The Elephant in the Room

I don’t pay much attention to the more popular “feminist” blogs, as I’ve found them to be completely dismissive of childfree individuals, favoring instead the furthering of a pronatalist point of view, to the detriment of those who have chosen to forego parenthood.

That being said, I do still occasionally pop over and read some of the posts when someone points me to something s/he thinks I would find interesting.  Such was the case with post, “Rejecting ‘Population Control’ as a Way to Fight Climate Change.”

The topic of having fewer (or no) children in an effort to help stave off global climate change is always the elephant in the room.  It’s obvious.  Fewer people = less consumption.  But no one ever wants to talk about it.  And, if someone actually does dare to bring up the topic, people, usually women, become absolutely livid, usually precluding any hope of a calm, rational, and intelligent discussion/debate.

I don’t pretend to understand the desire to have kids, since I don’t recall ever having it.  But I do understand that some people have the desire.  I also don’t understand the whole “it has to be my biological child” thing, as opposed to parenting an adopted child, but, again, I understand that this desire exists, as well.

And that’s just fine.

So why do people who have the desire to procreate have to get so defensive about their choices?  And why is it so taboo to discuss it?

I own a car… something that, even though it’s a hybrid and gets awesome gas mileage (compared to nonhybrid vehicles), uses fossil fuels.  My computer runs on electricity and I don’t have solar panels, a windmill, or any other such source of alternative energy.  I don’t currently compost.  So, I’m not perfect.  At least not in the environmentally-friendly way. 

But I don’t get all defensive about it when someone points out to me that, were I to be really environmentally conscious, I would get rid of my car, compost, and put solar panels on my roof.  Because they would be correct.

However, if anyone dares mention that not having children is a “greener” choice than having them, parents immediately go on the defensive.  Yes, people have the right to have as many children as they want.  But they need to stop pretending that (a) they’ve done it for some altruistic reason(s), or (b) that having children is good for or does not impact the environment and the rest of society.  Because just like my driving a car or my using electricity to run this computer I’m typing on affects the environment, so does having a kid.

Should we encourage people to have fewer children… or forego biological parenthood entirely?  Why not?  We encourage people to put sweaters on in the winter and turn down thermostats to save energy, don’t we?  We encourage people to recycle instead of sending everything to the landfills, don’t we?  We encourage people to walk, bike, or take public transportation more, don’t we?  Why wouldn’t we include not adding to our already burgeoning population to the list of things one can to do help alleviate some of the stress on the earth?

I’ve said it in my past posts about feminism… the answer is one word:  EDUCATION.  Instead of throwing around red herrings about how encouraging people to have fewer (or no) children is based in racism, classism, anti-feminism, or any other –ism you can think of, why not advocate for better, more comprehensive education – financial education, environmental education, and reproductive (including complete and accurate information regarding birth control) education?

And, by the way, that education I’m suggesting includes educating women and men.

Crossposted from EriePressible

Where’s the Feminist Outrage

As a childfree woman, I read a few blogs that are written by childfree individuals.  Similarly, as a feminist, I read a few feminist blogs.  You would think the stories/issues covered in those blogs would be similar… at least once in a while.  Not so.

This morning, I got to thinking that I hadn’t seen anything on the main feminist blogs I read about the article in the Daily Mail written by Carol Sarler where she opines that “bosses” are right to distrust women who choose to remain childfree.  I’m not going to go into detail about the article itself because, first, it’s completely contrary to every workplace experience I’ve had, as well as the experiences of all the friends, acquaintances, relatives, and co-workers I’ve surveyed on the issue.  Secondly, the article is picked apart bit by bit on another blog I read, Like It Is.  The author of that blog, as well as those commenting, have already taken care of that chore.

My gripe is with the feminist community.  Where is their outrage over this article?  If this article had been written by a childfree individual and s/he had opined that mothers were not to be trusted in the workplace, the feminists would have been all over it crying about how mothers are discriminated against in the workplace and they get paid less and they get passed over for promotions more often, or whatever is the bleat du jour.  Yet, when it’s their childfree contingent getting slandered, you hear nothing from them, save the crickets chirping in the background.

I searched Feministe for the word “childfree.”

I searched Feministing for the word “childfree.”

I searched Jezebel for the word “childfree.”

I searched WIMN for the word “childfree.”

And Blogher?  Well, I guess it was silly to think they would cover the story, unless they could get Her Royal Dooceness, et al. to get snarky and condescending about the childfree choice.

I understand that there are far more women with children than there are women without children so, naturally, there are going to be more stories about the trials and tribulations of motherhood.  But the fact that most of the blogs I listed above have 0 results for the search term “childfree,” says something, doesn’t it?

Feminists don’t give their childfree sisters the time of day.

We are treated like second-class citizens in the feminist community.  And I find that really, really ironic since, you know, feminists are supposed to be all about equality for women.  One would think that would mean all women.

It’s a good thing I like the sound of crickets chirping.

Crossposted on EriePressible

I’ll See Your Selfless and Raise You an Altruistic

When last I blogged, I was venting my ire at Mommybloggers who were discussing how angry the on-line childfree community is.  Or, at least the small bits and pieces of the childfree community they happened upon one afternoon.

In my research regarding the video that started this whole thing, I read some of the blog written by one of the Mommybloggers involved in the “momversation” about the childfree.  In her blog entry about the video, she refers to “bringing a life into the world and nurturing it” as selfless.  Um, no.  Sorry.  I’m going to have to disagree with that assessment, as did one of her commenters, whereupon the blogger attempted to clarify her claim somewhat by saying that she “wouldn’t get 13 stitches in my yaw-yaw for nothing.  ;)”

The common definition of selfless is “having little or no regard for oneself.”  A woman chooses to get pregnant because she desires to be a mother.  How is that having little or no regard for oneself?  She’s doing exactly what she wants to do and doing it for no one (save her spouse, perhaps) except herself.  A woman who chooses to have a child may have to endure some not-so-pleasant side effects (painful labor and childbirth, an episiotomy and the resultant stitches, a cesarean, gestational diabetes, or even death due to something such as eclampsia), but she does so willingly because she knows (or certainly should know) that those are the requirements/possibilities that go with having a child.  A child that she chooses to have because she wants to be a mother.

And while I do believe that adoption is certainly a more altruistic method of becoming a parent (providing a loving home to a child in need of one), even that choice involves someone adopting a child because s/he wants to be a parent.

Another problem with this “parents are so selfless” propaganda is that it fuels the “childfree are so selfish” bullshit.  Choosing to remain childfree is not selfish and, depending upon the reasons someone chooses the childfree path or what the childfree person does with his/her life, it’s quite possible that the childfree choice is more altruistic than becoming a parent.

Interestingly, in delving into the definition of selflessness and altruism, I stumbled upon The American Heritage Science Dictionary definition for altruism:

Instinctive cooperative behavior that is detrimental or without reproductive benefit to the individual but that contributes to the survival of the group to which the individual belongs. The willingness of a subordinate member of a wolf pack to forgo mating and help care for the dominant pair’s pups is an example of altruistic behavior. While the individual may not reproduce, or may reproduce less often, its behavior helps ensure that a close relative does successfully reproduce, thus passing on a large share of the altruistic individual’s genetic material.

Ha.  Kind of funny, no?

If you’re interested in reading the opinions of some other childfree people with regard to the momversation video, check these out when you get a chance:

The Confused Dildo

The Childless By Choice Project

No Pasa Nada

Available Light

Mental Meatloaf

Crossposted from EriePressible

Equal Time

I have a few Google alerts … you know what those are, right?  You enter search terms and you get an e-mail from Google pointing you in the direction of websites and blogs that contain those words/phrases.

I’ve been getting a lot of alerts on the term “childfree” lately, thanks to a video published on momversation on February 11th featuring the MommyBlogger-in-Chief, Dooce.  A lot of bloggers, childfree and childed alike, have been discussing this video.  Because I have a loose rule that I don’t visit “mommy blogs,” (I read quite a few blogs by people who have children…there’s a difference) I kept putting off visiting momversation to watch the video.  I thought I was getting the gist of it by reading other blogs that were discussing the video.

Today, in light of the fact that I couldn’t stand watching MSNBC’s constant coverage of Michael Jackson’s press conference and there I couldn’t find any episodes of Law & Order or House, and it only took me about 20 minutes to do my taxes, I decided to buckle my seatbelt and check it out.

It wasn’t what I expected from what I had read on other websites.  First and foremost, I was expecting the video to be an actual conversation amongst several women (who I understood from reading other blogs did NOT include any childfree women… of course not, after all, the video was posted on MOMversation).  But it’s not a conversation at all.  It’s a video of three women’s monologues about the childfree … a topic about which they haven’t the vaguest understanding.

And they do quite the half-assed job of even pretending to understand.  Dooce starts out trying to be very open-minded, but she quickly devolves into blathering about how she made such a sacrifice having a child and how much more she likes herself now, as opposed to who she was before she had a child.

Dooce did not sacrifice anything to have a child.  At least she wasn’t sacrificing anything she didn’t want to give up willingly.  If you make the conscious choice to have a child, please don’t make yourself sound so altruistic.  You had a kid because you wanted to have a kid, which means any sacrifices you made were made willingly and in furtherance of having what you wanted – a child.  As for liking herself more now than she did before she had kids?  Do you think that might have something to do with the fact that now she’s proudly on medication?  Just sayin’.

Rebecca Woolf, one of the other momologuers, apparently read something written by a childfree individual who was upset that there were kids in a coffee shop, because she made this statement:

If you don’t like the fact that I’m in a coffee shop and I have a kid, you know, what can I do?

I’ve read a lot of childfree blogs, forums, websites, etc., and I have a metric ton of childfree friends.  Hell, one of my favorite topics to write about is childfreedom, which means I’m pretty sure that I’ve got a better idea of what’s in childfree blogs than three women who, according to MamaDooce, spent one afternoon reading childfree blogs.  Good job on researching the topic.  (/sarcasm)  So, I feel pretty confident when I say that I’ve never read anything written by a childfree person that laments the fact that there are children in public, unless said children are behaving like ill-mannered, tantrum-throwing, undisciplined little assholes and their parents aren’t doing jackshit to alleviate that situation.  Most of us don’t go around breathing fire on perfectly well-mannered children.  Of course, the way the majority of childfree people behave doesn’t make for good blogfodder or, in this case, videofodder.

They talk about the childfree being angry?  This is one of the things that absolutely enrages this childfree person – leaving out the whole story so as to paint the childfree all as child-hating monsters.

To paint all childfree with the same brush – that of childhating, angry nutjobs – is as disingenuous as the childfree painting all mothers as irresponsible breeders who allow their children to fling food in five-star restaurants.

Dana Loesch, married with kids at 21, but thinks she was “childfree by choice” at one point in her life.  Excuse me for a second while I chuckle.  Most childfree people give the subject matter much more thought than anyone could have possibly given it by the time she reaches the ripe ol’ age of 21.  But, yeah, thanks for contributing to the ever-condescending “you’ll change your mind” bingo.  And Dana very snottily tells us:

You want to not have kids?  Whooooooo!  Then don’t have kids.  But don’t look down on us because we did.

(Unfortunately, you have to watch the video to get the full effect of the incredible condescension with which the above quote is delivered.)

The vast majority of the childfree do not “look down” on people simply becasue they have children.  I’ll buy that for a quarter.  Of course, that’s as long as you’re willing to stop telling us that we can’t truly know love if we don’t have a child, how we couldn’t possibly understand something because we don’t have kids, or that you were once childfree yourself before you had kids.  No.  You weren’t.  You simply hadn’t had kids yet.  There’s a difference, but you apparently didn’t come across that distinction in your afternoon of research.

And Her Dooceness tells us that she would be much more sympathetic to the childfree’s plight if they weren’t so angry.  If you expect us to work every holiday for you so you can spend it with your kids, schedule our vacations around yours so you can take vacations when your kid’s school is on break, sit idly by while we get screwed at every turn, and then tell us that you understand, but you’d be much more sympathetic if we weren’t so angry, well, so as to not mince words or risk being misunderstood, let me just say, fuck that noise.  Put simply, we wouldn’t be so exasperated, annoyed, and angry if you’d pull your own weight around the office, as opposed to expecting your childfree co-workers to constantly pick-up your slack.  Or maybe you hadn’t noticed that’s what we do because you’re too busy running off to ballet recitals and parent-teacher conferences?

Dana also admonishes us for screaming “discrimination” at the same time we’re actively discriminating against children.  I’m not sure what she means by the childfree discriminating against children.  Is she referring to the fact that many of us think it’s inappropriate to take a five-year-old to a 10:00 p.m. showing of an R-rated movie?  Is she referring to the idea that children should be taught to behave like little human beings in public, as opposed to wild animals and, if they do behave like the latter, the parents should remove them from public?  If that’s the case, then there are a hell of a lot of parents who discriminate against children, too, because I know an awful lot of people who would agree with the childfree on these issues.  As a matter of fact, my siblings and I were raised by two of them.  But, just like with the coffee shop statement, I’ve no idea what this mother is prattling on about, since she leaves out any kind of example or background.

Let me cut to the chase:

This video is a joke.  An afternoon of blog-reading isn’t anywhere near the amount of research this topic deserves and the fact that Momversation couldn’t be bothered to include any balance from the childfree exemplifies Momversation’s dismissal of the childfree.  I’m neither surprised nor disappointed.  It’s par for the course.

And last but not least, this trilogy of soliloquies is incredibly hypocritical.  If mother’s don’t want the childfree passing judgment on their choices and their children, then maybe they should lead by example.  After all, they are the majority.  And, you know, they’re so much more mature than the rest of us.

Oy.

Crossposted from EriePressible.

Does Not Compute

A tweet from Phoena, linking to a tweet from ChildfreeOnline, led me to this article… an article that just does not compute with my brain.

The article itself is bad enough, taking what I’m assuming is a tongue-in-cheek approach to coming up with “excuses not to have sex.”  I say “tongue-in-cheek” because I’m assuming that most men aren’t stupid enough to believe that their spouses have actually contracted a case of Acute Disseminated Encephalomyelitis Elephantiasis, especially since Excuse #10 assumes that the guy is not a dummy.

Sigh.  Just sigh.

This article bothers me on so many levels, I’m just no sure where to start.

First, there’s this whole “mothers don’t want to have sex” assumption.  I know plenty of women who have children and still like to have sex on a regular basis.  And by “regular basis,” I’m talking more than once a month.  Perhaps my friends are the exceptions to the rule?

Second, there’s the encouragement of dishonesty in a relationship.  If one spouse isn’t in the mood to have sex, why does s/he need to come up with an excuse?  Why isn’t honesty good enough?  Why would anyone need an “excuse” other than the truth?

Third, I don’t understand why a woman wouldn’t want to have sex with her spouse on a regular basis.  Perhaps the couple isn’t doing it right if the female half of the couple views it as a chore, rather than something enjoyable that should be looked forward to and desired.

Then there’s the phrases like “wifely duty” or assuming that all women would choose cleaning house over sex (I’ve never ever chosen household chores over sex and seriously question the sanity of anyone who would).  How very enlightened of the author.

Finally, we get to the comments, most of which, fortunately, call out the author of the article as being full of shit.  But there are are few doozies:

There’s “ashley”

But when we do do it, thank goodness it doesn’t last long.

She says that like it’s supposed to be a good thing.  Huh?

And “Jedediah” adds his point of view with:

I have four kids and I can tell you, I love my kids. But after getting married and popping out that first kid?… I am here to tell you. Do not get married. the average American woman views you as a bank and sperm donor. Nothing more. …

Then there’s “Jessica”:

…However I’d consider changing #10 to sex in exchange for 10 diaper changes… Now you might be onto something!

Because apparently Jessica requires payment of some sort to have sex.

And let’s not forget “a male perspective,” who says:

Too many women view men as nothing more than a life support system for a bank account. Sex after marriage is simply for making babies…So many women are just scam-artists.

A sexual relationship is a natural and healthy part of a marriage/intimate partnership.  Sex is good for you.  Why wouldn’t you want to include that in your relationship on a regular basis?  Why would you want your partner to see you only as the mother of his children, as opposed to his partner?

Argh.  So many times, women really piss me off and are their own worst enemy.

Crossposted from EriePressible

P(r)imping & S(l)ideshows

I got an e-mail earlier advising me that I was being followed on Twitter by WEtv.  As I usually do when I get one of these notifications, I toddled on over to WEtv’s Twitter site to check it out.  The first (most recent) entry I read was something about a show called Little Miss Perfect that is airing on WEtv (a/k/a “Television for Women” – can I just tell you how much I like being lumped into this category?  ARGH).

It seems Little Miss Perfect is a “reality” television show.  And this one is all about the world of beauty pageants for children.  If you’re anything like me, when you hear “beauty pageants for children,” you immediately think of JonBenét Ramsey, that poor little girl who was murdered 12 years ago.

It’s no secret that I have a particularly vehement dislike of beauty pageants.  Judging people by their physical appearance is wrong.  I don’t care whether we’re talking about men or women.  But I do think it’s an even more heinous thing to do to children.

Why on earth would anyone want to dress his/her daughter up – including clothing, shoes, hairstyles, and make-up – to look like an 18-year-old hooker turned southern belle circa 1980?  Or would it be 18-year-old southern belle circa 1980 turned hooker?  I’m not quite sure.  And have you seen the way these tykes are taught to walk?  Nothing like teaching a six-year-old to shake her ass.  Ever hear the saying, “I’d like to have a swing like that on my porch?”

Condoning teaching little girls that their net worth is rapped up in their physical appearance and encouraging parents to dress their children up like adults… this is what “Television for Women” is about?  Really?

And this reminds me that I want to purchase the movie Little Miss Sunshine.  Have you seen it?  I’m guessing the powers that be at WEtv have not.  Or they saw it and just didn’t get it.  Judging from WEtv’s programming, Little Miss Sunshine was probably over their heads.  I wonder how much money WEtv is going to make by capitalizing on this crap.  Of course, this is also the channel that brings you Bridezillas,* a show about amazingly superficial women behaving so badly that I find it hard to believe anyone would want to spend ten minutes with them, much less the rest of their lives.

So, is it any wonder that while I was perusing WEtv’s Little Miss Perfect website, I misread the word slideshow as sideshow and the word primp and pimp? More sad than funny, I’m afraid.

So, I’m now officially boycotting WEtv.  I’ll not be watching anything on that channel.  They either need to change the name of their channel so as to stop insulting women by marketing this tripe specifically to them or they need to stop marketing this bullshit and air something that has some semblance of intelligence.

* I just recently discovered this Bridezillas show over the Christmas/New Year holiday.  I had enough time off work that I was actually able to sit down and flip through television channels I don’t usually watch.

Crossposted from Eriepressible

Joan’s At It Again

Joan Blades, is at it again, advocating people take their kids to work with them instead of either staying home to care for them themselves or hiring someone to care for them in their absence.

Fortunately, Joan does manage to admit that this idea will  not work in all employment situations, but I think she is over-estimating how many people could make this work.

Yes there are jobs for which this is simply not possible, but there are also millions of jobs where keeping your baby with you is the most natural thing in the world.

Millions?  Really?  I’m hard-pressed to think of anything other than some white collar executive-type positions.  And even a lot of those jobs would be tough to handle while breastfeeding, changing diapers, or while a fussy infant was wailing in the background.

Joan links to a New York Times article on the same topic, but she doesn’t mention a few things noted in that article:

Of course, disadvantages are clear, too. The needs and noises of babies have the potential to be highly disruptive and to stir resentment among co-workers.

Susan Seitel, president of WFC Resources, a workplace consulting firm in Minneapolis, put it this way: “The business of business is business. I think it’s a little distracting to have children at the office.”

Critics also say that both child and job could lose out because the parent can’t be 100 percent devoted to either one.

…

The most successful programs, Ms. Moquin said, are ones in which companies have written policies — to designate another employee as an alternate caregiver in case the parent is temporarily unavailable; to specify areas for breastfeeding or changing diapers; and to spell out the ages when children are allowed in the office. Usually, babies are allowed up until 6 to 8 months, or before they start to crawl.

Even women who advocate bringing babies to the office say it can be rough. “It’s far better for me to have my child at home. It’s hard to be your best work person and your best mom because you’re doing both things at one time,” said Denise McVey, president of S3, a 25-person advertising agency in Boonton, N.J., who brought her son to the office for his first eight months.

Borshoff, a communications firm in Indianapolis with 40 employees, has a Bring Your Baby to Work program for infants ages 6 weeks to 6 months. The firm pays 80 percent of an employee’s full salary when the child is in the office.

That way, the parent can devote energy to the child without feeling guilty. “It feels very fair,” said Susan F. Matthews, principal of the firm. “We keep time sheets so we can monitor productivity, and we see that parents really don’t maintain the same productivity levels.”

The New York Times, January 3, 2009

I don’t see a problem with having on-site daycare facilities – if a company wants to go to that expense.  It takes physical space, hiring staff, insurance, etc.  It’s not a cheap date.  However, if the employees who needed these services were willing to pay for the on-site daycare centers, it would be a much more doable prospect for many companies.  But that’s not what momsrising wants.  Momsrising wants either the companies to foot the entire bill themselves or for the government to foot the bill/subsidize the project.

Joan Blades also doesn’t mention that one of the companies that allows employees to bring kids to work with them only pays those employees 80% of their regular salary, because they take into consideration that the productivity of those employees goes down.  I’m going to have to go with a great big DUH on that revelation.  But I’m rather surprised that line didn’t send Joan into a full blown seizure, since momsrising also has a problem with mothers getting paid less and being passed over for promotions more often than their nonprogenied counterparts, even though most employers will tell you it’s because the nonchilded worker works more… ergo, that employee gets paid more/advances faster.  It’s a system that makes quite of bit of sense, if you actually stop to think about it.

Joan mentions the financial strain having a child puts on the parents several times, yet I don’t see any mention in her article or in anything on the momsrising website that advocates people actually doing any kind of financial planning before deciding to have a child.  Wouldn’t that be the wise thing to do?  Wouldn’t it make sense to save up before having a kid so that one or even both parents could take an extended leave of absence from his/her job or even quit altogether, if that’s what they want?  Yes, it might be difficult, but for millions* of people, it’s possible.

Unfortunately, momsrising would rather have people popping out kids willy-nilly without any forethought whatsoever.  Financial considerations?  Bah!, they say.  Just let the government foot the bill.  If they can afford the tax bill that’s going to require, then they can sure as hell afford daycare or some time off work.

* Hey, if Joan can claim that there are “millions” of jobs that are conducive to having a bring-your-baby-to-work program, then I can claim that there are millions of jobs that pay well enough for people to be able to save in advance for the birth of a child.

Crossposted from Eriepressible 01/07/2009

Women’s Issues

This morning (actually it was this afternoon because Al and I slept in way too late this morning…must have had something to do with a late night, not enough sleep all week, and it was rainy and overcast) I read a comment on one of the many blogs I read that got me thinking, as many comments both here and elsewhere are likely to do.  The comment was that none of the candidates at either political convention touched on “women’s issues.”

But what are “women’s issues,” really?

Abortion?  Yes.  I believe this issue is much more important to women than it is to men.  There’s one. And it’s one that Obama mentioned in his speech:

We may not agree on abortion, but surely we can agree on reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies in this country.

I think the Republican candidates addressed the abortion issue, as well.  After all, they were the ones who gave the press the story about 17-year-old Bristol Palin’s pregnancy and impending nuptials.  While they may not have uttered the word abortion, I think their point was received loud and clear.

Equal pay for equal work?  Okay, I’ll give you that this issue is more important to women than many men, but it should also be very important to a heck of a lot of men, as well, namely divorced men who pay child support.  Why?  Because the more the mother of the children makes, the less the father has to pay in child support.  At least that’s the way it is here in Pennsyltucky and I’m guessing there are similar guidelines for support calculations in other states.

But Senator Obama mentioned that in his speech:

And now is the time to keep the promise of equal pay for an equal day’s work, because I want my daughters to have exactly the same opportunities as your sons.

Domestic violence?  Since more women are victims of domestic violence than are men, I guess this could be considered a women’s issue, although I’m not sure why the brothers, fathers, uncles, nephews, cousins, and the male friends of victims of domestic violence aren’t just as concerned about the issue.

Those are the three issues that I came up with that I think could be considered “women’s issues,” although that phrase makes me very uncomfortable.  I don’t like polarizing people like that.  I think we all have some issues that are more important to us than to others, but I don’t like sweeping generalizations.  What’s important to me (a woman), may not be as important to my sister, my aunt, my mother, my niece, or my female friends.

So, what am I missing.  What are these “women’s issues” that weren’t mentioned by either party’s candidates?

Cross-posted from EriePressible

Why Women Can’t Have It All

That’s right. I don’t believe women can have it all…at least a lot of women can’t and, guess what? It’s their own damned fault.

Since time immemorial, men have been able to have both careers and families, with little or no problem whatsoever. Women, however, not so much. Women have a much harder time juggling a career and a family. Why is that?

Let me ‘splain it to you, Lucy. You see, the men who can easily juggle work and family are, for the most part, the men who have wives (ergo family) or ex-wives…but still, someone to take care of the kids. The wife/mother has historically been responsible for taking care of the home and the children, leaving the husband/father free to focus on his career, bringing home the bacon, and limited household chores like auto and lawn maintenance. He rarely had to take time off work because the kids were sick, daycare was closed due to a snowstorm, the babysitter called in sick, the kids had dentist appointments, or to attend parent-teacher conferences. These tasks were all the duties of the wife/mother.

Then feminism came along and women decided, rightly so, that they should be able to have a career and a family, too. Let me stress that I agree with this.

However, many women sabotage themselves by virtue of their choice of partners.

I am constantly reading studies, articles, blog posts, etc. that discuss the fact that married women spend more time working around the house than their male partners and that women are still the responsible for the majority of the child care duties (staying home from work when the kids are sick, attending the parent-teacher conferences, making the medical appointments for the children and then taking them to those appointments, helping the the kids with their homework, packing their lunches, etc.).

Now, given this knowledge, is it any wonder that employers would prefer to hire men and women who don’t have children? I don’t understand who could possibly blame an employer for wanting to hire the most qualified AND the most reliable employees. It seems like a no-brainer to me.

Now, here’s where I get really pissed off at other women: Why are women marrying and/or having children with men who are not willing to take on half of the childcare responsibilities? Because if they did partner with men willing to do their fair share, then perhaps the difference in reliability between men with children and women with children wouldn’t be nearly as glaring.

As I wrote back in October of 2007, when we discuss this topic, we have to consider the Martyr Factor – that many women take on the majority of the responsibilities around the house and especially with regard to the children, in addition to working outside the home, because they either want to be able to kvetch about how much they do or because they don’t trust their partners to manage these tasks to their specifications. In both of those scenarios, who is to blame?

Here’s my big question to the women who feel their spouses/partners are not pulling their weight around the house/with the childcare duties: Did you discuss these matters with your husband before you got married and/or had children?

Until women can choose partners who are willing to be equals in all ways, then no, ladies, you can’t have it all, and I’m not sure why this comes as a surprise to anyone.

My Kind of Feminism

Hallelujah, Amen, now pass the potatoes…it seems I’ve found someone who seems to have experienced the same problem with feminism that I’ve recently encountered. During my googling marathon, I happened upon a blog called Mean Feminism. The first post I happened upon was an old one from July of 2006 titled, “Non-Motherhood and Feminism. Party On.” I read a few more of their posts (the blog was the work of “Edith” / “Vicky Vengeance”), which were all excellent. Unfortunately, it appears the blog has been inactive for nearly a year.

Let me give you a couple of the highlights:

All well and good. Here’s where it gets tricky: because we are so fearful of that stereotype, because we are so adamantly clinging to “choice,” feminists are often very involved in motherhood issues and not involved at all, or even downright opposed to, issues facing childless women.

…

When you have children, when you are straight, when you are pretty, you are definitely NOT immune to a ton of issues. You do, however, pretty much always have society’s thumb up in your direction. I want to talk about, for ten minutes or so, the people who don’t have society’s support, or even most feminists’. I want to talk about Ms. Stereotypical for just ten minutes, and how we can start bringing her back into the fray.

And then there was a kick-ass comment by Laura Linger, who has her own blog, Monkey Love:

Mothers don’t have to give a hot damn in a whorehouse about their childfree “sisters,” but whoa to any childfree woman who says that there is more to feminism than passing meaningless tit-baring laws so Junior can latch on whenever he likes. I personally don’t have a problem with public breastfeeding anyway. Don’t we have more important things, as a gender, to focus on? How about the continued wage gap between men and women for the same work (one could suppose that this is largely due to The Mommy Phenomenon in the workplace, but I’ll leave it at that)? The lack of insurance coverage for birth control, when HMOs are willing to shell out BIG BUCKS on fertility treatments? How about insurance coverage for those of us who want or have received tubal ligations? How about love, caring, compassion, and acceptance for ALL women and the choices that they make, instead of being exclusionary to those only belonging to the Tau Iota Tau sorority?

The “feminism” that these mothers spew leaves me cold because it is fraught with self-sabotage. By refusing to acknowledge lifestyle choices other than their own, these mothers fulfill every single shitty stereotype men hold about us.

Seriously, it’s nice to know I’m not alone in feeling that the feminist movement has left some of its sisters out in the cold – women would could be extremely helpful to the movement, women who have something to contribute. I’m thinking that, when it comes to feminism, those of us who have chosen to be childfree might just have something in common with the stay-at-home-moms. Wait…stay with me here for a minute. You see, I’ve seen feminists jump all over the shit of SAHMs, too. And I think I may have a handle on part of the reason. Maybe it’s because one of he big tenets of the feminist movement was that women should be able to “have it all,” just like men. And the SAHM and CF contingent have acknowledged that they didn’t want to “have it all.” And maybe that is pissing off the feminists.

Although, I admit I think the CF population gets a lot more bullshit from the feminist front than do the SAHMs, because even with the SAHMs, they can still get behind them on the breast-feeding in public issue, which appears to be a really, really big with feminists. But the Childfree contingent? Nope. We opted out of the we can/want to “have it all,” at least as far as the “all” means career and children. It doesn’t matter that we made the choices we deemed to be right for us. It doesn’t matter that we, too, still get paid less than men for the same work. It doesn’t matter that we, too, have to deal with employment discrimination because potential employers assume we have or will have children, which has the potential for the employer to have to deal with more unexpected absences, maternity leaves, etc. And it sure as hell doesn’t seem to matter to them that most of us believe that all human beings should be treated the same across the board, regardless of race, sex, religion, sexual orientation, reproductive status. Because it seems that, in their opinion, women who chose motherhood should be treated better than everyone else.

Originally posted on March 27, 2008 on EriePressible.