'Out of Control': The Intersection Between Homeschooling and Feminism

 

A recent follower of Not Another Wave requested an article about homeschooling and feminism and well, aren’t you in luck? I was homeschooled for ten years and I happen to be a feminist. I should perhaps caveat this article by stating that I don’t usually discuss my homeschooling history with many people anymore. People tend to have very firm opinions on the subject, and out of all the topics to pick a fight with me about, home schooling hits my buttons. I got into too many fights about it, so I stopped telling people; this is the first time for me to publish my views on the subject in the volatile sphere of the Internet.

Homeschooling, by it’s nature, is a unique educational experience, every child who was a part of it probably had a very different experience in how they were taught and how they think about it now; to that end, this article will be more of a personal history about my experience with it and how that experience ties into my feminist values now.

To start, let’s cover the basics, three weeks into first grade my mother pulled me out of public school; I have a September birthday, so I’m always the youngest in my year and apparently, I was just too young for school, I was having difficulty sleeping and was obviously just not the happy kid I had been before. Now this was twenty years ago and homeschooling was still considered a very off-kilter thing to do; my mother fought against a lot of people in order to homeschool us, many believed she would forever disable to her children by not allowing them access to stable education and good socialization (nice, huh?).

So, from the time I was six years old until the end of my sophomore year of high school, I was homescshooled through a charter school known as Horizons (here’s a link to explain exactly what a charter school is). During the early years, we had small group classes in a variety of subjects with other homeschool children, once I reached high school age I started to attend larger group classes a few days a week. When I was fifteen I finished my high school credits and began attending a local community college; two years later I moved on to Brigham Young University and received a BA in Humanities and an MA in English literature.

Now, remember, during this time homeschool was a fledgling idea and the resources for homeschoolers were very slight—my mother can legitimately be considered a pioneer in the homeschooling movement in California. She helped to build up the charter we were associated with, also being a prominent voice in campaigning for parents’ rights in the state of California.

In many ways this article is more about my mother than anything else, since any consideration of my time spent homeschooling must feature the woman who implemented the lifestyle in my house, a lifestyle which would completely define my ideology in many ways. And while my mother would not use the term “feminist” to describe herself (mostly because of the negative associations that the word has) to me she is a brilliant example of feminism. My mother is without a doubt, the most independent and competent person I have ever met. She fiercely believes in social activism and responsibility for our political actions, hence, in California, state senators know her, California state laws have been the recipients of her input, and large insurance companies fear her.

I grew up marching on the state capital, going to protests, and watching my mother campaign for the things that she believed were important, whether it be to maintain our community garden, or fighting against the power-hungry machinations of one anti-homeschooling California Superintendent of Education (more on that story later).

My mother’s motto? “Never take no for an answer” and they were words she lived by. This leads me into the one of the first values my mother taught me: anti-authority. It didn’t matter the position of the person telling her “no”, if she believed that her cause was right, she would do everything in her power to accomplish that; my mother would never do something just because someone told her to.

Many years ago, Delain Eastin, the California Superintendent of Education, believed that homeschooling should be illegal and called homeschooling parents, “Out of control parents.” Big mistake. As it should be, my mother was livid, because what does “out of control” mean? Someone you can’t control.

Feminism has always been about stepping beyond the bounds of patriarchal control: control over women’s bodies, women’s choices, women’s education, women’s sexuality. The few who believe themselves to be gifted with the superiority to be in change often have the intention of superimposing their own beliefs upon the public, seemingly believing that the ability to raise a lot of money and pander to lobbyists as being a sign of their divine destiny to lead and “control” their constituents. Not in my home. And my mother taught me that.

Along with the anti-authority background came the importance of not following the crowd, the value of our unique identity, personal experience and beliefs was constantly reiterated, and my mother was proud of our non-conformist lifestyle. Case in point, do you remember the Power Rangers? During this period, Power Rangers were the thing, the thing that you had to watch. My mother, not wanting us to be like everyone else, believed we should only watch the show if it was something that we really liked, not just because everyone else was watching it.

Homeschooling often receives a bad rap as producing awkward or badly socialized children. To me, this is an offensive lie that pisses me off (hence all the fighting about homeschooling in my early years).  While there are PLENTY of seemingly awkward people who were homeschooled at some point in their childhood, you cannot tell me that there were not seemingly awkward people at your public school. Some people are just a little bit outside of social norms, who cares? And making broad generalizations that incorrectly characterize the way that they were brought up, is not only rude, it’s ignorant.

Today, there are hundreds of studies regarding the socialization of homeschool students versus traditionally schooled students (look here for a great bibliography). One of my favorite studies, completed by Larry Shyers, Ph.D (Comparison of Social Adjustment Between Home and Traditionally Schooled Students) states that homeschooled children actually have significantly less behavioral problems which stems from their more varied socialization with adults and children of other ages, rather than just with the children of their same age.

RANT: (In response to my confession of being homeschooled as a child, countless people have said to me, "You're very normal for a homeschooler." They say this with the nicest of intentions but it is one of the rudest, most condescending things that people can say. As if they are the authority on childhood socialization and as if they have a RIGHT to patronizingly pass off on my life and behavior.)

I remember when I was preparing to attend community college, many people warned me that I would struggle with culture shock. They were full of bullshit. Not only did I not struggle with culture shock (either from my “sheltered” childhood or from my “lack of socialization”) but I actually thrived in a college-type environment having learned from an early age how to be self-motivated in my education. In short, I was well-prepared and very successful at college and I have the transcripts to prove it.

In fact, homeschooling offered diverse educational opportunities: gymnastics, scuba diving, sailing, historical reenactments, whale watching, horseback riding, soccer, golf, swimming and a variety of other activities were all a part of my education. My mother fiercely believes that experience, whether in or out of the classroom, is the basis for any curriculum; that education is a lifestyle, not a twelve-year period of schooling.

Feminism requires social activism; it requires independent and strong-minded women who recognize the importance of education and the value of individual experience. It demands that we think outside of the box and seek to remove ourselves from the boundaries of control, those placed upon us by the expectations of society and the machinations of the government. It requires women and men who aren’t afraid to speak up for themselves and the dictates of their conscious. In many ways, homeschooling taught me those ideals.

During those early years my homeschool group once participated in a space exploration program, it was basically a simulation of a space flight (mission control and astronaut) with each child being placed in a different role and conducting tasks associated with that team. During the month of preparation classes for the experience I remember one of the teachers commiserating to another, “These home school kids really don’t do well with instructions, do they?”

While she intended it as a criticism of the way we had been educated, despite the fact that I am a teacher myself, I consider it to be a compliment. No, I don’t always follow instructions well, most of the time because I think that those instructions are stupid. Or sexist. And that is a good thing. That’s what keeps us free from the bonds of authority, governmental control, and patriarchy.

Sir Ken Robinson in one of my favorite Ted Talks, discussing public education and how it could be improved.

Politics, Politics, Politics

I can't believe we still need this image.

Dia ar sábháil! Since my article a few weeks back about vaginal protests and politicians attempting to legislate idiocy, very few things have changed. We have some victories- such as the narrow defeat of Arizona's "show me your prescription" bill- but we also have continued pressure from numerous lawmakers to curtail the rights and personhood of (cis) women across the United States. Foetal personhood amendments, parental consent laws, and name-calling continue to shape the country's political landscape. I recently gave up frothing at the mouth in favour of banging my head against the wall as a result.

Here's the thing. I grew up surrounded by rhetoric that claimed that America is the greatest country in the world. We have the most freedoms. We have the best history. We have the biggest trucks, too, in case anyone was measuring. Even as a small child I was pretty skeptical of this rhetoric, mostly because my family didn't own a truck and was the product of fairly recent immigrants with their own cool histories. I was, however, raised with a healthy respect for the fact that the United States has the capacity to evolve and change as circumstances require. It's certainly not a speedy or easy process- there was a solid 100 years between the end of the Civil War and the (legal) end of Jim Crow, for example- but it's a process that's certainly possible. In other words, in spite of overwhelming evidence that my home country is a slow-moving behemoth when it comes to social change, I was taught to remain optimistic.

What I forgot to remember is that social change isn't unidirectional, and all the equalities Americans have fought to achieve can be stripped away by an equally determined regressive force. Many of the recent attacks on women's rights have been from the anti-abortion camp, but that's just one piece of a broader movement that apparently seeks to keep women down. Senator Scott Brown, attempting to pander to Massachusetts women recently, praised the "strong women" in his life for teaching him to cook. Apparently, while men knowing how to cook, clean, and sew is a good thing, it takes a strong woman to ensure that that knowledge is adequately imparted. Never mind the terrifying thought that a man might live on his own at some point, or be raised by dad(s), or that women- people- are strong for things beyond throwing a couple of ingredients into a pot. Never mind that his remarks indicate that a woman's strength is in the kitchen.

::insert sound of head hitting wall here::

What drives me crazy is that this is all happening in spite of the aforementioned self-aggrandizing rhetoric. Anyone with a pulse who spends time outside the United States ought to be able to admit that America is a pretty good country but that other countries and cultures have amazing things going on too. Many of us, myself included, might even look at those other countries and sigh wistfully, believing that they could improve a few things about our social systems (coughcough only two parties?! coughcough). But many of us fall prey to the belief that we can- and should- teach Others how to do things. "We might not be perfect on health care," we say, "but at least we're not cutting our children's labia and clitori off! Let's teach Them alternatives!" Off we march to Do Good In the World, forgetting all about our home troubles in the process. I challenge back: "We might not be perfect on genital care, but at least we don't punish the victim of a crime for the rest of their life!" (This is a work in progress as various countries change their post-rape marital and childbirth laws, but you get the picture.)

Note that I'm not trying to make light of genital cutting, which I believe is a pretty serious health risk and a systemic failure to provide alternative cultural and medical options for a specific 50% of the population. I would suggest that there's some hypocrisy, however, when Americans (and other Westerners too, I suppose) decry Female Genital Cutting but circumcise male babies as a matter of course. Believe me, I know that the amounts of flesh removed aren't comparable- but we're still okay with cutting an infant's genitals when the evidence in favour of the practice is rather controversial. To make a long story short, Americans spend an awful lot of time criticizing other countries and cultures for their practices while we've got our own cultural challenges to face.

The term "War on Women" that's been floating around the Internet has me a bit kerfluffled, to be honest. On the one hand, while the coordinated attacks on women's health, well-being, and personhood are certainly reminiscent of a political-military strategy, it also feels like a minimization of the sorts of war experiences that Americans haven't had in the homeland for about 100 years. No one's firing guns (I think) and town after town isn't falling to a literal invasion of policymakers. Yet the rhetoric we're seeing here vilifies women on a regular basis: we're studding bulldogs, we're baby-killers, we're drama queens who (according to Brown, anyway) should save our strength for the kitchen. It's just rhetoric, right? But that's where it begins. Discourse and belief feed each other like crazy, and before you know it, the way we talk about women is the way we perceive women. We might not be involved in a literal war quite yet, but this is a great way to lay the groundwork for one.

Let's nip it in the bud. On Saturday the 28th, all 50 states in America will be hosting marches and rallies to protest the nasty-talk. Check out Unite Women for details specific to your state if you're in the U.S., and if you're reading from elsewhere, please send us your support in one way or another. Goodness knows we can't trust our internal politicians to treat us like humans.

Snatchels

The cutest vagina you'll ever see, knit in my own living room.

I have a long history of struggling with strong feelings for my country and trying to balance my loathing for its incredible capacity for stupidity with a deep appreciation for the autonomy I'm theoretically granted here. Over the last two weeks, this challenging see-saw has become extra-wobbly as a series of proposed bills and speeches by state and federal legislators has reduced my personhood to some combination of whore, cow/pig, and rights-less incubator. If you think I'm joking or exaggerating, please check out those links because, unfortunately, most of that is verbatim.

It's one thing, I think, to grow up female/woman in a country where you know your basic civil liberties are only a handful of decades old, while simultaneously being aware that other women around the world would do an awful lot to have those same opportunities. There's a lot of pushback against people like me who campaign for an end to social discrimination because "feminism isn't necessary anymore." Truthfully, a lot of disenfranchised Americans (female or otherwise) can identify with that basic sentiment; with voting, education, and employment available, many of us are a lot better off than our ancestors 100+ years ago. But that doesn't mean that feminism, or activism more broadly, is redundant. The personhood amendment up for grabs in Colorado, for example, would prevent someone from seeking an abortion even in cases of rape or incest. The long-and-short of it is that, while the amendment protects a foetus from being "killed for the crime of his or her father" (direct quote), it doesn't protect the mother from the same.

I've frothed at the mouth so many times this week that I've been rather dehydrated. Discourses about feminism and women's rights, particularly women's reproductive rights, are always entwined with other discourses around social inequality such as racism, classism, and level of physical or mental ability, but I'm sick of how many things seem able to be diluted to the spectra of sex and gender. In the 21st century, in a country that likes to tout itself as being The Most Advanced On the Planet, basic concepts (such as the fact that I am, in fact, a human and not livestock) seem to elude many of our most powerful. To add insult to injury, it often feels as though I'm a lone (or, if not lone, at least very tiny) voice screaming to an uncaring wilderness.

The balancing factor this week has been the discovery of the Government-Free VJJ movement. While the usual course of writing letters to lawmakers and ceaselessly calling their offices can exacerbate the lonely "I'm talking to a wall!" feeling, a cohesive movement to send a message feels somehow more productive. You can recycle a letter or turn off a phone, but it's difficult to ignore the cute and cuddly vagina that's landed on your desk.

That's right! The Government-Free VJJ movement is a craft-centred form of political protest that facetiously suggests that (primarily male) politicians would stay out of our vaginas and uteri if they had a set of their very own. Whether sewing, crocheting, or knitting, each one takes only about 30 minutes to complete and can be made with relatively cheap supplies. The goal is to send at least one to each politician who has been systematically degrading and violating women's personhoods through speech or proposal. The movement itself has already caught some media attention, which is promising; since I've already knit four, I've spent every stitch envisioning a storm of news coverage about how Washington and state capitols have all been inundated with hand-crafted lady-bits. Even better is trying to imagine the press releases coming from these lawmakers' offices in response to the influx: "Representative England is unavailable, as he is currently trying to figure out how livestock learned to knit."

There's something to be said for the medium of choice, for while a hand-held vagina is difficult to ignore, it also uses trades (sewing, knitting, etc.) that are part of the pantheon of "Things That Only (White?) Women Do Because Men Are Too Busy Running the World." In other words, is it subversive or complicitly patriarchal to use domestic activities to make a political point about women's rights? There's a discussion to be had there, I'm sure, but I have to admit that the excitement of giving lawmakers a bunch of vaginas to ponder has short-circuited my critical thinking skills.

If you're crafty, or wish to learn crafty skills in order to participate in the VJJ movement, check out their website. They have a list of patterns to follow, as well as a sample script to include in your cuddly cooter package. When you're ready to mail yours off, use this form to let the movement's organizers know which politicians you're sending them to. The goal, of course, is maximum distribution! Naturally, I highly encourage all of our readers to produce at least one. As a clarification, this isn't about being pro- or anti-abortion rights (although I'm sure you can guess my opinion). This is about drawing attention to the treatment women, as a very generalized group, are given in a male-dominated political landscape.

When you've made your vajayjay or uterus, take a picture and send it in to Go Girl! We'd love to make a gallery of how Go Folk everywhere envision their crafty political engagement in or with the U.S. After all, in how many countries can you use yarn genitals to make a point?

This post also appears today on Go Girl Magazine.

Doctor Who?

Instead of a guest post this week, I thought I would pass along the link to a new blog entitled "Doctor Her," which is where feminism and Doctor Who are meeting for all sorts of internet conversations. From the Bechdel Test to questions about companions as role models, it appears to be the start of a brilliant blog!

And no, I'm not just saying that because I've been contemplating a research article about feminism and the Doctor myself. Go check it out!

The Fantasy Feminist

I promised Emily I'd write a holiday-themed post this year, but clearly that didn't happen. Instead of dedicating my mind to the intersections of feminism and Western holiday culture, I delved back into one of my favourite fantasy series: Harry Potter. And now, to make up for my sloth, I bring you some of the stray feminist thoughts that wandered through my brain.

First, I'm well aware that the Harry Potter series isn't the perfect feminist story. Its primary hero is male, most of the characters are White, cis, and able-bodied-and-minded, the only confirmed LGBQ character was outed after the series ended, many of our current stereotypes continue to exist in the book's alternate reality...it goes on and on. When I re-read that list, I feel like I should probably dislike the series a lot more than I actually do! So here are some of the highlights of the series and author that have kept me going.

Bitch Magazine recently had an article out about the strengths of JK Rowling's "non chosen ones"- her female characters, especially Hermione, Luna, and Ginny. While the article was a little superficial, especially about Ginny (her strong point is that she dates a lot of boys?), it did highlight the ways in which the female characters tend to make the series. Rowling once stated that "I find that all the time in the book, if you need to tell your readers something just put it in [Hermione]," which is telling when one considers that the character whose wisdom is most often recognized is Dumbledore. Add to that the strong social justice components to the books, from artificial distinctions between magical folk to the role of house-elves, and Hermione in particular shines as a strong role model for all readers- especially female ones. Another interesting tidbit I didn't know- apparently very few people were afraid that Rowling would kill off Hermione during the last few books, mostly because they "see her as someone who is not vulnerable." So while the other female characters on the list (and in the books) are definitely worthwhile, Hermione's character will always stand out.

Let me backtrack, though, to the social justice stuff. The Potterverse (yeah, I just used that word, so what?!) deals primarily with the whole Pureblood/Muggle-born concept- a thinly-veiled allegory for pretty much every blood-based "science" we've embraced in Western history, from racial distinctions to developmental distinctions- but gives many others the limelight, house elf rights probably being the most notorious of these. One of the least mentioned by critics, though, is how Rowling's characters generally refuse to be black-and-white in their thoughts and behaviours. Think about Dumbledore, and how manipulative and power-hungry he turned out to be. Or think about Snape, who was equally power-hungry but prepared to do the right thing anyway. Or even consider Sirius:

"Sirius is very good at spouting bits of excellent personal philosophy, but he does not always live up to them. For instance, he says in "Goblet of Fire" that if you want to know what a man is really like, 'look at how he treats his inferiors, not his equals.' But Sirius loathes Kreacher, the house-elf he has inherited, and treats him with nothing but contempt. Similarly, Sirius claims that nobody is wholly good or wholly evil, and yet the way he acts towards Snape suggests that he cannot conceive of any latent good qualities there." (from Rowling's website)

With the exception of Hermione and Voldemort (and even then I'm sure I just need to think harder), none of the major characters exhibit flawlessly aligned thoughts and actions. Even characters that we've been conditioned to hate- the Malfoy family or the Dursleys- behave ambiguously when push comes to shove. They make make "good" choices for selfish reasons, such as when Narcissa Malfoy saves Harry's life out of fear for her own son, but the point is that her negative ideology doesn't always prevail in her decisionmaking. Personally, the moral ambiguity of everyone made me love the series a lot more- if only because it's far more realistic to imagine finding global justice in spite of everyone's shortcomings than to imagine finding it when everyone's already perfectly good or evil.

Finally, as the Bitch article mentions, Rowling has sought to promote the fight for social justice in her post-Potter career. Her Single Mother's Manifesto, a scathing review of Tory campagin promises this past spring, ends on a particularly stirring tone when she discusses her sense of responsibility to repay the system that helped her out when she was financially strapped. In addition, she's spent a lot of energy drawing attention to the impact that poverty has on children, using her Potter fame to generate funding for organizations in the U.K., and uses her website as a way of reaching out to girls (presumably cis) about bodies and brains. I think a lot of people have been impressed by Rowling's "rags to riches" pre-Potter history, but I'm continually more impressed by what she's made of herself in the aftermath. And I'm looking forward to seeing what else she contributes to a more feminist-friendly future pop culture.

Fine, I'll Admit It...Not All Men Are Evil.

Since we're trying to break away from stereotypes, here's one for you: not all feminists hate men and not all men are evil. Hard to believe, I know, but there you have it.

In one of my previous posts, Caught Between an Angel and a Prostitute, I talk about the binary opposition women are caught between: prude and slut. In August's posts, we have explored the ones men feel the need to operate within, here's a few: manly/gay, tough/weak, sex driven/pathetic virgin. Although it seems like a lot of male culture focuses on getting laid (how many coming of age movies make this the defining goal?), there are men out there who, like women, are evolving and can't be defined so easily.

In our (or maybe just my own) quest to become independent women, we tell ourselves we don't need men to be happy or live fulfilled lives. While I still argue that to a certain extent this is true, I must add one amendment: men can shape us feminists into better people just like we can shape them.

Much of who I am I owe to the men in my life, whether they were a negative or positive influence. I think because we women get hurt by men and the damaging aspects of our patriarchal inheritance, we tend to define ourselves more by the bad than the good. Sometimes that makes it infinitely harder to accept the good when you find it.

My dad always taught me to chase after my dreams of being an astronaut, paleontologist, tomato-cooker,biologist, zoologist, rock-star, actor, and, now, writer. He always treated me as an intellectual equal. Some of my favorite memories of him are when he read me and my brother The Hobbit, acting out each character's voice to make the pages come alive. Perhaps the greatest thing he taught me has been to question, to use reason and divine inspiration to seek truth and then to fight for that truth, whether it's an easy battle or not. He has taught me integrity, to stand by my principles and what is right even if it doesn't make sense to others.

My two younger brothers, who are 20 and 7, have both taught me not to take everything in life so seriously. They've taught me how to play, have sharpened my reflexes from rough-housing, and expose me to elements of culture (like comic books and video-games) that balance out my intellectualism. My 20-year-old brother is my best friend. I know there are people out there deluded with the notion that nurturing is exclusive to women. Growing up, this brother was always better at sharing than me, teaching me to be less selfish and more giving. And my little brother blows me away with tender moments on a regular basis.

There is a problem that can arise with feminism. By becoming so focused on redeeming the value of womanhood, we can lose the ability to trust men. We are in danger of confining men to binaries and belittling them to worthless. I owe feminism a lot. It's what made me realize that being a woman is worth celebrating, that women have power too, and penis envy is for wussies. However, at the end of the day, has it become a label whose expectations can be just as restricting as they are liberating? After yet another conversation with my father, I've come to realize that feminism can be more than a label: it provides tools to pick and choose from that can enable me to more fully be myself.

Caught Between an Angel and a Prostitute

You know what I realized? For men, there is no word in the English language that carries the same connotation as “whore” does for women. And I’ve tried listing them out, I promise. People have suggested “man-whore”, but that’s still comparing a man to the conduct of a female prostitute (or check out “Madonna-whore"). There’s “bastard”, which carries too much sexual mystery to be truly insulting. And you come across few “Jackasses” who can’t get a girl (How about the IMPREGNATOR or FETUS FORMER as a male insult?) I guess it’s true that whores, by the very nature of the definition, do get some smack-happy action, but it is a degrading term. What’s even worse is if you’re not a whore, you’re a prude, and who wants to be that? So, either I’m the girl whose goods are community property or the miser who keeps my bounty to myself.

It’s a wall I’ve run into on a regular basis. How many first dates have I gone on that ended in a saliva swap session because my non-baggy clothes and laid-back nature tattoo the words “easy” on my forehead. How many times have I set up boundaries only to have the guy proclaim (perhaps in an attempt to sooth my straight-laced nature) that he too does not like physical intimacy? (Meanwhile, I’m tearing out my hair thinking, that’s not what I meant! I just want someone who values my mind!) I’m either a wanton sex goddess or a statue on a pedestal. Each time I try to break out of one box, I’m shoved into the other.

My solution? I could become A-sexual and reproduce like strawberries. That’s right, I get it on by pollinating and growing little babies in my hair. Men are completely cut out of the equation and I can just be me.


(http://i.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/01018/strawberry-melon_1018216i.jpg)

Maybe the problem lies in how we are taught to think. Night vs. day. Good vs. evil. Cool vs. lame. Slut vs. Saint. We have been wired to perceive in absolutes. Any one who doesn’t fit in is either dismissed or falsely understood. Maybe it lies in our brain, which enjoys reducing things to stereotypes in order to make our daily overload of external stimulation manageable. This allows us to respond to pre-determined triggers rather than waste time analyzing every judgment call that comes our way.

Undoubtedly, a part of the problem lies in men and women themselves. We female folk already know that women of ancient yore were reduced in society to nothing more than their bodies (you know, becoming property, following strict chastity codes, being stuck in the chains of fidelity while husbands cheated, etc). Now that we are liberated, the pendulum has swung the other way. Yes we have power, ladies, but how much of it lies in our bodies? How much do we allow ourselves to be reduced to objects, in our own eyes and others? And men, you little bastards you, I’m not deceived by the “we can’t help ourselves, we have needs” myth. Women are more than a place to park your car for the night. And my sex endures a lot to get a man (plastic surgery, dieting, tanning, talking like a valley girl, lowering our IQ, laughing at bad jokes…). Dumb, I know, but singing “I’m a Survivor” with a mouth full of chocolate only compensates for so much.

This is the part where I provide a magical solution that everyone can proscribe to so we can let angels be angels and whores be whores, allowing everybody else to just be themselves.

Ha.

Amusing clip of the day (from Erica)

Usually, Emily or I post clips from the news in here if we have a pertinent point to make. Today, I'd like to direct your attention to this clip from Rachel Maddow, who uses a beautiful display of logic (and an appearance by Bill Nye the Science Guy!) to make a great point about the brou-ha-ha that claims that the recent snowstorms here in the East are proof positive that climate change is a hoax.



Why am I posting this in a feminist blog, you might ask? Simple. The people who are most affected by adverse changes in global climate patterns are the people who don't have the global or economic capital to move, refurbish their homes, or advocate for protection and change. Approximately 70% of those people are women. Climate change is a feminist issue because its most dire consequences will have the greatest impact on women who have to fight extra-hard to make their voices heard in the global theatre.

From Erica: Fay Weldon's foot has entered her mouth

I don't mean to keep doing these news posts, but they just keep coming at me! This one's going to be special, though, because it focuses on one. This article comes from the Daily Mail, a UK paper that runs a daily paper section devoted to "women's interests" such as fashion, celebrity gossip, and weight loss- which is frustrating enough. The journalistic credentials of the paper notwithstanding, however, this piece on Fay Weldon's recent comments has left me more than slightly breathless. Weldon's history, Wikipedia-style, is that she's had a long career as a novelist and TV/radio writer, and the politics that her works manifest have a distinctly second-wave feminism bent. Whether or not she's a feminist thinker and writer- and here I'm holding Audre Lorde, belle hooks, and Betty Friedan as examples of what that might include- is marginal compared to what she had to say, at least according to the Daily Mail.

As quoted in the article, Weldon thinks that "women should not expect men to be their best friend - and should appreciate their need for sex. 'The thing is, you need to find a man who is cleverer than you, or at least not let him know that you are cleverer than him,' she said. 'Women want their boyfriends to be like their girlfriends, fun to go to the pictures with, but men are not like that. They want sex and they grunt. If you really want a man to be nice to you, never give him a hard time, never talk about emotions and never ask him how he is feeling.'" She also believes (although the lack of context for her statement is unhelpful) that "'we should have more teenage pregnancies'" so that women can have children before they start their careers and thus aren't too tired for sex with their husbands (who will otherwise philander, she claims).

*SPUTTER*

First, let's just take down the heterosexist and traditional Western family bias, shall we? Weldon's comments presume that a woman comes in a package, much like a kid's play kitchen set, with a house, husband, and kids (or at least the desire to have them). Batteries not included. Way to break down the stereotype, Weldon. Women aren't boxed sets- they aren't even easily categorized into a unified group! But, of course, since men only "want sex" and "grunt," women only "talk about emotions" and want a clean loo and to have the socks picked up. Oh, and want to keep their man by playing dumb. Right?

The problem, from Weldon's point of view, seems to boil down to male infidelity as a result of the second-wave feminist movement that swept North America and Western Europe in the 60s and 70s. In apparent response to the questions raised by Daily Mail about her attitude change, she claims that feminism got nasty when women began treating men like they're nothing, and that's no longer valid: "'But men nowadays aren't s***. They're actually much nicer. They just don't want to commit to you, and why would they when you are a busy working woman who can look after yourself and probably goes to bed easily with them?'" Oh, I see. So the problem isn't that second-wave feminism tapped into a reasonable frustration and anger coming from approximately 50% of the population and that, coupled with negative media attention, turned feminism into a dirty word that sends many people fleeing today. The problem is that women are self-supporting and sexually active. Gee, thanks. I'll keep that in mind- any day now, thanks to the fact that I'm smart and capable, and enjoy an active sex life, my partner's going to head for the hills in search of the next easy lay.

*SPUTTER*

Weldon, think about it. You claim that second-wave feminism got nasty towards men- I don't disagree with you. There was a lot of justifiable anger, but also some stupidity. I mean, "boys are stupid- throw rocks at them" is a pretty stupid slogan. But by claiming that men want to be flattered and fawned over and looked after by clever women playing dumb, or that all they do is grunt and want sex, doesn't exactly make you stand out from that crowd. In plain language, your comments were hypocritical. In further plain language, my statement was the understatement of the century.

Here's the thing. Men and women- people as a whole- aren't homogeneous. You can't classify "men" and "women" into singular categories of looks, appearance, or behaviour like they're Legos. Even your definition of the only type of man a woman "needs"- to put it your way, 'sort of semi-good looking, able-bodied, [and] intelligent'- presupposes an enormous amount of cultural bias, ableism, and personal preference...not to mention a certain amount of heterosexuality. Attitudes like yours not only contribute enormously to a culture that continues to treat (straight, White, able-bodied) men preferentially, but also to certain stereotypes and assumptions that get people seriously hurt. Men always want sex? Tell that to the man calling the sexual assault hotline because he's just been raped. Men grunt? Tell that to President Obama, Ronald Reagan, and Kennedy- all well-known orators. Women would be happier cleaning the house themselves and playing dumb for their husbands? Tell that to Betty Friedan and to all the women she interviewed for "The Feminine Mystique."

Even more than that though, think about it from this perspective: by forcing people into boxes, you will always make them unhappy. Are there women who enjoy being the primary housekeeper in their families, who enjoy being married to men far smarter than they, and whose sexuality is timed to meet their husbands' needs by choice? Yes. Do I want that? Absolutely not. But those women wouldn't be any happier in my lifestyle than I would be in theirs. Same goes for the women who'd be happiest if they never held a baby, for the people with penises who want to get pregnant, for the people who dance on all points of the gender spectrum, and for everyone else. Constraining people to your narrow definitions of men and women, with their complete lack of reality check, is far more hurtful to the women you pretend to speak to than the dirty loo you fuss about.

What we really need right now isn't some sociological shift to encourage procreation at earlier ages and childless couples during their working years (simply for purposes of monogamy, as Weldon puts it). Pregnancy and childbirth- both things that Weldon has experienced herself- aren't simply matters of incubation. They have profound effects on the body and, of course, the resulting child comes with some serious responsibility. Social prejudiced against teenagers aside, many adolescents are going through their own growth and development and identity-seeking. Being a teenage parent comes with challenges and problems that many adults don't have to worry about. And, as my mother demonstrates on a routine basis, parenting doesn't end when the child reaches the age of majority. Better support for adolescent parents would be a good thing. I don't disagree with that. But having your kids while you're a teenager doesn't necessarily mean you'll "have energy for sex" with the husband that you magically receive by age 30, as Weldon suggests, and doesn't mean that your life will magically improve.

Other ways to cope with the problems Weldon perceives: better support for parents of any age, to include accessible, quality childcare; wider dialogue about sex expectations and gender roles; and, on a broader scale, the breaking down of compulsory heterosexuality, compulsory maternity, compulsory monogamy, and the socioeconomic expectation that we in the Western world work ourselves to the bone before we can go home. I have to wonder if she even considered that there were alternatives to the bi-gender, man-dominant system that she moulds her "social reform" to.