/31/oscar-curse-study-researc_n_816295.html

February 1, 2011 at 12:42 am 10 comments

Older Posts


Blog Stats

  • 130,993 hits

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 82 other followers

April 2014
M T W T F S S
« Aug    
 123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
282930  

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 82 other followers