In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set || First feminist blog on the internet

Community Request!

Does anyone have the time to help transcribe a twelve-minute video interview for Feministe? I want to post it, but want to make sure it’s accessible to all of our community members, so it needs to be transcribed and I do not have the time. If anyone is available to help out, shoot me an email at feministe@gmail.com with the subject “Transcription.” Thank you!

UPDATE: Y’all are the best, and we’ve got it covered. The interview will be posted as soon as possible. It’s a good one, and I think you’ll all be excited to see/hear/read it.

Our own Lauren on teen pregnancy and parenthood

Feministe founder Lauren Bruce has some fantastic things to say in this interview:

Which is why I like how you put that — that “young moms are encouraged to accept failure.” To many, pregnancy and parenthood is the punishment teen moms should bear for becoming parents before it’s socially acceptable. We’re set up to fail, and when some of us do fail, we are used as object lessons to scare our peers into not getting pregnant.

To me, that’s a terrible way of looking at a parent-child relationship. A child is NEVER a punishment. Parenthood is NOT punitive. Our relationship with our children is one of the most important and sacred relationships we will ever have. To mar that relationship with a wish for emotional trauma or psychological punishment because the mom in this equation violated some social contract is really, truly messed up.

What helped me when I was down and I felt like the world was on my shoulders was understanding that all of this was happening in a particular context, where not only young mothers face judgement and derision, but mothers in general do as well. In other words, it wasn’t about me. This wasn’t *my* failure, or a failure at all. Women have children in less than ideal circumstances ALL THE TIME and everything turns out fine for all involved. ALL THE TIME. All the time.

You know, in Western cultures, we give a lot of lip service to motherhood. We call motherhood special, we valorize our own mothers, we say it the most important job on earth, but in practice there’s very little out there that supports mothers as a class of people. As a culture, we can barely come to an agreement on whether children, the most vulnerable population among us, have the right to food, clean water, safe homes, and access to health care. As teenage parents, we are on the receiving end of some particularly nasty judgement because we happen to hit a lot of these buttons: we’re young, we tend to have less wealth, we tend to have less education. And because the system is set up against us, a lot of folks as satisfied just shaking their heads and telling us we should have kept our legs closed.

That’s not good enough. You do have rights. You have the right to work, to attend college, to live in safe neighborhoods, to access quality health care and nutrition for your children. Some jerk’s false perception of you as a promiscuous loser — whether this jerk be your parent, your uncle, your freshman English teacher, or some stranger — is not a valid reason to prevent you from accessing these resources. In cases like this, knowledge is power. Know what your rights are and how exactly to exercise them when someone is putting up roadblocks to keep you from reaching your goals. What someone else thinks about you is none of your business. Forget their judgement.

The whole thing is excellent, and you should check it out.

I’d also recommend The PushBack’s blog. It’s really incredible — it’s a project of the Massachusetts Alliance on Teen Pregnancy, but it represents moms nation-wide. And it’s written by and for teen parents. It represents a variety of experiences and viewpoints, but is across the board well-edited and thoughtful. And because it’s designed to support teen parents and to share experiences, it’s not a finger-wagging lecture about Babies Having Babies; it’s actually nuanced and interesting.

Sex & Marriage

In the epic breastfeeding thread below, someone brought up another Dear Prudie letter from Tuesday’s column, so let’s discuss:

Sex Is a stumbling block: My wife and I have been together for eight years. We regularly had sex until three years ago, when we got married. Almost immediately after we were married, my wife told me that we couldn’t have sex anymore as she entered therapy for abuse that her father committed to her when she was a child. I’m confused, hurt, and feel that she was less than honest entering into our relationship; it seems as though she hid this until we were lawfully wed and then it was too late for me to back out. I’ve tried to be supportive for the last three years … I’ve respected her request for abstaining from sex and physical intimacy, but although she has regular therapy and the therapist says she’s progressing, I see no end to this situation or any signs of improvement. Am I wrong to question whether this marriage is worth it or not?

A: I hope you’ve had some serious talks these past three years about why she wanted to marry you, why she withheld this crucial information, and what she feels her obligations to this marriage are. It’s terrible that your wife was abused by her father (let’s assume that is true), but she has pulled quite a switcheroo on you. As soon as you became her husband, she decided to punish you for the sins of her father. That therapist has quite a nice sinecure going: three years of payments and no end in sight since there seems to be no clear goal for this treatment. It sounds as if they’ve got you so brainwashed that you feel you’re not allowed to state that you had no intention of entering a celebate marriage and your needs are not being considered or met. I think you should insist on a joint session with the therapist, or a few sessions with a couples therapist, just to try to figure out if resuming conjugal relations is even on your wife’s agenda. If nothing changes in short order, I think the most helpful professional for you will be a divorce lawyer.

So some of Prudie’s advice is totally jacked — like insinuating that the wife might be lying about the abuse, or that she’s pulling a “switcheroo,” or that she’s punishing her husband for the sins of her father. I agree with her that ideally, the wife would have been upfront about this before these two decided to get married — sex, for a lot of people, is a Big Deal, and a necessary part of marriage, and if you are going to withhold sex upon getting married, I think you do have an obligation to tell your partner that, so that your partner can decide whether or not to continue the relationship. And since ending a marriage is much more complex than ending a non-marital relationship, best-case scenario is that you put potential deal-breakers on the table before you tie the knot. So yes, I actually do think it was kind of shitty of the wife to not bring up the whole “I’m going to want to stop having sex” thing before they got married.

That said, of course, we don’t know if that decision was even contemplated before marriage — maybe it wasn’t. And as circumstances change, so do feelings and needs. She has a right to not have sex if she doesn’t want to. That doesn’t make her manipulative or mean.

But I think where Prudie is right on this one is that it’s messed up that the husband doesn’t get to address his own needs. Does the husband have a right to demand sex from his wife? No. Does he have a right to coerce or guilt her into sex? No. But does he have a right to decide that he does not want to be in a celibate marriage, and to present that fact to his wife, and then to leave the marriage? Yes, he does, and he’s not a bad or selfish or unreasonable person for wanting a marriage that includes sex. And does she have the right to evaluate that information in deciding how she wants to proceed? Yes, she does.

Apologizing for being right

Today’s Dear Prudie has some doozies, but this is my favorite:

When Grandpa Says the ___ Word: Over Thanksgiving my conservative ornery father used a number of racial and sexually oriented slurs. My college age daughter heard him use one, and she called him on it. She said, “Grandpa, those words are offensive, and when you use them, you sound ignorant and bigoted.” My dad blew up at her and kicked her out of the house. This resulted in my family and my brother’s family leaving. My sister and her family stayed. Unfortunately, based on the slurry of emails that have began circling over the weekend, I think this will be a divisive family issue. My sister’s family essentially agree with my daughter but feel that she should have been more respectful. My brother’s family and mine are embarrassed that it took a girl more than half our age to call out our father’s unacceptable terminology. Do you think anything can be done to heal this situation, and who do you think did the right thing?

A: It’s promising that everyone agrees with your daughter. Brava to her for calling out Grandpa. But it would have been more effective if she’d said, “Grandpa, those words are offensive and when you use them it makes me want to leave the room.” That way she would have been drawing attention to the effect of his bigotry on her, not calling him names. Since your daughter sounds like a brave young woman, she might consider being the one to address this issue. She could contact your father and say that while she stands by her objection to use of racial and sexual language, she apologizes for the way she phrased it. That gives Grandpa a chance to lick his wounds and change his ways. And then the whole family can open a discussion about making Christmas a slur-free holiday.

Ah yes, if she had only just phrased it nicer! Nope. That does not work. And actually, the way the daughter phrased her objections were pretty darn generous. She didn’t call anyone a bigot; she said the use of those words make one sound like a bigot. And that is actually true. I know Grandpa is old, but plenty of old folks aren’t n-word-using assholes who kick their grandchildren out of the house for objecting to racist language.

And then!

Breastfeeding a Big Kid: Four months ago my brother got married to a woman who has a 5-year-old son from a previous relationship. Since they had a private ceremony, we did not meet his new wife and stepson until Dad’s 80th birthday, when they flew over to see us. Things were going well until my new nephew walked over to where the adults were eating dessert and told my SIL that he was thirsty. She whipped out her breast at the dining table and proceeded to breastfeed her son. Although nobody said anything, she sensed we were shocked and casually explained her son had allergies and this was the only healthy milk option for him. Since our mom is not around, my other brothers and Dad are urging me to intervene. My brother, the one who married her, does not seem to care much. Should I say anything to her? How do I start such a conversation?

A: I’m trying to imagine the shiver that might go through your entire family if your brother ever hosts a brunch at his home and his new wife passes around the cream for the coffee. At the risk of bringing down the wrath of La Leche League, 5 years old is way too old to still be on mommy’s breast. By the time the kid can say, “Mom, you’ve been eating too much garlic and it’s upsetting my stomach,” you know it’s time to throw away the nursing bra. Showing too much cleavage to your new husband’s family would be ill-advised the first time you all met. Lactating at the dessert table takes inappropriate to a new level. You say your brother “does not seem to care much” about this, which doesn’t make clear what kind of conversation you’ve had with him. You need to say, “Bro, we’re so happy you’ve found Fiona. We’re sorry her son has food allergies, but we need to let you know we all have a dairy allergy. That is, we’d appreciate if you’d ask her to breast feed in private.” If he won’t take action, then at the next gathering, as she starts to unbutton, all of you should feel free to stampede away from the table. Let’s hope for her son’s sake she finds him a milk substitute. It would be bad for him socially if she had to come and give him nourishment to get him through his SATs.

I can see how breastfeeding a five-year-old makes other people… uncomfortable. We aren’t used to seeing kindergarteners breastfeed. And clearly the parents here need to think of some other healthy milk options, since the breast isn’t going to be an option for the rest of this kid’s life. But beyond that… so what? I mean, the idea of breastfeeding a child until the age of 5 makes my nipples chafe and is not something that I think I would ever do in a million years, but if some other lady is cool with it, then what’s the big deal? That said, maybe the dinner table isn’t the most appropriate place for it (yes, it’s milk and the kid deserves to eat, but if he’s five he is obviously eating other things and can participate in the meal. I can understand an objection to body fluids in close proximity to food, even though it’s not an objection that I would personally make). But surely if she was just sitting on the couch or something it wouldn’t be a big deal? Unless the objection is to a woman “whipping her breast out” (why always with the “whipping”?), which I suspect is the real issue here. To which I basically think, “get over it.”

Posted in Uncategorized

Another day, another Cain sex scandal

So who knows if this is true or not, but the most interesting thing about this article, which details the claim that Cain had a 13-year affair, is this third-to-last paragraph:

He refused to go into any detail about Ms. White, and also told Mr. Blitzer that he had already informed his wife, whose response was, “Here we go again.”

Pro tip: If your husband is accused of inappropriate sexual behavior so many times that your reaction to him potentially having an affair is “here we go again,” it is maybe time to reconsider that relationship.

Perhaps Mr. and Mrs. Cain have an arrangement where Mr. Cain is allowed to have a decade-long affair and everyone’s cool with it. I really doubt it, because most of the time the wives in these scenarios are totally blindsided and publicly humiliated, but sometimes people have arrangements and that’s fine. And most of the time, I fall into the camp of “people’s personal lives are personal, and romantic and sex lives are particularly complex and tough to judge from the outside.” There are a few exceptions, though, when we’re talking about people running for or holding political office (or other positions of power). One exception is “demonstrates total lack of judgment” (see, e.g., sending cock-shots via Twitter from your Congressional office). Another is “astounding hypocrisy about policing peoples’ sex lives” (see, e.g., being an anti-gay anti-abortion “family values” conservative who sexually harasses women and has a 13-year-long affair). Another is “bad judgment + astounding hypocrisy” (see, e.g., running for president when you have a history of sexual harassment and a long-term affair in your closet). So this alleged affair seems like pretty fair game for media coverage. But if I were that dude’s wife? I would be out the damn door.

Children on Flights

Flying with kids has been the topic of three New York Times articles over the past few weeks (one, two and three), and the responses are predictably polarizing. Because yes, having a screaming kid on your flight absolutely sucks. I would imagine it also sucks to be the parent of a screaming kid on a flight, and the fact is that sometimes families need to travel too — leaving the baby at home is not a fair suggestion. So I’m pretty firmly in the camp of “cut parents and kids a lot of slack on airplanes.”

Which is why airlines really should make some reasonable accommodations for parents. Like, let families with small children board first, so that they don’t hold everyone else up. Seat parents and children together. Let parents stand with their kids at the back of the plane if the kids need to stretch their legs. Etc etc. At the same time, parents need to be realistic. And some of the parents in the Times article seem a little… clueless:

Read More…Read More…

Posted in Uncategorized

The HPV Vaccine is Coming to Developing Countries

Big news:

GAVI announced today that it intends to introduce HPV and rubella vaccines in developing countries. Each year cervical cancer causes 275,000 deaths with 88% taking place in poor countries. It is projected that the number of deaths will rise to 430,000 women each year by 2050 if no action is taken. To reduce the impact, GAVI has set the ambitious goal of vaccinating 2 million women and girls against HPV and thus protecting them against cervical cancer by 2015.

Women in developing countries often lack access to the screening mechanisms that keep cervical cancer rates lower in wealthier nations. This vaccine program could save hundreds of thousands of lives.