The "F" word. . . No, not that one; the one that really hurts people

Can we stop using the word “fat” and its many synonyms as insults, please? Seriously, it is a description of one’s weight, not one’s character. For one thing, it is often applied inaccurately. A few weeks ago, a blogger for a newspaper wrote a column in which she referred to a cheerleader as fat. The internet exploded, the post was removed, etc, and it wasn’t even factual. The woman in question, while not ridiculously thin, actually did not appear to be overweight. It was an insult, and, while the internet exploded over the incident, it seems that it didn’t bother too many people that fat was used as an insult, rather, the debate was over whether the woman was indeed heavy or not. She isn’t, or at least didn’t seem to be in the pictures I saw. She wasn’t ridiculously airbrushed, so her skin moved, folded, etc. appropriately, but we don’t even realize that most supermodels have those folds anymore b/c we never see them due to the insidious airbrushing that is everywhere, and thus unrealistic expectations for the human body are set, and now a cheerleader for the opposing team is “fat” b/c she has skin and muscle, and yes, body fat, but everyone has a certain percentage of body fat. It is necessary for our survival as a species. Some of us have more than others, but we all have it.

What harm is there in calling someone who is not overweight fat? S/he isn’t really, and it’s apparent whether one is carrying around an extra pound or five, right? Well, there’s plenty of harm in it. First of all, young people read that drivel, then they read the comments. Anyone with eyes and a realistic expectation of the human body notes that she isn’t heavy. Others feel that the original blogger may not have been so off-base. Person A, struggling with her own body image, thinks, “I look just like her. I am fat.” Person B, also struggling, wonders “If she’s fat, what am I?”  People become defensive and speak offensively.

We have equated fat with being ugly, of low character, lazy, etc. and absolutely none of that is true. We, as a society, seem to place so much value on being thin, that we have made fat the ultimate insult, and we continue to use it indiscriminately. We have absolutely lost perspective on what a healthy body, male or female, can look like, and that there is a wide range of healthy and beautiful. We ask people to reach for the unattainable, and when they cannot reach it, we knock them down if we don’t like them.  In the process, we offer no alternative. People give up on being healthy b/c they do not feel ideal. Others hide in the shadows b/c they feel the crushing judgment of being overweight. Fat is not a character flaw. Mean-spiritedness is.

Some people are indeed fat, others are extremely skinny, and many are somewhere in between. We try to address it superficially. Dove’s “real beauty” campaign, an occasional acknowledgement by a major retailer that it’s okay to have a model who isn’t a size 2 or less come out of the back pages of the catalog, but until we decide that it’s not an insult to be called fat, we won’t make any progress. Fat is simply the state of having a higher body fat percentage than is deemed normal or healthy for your age and sex. That’s it. For many, there may be long-term health issues if the body fat percentage is not reduced, but we make it extremely difficult to have honest conversations about losing some excess body fat when merely having it around is enough to make a person a source of derision. There are many wonderful, physically beautiful, and yes, even fit, overweight people. There are many awful, less-than-attractive, and unhealthy people whose weight falls within the normal range.

I know that one reason fat is an insult is because people view being overweight as something you could control, if you really wanted to do so. To some extent, this statement is true. Putting unusual medical issues aside, most of us have some control over our weight, but it isn’t as easy as simply, “putting down the fork and moving more.” We first have to develop a healthy relationship with our bodies and our food. We have to find the time between all of our obligations to move more. We have to learn how to move in ways that won’t injure our bodies. We almost always need the support of people around us. We need to understand that health is important and looking like a movie star is not only not important, but often not possible. We need to stop judging people who are overweight as being anything other than who they are. By the way, oftentimes the worst offenders are people who have lost a lot of weight, much like former smokers are often the most obnoxious non-smokers. It becomes so easy to fall back on, “If I can do it, anyone can. If you feel bad about yourself, just do what I did!” First of all, every situation is unique. Secondly, why would you want to diminish your own accomplishment? It’s hard to lose body fat, and while our society loves a good weight-loss story, we don’t really like the often long process it takes to get there in a way that is healthy and sustainable.

How, I ask, are we to fix any of these problems if we use the word fat as an insult? If we hurl it indiscriminately with no intent other than to inflict pain, we will only continue to make things worse. It hurts the person you are trying to insult, it hurts people who aren’t overweight, but have no idea what, other than very thin, constitutes beautiful, and it hurts people who happen to carry around a little extra body fat because you can think of nothing worse to say than that someone may resemble them.

That being said, if I hear another, “Real women have curves,” schpiel, I might just projectile vomit. Body shaming is body shaming. If you don’t like it when someone does it to you, don’t do it to someone else. Trust me when I say there are plenty of very thin women who would  love some curves, and “Eat a cheeseburger!” doesn’t do any more for them than, “Put down the cheeseburger!” does for heavier gals. Real women have vaginas. The relative sizes of their breasts, bottoms, stomachs, etc. do not make them any more or less a real woman than someone w/ very different proportions. 

While I would prefer that we not hurl insults at each other, if you do feel the need to insult someone, next time try being accurate and focusing on what, exactly, the person is doing wrong. “Ugh, that dancer was so out-of-step; watching the routine made me uncomfortable. How did s/he get that job?” “That politician is proving that s/he lied on the campaign trail. S/he has a serious lack of integrity. Remember s/he promised ceiling fans for all Americans and now s/he is introducing a bill trying to make ceiling fans illegal! I guess that’s what happens when you take money from the Trading Spaces lobby.” If you really just have to call someone a name, which I really do not encourage, look to Shakespeare for your insults. There are some pretty good ones in his works. There’s also just the good, old-fashioned “Jerk!” It is simple and lets one know that you do not approve of his or her actions. Calling someone fat as an insult makes no more sense than pejoratively referring to someone as a brunette. “Her hair is just so dark. Gross.”  See, it doesn’t make sense, does it?

*Disclaimer: I use the words fat, overweight, heavy, high body fat percentage and a few others interchangeably here. I do realize that someone can be overweight by one measure (BMI, for instance) and healthy by another (body fat percentage). As I use the words here, please assume that they all refer to the issue of possessing an excess amount of body fat.

You Can Save A Life

My oldest son is turning seven in a few hours. He almost didn’t make it to seven hours, let alone seven years. He needed assistance breathing when he was born, but, just as importantly, he needed a blood transfusion. He was so severely anemic that had he remained in utero and/or not received a blood transfusion, he would have died. My son is alive because a stranger went to a blood drive or walked into a donation center and donated a little bit of blood and a little bit of time. They were likely thanked by the volunteers and staff. The person who has allowed my son to become the compassionate, brilliant, funny little person he is probably had a cookie and some juice and went about their day. I don’t know if this person gave any real thought to the fact that what they just did could actually be the difference between life and death for someone, the difference between joy and sorrow for a family.

You see, my big boy’s blood type is compatible with mine, but not my husband’s. I am not allowed to donate blood for many reasons, and having just had a c-section, would not have been allowed to give blood to my son, and my husband could not. The kindness of that stranger saved our family in a situation where we were helpless.

I have always been a huge advocate of donating blood. I am not allowed to donate due to my medical history, although I have volunteered at blood drives, and I try to make it as easy as possible for those who can donate to do so. My son’s life is not the only life for which I am personally grateful to blood donors, though. Not two years before my baby needed blood, one of my sisters-in-law was also saved by a transfusion. It is her history, and I shall not divulge too much of it, but I will say two of the people who I love most in the world were saved by people who took the time and ignored any fear of needles they might have and gave blood. It is so simple, but so few do it. The supply of blood is frequently running short. If you can donate, please go out and give. It is simple. It doesn’t take long, and while you may never meet the people you help, you are giving an absolutely priceless gift.

To those of you who take the time, thank you. Thank you from me, from my son, from my family. Thank you for allowing all of us to get to know him; thank you for allowing his welcome to the world to be dramatic, but not a welcome and a farewell all in one day. He’s a wonderful child. He loves to help and care for others. Maybe some of his empathy came from you. Thank you for keeping my sister-in-law with us. We all need her. Thank you from all of the receivers of blood and those who love them. It is so simple, so easy, and so very important. 

And His Mama Cried

Much is being made of the Steubenville rape case, and the media’s reaction to it. I am heartened to hear how vocally disgusted most people seem to be with the rape apologists in the main stream media (and, holy lord, they are everywhere) and with all the sympathy given to the young rapists. Even the Yahoo! News comments section, where decency goes to die (it should really be their trademarked tagline), seems to be trending towards those wondering where in the world the sympathy and worry for the victim’s forever changed life is. *I am editing this to add that I have also seen plenty of victim-blaming, slut-shaming, and drunk-shaming happening, but this is not the majority of what I am seeing, and certainly none of that nonsense is on my Facebook feed or other places where I encounter people I like and respect.

   

The fact of the matter is, these young men’s lives are forever tarnished and ruined, but it is not because they received a well-deserved conviction for raping an intoxicated young woman who was slipping in and out of consciousness.  Not only did they violate her, they recorded it, photographed it, and sent it around as text messages. Some of their friends who did not participate in the actual sexual assault helped with continuing to degrade and devalue this young woman by laughing about it, recording it, and passing it along. She was not a person deserving of respect to them. She was an object to use however they pleased. All of the young men involved are guilty of that, and so help me, I wish they all had to spend a little time in juvenile detention and run around as registered sex offenders.

Yes, the two rapists will forever have to register as sex offenders. Some people seem to think that this is an injustice. I think the one year sentences are an injustice. In one year, are they going to learn to see other people as human beings worthy of kindness and gentleness, regardless of how female and/or drunk they may be? In one year, are we going to be able to undo the years of damage that a culture that cries at the INJUSTICE of their conviction for spending hours treating another human being as a prop has caused? Many people, particularly in the MSM, shake their heads and talk about what a shame it is that their lives are ruined, and that this will be with them for the rest of their days. Yet, where is the head shaking over the fact that they did it? These are not innocent youths wrongly convicted. These are boys who were taught that they were special and above the laws of the state and common human decency because they are athletically gifted. It is reported that they are good students as well. First of all, so what? Secondly, forgive me if I sound a little jaded here, but these kids had adults who were trying to cover up a GANG RAPE for them. Is it really so far-fetched that their grades could be padded? I’m sure they didn’t have to be model students to receive model student grades and perks. They may actually have been, and they may not have been, but it doesn’t change the fact that they REPEATEDLY VIOLATED A YOUNG WOMAN.

This fact is the real shame. They have ruined their own lives, and, more importantly, what they did to this girl will be with her for the rest of her life. Through no fault of her own, she was sexually assaulted, humiliated, and has to live with the fact that not only did all that happen to her, but that many people saw pictures and videos of her degradation. She will need counseling, she may very well end up with trust issues and issues around her own sexuality and sexual maturity, she is now at a much higher risk for suicide, depression, anxiety, and eating disorders, amongst other issues. Let me repeat that first part for the slow people in the audience, THROUGH NO FAULT OF HER OWN. Being drunk, being high, wearing something alluring, wearing red lipstick, walking home in the dark, going anywhere alone, hanging out with guys, etc. etc. are actually not versions of consent.

Men do not rape women for these reasons. They are the red herrings of a culture of rape apologists, and every lawyer who has ever defended a guilty rapist thanks society for creating them. Rapists may use these things as excuses, but rape is about control and seeing someone as less than you. When someone violates another human being, it is not because they were so irresistibly drawn to that person that they couldn’t help themselves, or they were confused about whether someone who had vomited all over herself and was no longer conscious wanted to have sex. No. They do it because what they want is more important than what is right. They do it because they do not see any value in that person beyond what they want from him or her (yes, men get raped, too), and this, this is where we fail every time we talk about any rape, but specifically the Steubenville case.

We do not recognize that no one who sees past his own pleasure, no one who recognizes the value and dignity of other people beyond what those people can do for them, can harm another person the way they abused that girl, and, to make it more disgusting, they did it for fun. It was just a night of partying, and they expected to get away with it. Where I cry for these boys is at a more fundamental level. I cry that they were convinced that it is true that they cannot and should not have to control themselves around others. If they want it, they should take it, especially if it involves sex. After all, who doesn’t secretly want the golden boys, and how can they be asked to control themselves in the face of drunken availability? What a load of crap to sell those boys.  They can control themselves. They can treat a drunk girl the same way that they would likely treat their drunk buddies, which is get them to a safe place, put a bucket next to the bed, and tease them the next day by eating in front of them and making really loud noises.

 I read that one of the boys’ mothers became hysterical during sentencing. I hope she was crying not because of her son’s not remotely harsh enough punishment for his brutal actions, but because at some point he failed to grasp that you don’t hurt other people. People aren’t there for you to use however you please. If someone is at a disadvantage, self-inflicted or otherwise, you take care of them. I hope she wept because her son’s life was ruined long before he raped that girl. I hope she raged because he had become a person who thought it was fun to assault another human being. I hope his mama sobbed because she is ashamed and disappointed, not because he has to face the music for forever changing the life of a young woman. Mostly, I hope she cried for that girl, and all the others like her, who are raped by young men who have not been taught the value of another person.  

We have a social fetish

I have noticed a few disturbing trends as I have been working on taking better care of myself. People, but mostly women, so please forgive me if I focus on women here, when they are trying to get fit focus on entirely unrealistic goals. It happens for a few reasons. One would be the ubiquitous use of Photoshop, so that even the models cannot attain the bodies that, according to their print ads, they have. Another would be choosing someone who you will never, ever look like as your inspiration/motivation. I could pin a picture of Heidi Klum to my Pinterest boards as a goal, but it doesn’t matter what I do. I simply won’t look like her. For one thing, she’s around a foot taller than I am. For another, her body is simply proportioned differently than mine, so even if you stretched me or shrunk her, we would not have the same figures, ever, regardless of how healthy we were or weren’t.  Another iteration on this, are the women who say, “Healthy is the new skinny.” I think that’s a wonderful sentiment, but they then proceed to post pictures of athletes in peak condition as their inspiration. Most people will never look like that, even many of the athletes don’t when they aren’t training.  They still look good, but not every muscle is ripped beyond belief.

I am not saying that you shouldn’t try to tone, sculpt, lose weight, be healthy, etc. I am certainly doing those things, and most Americans probably should, given the sky-rocketing rates of obesity, heart-disease, and diabetes, just to name a few. What I am saying is that your goals should be realistic. You should want to look like the best version of you that is sustainable, not an air-brushed picture of someone who doesn’t even share your body-type. Get yourself to a healthy weight, and please note, that while the BMI charts can be generally helpful, they really aren’t the be-all and end-all; there are people well within their BMIs who probably aren’t that healthy and people who aren’t who are extremely fit. You should consult with your doctor and come up with a healthy weight range for you.

That being said, this setting of unrealistic goals for ourselves is dangerous and counter-productive. First of all, the fact that we sell ourselves on the idea that looking like ourselves isn’t good enough. Being healthy is necessary. It contributes to your overall well-being. Being skinny, being curvy, having big breasts, small thighs, etc. etc. are not necessary. Some people are naturally very thin. A woman who is naturally very thin is generally not very curvy (think Lisbeth Salander, a fictional character, but someone who is very thin and small). A woman who is very curvy (Marilyn Monroe) is never, ever going to squeeze herself into a size zero and be remotely healthy, yet Lisbeths tend to want to be Marilyns and vice versa. We then have the fall-out from that. Some women scream that the “stick figures” aren’t healthy and we shouldn’t look to them while at the same time we watch curvy women and make sure they don’t get too curvy. Christina Aguilera has very publicly added to her curves. She does not appear to actually be overweight, but because she isn’t as thin as she once was, we need to bring out the pitchforks. The willowy stars are told to eat cheeseburgers, etc. How is anyone not seeing that there is no “perfect” figure? Tearing down what you are not doesn’t make what you are better, and it decimates everyone on the inside.

I feel that this constant focus on unattainable appearances, the air-brushing of already very thin models, the presentation of an artist’s ideal as a norm to which women and girls should aspire, the nitpicking on every pound gained or lost, the fact that nearly every female celebrity has her detractors for not being something (curvy, thin, too much booty, too little booty, etc, etc) has contributed to and possibly even created our fetishization of low self-esteem. If you are not perfectly beautiful, you are not a good person and you deserve very little, even the fairytales we tell our children support this notion. Cinderella is beautiful and the stepsisters are.  .  . not.

It is not okay for a woman who is healthy, but not pin-up worthy without air-brushing (is anyone, though?) to be confident. She can’t say, “I’m healthy, happy, smart, and beautiful!” because she isn’t perfect. Without perfection, she must choose her flaw(s) and focus on it (them), and not a fixable flaw(s). Of course, all of us should work to improve ourselves. If she has a problem with her temper, this woman should work on that, and it would benefit everyone, but that isn’t the flaw we want her to fixate on as a society. No. Her derriere is not perfect. Maybe it’s too big, maybe it’s too flat, maybe it’s just a little uneven, regardless, it’s not something that all the working out in the world will fix, but she is supposed to feel bad that she doesn’t have a perfect rear, not confident that she is all the other wonderful things that she is. If she doesn’t have an issue with it, we hate her for it. “How dare she walk around feeling good about herself with an ass like that? I look better than that, and I hate myself.”  If you think you haven’t done it, or that we as a society don’t do it, you should check yourself and/or the comments section of any piece of celebrity fluff journalism. We have to have low self-esteem, particularly as young women. Being happy with yourself is just not done. Every magazine, every ad, most television shows, and movies all tell us that. The mean girls are the confident ones, and they lose in the end. You have to go through a process of self-improvement and beautification to earn a smidgen of confidence AND be a nice girl.

 I am here to say that this needs to stop. We need to stop telling ourselves that confidence and conceit are the same things. It’s okay to know you have a few (or more) pounds to lose or that you need to work harder in some aspects of your life, and still like yourself. It’s okay to be happy and NOT be perfect. This fetishization of low self-esteem holds us back. It keeps us from walking with our heads up, from speaking up in the classroom, the boardroom, and when that jerk cuts in front of us in line. It also keeps us from being our best personally. If I want to look like Heidi Klum, I will probably give up on my journey to be the healthiest me that I can be because I do not have a realistic goal, just as if I want to work on my generosity of spirit, comparing myself to Mother Theresa will find me lacking. Just because I can’t be Heidi Klum or Mother Theresa doesn’t mean that I can’t be a good person. The same goes for everyone. Find your gifts, physical, emotional, and spiritual, and celebrate them! You have every right to be confident in the fact that you are a person of beauty inside and out.

If you don’t start with the confidence that you are a good person, but you’d like to be even better, then you will probably fail. If you start from the position of hating yourself and wanting to be somebody else, all the diets, working out, self-improvement, meditation, prayer, etc. won’t help you achieve your goals. You are never going to be someone else. You will always be you. Love you, then fix what can be fixed and move on. That’s how you grow. You can stagnate in the scummy pond of low self-esteem that society has sold you, or you can bloom in the sunshine and fresh air of self-confidence. I know it’s not always that easy, and that real psychological and physiological conditions can contribute to disliking yourself. I am not saying “boot-strap yourself out it.” Find a good support system (this can be friends, family, therapists, doctors, support groups, on-line, in-person, etc.), and work on your issues, and don’t contribute to the poison that’s out there by tearing others down. Let’s try to save another generation from feeling like they have to hate at least part of themselves to meet society’s expectations. In the process, we can like ourselves better, be healthier, happier, nicer, and make better choices in general. What an example that would be.

Just say no to voting. . . unless you do it properly

On November 6, 2012, if you are an American citizen, over the age of 18, and registered to vote, you may do so. You will see a lot of people telling you to exercise your civic duty over the next twenty-four hours or so. I know I will be exercising mine. I vote. I have voted since the first election in which I was old enough to vote. I love it. I am a bit of a political junkie, and because of that I feel very strongly about voting.

You need to take this right and duty seriously. You need to be informed. You need to understand for whom and for what you are voting. Why would you vote otherwise? If you honestly believe our sitting president is a Muslim (not that it should matter anyway), and that he is secretly trying to implement Sharia law, you need to step away from the voting booth. Conversely, if you believe that Mitt Romney thinks his undergarments are magic and that he will use the power therein to bewitch us all, please take a look at the real issues.  I may not agree with you, your opinion, or your reasoning, but if you are voting on facts and choose differently than I would, that is just part of the process.

If you are choosing based on rumors and lies, you need to stay home tomorrow because this is a responsibility for which you are not ready. That’s right. I said it. If you cannot be informed and responsible with your choice, don’t vote. Everyone tells people to vote, and I am here to say that if you are a birther, believe your federal taxes have gone up in the last four years, have anything to say about death panels other than to laugh at them, or you like to pretend that homosexuals and feminists cause hurricanes all the while denying that climate change exists, you need to ask yourself some serious questions and examine your sources before you vote. Don’t vote if you can’t articulate your candidate’s positions. Don’t vote unless you have a clear understanding of the responsibility which you are undertaking.  

Now, that we have that out of the way, please do vote if you are ready, willing, and able to be an adult about it. Go to the polls armed with the facts and your convictions, and vote accordingly. Be courteous, kind, and respectful, and wear your vote with pride. I know that I will be enthusiastically voting for President Obama and Senator McCaskill to retain their positions for another term each. I would love it if you would join me in supporting them, and would be happy to tell anyone why, but if you won’t or can’t (for instance, you have to live in MO to vote for Senator McCaskill), please make sure that you are voting based on real issues and facts.

If you want to be extra prepared, Missouri voters can find sample ballots here: https://www.sos.mo.gov/elections/voterlookup/default.aspx

Others can find their own sample ballots by doing a quick internet search.

Peace.

So, You're Not A Feminist

I’ve noticed a somewhat disturbing trend most of my life. Women about my age and younger proudly declaring they are not feminists. Women in college and in the workforce who wanted to let you know that when Rush Limbaugh hollered about feminazis who still gave a damn about equal pay for equal work they weren’t one of those women. After all, they liked men. They had boys who were friends and boyfriends. Many later went on to have husbands, all the while letting the world know that we didn’t *need* feminism in the US of A, anymore. We have the right to vote and we can be anything we want to be, right?

Even then my head would spin right round, baby, right round like a record baby right round. First of all, why is there an assumption that women who care about equality regardless of one’s genitalia hate men? There is really absolutely nothing to support that assumption. We may dislike men who assume they have authority over us simply because they have penises (penii?) and we have, wait for it, VAGINAS, but that is actually more of a dislike of a cultural construct and an attitude than an entrenched hatred of, or even battle with, an entire sex. Also, just to be accurate and show my scholarly roots, it really is properly feminisms. We are privileged to not have to discuss things like access to health care (Wait no, that’s not right...), equality in the workforce (Hmmm… 70something cents on the dollar compared to men doing the exact. same. jobs?), equal representation in places of power (Ummmm, *some* counts, right?). Okay, seriously, we really do have it better than women in many other countries where women have far fewer choices than we do (Hey, at least we can drive ourselves places!), but we don’t do those women or ourselves any favors by pretending that inequality is dead in this country.

As a matter of fact, I would posit that the attitude by too many of my peers that we didn’t need feminism anymore has helped contribute to the current “war on women.” You don’t think it’s real? What about when a poorly written piece of legislation ends up requiring that you receive an additional ultrasound to relive the horror of your missed miscarriage before you get your D&C to clear everything out so that you don’t get an infection? How about when you have to supply a doctor’s note to you or your husband’s employer so that your prescribed medication that is actually part of your insurance plan can be covered by your insurance? Mind you, the insurance plan already has any pertinent information. This little violation of your privacy would just be so your employer feels better about what you and your doctor have decided is best for you. You wouldn’t have to do it for heart or cholesterol medicine. That would be against the law, but it’s okay to violate HIPAA if it involves your lady parts. We can’t name them too many times. The wives of Republican lawmakers in MI might read the word vagina and that would be awful. Many in my generation, and those that have come after, quit fighting for things to get better because they were afraid of being accused of unsavory things, content with their lot, or both, and in the process of declaring feminism dead and unnecessary, they put it on life-support and have made it more necessary than ever.

We have the worst maternity leave in the industrialized world. We have the worst protections for working moms. We have a pregnant woman named CEO of a major company (Yahoo!- both my exclamation upon hearing the news and the name of the company) who feels the need to announce that she isn’t even taking the substandard maternity leave that is mandated (Boo!). She’ll only take a few weeks, and she’ll work right through it. Some would argue that CEOs don’t get the same life-work balance as the rest of us, and I would say that that is actually a HUGE problem because a CEO who doesn’t have it usually sets the tone for the company. Life-work balance is absolutely necessary, and it is another area where the US sorely lags behind many other countries, but that is another blog post. Now, she absolutely has the right to work as much or as little as she sees fit. She has resources at her disposal that many other WOHM don’t. That little fact won’t matter to people who want to chase women out of the workforce by keeping our horrible maternity and family leave policies in place. They will point to this example and say, “See, you don’t need six weeks leave or accommodation for your severe sciatica! She didn’t need anything. If you can’t handle it, here’s the door or your glass ceiling. Have fun, dear.”

Some will also say, “This wouldn’t be a big deal if it were a man with a baby on the way.” That, unfortunately, is true. It is a big deal that she was pregnant, disclosed it, and was offered the job anyway because, despite the fact that it is 100% illegal, people discriminate against pregnant women when it comes to job offers and promotions on a daily basis. Expectant fathers don’t face the same bias, or frankly, the same pressure to be the parent who is there (again, this is a post for another day). I also happen to think it’s awful that new dads are rarely given, or expected to take, leave. It is required by law that they be allowed up to 12 weeks, unpaid, which is exactly what every company is legally required to offer women. Most women who take “paid” maternity leave have saved up their paid time off (vacation, sick days, personal days, etc.) to do it, and if they stay out the whole twelve weeks are likely taking at least some unpaid time off. 

The big problem is that it pits women against each other. Again. It has also brought up the whole SAHM vs. WOHM thing. Again. There are mothers out there with high-powered careers, and they would be being dishonest if they didn’t say that that meant sacrificing time with their children, just as the fathers with high-powered careers do. I would be being dishonest of I didn’t say that my decision to SAH has affected my lifetime earning potential, my ability, and even my desire to have a high-powered career. What American feminism has bought us is the ability to make these choices, and the ability to choose to not have a family at all if that isn’t right for us. What we seem to be missing is that not only are women in important positions still enough of an anomaly that it makes headlines for days, but that when they make it we have to debate all of their choices. Are they mothers (Whether or not one is a parent will always be mentioned for a woman, but not for a man)? If not, are they still of child-bearing age? If they are no longer able to have children and don’t have any, they will have far fewer distractions after all (again with the fact that the distraction of having children is not figured into the decision to hire an equally qualified man).  If they are mothers, let’s question their abilities both as mothers and as employees. We don’t debate the choices of the men who climb the corporate ladder. We don’t make men feel unwelcome and scrutinized just because they are men. We do it to women, though, and we call that a huge step in the right direction because they are even in the positions to begin with. This, my friends, is not the sign of a country that no longer needs feminism.

Also, it almost always comes down to appearances. People will mention how attractive (or not) the powerful woman is. It is rare to hear, “Steve Smith, the new CEO of ACME Sprockets is a bronzed, Greek god,” yet I do know the new CEO of Yahoo! is not only pregnant, but a “blonde beauty.” I can rest easier knowing that they didn’t hire some hag.

While we have many choices in this country thanks to those bra-burning, marching women (and those who came before them) whom so many of my sisters are afraid of resembling, we are backsliding. We need to make sure we have real choices. I choose to be a SAHM. Someone else chooses to have a career, with or without children. We are all respected for our choices, rather than criticized (within reason; if you kick puppies for a living, I will criticize you). Equal pay for equal work is a reality. We have access to healthcare unfettered by politics. Our bodies are not hyper-sexualized and air-brushed to the point that no one can meet those expectations. Rape is seen as a serious crime and not a messy “he-said/she-said” or “Well, you *were* wearing *that*!” These things, amongst many other feminist ideas, are my dream. We need to be vigilant. We need to take back our rights that our foremothers won and that are slipping away before our eyes, and fight for the rest, ladies. I *am* a feminist, and I am damn proud of it, and I think you should be too.  

R-E-S-P-E-C-T

It seems that one theme that runs through a lot of my posts is treating others with a basic level of courtesy and respect. This post will be no different. Today, I am going to tackle another aspect of the “Mommy Wars” (*gag*). The stay-at-home-mom vs the work-outside-the-home mom battle is one that has been raging for quite some time and shows no signs of slowing, which is aggravating as Hell because here we are fighting amongst ourselves over who works “harder” while the politicians are busily chipping away at our rights to vote, be treated equally in the workplace, and make the best choices for our reproductive health, amongst other things.  Don’t fool yourself; whether you are pro-choice or anti-abortion much of the current legislation will do little to stop abortions and much to curb you and your Dr.’s authority to make the decisions that are the best for you.

Let’s get one thing straight. It is a privilege to be able to talk about this topic at all. It’s very First World. I can promise that none of us work as hard as those who live below the subsistence level. Also, back in the First World, this debate completely discounts single parents (who are amazing), child-free people, and what and how men should be contributing. The whole of this topic is too big to cover in one post, so I will likely return to it at some point.

As the title of my blog implies, I am a SAHM, and have defined myself as one since my oldest was born.  I have actually only been a full-time SAHM since my youngest was born. Previously, I had a seasonal job that I was able to work around my husband’s schedule. After the birth of my oldest, I worked close to full-time hours that first summer, but as my husband is the main wage earner as his job demands changed, my availability changed because I did not make enough to justify paying a sitter, gassing up the car, and commuting. It is a position in which many people have found themselves. While the experience of one person is not definitive, I will say that that first summer wasn’t easier or harder than being home, but it was different.

Many things have inspired this post lately. The weird dichotomy of Mitt Romney being upset when Hilary Rosen, a Democratic strategist, said that Ann Romney had never worked a day in her life contrasted with the Mitt Romney who was the governor of MA and offering/forcing on women w/ very young children the “dignity of work” while forcing them into dead-end jobs. Which is it Mitt? Either what Hilary Rosen said is true, or that “dignity of work” thing was a load of BS in an attempt to put a pretty bow on a policy that was forcing a lot of single mothers into an untenable position. Also, while I suspect what Ms. Rosen was trying to say was that Mrs. Romney, with her staff, money, etc. didn’t understand those of us who don’t have those benefits (and it is what Ms. Rosen claims she meant), many people took it as a knock on the SAHM. Hilary Rosen even apologized for the comment, later. Still, it was not a politically bright thing for someone who is a political strategist to say.

.

Then there is the tired, old “This is What a SAHM is Worth” articles that tend to come out around tax time and Mother’s Day. I hate them. First of all, I am not a psychologist, a nurse, or a chef. Yes, I deal with emotional conflict, first-aid, and I cook. I am not actually trained in any of that (although I do have an expired first-aid certification and I was a psychology minor, so I’m totally qualified), and for the heavy stuff, I would still go to the professionals, the people who went to school and trained for years to earn those titles. I don’t need some outside organization to crunch some numbers and validate my choices. What I do has value. Yes, part of it is monetary, but much of that value is intangible. Those articles also raise the hackles of many women who work outside the home. “Well, *I* do all that AND work. Should I get two salaries?” Actually, they don’t do all of it, and they don’t do as much of it. Yes, they care for their children, but someone else does that while they are at work (This is NOT a judgment; it is a statement of fact; much like the fact that while being a SAHM is work, it isn’t a job in the sense that you have a boss, office politics, and a salary, is true), someone they likely pay, unless it is a family member who is gracious enough to do it for free. Since they aren’t home all day, there is less daily care of the house, less cleaning up the family room after the whirlwind, fewer diaper changes, etc. They also sometimes have to call on those of us who don’t work outside the home for help, “Can you please get Billy to soccer practice for me? I have a late meeting.”

That being said, of course they raise their own children, take care of their own homes, and juggle a lot of the other things. The charges to the contrary are ridiculous. Working outside the home and then coming home and being “on” for the family can be hard. Of course, there are also the days with late meetings and travel. There are days when a WOHM might not get to see her children at all, and not because she’s having a fun night out, either, but because she is out there busting her hump. Not that there is anything wrong w/ time away for fun; we all need that, sometimes.

 I once read an abstract of a study that found that WOHM work harder than SAHM, but when I searched for more information and dug into the study, I discovered that the results were based on self-reporting and journal-keeping. When interviewed and asked specifically about tasks around the home, it turned out that the WOHM were much more likely to report every single activity they did in and out of the home, and the SAHM just sort of hit the highlights. If the SAHM actually logged the housework, childcare, and errand-running, amongst other things, as assiduously as the WOHM, it was probably a wash. In other words, while it is tempting to draw a conclusion about who works harder (and those who ran the study did, despite the evidence of the interviews; that is bias at work right there, folks), one really cannot be drawn here, although I would love to see a follow-up study on how women value what they do and their time and whether working a job affects the value we place on ourselves. I will tell you there are plenty of people who work harder than I do, and plenty who don’t work nearly as hard as I do. It has little to do with who has a paying job and who doesn’t, though. I honestly hate that this study was even run. It just propagates everything awful about the SAHM vs WOHM debate out there, and leads to things like this: 

Now, it is tempting I suppose, if one has a “little gig on the side” to see this, high-five other women in the same boat, and let us bon-bon eating people who *only* raise kids and run a house know how it really is. They obviously work harder and are superior to us. Of course, those of us who actually stay at home and prefer Peanut M&M’s to bon-bons thankyouverymuch, may take issue with this little “joke” that isn’t actually a joke. Then we are sensitive and can’t take a joke because we see that there is a little bit of basic respect lacking here, and a lot of not understanding what it is we do all day. Did you know that SAHM are much more likely to be depressed than the rest of the population? Did you know that one of the reasons is that we are continually told that we have no or less value than people with jobs in many ways (unless we’re getting head pats in “mom salary” articles, or worse, from Focus on the Family), including things like this little “joke?” Also, it is full-time, not full time.

“Hey, you get a break from your kids and house for at least eight hours, five days a week, and you get paid for it! It must be nice to only parent and run your house part-time while you eat lunch w/ out worrying about sweeping and cleaning after! Here’s your bon-bon!” is terrible, un-true, hurtful, and not funny.  If I saw that, or something similar, I would seriously be appalled.

If all the things the “other side” says about you are un-true and hurtful, why oh why would you assume that the things said about them are any more truthful and any less hurtful? Is it so hard to understand that we’ve all made the decisions that we felt were best for our family, and that we all work hard for our families? I respect any woman who is trying her best for her family. I don’t assume I do everything she does and vice versa, even if we are both SAHM. I think it is high time SAHM were offered the same courtesy as a whole. WOHM don’t do everything I do, and that is okay; I certainly don’t do everything they do.  

I sometimes think that in fighting to be allowed to do other work and to be respected as just as, if not more capable than men, in every field, we have helped devalue what is seen as “women’s work” (*shudder*). Instead of equality, where people choose what is best for them, and all work is respected, we have come to a place of women disdaining other women who make the choice to be home, and in return, the women who are at home are lashing out at the women who have jobs. It sets everyone back when all work isn’t respected. I also include blue-collar and service work here. Those jobs used to be seen as important work, but now too many see it as beneath them. I won’t get into how women’s rights and worker’s rights are intertwined. That topic is a different post entirely, but just remember that ALL work has value, and we couldn’t get by without each other.