Listening: Nine Inch Nails
Desiring: wealth beyond imagining
Enjoying: the world after a night of rain

DISCLAIMER: This entry relies heavily on overgeneralization. It's my observations on society jotted down before I get to work and I haven't researched anything about this topic in a long time. In other words, this is my journal. If you have something constructive to add, please comment. If all you can do is get your panties in a wad and say "nuh-uh!" please take it elsewhere.

Something recently jumped into my head and I wanted to write about it before it slipped away again. It's a subject that's important to me eventhough it's been hashed and rehashed and pretty much beaten to death over the years.

Even I've written about it before and I'll probably write about it again.

I once wrote a ten-minute play for a class that recieved much praise for its content even while its style confused the hell out of my class. It was an imaginative look at a sort of halucination a teenage girl who has been beaten and locked in a closet by her father. The "real world" stuff happens offstage and onstage is a dinner table where the girl has tea with the Three Ladies.

Rather than confuse the class more I skipped their Greek names and went straight to "maiden," "mother" and "crone." It was essentially an exercise in exploring (in a slightly ham-fisted way) the different options women have going for themselves. I didn't really present any conclusions only that a) we can't have it all b) we can only afford so much time to decide and c) vacillating over our individual goals and not supporting each other over the years has contributed directly to girls not knowing which way to go.

It's something that I still think about because I'm not sure that women in general know what they want from the world, let alone how to get it.

Maybe it's because for some reason we're so ready to judge each other that some of us come up with ways to be nonconfrontational with our interests and generally refuse to lend support to causes that require mass effort. Maybe we've been indoctrinated to fight amongst ourselves, but I'm not altogether convinced of this. Probably it takes a damned long time to overcome millenia of the world being monumentally patriarchal.

First it was Rosy the Rivetor, then it was bra burning, which led to Susan Faludi's Backlash (who said the book's size was perfect for hucking it at someone who doesn't get it) which has all led to a myriad of female rolemodels who regularly get lambasted a la Murphy Brown.

Now, it should be noted it doesn't take much to be called a role model. Near as I can tell the only requirement is simply existing. My sister was born when I was five years old. It's been downhill ever since for me. (The only reprieve I caught was that she went and had herself a kid, whereas my mother has never seen any bc pills or condoms at my apartment.) So. I'm a role model. Scary, no?

But we have the opportunity (theoretically) to do anything we like with our lives. Why then doesn't that translate in supporting each other in our persuits and attempts to have it all? If a woman has a child the prevailing notion in the country is that she should stay home with that child to watch him grow and make sure he doesn't spend all of his time watching MTV or somesuch. Unless, of course, her family doesn't have money (ie she is the only breadwinner) in which case she is expected to get off her lazy ass and work for a living rather than expect Uncle Sam to foot the bill.

It's one the many hypocrisies this country holds. If you are need help making ends meet you're lazy, however if you have enough money that you don't need to work, then staying home with the kids is an honorable and noble calling.

As the eldest of five kids I've never had any illusions that caring for children is any light matter that just anyone can do with ease and efficiency. But it's never been something I thought only a woman could do. My dad was a school teacher when I was growing up and my mom usually worked as secretary or some other clerical-type. This meant that when us kids were home for a break or holiday our dad was with us. He didn't really watch over us when we were infants, but at least once we were old enough to walk.

Somewhere along the way I seem to recall a slightly groundbreaking comedy movie staring Michael Keaton. Mr Mom or something. I don't remember it clearly, other than I think he faced a significant amount scorn for being the stay-at-home dad. But I wish I could remember if the mother faced the dirty looks and gossip my mom dealt with for going to work while the kids stayed home with Dad.

Every issue of Newsweek has a page written by some regular joe who deals with something slightly out of the ordinary. They aren't staff writers and I genuinely don't know how they're found, but they're usually intriguing, though occasionally pedantic. A little while ago a woman wrote about choosing to return to the corporate life and eschewing her family for it. It sounds harsh, as does the criticism she recieved but really I admired her bravery. She wanted very much to leave her upstate New York town and work in NYC. Her husband (I think) was some kind of doctor and they had one daughter. The husband knew her desires and knew that she wouldn't leave so long as she had a family. So he offered to divorce her and take full custody of the daughter. Of course, I wasn't there, but the way she described it the situation was very friendly.

The good thing about that story was the very understanding and VERY generous husband. The bad bits were the reactions from her friends and family and more than a little anger (and hurt) in her daughter. The parts that I haven't made up my mind on are the divorce and leaving. But that's because I, personally, think promises are really important and "till death do us part" is a really fucking huge promise. But that's another entry.

The redefinition of gender roles in the last century have really mucked with our understanding of societal and family leaders. We have such a hard time understanding what leadership means, especially in conjunction with representation, that we usually assume that in any situation there can only be one leader and everyone has to defer to that person. Because of tradition we've told ourselves the leader should be male, for the various attributes that men are supposed to have over women. In the situations where women have taken the lead society has looked at men as if they were redundant and/or without use. And the women... Well, we've been pretty much relegated to the role of usurper.

A woman's life is pretty much expected to go something like: school, some dating, some college, serious dating. A job, maybe marriage to someone met in college, probably intense dating with an eye on marriage and kids. The job shouldn't outpace the expected gains the level college education the woman got. Ie a bachelor's in Business Admin should go as far as middle management, but shouldn't exceed that. An MBA should yeild maybe as much as Veep in a company, Sr Veep only if she's over 40 or had additional classes. Ideally the man a woman marries is better educated and therefore has a better post within his work and will always make more money than she. Within the first three years of marriage they are expected to have a child. Generally two to three children are expected within the scope of ten years. These ten - twelve years of dealing with infants will severly impact the woman's advancement in her career, but that's ok because a) her husband hasn't been slowed at all and b) it's not like she will lose her job. Disability and family leave will see to it that she remains on her company's payroll. Of course as long as she isn't working she can't prove herself worthy of a merit increase in her pay or an increase in her position or responsibilities. But that's ok because she'll be too busy with her kids.

Women who work long hours and take on extra responsiblity at work are strongly regarded as doing a disservice to their children. And maybe they are. But is it fair then to consign all women to motherhood and say that anything else flies in the face of what is right and proper? Plenty of political pundits will say absolutely, yes. But is it fair for women to judge each other that way?

A few years ago I read a letter in the opinion page of the LA Times. It was in response to a statement printed in an earlier issue of the Times asserting that women who choose to remain childless throughout their lives are selfish. The writer wrote back stating that no one can possibly have the moral ground to call a woman who is childless by choice "selfish" in the age when there are accidental pregnancies , mothers who continue bad habits (drugs, unhealthy relationships, staying out late), abandoned/killed children etc. She stated that she couldn't see how, in the face of irresponsible action, she and women like her who chose to not have children were the ones considered "selfish." I would take it another step and state that there shold be a consensus among women to support each other.

Motherhood is not such a trite profession that women who are mothers should expect non-mothers to wish to jump into it, and non-mothers should see the tremendous challenges mothers face.

And corporate America should just understand that children/motherhood/families happen and not punish a woman for employing her womb. Now, before you freak I'm referring to maternity and paternity leave and allowing for child care. Not automatic raises and promotions for anyone who's had maternity leave. This a different rant, I know, but I just wish I could make it clear to the powers that be that as long as we treat childbirth among employees as some sort of accidental calamity we'll just reeling from one crisis to another.

Anyway I've spent enough time on this topic. I need to get some work done. You know... soften up the world for my eventual domination.