On Ceilings and Elevators

Reader and fellow blogger Lucy invited my commentary on someone's recent blog post regarding "glass ceilings." The entry is brief, and the author concludes that "There is nothing stopping a person from moving up in the ranks...except for the person him(or her)self."

I suppose that I shouldn't be too shocked that the author feels this way; however, I can't help but feel...disappointed that the concept of the glass ceiling is lost on this woman. The concept of glass ceilings and elevators (I'll get to what these terms mean in a moment) are not particularly new, and because of this I have taken for granted that all women are able to understand the role that these concepts play in their lives and the lives of all women. I do not know if that author will read this blog, but I'd like to offer a deeper understanding of these concepts for anyone who struggles with their existence.

The term "glass ceiling" refers to, as the blogger stated, an unofficial barrier to advancement in the workplace. It is "glass" because it does not exist in any obvious capacity: There is no "No Girls Allowed" clause in the company handbook; nor is there any official policy that overtly prohibits women and minorities from rising in the ranks. We have "equal opportunity" statements on our employment applications, as well as government policies like Title IX. By all accounts, it does not appear to exist. But like the windows in my home that trick wayward birds into smashing their little bird skulls, the ceiling remains in place.

If you squint your eyes and crane your neck just so, you can still see the light reflecting off the glass:

The wage gap between men and women, especially in the upper tail of the wage distribution, is a large part of the glass ceiling. Currently, American women make 70 cents for every dollar that men make. Although this gap has closed over recent decades, it remains significantly large and persists across professions and education levels. This means that when scientists compare men and women, within the same profession, with the same amount of experience and qualifications for that profession, women receive less pay than men. Blatant pay discrimination such as this can go undetected for years, because we are taught that it is impolite to ask your colleagues what they make. Pay is considered private; therefore, women get the shaft and often have no hard evidence to make their case.

Wage gaps also occur when employers make judgments on the expected value, productivity, or reliability of employees. What this means is that it is not uncommon to find employers promoting men over women because they hold pre-conceived notions about how well women work. For example: As a woman, Kathy will become too emotional in business confrontations. Better go with Ross or Fred; they won't cry over firing someone. Get it? As people, employers often have unenlightened notions about how women act and how men act. Even if the fictional Kathy is completely capable of making decisions, firing employees, and dealing with conflict, her employer may assume that she can't BECAUSE SHE HAS A VAGINA. The female is then excluded from the 'male' job, and left with depressed wages.

Another theory for discriminatory promotion is that employers view the jobs that females hold as "less easily promoted." This means that employers may be reluctant to invest training in women in order to promote them. Employers may feel this way for any number of reasons, but commonly they feel that women are less worthy of investment because of their expected domestic roles. Let me break that down for you: We aren't training Becca for the role of regional manager, because she just got married and will probably have a baby soon, and will take maternity leave. Because our society is geared to think of the women as the sole domestic provider, women are likely to be passed over because of expected familial duties; whereas a man's marriage and paternity are rarely-to-never considered.

Other barriers make up the glass ceiling in addition to the wage gap. Sexual harassment, for instance, isn't going anywhere. Workplaces in which women are belittled or made to feel inferior because of sexual harassment are not conducive to promoting women or hiring them for top roles. Let's not forget about general perceptions of female to male performance. Numerous studies have found that traits in which we view as positive for males we view as negative for females (sum this up as if a man is assertive, he is seen as effective; however, an assertive woman is a "bitch" or "shrew.") Sexist stereotypes like these, which are embedded in our social hierarchy, often prevent women from reaching the upper eschelons of the workplace.

As if a hulking wage gap, sexual harassment and sexual stereotyping wasn't enough, women often must contend with barriers involving family and domestic life, while men do not. This is a very rich and complicated topic, but can be easily understood when you understand that society places overwhelming domestic responsibility on women, but almost none on men. We are given the expectation of caring for the homes and children, as well as other family issues, and as a result we take jobs with fewer hours and flexible schedules. These jobs offer less pay, less room for advancement, and less prestige. As long as society asks more of women in the home than it does of men, we remain stagnant.

All of these theories deal in the present; however, I have my own theory that the glass ceiling begins in childhood. From an early age, women are encouraged to achieve less than men. We give little girls kitchen sets and "pregnancy Barbie" dolls, but we give little boys Erector sets and chem sets and other mechanical things that help them learn and grow. We see that our daughters excel at math and we assume they will be teachers when they grow up; but our boys who excel in math will surely be engineers. The difference in treatment is often subtle, but the way we raise our children has as much impact on their future earning potential as do sexist workplace attitudes.

I'm also quite fascinated by the concept of the "glass elevator," which I think might be easier to see than the glass ceiling. By "glass elevator" I am referring to a phenonmenon in which men in female-dominated occupations experience various advantages that women in those occupations do not. So, in contrast to the glass ceiling, in which women suffer in male-dominated occupations, men in female-dominated jobs will enjoy advantages in hiring practices, rapport-building with male supervisors, and promotional tracking. The best example of this concept is the teaching profession, particularly elementary school. The primary-school teaching occupation is heavily female dominated; depsite this, elementary school principals and administrators are overwhelmingly male. Research shows that men who enter the profession as elementary school teachers are often "fast-tracked" to more prestigious and higher-paying adminstrative positions, while women who have equal or better qualifications remain. I know that this concept is not outdated, because I did a research paper on it last year in which I took the 2006 annual averages of employed persons by detailed occupation and sex from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, and compared them using prestige scores from the Hollingshead Four-Factor Index of Social Status. My results very much supported the hypothesis that current labor data reveals male-favored occupational prestige inequities in occupational domains containing two or more heavily female-dominated occupations.

The topics of ceilings and elevators have spawned oodles of academic papers and studies, and in this post my goal is to simply touch on some of the main fruits of that research...I couldn't possible cover all of it in one post. I can only assume that ignorance of this research, and possibly personal anecdotal evidence, leads people like our blogger friend to assume that nothing stands in the way of female success. Trust me when I say that we aren't simply whining: These barriers to advancement are VERY real and felt by MANY women. Our society has not yet evolved to offer women truly equal opportunities in the workplace; although outwardly it might seem that we can achieve anything, in reality we face many obstacles that men never will. Many of these obstacles are so deeply ingrained in our society that I question whether we can ever completely overcome them.

If the author of that blog post feels that no one has stood in her way in her career advancement, then good for her. She's apparently found something that millions of us, myself included, struggle for daily. However, I think it's good for everyone to keep in mind that simply because they have not personally experienced limitations, that experience does NOT generalize to the rest of the population. We have not "shattered" the ceiling; there may be cracks, but trust me when I say that it is still far too thick to fall apart.

Obama: Aw, yeah!

My favoritist president ever announced that he will sign an executive order creating the White House Council on Women and Girls. This council will ensure that federal agencies consider how their policies and programs impact women and their families. That sound you hear is my reproductive organs cheering. Here is what he had to say on it:



My two favorite parts (although the whole speech was spot-on):

"When a job doesn't offer family leave, that also hurts men who want to care for a new baby or an ailing parent"--Do I smell reform of the Family and Medical Leave Act?!?!
"When there's no affordable childcare, that hurts children who wind up in second-rate care or spending afternoons alone in front of the television set." Universal daycare? I can haz universal daycare?!

I can't believe we have a president that actually gives a shit about women. Incidentally, we used to have a council just like this...until Bush disbanded it in 2001, along with a council on racial issues. This surprises exactly no one.

Valerie Jarrett will chair the council, a super-duper smarty pants who grew up in Iran, got her BA in psychology (a woman after my own heart) from Stanford, and a JD from University of Michigan Law School. She is currently a Senior Advisor to Obama.

Best part of the speech is the end: "Alright, so I'm gonna go sign this thing. Thank you very much." Man, that guy gets. shit. done.

Toddlers and Tiaras

For the last year and a half of college I eschewed cable in favor of...um...rent money, and I didn't really miss it that much. But since I've had cable again, I don't know how I ever lived without TLC. I am addicted to this damn channel, especially what I like to call the Sunday night freak-show lineup. This is when TLC airs gems like "Pregnant Man" and "Woman with half a body who gets around on a skateboard" and "Billion-ton elephant guy who eats way too much fried chicken." Oh, and let's not forget the round-the-clock obsession with dwarfism (although at this point, is it really so interesting or exotic anymore? Especially the dwarf-family reality shows. I mean, the only difference I see is that they have shorter countertops. Those shows are really quite boring).

Anyway, there's this series called "Toddlers and Tiaras," and it covers the world of child beauty pageants. HATE. What kind of parent puts their damn toddler out to be judged on beauty and their appearance in a swimsuit? It's a disgusting display of enforcing arbitrary standards of feminism. The parents coach their daughters for hours a day on how to runway-walk, shake their hips (and sometimes chests), and wink seductively at judges. All of the parents defend themselves with the same line: "It builds self-esteem." SHENANIGANS, pageant parents. Judging your child's worth based on their appearance and imitations of sexuality will not make them feel good about themselves and their abilities later in life. All they will learn is that their worth is based on how feminine they appear. This particular featured pageant even has categories for "best eyes," "best hair," and "photogenic winner." The "talent" portion is no more than a token addition. Clearly appearance and femininity are what matters here.

If you want to build self-esteem in your daughter, there are a lot of things that you could base it on that have real and lasting use. Enroll her in a sport so that she can learn how strong and capable her body is. Spend your money on books, so she can start learning how wonderful reading is. Put her in front of an easel with fingerpaints, and tell her how much you admire her creativity. Let her play dress-up and explore her idenitity at home. But for the love of christ, don't make her parade out on a stage in front of judges in a swimsuit, shake her hips, spin, look seductively over her shoulder, tilt her sunglasses over her nose and wink at the judges. That's not how self-esteem is built. That's how you get a girl whose self-worth is overly-dependent on the opinions of others.

Can a bitch get some pay equity?

Congress is voting on Lilly Ledbetter today, and I wait with baited breath. For those of you who don't know, Lilly Ledbetter is a woman who started working for Goodyear Tire in 1979. Apparently, Ledbetter had long believed that her male co-workers were receiving higher salaries, but she couldn't prove it until 1998, when someone slipped a letter in her mailbox confirming her suspicions. Ledbetter sued, and the Supreme Court (in its infinite wisdom), ruled that she couldn't sue because of an 180-day statute of limitations. Basically, the Supreme Court told Ledbetter to suck it, because she hadn't sued 180 days after she was hired in 1979.

So today Congress votes on the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which will determine that the 180-day statute of limitations begins with every paycheck, rather than the date that the pay is agreed upon.

This case highlights a lot of the ongoing discrimination that women still face, but I think what bugs the fuck out of me is that something is terribly awry with the Supreme Court. I realize, of course, that 6 of them were appointed by the Bushes and Reagan, so OF COURSE something is wrong with them. But really. I'll never understand the urge of some people to side with big business over actual people. I'm not saying that rulings which favor business don't have their place; but for crying out loud, this is an obvious case of equal rights. The court had a chance to take a stand against the pay disparities that have been plaguing women since...forever, and they failed. It sickens and saddens me that the judges on the highest court in the nation still favor business' rights over women's rights. In fact, I believe the Supreme Court recently took a vote on their new official slogan: "Bros before hos."

Our vaginas don't make us less competent, less able, or less valuable employees. If we perform the same job as a man, we get the same pay. It's that simple. And if we DON'T get the same pay, we get to sue the shit out of the company for damages and backpay. Businesses need to learn that women aren't inferior workers, and that there are consequences for treating us that way. Society leaves us at enough of a disadvantage without the added injustice of receiving 79% of what men make. So come on congress: take a stand for eliminating sexist business practices. Or my vagina will get you in your sleep.

Thanks for telling me what to do with my body

I REALLY wish that shoe had hit Bush the other day. And by "shoe" I mean "bullet," because I came home from work to this news:

The Bush administration today issued a sweeping new regulation that protects a broad range of health-care workers -- from doctors to janitors -- who refuse to participate in providing services that they believe violate their personal, moral or religious beliefs.

The controversial rule empowers federal health officials to cut off federal funding for any state or local government, hospital, clinic, health plan, doctor's office or other entity if it does not accommodate employees who exercise their "right of conscience." It would apply to more than 584,000 health-care facilities.

They finally did it. Bush and his cronies finally passed legislation that allows medical employees to deny women information and resources critical to their reproductive health. It effectively ensures that women are no longer secure in the knowledge that their medical provider is doing all that they can to help them. It means that medical personnel can deny women access to abortions, birth control pills, even information about sexual and reproductive health.

I can hardly contain my outrage at this decision. The federal government should be PROTECTING our right to information and medical services, not limiting it. Women have EVERY RIGHT to protect themselves from pregnancy and STDs. Instead, our government has just swooped in and proclaimed that our right to health and happiness is secondary to another person's religious views.

The idea that this bill "protects the conscience" of medical providers is bullshit. If you aren't comfortable with the idea of prescribing/distributing birth control or performing abortions, DON'T GO INTO THAT PROFESSION. I can't get a job driving an ice cream truck and then refuse to hand out ice cream on the grounds that I'm against childhood obesity. Doctors, nurses, and pharmacists shouldn't be allowed to keep their jobs if they aren't willing to DO THOSE JOBS. They don't deserve protection for failing to provide adequate medical information and care for women. This action, like so much of Bush's administration, is absolutely unconstitutional. The government is endorsing religion by empowering people to impose their religious views on the rest of us. No one should have the power to impose their religiously-driven morals on others who don't share those viewpoints.

It is neither reasonable nor fair to expect women to travel elsewhere to receive these services. There are so many places in America that are served by a single pharmacy or doctor's office. And not everyone in those places has the money, resources, or insurance coverage to find another doctor or pharmacy. Furthermore, if you are a young person growing up in such an isolated place, how would you even know what information you are lacking if your doctor won't even discuss issues of birth control or sexual health?

Ironically, I bet every single one of the people who receive "protection" from this legislation have no problem with issues of men's health. Go into any pharmacy that refuses to sell birth control and ask to see how many bottles of Viagra they stock. This entire school of thought is the product of a religious patriarchy that inherently values the health and well-being of men over women.

It's up to the Obama administration to undo this travesty and allow women full control over their bodies and health. Obama, I had so much hope for you. Please don't let us down.

Maybe they should be treated for "head-up-ass" syndrome

I firmly believe that the US Armed Forces will always be the last frontier in conquering sexism. P.E. classes could be desegregated and the FCC could ban gender-typed marketing; but the US military would still insist that women are too weak to sign up for the draft, or too fragile to serve on the front lines, or too seductive and distracting to the men.

Evidence: Private Monica Brown. The CBS article is good and you should read it, but here is all you need to know:

• Pvt. Brown was serving as a medic on Afghanistan's front lines with a paratrooper unit.
• Brown's platoon drove straight into a massive ambush, complete with a roadside bomb, intense small arms fire, and mortar fire.
• Brown ran through that ambush to provide medical aide to two of the most seriously wounded men.
• As the ambush continued around her, Brown threw her body over the men as she worked on them, to protect them from the ongoing gunfire and explosions.
• Brown then dragged the men back to the truck, and continued to shield them with her own body.

For all of this, Pvt. Brown earned a Silver Star. She is only the second woman to earn the Silver Star since WWII. She saved the lives of those two men, at the risk of her own. Both her brigade commander and sergeant major recommended her for the award, fully acknowledging her heroism.

Are you ready for the kicker? Sure? You're positive you really want to feel this story punch you in the face? Ok...

The two men who Brown saved, Larry Spray and Stanson Smith, don't really care that Brown saved their asses when they were bleeding, burned, lacerated, and dying. They don't care that in addition to doing her job as a medic in extreme conditions, she risked her own life to shield their bodies TWICE. Apparently what Spray and Smith care about is that Pvt. Brown has a vagina:

But both of those men, Smith and Spray, declined to give 60 Minutes an interview. When we asked why, Smith said flat out women have no business being on the front line..."People ask, you know, like, 'Was she a superhero? Did she do anything, you know, super woman, super heroic?' No, she did her job," Best (a gunner with the platoon) says. "And she did a very, very good job doing it. Now, that fact that she was 18 and, you know, a female and all, you know, that adds something to it."

I don't understand how the fact that Brown was not "supposed" to be there negates from what she did. She shielded two severely injured men with her own body as she gave them life-saving medical attention. Whether she was "supposed" to be there or not is irrelevant. She was. She did. It happened. People in cases of "right place, right time" aren't usually "supposed" to be there either, but everyone talks about how fortunate they are anyway.

As for Best's comments, I call shenanigans. While Brown was certainly "doing her job" as a medic, she went above and beyond the call of duty when she continued to expose herself to enemy fire. Her job as a medic is to treat wounds, not to act as a human shield. So yeah, I would say that what she did wasn't necessarily in her job description. Best's dismissive comments are the direct result of his inability to see past Brown's gender. He clearly feels that her femaleness gives her some sort of unfair "edge" in earning a star. I'd bet dollars-to-donuts that if Monica Brown were a Mark Brown, he would not be so quick to dumb the actions down to a job description.

But I'll give Best a fair shot, here: Let's look at the actions of some past male Silver Star awardees. I'm sure history will show that those men worked MUCH harder for their recognition:

Antonio Rodriguez Balinas (1951): Defended the left flank of his company from ongoing enemy attacks at great risk to his life. Hm. As a second lieutenant, isn't it his "job" to defend his company from enemy attacks?
Harry Frederick Bauer (1942): Was a Lieutenant Commander who was wounded, yet ordered his own men to turn attention from him and rescue another man instead. Bauer died, so I would say he definitely risked his own life while "doing his job" (ordering his men to rescue a wounded man).
Michael A. Monsoor (2006): Ran into a street under insurgent gunfire to rescue a wounded comrade. Sounds familiar.
John Stebbins (1993): Was supposed to be serving as a clerk for the Somalia conflict, but joined fighting anyway. That alone earned him the Star. But he had no business being there!

Sorry, Best. Looks like plenty of men have earned the Star for the same reasons as Brown. Try to contain your exploding head.

In 2008, there is not a single fucking excuse for feeling threatened by a woman's ability to match the ability of any man. We prove our equality all the time, but ignorant asses like Spray, Smith, and Best always find ways to justify the cognitive dissonance. Heaven forfend that they ever justify it by re-examining their personal perceptions of women. Brown could have thrown her body over a hand grenade for them and they would still claim that she didn't do anything special.

How about some fucking appreciation?

Le Femme Obamas

Today I head a teaser for a "news" story on the potential designer for Michelle Obama's inaugural outfit; later, I read a story on Jezebel about what Malia and Sasha will wear. And to all of this I say: WHO THE FUCK CARES? No one ever speculates about what suit Barack Obama will don. No one analyzes the shit out of his tie colors and the crease on his pants. Can we talk about the things Michelle might like to do with her new position in the Whitehouse (And I'm not talking about decorating the fucking Christmas tree)? You know, I never hear it mentioned, but the woman has a fucking career, too. We could talk about how that might play into her future plans? For crying out loud, why don't we write about Sasha and Malia's favorite sports or school subjects? WHO CARES WHAT THEY WEAR?

My point is that the media can not seem to learn that WOMEN ARE NOT FUCKING DECORATIONS. Michelle, Sasha, and Malia are not pretty accessories for the president-elect. They are people. With minds. And one of them has a really fucking awesome career (can I just point out here that while Barack Obama was still a senator, Michelle earned waaaaaaay more than he did? like, over $100,000 more a year?). And there is more substance to them than how they look when they wear clothing. So it would be fucking awesome if the media dug a little deeper (I'm talking to you, Jezebel).

Passport 2 Teen Pregnancy, Part Deux

Awhile back I wrote about some concerns I had about spending the upcoming Thanksgiving Holiday with Boyfriend's family. You can read all about it here, but it you're anything like me, you generally don't follow the links back because you're a lazy sonofabitch. So I will be really nice and sum it up for you: Boyfriend has an Aunt and Uncle, with two daughters, Cute Cousins 1 and 2 (CC1 and 2). They are some sort of crazy Southern Baptist, from a VERY southern state. This year, CC1 is 12, and Aunt is doing an abstinence-only sex ed with her called Passport2Purity.

Boyfriend and I are quite concerned about this abstinence-only sex ed, for all of the reasons illuminated in my last entry (I know you didn't click the link, jerk). So we had talked about it and decided that if the opportunity arose, it would benefit CC1 to give her our perspective on sex (that it's AWESOME).

Ha! No, that would be age-inappropriate (that talk doesn't come until next year). We just wanted to let her know that A) She should ALWAYS seek either birth control pills and condoms if and when she decides to have sex, without shame or embarrassment and B) It's totally okay if you decide to have sex, so don't think that you're any less of a person (this is an especially important message if she gets molested or raped. Not that it's okay to be raped, but that it won't devalue her in any way).

We got to spend about two full days with this branch of Boyfriend's family. There were about 14 people in the house, so we figured that we probably wouldn't get a chance to talk to CC1 (although I was just dying to say something). On the last night of her visit, I went to call my mom privately in the basement, and CC1 sort of wandered in after me and was hanging around. I figured this was about the only chance I would ever get, so I said good-bye to my mom and went to talk to CC1.

Basically, we only got a little bit of time. I started by asking her about her Passport2Purity trip, and if it was embarrassing ("Yes!") Then I asked her if her mom told her about birth control or condoms on the trip. Of course not. This pisses me off. You take a whole fucking weekend to talk about sex with your kid and you can't include something about birth control or STD prevention? Are you fucking kidding me?

So I went for it and gave her my spiel about THESE ARE WHAT BIRTH CONTROL PILLS LOOK LIKE AND SWEAR TO GOD YOU WILL USE THESE AND CONDOMS WHEN YOU HAVE SEX (I hope it came off less desperate than that). I also got in some bit about how they aren't bad and she shouldn't be ashamed or scared to buy them, and the pills don't kill babies and don't ever let anyone tell you otherwise. Then she got called upstairs for something. When whoever called her was done, she ran right back down to talk to me more. She seriously had a ton of questions, and she was super curious. Boyfriend figured out what I was doing and joined me to talk to her. We got a few more things in before we got interrupted and had to postpone the convo for later. Unfortunately, we didn't get another chance to talk to her alone (There were three other kids in the house and I swear we were like some sort of crack to them). So when she left the next morning I told her she could email us anytime she wanted to talk.

But wait, there's more.

We left on Sunday, by train (we're so old-fashioned, by which I mean "too cheap for plane tickets"). Two hours into the train ride, Boyfriend's phone rings. Sure enough, it's Aunt. CC1 spilled. Aunt asked for me (as an "outsider," I am naturally the main culprit). She wasn't very happy, to say the least. Well, no shit, I did undermine her parenting strategy. So I sat through a thorough telling-off. Looking back on it, I remember sitting in the train seat talking on the phone, quite upright. But then I could feel my spine slowly melting and swaying as it slowly turned into some sort of gelatinous goo. And just like that, I lost any nerve to actually debate Aunt on her choice of sex ed. Instead I spent the phone call telling her that I was "sorry for offending" and "respected her decisions."

I think that my yellow-bellied response was the right thing to do, for the sake of family harmony. First of all, I knew what I was doing in terms of undermining Aunt's parenting. I know what a big problem that is, and yes, I had considered how I would feel as a parent if someone did something like that to me. So I feel conflicted about our decision to talk to CC1. But what I've ultimately concluded is that in this case, CC1's health and well-being is at stake. CC1 is unlikely to hear this information from her school (VERY southern state, if I haven't made that clear enough already) or her parents. And anyone with their head NOT up their ass knows that abstinence-only sex ed has significantly higher rates of teen pregnancy and STDs than comprehensive sex-ed. So if Boyfriend and I can do ANYTHING to get the information that she needs and deserves to protect herself as she gets older, then we will. I knew going into it that CC1 was likely to tell Aunt. And I knew that I was risking some serious family Drama.
So bowing to Aunt's almighty sense of indignation was the least price we could pay, I think, for the potential to help CC1 avoid a lot of nasty troubles.

It really could have gone worse, I think. Aunt could have completely cut us off from speaking to her daughters, which would have been too painful. Instead, she did a very "Christian" (or just plain nice) thing, which was to tell us that she loved and forgave us (whether she really feels that way is questionable. But it was nice to hear it, rather than ex-communicating us from her family).

Aunt also said a few things on the phone that bugged the shit out of me, which I failed to argue (harmony, harmony). She made the comment that "I wasn't ready to talk about this with her." Oh really? YOU weren't ready? Because I think what actually matters is whether your DAUGHTER is ready. And she seemed pretty fucking ready to hear about it to me. Plus, if you are going to have a whole weekend to talk about fucking, then you had BETTER be ready to discuss any and all aspects of it. Aunt also noted that CC1 is "12, not 14" to illustrate that she is "too young" to hear all this. Sorry, I fucking disagree. 12 is the PERFECT age to know this. Know why? Because it's old enough to comprehend, but (hopefully) before the need to practice. So when she IS 14 she's already armed. Also, she may not be having sex now, but that shit happens fast. I mean really. I think I decided I wanted to finally have sex in about two weeks' time. And if I hadn't known anything about birth control or condoms BEFORE then, I imagine that I would have figured I would be just fine without them (you can't get pregnant or STDs from just one time/if you pull out/ if you do it in the ass, right?). Not to mention that CC1 isn't some delicate fucking snowflake. Her head won't explode if she hears those words at 12. My middle school started sex ed in grade 6. Frankly, waiting until 12 is a bit generous, in my opinion.

Aunt got pretty condescending when she told me that I am young, don't know anything, and will change my mind when I'm 45 with kids. Actually, no. I'm pretty fucking sure about this. Mostly because my reasoning is grounded in reality, while yours is grounded in your pastor's asshole. That's why future 6-year-old will fucking school you in the latest stats on birth control effectiveness.

Aunt also said that CC1 was "upset." Really? If anything, CC1 is probably confused, because two people she trusts suddenly told her the OPPOSITE of whatever crap her family and church feed her. But I highly doubt that she is "upset." She was curious. She had questions. She said that she wanted to talk more. She never indicated that the conversation made her uncomfortable or that she didn't want to talk about it. If that was the case, I wouldn't have talked to her.

The one thing I regret is that I did tell CC1 to not tell her mom that I told her these things. When I said that, I was particularly thinking that I didn't want CC1 to tell her mom personal details about MY sex life that I was sharing as an example (age I started on birth control, etc). Admittedly, I would have preferred if CC1 didn't say anything to Aunt at all, for the obvious reason that Aunt would be angry with me. Of course, this is how it came across to CC1, who has been taught that an adult should never tell her not to share something with her parents (which is a good lesson). So I was sorry that I said that, because it probably came off as shady to CC1. But I'm not a creeper, I swear.

Anyway, we think it's mostly over (until next holiday. This could be one of those things that drags on for years). I am sorry that Aunt (and probably Uncle) are upset and may not trust us with their daughters in the future. I am sorry that I intentionally undermined somebody's parenting. But I am NOT sorry, nor will I ever be, that I did what I could to give CC1 honest information for the sake of her reproductive health. I am NOT sorry that I gave her the idea that she CAN have sex if she is safe. I am NOT sorry that I told her that she should not be too ashamed or embarrassed to protect herself. In this case, CC1's right to health and safety trumps Aunt's right to insulate her daughter in an archaic purity bubble.

Boyfriend and I now joke that this is that historical holiday we tell our kids about when they ask why Daddy's family doesn't talk to us. Ah, memories.

Amish Country

I met someone new at work today, and we started talking about a trip that she had just returned from to Amish country in PA. I got retardedly excited about this topic, because I grew up in that area. So when I get to the Big City and the City-folk want to discuss things like this, I'm all LET'S TALK ABOUT RUMSPRINGA AND FASNACHTS.

Man, the Amish piss me off. I know, it's not nice to say. But I can't help myself. They make me really angry. And it's not because they're Christians and I'm a godless heathen. It's because they are a FUCKING BRAINWASHED CULT and yet, they are revered for it.

The Amish live in isolated communities (no shit). They rear their children with little to no exposure to the English world. They stop educating their kids at an eighth grade level (and prior to that, the quality of education that they give is questionable). And then, at fucking 16 years old, they give their kids a couple of years to go crazy and experience the English world (Rumspringa). Eventually, the kids have to decide whether they want the English life or the Amish life.

Okay, so let's think of another scenario for a second. Imagine that for your whole life, you were only allowed to eat wheat bread. Your parents tell you that eating anything other than wheat bread is bad for you, will fill you with cholesterol, and kill you.. Your teachers say the same thing. They point to non-wheat-breaders and tell you how sick they are and how they are going to die. Suddenly, at 16, your parents say that you can try bacon. You try it. It tastes good, and you sort of like it, but you're uncomfortable. Isn't wheat bread the only thing that is good to eat? Won't eating bacon kill me? Then, to top it off, your family makes you choose: wheat bread or bacon? If you want to keep eating bacon, you can't have your old life. You have to leave your family and go out into the world. If you pick wheat bread, you can go back home. So: health, home, and wheat bread; or sickness, strangeness, and bacon?

It doesn't seem like much of a choice. That's what the Amish kids basically get. They aren't educated outside of their community, so when they have to choose what life they want, they almost always pick Amish.

Furthermore, some kids do pick the English life. But guess what happens to them? They have to go out into the world WITH AN EIGHTH GRADE EDUCATION. You can imagine how successful they will be.

So I don't really have much respect for the Amish, because they brainwash their children and deny them a lot of opportunities. Also, they have a lot of genetic problems from inbreeding (bilirubin problems in particular), and that's not cool either. Oh, and did I mention how they treat their women? LIKE SHIT. Amish women can't do shit except cook and clean and squeeze out more Amish babies. Because they have vaginas. Oh, and because some bitch named Eve gave some dude named Adam an apple. So, you know, if you have a vagina you should really just stay in the kitchen and cover up, for god's sake.

But what kills me is that for some reason, people fucking WORSHIP the Amish. They take special trips to Amish country. They go crazy over photographing buggies and hitching posts. They buy books that paint the Amish as a noble and admirable people. They lose their fucking minds over quilts. Enough with the fucking quilts. Boyfriend's mother makes quilts and you don't see a bunch of people acting like jackasses to get one.

I'm not saying that the Amish aren't nice or whatever. The Amish people that I've met are so damn sweet they'll make your teeth rot and fall out. But I don't think any group of people that purposefully denies its children educational opportunities or keeps its women so subservient deserves that sort of hero-worship.
I realize, of course, that the elder Amish are themselves lacking in educational opportunities, and don't know any better themselves. But it's still not okay that they shame and guilt their kids into following their religion. Or that they keep their kids stupid so that they don't know any better. Or deprives their women of choices and careers (A documentary on the Amish called Devil's Playground profiles a 42 year old woman who uses anorexia as her only means of birth control; she didn't want more than eight kids). For crying out loud, they don't even want their people to get treatment for mental disorders.

That's just how I see the Amish. They aren't monsters or anything, but they aren't much more than a group of people whose religion keeps them ignorant. So I don't get the reverence.

But, to be fair, I do enjoy Fasnachts, so I guess I have the Amish to thank for that.

Women's "health"

Are you fucking kidding me, John McCain? You just put women's health in QUOTES??? OUR HEALTH IS NOT A JOKE. AND YOU DO NOT GET TO TELL US WHAT IS HEALTH-RELATED OR NOT.

Carrying a baby for 9 months is ALWAYS RISKY. ALWAYS. So, John McCain, who will NEVER HAVE TO CARRY A BABY, we are not fucking walking uteri. I know you and your trophy wife love your damn adopted baby so much, but GUESS WHAT. We are not here to make babies all the time for people who can't have them. That's not how it works. And it's our bodies that get FUCKED UP for 9 months, so if we don't want to do that, WE SHOULDN'T HAVE TO. And that's PART OF WOMEN'S HEALTH.

Oh and also, you're offended at being called a racist? Maybe you should try NOT MAKING RACIAL COMMENTS. Calling Obama a terrorist is RACIST and that is the end of it. If you think that you're offended, you should try being in Obama's shoes.

Caps lock aside, this was a much juicier debate than the last one. The moderator did a really good job, I thought, of trying to make the candidates answer the questions. I wish they had done that at the VP debate. I'm sorry they didn't mention gay rights at all.

I weep for the girls of America

I know, I know: two posts in one day, right? Get a life, Phoebe. But I just HAD to share this story.

My aunt, cousin, and her 9 year old daughter (that would be my first cousin once removed for all you genealogy buffs out there) were out visiting for the day, and we were at the giant Toys-R-Us in Times Square. They had Halloween costumes out, and my little cousin was flipping through them. She pulled one out, whirled around, and exclaimed, "I like this one!"

This is what she picked out:

Get this: It's even called "Major Flirt."

Words could not describe my horror. This should have been a key teaching moment, but I think all I could manage was "Oh my god...that's not...put that back."

DO NOT even try to argue that this is not "supposed" to be sexy. Yes. it. is. EVERYTHING about it suggests sex. The name alone disqualifies it from being innocuous.

Little girls ARE NOT sexual objects. Their purpose in life is not to look pleasing to men. Their purpose is not to flirt, or tease, or tantalize. They are not, as Humbert Humbert would say, "nymphs." They are CHILDREN and they are PEOPLE. They have BRAINS AND POTENTIAL. That potential is not to serve you in any way, shape, or form. That potential is for them to do really great things for themselves and for humanity. And when you put them in these skanky little outfits, because it's so fucking "cute," you INSTANTLY tell them that their real potential lies in a sexualization and objectification.

The little boy costumes we saw were firefighters, superheroes, astronauts, pilots, ninjas, pirates, and zombies. They sent messages of strength, skill, and assertiveness. Many were actual professions to which one could aspire.

The girls' costume options: "Twinkle pretty witch", Fairy, "asian princess", "pirate hottie", "pink batgirl" (short skirt, knee-high boots), and monster bride. They sent messages of weakness, passivity, and sex. They ALL had skirts. None were actual professions. Oh wait. You CAN have sex for money. I forgot.

Apparently the costume that my cousin actually got is no better. Of course, it's from Wal-Mart, the family-friendliest company ever (Because family-friendly=making sure women know the importance of looking sexy)!

If you feel like wanting to blow your brains out, scroll through Wal-Mart's selection of girls' Halloween costumes. This Lolita culture is not okay. Shit like this is why women aren't taken seriously, starting from childhood. Shit like this is part of the reason why we experience rape, abuse, lower pay, fewer educational options, and higher rates of depression.

I'm always on the fence about whether I want children or not (largely because stuff like this scares me), but I do know that if I have a daughter, she will be my first action towards correcting these problems. She will NEVER be dressed in such a degrading Halloween costume. She will not own Bratz dolls. She will not have Hannah Montana as a role model (or whatever demeaning show Disney is shitting out that particular decade). And she will know exactly why not.

So, McCain believes himself to be a liberal, apparently

My sister sent me this link to a Times piece about the origin of the word "maverick." The piece is short, but in summary, it explains that the Maverick family from which the term originated is totally offended that McCain calls himself that, because the word and their name is linked to progressive and liberal values.

Even if we are to go off of the more "standard" definition of maverick (someone who takes a stand independent of others in a group, Webster's College Dictionary), I don't see how this description fits McCain at all. As far as I can see, his "group" is the GOP (Grand Old Poopheads), and since he has voted with his party 88.1% of the time (Source: WaPo), I guess that doesn't make him a "maverick" of the Republicans. Unless disagreeing with your party a mere 11.9% of the time makes you a maverick.

I'm not saying that McCain should be voting against his own party more. There isn't anything wrong with voting along your own party lines. You belong to that party for a reason, and that reason is that you often agree with them. I am saying that he's NOT A FUCKING MAVERICK.

Also, I was watching the season finale from the first season of Roseanne today (you know, the one where she stands up to her sexist asshole boss and quits the job at the plastics factory), and it got me all riled up because that show was made 20 years ago and the issue featured in the episode isn't laughably archaic yet. And people actually want to elect officials who will do NOTHING to fix those problems. Or better yet, who will exacerbate those problems.

If you have forgotten what a gem the first season of Roseanne was, you should netflix it ASAP. I swear that show was like watching my own family. I make no apologies for identifying with TV's favorite white trash family.

Recommended Read: The Frailty Myth

When the Olympics were on, the Boyfriend and I were sitting on the couch (most likely in our underwear, as per usual) watching the rowing competitions. Suddenly I had a revelation: There were no women on the rowing teams. Gender segregation in sports has always bothered me, but this suddenly seemed especially ridiculous. There isn't even any contact in rowing! Just some folks, sitting in a boat, pulling those oars with all of their might. Why aren't more women in the boats?

So I pointed this out. Boyfriend offered that perhaps women, possessing less muscle mass, are simply not able to row as quickly as males. Maybe if we could see women row, he suggested, we would see that their times don't match the men's, leading teams to recruit only men.

As if on cue, the women's rowing competitions started up. Sure enough, the women, although equally muscular-looking and impressive, were pulling longer finishing times. I can't remember what specific rowing competition we were watching, or the specific team winners and times. But for comparison purposes I went to nbcolympics.com and looked up a few: In lightweight women's double sculls final A, the final winning time was 6:54.74. In lightweight men's double scull's final A, it was 6:10.99. In the same competition, the slowest women's time was 7:04.61; the slowest men's was 6:19.96.

This is obviously not a scientific sampling, and there are a lot of other races to compare, and I'm by no means claiming to be doing something scientific here (stand back! I'm going to try science!)
But seeing these results really irked me, because I wanted those girls to pull equal times. So that got me to thinking: Really? Are we really weaker? Those women must train SO HARD to be there, I'm sure as furiously as the men train. And they still don't pull even times? That's a lot of cognitive dissonance for me, because I'm a firm believer that the only "natural" difference between men and women is that women have hoonannies and men have willy-wankers and everything else is societally constructed.

So, like I always do when I feel conflicted, I googled it. And I found this really great book, The Frailty Myth: Redefining the Physical Potential of Women and Girls, by Colette Dowling. And I ordered it. And I love it and I think it should be required reading for everyone, and should be taught in gym classes across the nation.

I'm not quite finished with it yet, because I'm also reading Anna Karenina and The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster at the same time. But so far it's banishing the nagging, itchy, dirty feeling of doubt in my head that women really are the weaker sex and there's nothing we can do about it. It's also making me feel guilty about being skinny, never exercising, and never participating in sports (I've always been ridiculously uncoordinated, and I think that plus the whole gender divide thing has always turned me off to sports and exercise in general). Basically Dowling explains a lot about the history of women and physical exercise (don't move when you have your period! Don't ride bikes, it will cause you to accidentally masturbate!) , how we've been conditioned to believe that frailty is more feminine and that physical strength is undesirable, how this harms us and what we can do about it.

I'm glad I found the book because it helped me clarify my feelings on a number of sports-related issues that have bugged me since youth: Powder puff football (once a year we get to "be like the boys"?? And there's NO TACKLING??) ; lack of gender integration in various sports; only allowing women to play softball instead of baseball (I wanted to try the baseball team, damnit); lack of parental encouragement in sports/general physical activity for daughters (Dowling points out that in a co-ed tee ball game, most of the girls don't even own their own gloves); teachers asking for the boys in the class to do some sort of heavy lifting (I remember one scrawny boy in particular being asked to do some heavy lifting over much stronger girls); media apathy towards professional female sports (did you know that there is a Pro female football league? I don't see you covering that, ESPN); among other things.

Dowling's book was also surprisingly optimistic about the progress women have made in the physical realm, often pointing out the differences between her generation and her daughter's. So, rather than leaving me feeling only angry and cynical, it also left me feeling a little better about the prospect of change (however gradual it may be). So, maybe someday, the elementary school on my block that has gender-divided recess on my street will pull out the basketball hoop for the girls, and the jump rope for the boys (I'm not kidding. They put the hoop away when the girls come out and give them all jump ropes. I haven't seen a single jump rope on the ground at boys' recess). And maybe I'll have a daughter, and she'll want to play baseball, not softball, and everyone will be totally cool with that. And we'll watch Olympic rowing together, and the co-ed teams will pull record times. One day.

Why my future children won't watch the Disney Channel

Well, I keep tossing around the idea of a blog, so here it is. I like to read them, and I've been unemployed for about 3 months now, so perhaps it's best if I find an outlet for all the little thoughts shuffling around in my brain with nowhere to go.

I'm starting with Disney. I'm starting with Disney because this is a subject that really irked me a while ago, but when I started to talk about it, it came off as a rant from nowhere. After sounding like a lunatic a couple of times, I figured maybe a blog would be a better way to present myself. You know, instead of pouncing on my boyfriend when he walks in the door with OH MY GOD I WATCHED "ICE PRINCESS" TODAY AND LET ME TELL YOU HOW SEXIST THAT SHIT WAS.

Disney, FUCK YOU for what you do for women and little girls. Seriously. How many little girls think they NEED boyfriends because the happiness of every single female character in your movies is dependent on landing a man? How many girls are convinced that they are naturally weaker because each of your "heroines" requires some sort of rescuing? Even your "progressive" characters are a fucking joke. Mulan? That was your attempt at a strong female character? She has to BECOME A MALE to successfully battle and at the end, with all of her accomplishments, she still has to FIND A MAN to make a happy ending! Cinderella, Aurora, Belle, Ariel, Jasmin ALL "found love" at the end AND required a man to save them.

That's pretty egregious. However, I'll admit, it's obvious and old news in the feminist realm. What really irks me though, is the more recent Disney movie "Ice Princess". I caught this movie during my unemployment, a period in which I would watch anything. Stop judging.

In case you haven't seen it, "Ice Princess" stars Michelle Trachtenberg (of Pete and Pete fame, if you are roughly my age) as Casey, an intelligent teenager with an interest in Physics. Her mother (Joan Cusack) is involved and supportive of Casey's academic accomplishments, and specifically wants her daughter to make it into an ivy league school. However, while conducting a Physics project, Casey discovers her innate talent for figure skating, and must choose between academics and a figure-skating career.

That's the short of it. Here are the details:
The mother is portrayed as a feminist. She is actually the ANTAGONIST of the film. When she complains about the skimpy, sexualized costumes in figure skating, she is laughed off by her daughter and made to look "out of touch."

Casey's intelligence and interest in Physics make her appear geeky and awkward. She weirds out a boy at a party when she starts talking about Physics. Because everyone knows that you should never, ever appear smarter than a man. Then they won't marry you!

After Casey starts figure skating, another skater teaches her how to apply her make-up and glams her up. At this point, Casey's social life really fucking soars, of course.

Casey's ice-skating gives her new-found "self esteem" and "confidence." Your high IQ will never make you feel as good as bein' real purty does!

Casey succeeds wildly at figure skating and as a result, gives up her scholarship to Harvard. Although this causes a rift between her and her mother, she eventually wins her mother's approval.


So what the fuck, Disney? You actually just gave up on subtle sexist messages and decided to go for a full-blown, anti-feminist movie? You made the feminist the BAD GUY? You took the smart girl and made sure to point out that she was nothing until she made herself more sexually appealing? YOU ACTUALLY MADE GIVING UP A SCHOLARSHIP FOR HARVARD INTO A GOOD THING?

A lot of people will say that this is no big deal, that lots of kids watch this and it's a harmless movie and everyone will turn out fine. This is minimizing a very large societal problem. One way in which television works is to perpetuate ideas of how our society functions and what the norms are. Children watch these messages and they internalize them. They watch "Ice Princess" and they understand that being a "nerd" won't attract a man and will make you very unpopular. They understand that conforming to a certain standard of femininity will make you a social success. And that being a social success will lead to other successes. They understand that holding an unpopular opinion will cause you to be ostracized. This is a big problem. These sorts of ideas take years and years of undoing to overcome, mainly because they are so prevalent in our society (and they are prevalent because corporations like Disney are so fucking huge you can't escape them). For a lot of people, these ideas aren't ever countered, and they become vapid, shallow people with almost no ability to question norms or tolerance for dissent from the norm. Ultimately, it makes it difficult for women to be seen as equals or as more than sexual beings. It makes it harder for women to be. If you still don't think that this is the case, maybe you should step back and re-examine where all of your notions of gender and behavior stem from. Because babies aren't born with a concept of whether they should coordinate their onesie to their genitals.

Did I mention that at the end of "Ice Princess" Casey gets her man?