There are those times when you make really stupid mistakes that you instantly regret, and wish with all of your might that you a little bit cautious. I feel this way every time I’ve ever gotten in an accident or pulled over. Don’t worry, this doesn’t happen often, or at least it hasn’t for the past 3 years or so, but I clearly remember the feeling. So much so that anytime I see a police car even remotely look like it’s following me I start hyperventilating, my blood gets hot, and my muscles slightly start to clamp. Maybe I have a bit of an over-stated fear of having car incidents, but this time, my stupidity had nothing to do with a car. Or the police. I had watched a movie, called Chemerical, which wasn’t a particularly brilliant, but for some reason it put me into domination mode, and I ran through my house throwing all of my chemicals in a large shopping bag to take ‘round to the garbage. I couldn’t have any VOCs in my house anymore! So the next day I headed to the grocery store and picked up washing soda, borax, lemons, and more baking soda, even though I already had three large boxes of it. Oops. Then, this is where the stupidity comes in, I made up my mind to re-use some boxes with my handmade chemicals, and I grabbed a steak-knife that was on the counter and tried to pry the lid off the Comet tube and in less than a second I had sliced an inch along the bit of skin beside my thumb. I glanced down and saw a gaping hole and the grayish inside of my hand and…begin the freak-out. Actually, my feak-out only lasted a few minutes because Roger called my sister for me and she said to go get it stitched up, and for some odd reason, having a mission made my queasiness and pain almost go away. It was as if just the idea that I had a hole in my skin was the cause of my fear. The entire way to the urgent care center, because we don’t live anywhere near a hospital, I was bashing myself for being such an idiot. I could have used a butter knife just as easily, I was foolish for even trying to open a Comet jar, and why was I holding my hand right beside the knife blade?? 

I was still glum and slunk into the urgent care center, prepared to face many scolding looks from the Doctor for my foolishness. The owners of the center were foreign, perhaps Russian, and were probably some of the nicest people I have ever met. Really, I have never felt so at ease and comfortable chatting away with the doctor and nurse, and I left feeling not only uplifted, but rather proud of myself for not wincing once while I was getting shots and stitches. I also went out right away to pick up my prescription for antibiotics, which I never do. There is a lesson in here somewhere about customer service leading to happy customers, or seeing the bright side during bad events, but all I could feel is that my bad night didn’t turn out like all of those speeding tickets. It is actually something of a pleasant memory now.

I’m not talking about good sexism, but twisted sexism. I’ve begun to notice more and more a lot of people promoting women’s rights, or other movements for women, that are terribly, terribly sexist. This contradictory, double discourse is really troubling because it is so secretive and unassuming. It would seem that when people make comments in the wake of the CIA/prostitute scandal that getting more women into high positions would make events like this occur less often, seem to be saying something nice about women in general, but it really just another rehash of the dictorum that women contain a purity of emotion, and like the angel in the attic are free from the kind of base feelings and yearnings of men. 

What about this recent debate about pay equity for women? While I’m not necessarily bashing pay equity as a principle (I don’t know enough about it to do that), I am annoyed at the level of condescension I feel is being projected towards women. Is it really so unreasonable that women could just become legitimately qualified for high-paying positions that we have to legislate them an “equatable wage” in their less-paying jobs? This is exactly like Mitt Romney’s “binders full of women” comment. Is it really that hard to find qualified women for great jobs that it has to become a kind of “affirmative action” process to get women involved? And if so, maybe that’s what we should be working on, not inflating job value (we’ve learned that when it inflate anything it always leads to a bubble. A wage bubble would be devastating). What will this do to the market for women? Will we become less employable because we will have to be paid a certain amount, while men can be paid for the market value of their job? While I agree that the social view of more “female jobs” like teaching, or secretarial work in undervalued, is it undervalued because they are women’s jobs, or just because our society doesn’t care about education or underlings? 

And how about this recent controversy over the women in Ireland getting denied an abortion and dying? While I disagree that an abortion would have necessarily saved her life (and if you listen to any doctor or nurse talk, they will agree that it wouldn’t have) I do acknowledge that her medical “rights” were violated by doctors not performing what would have been an easy procedure, but it bothers me to no end that this women’s death is only being politicized because she is probably the only woman in Ireland to ever have wanted an abortion and then died, making her a great political martyr. My question is, why does it matter that she asked for an abortion? Would it have been so political of an event if she hadn’t asked for one and still died? Even if she had been in America, and had asked for an abortion, but it had been denied for some reason (let’s say it would have definitely killed her), her death would still be publicized because despite abortion being a “liberal, feminist issue,” the womb is still mysticized in the same way that the womb is mysticized for the religious right. A woman’s ideas about her own body for some reason always trump a medical doctor’s point of view because of this idea that the womb is something mystical and gives women intuitive “motherly instincts” and insights into her body, and also renders her incapable of high positions because she is too emotional due to her vagina. Again, if she hadn’t asked for an abortion but she had died, this probably wouldn’t have become a political story, because the doctors opinion would have been legitimate. However, because a “woman knows what’s best for her body” (since every girl out there knows the workings of fertility like the back of her hand), this has become an issue. Whenever there is the implication, as in this case where people are clearly suggesting that since this woman asked for an abortion, it would have saved her life, that woman have a supernatural, subconscious connection to their “womanly body” in a way that men do not have to their penis, it makes me cringe.

Of course, I couldn’t talk about this without mentioning the recent political debates. There were so many times I wanted to scream in frustration listening to people talk about women (in other words, half of the population) as if we were some small segmented group who felt unilaterally about political issues. While I understand that statistics, and news media are concerned with “breaking it down” to show demographics and such, I still really resent the implication that women (again the mysticism of the womb) vote with their vaginas. Jon Stewart and Kristin Scaal did a hilarious bit on this http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-november-14-2012/the-married-vs—single-woman-vote. While yes, women aren’t as potentially “swing” voters as men are (at least not that ones that actually go out and vote), does that mean women unilaterally feel the same way on political issues? 

While I will agree that there are many differences between men and women, I always hate the suggestion, be it positive or negative, that these differences are significant in any way. Does it matter that women will have a different point of view in any job position they hold that will render them under or hyper qualified for that job, or will it simply be a different point of view? I think this world would be a much better place if we had more women in higher places, but not because women have some high, moralistic nature, but instead that varying opinions necessarily lead to higher, more complex conversations and attitudes. 

So I try to read a book that I know will challenge me every once in awhile because I feel like that is good for everyone to do but this book has surprisingly been more of a difficult read than I was expecting. Not because it is difficult to understand, but because this author is really annoying me. The book is The Conflict: How Modern Motherhood Undermines the Status of Women by Elisabeth Badinter. While I will acknowledge that there is a lot of stuff about modern motherhood that is not good for women, it is more of a technical problem to me than a fundamental one. Meaning, I think there is too much emphasis placed on “helicopter parenting,” or that women don’t allow themselves to retain enough of themselves after they have children, and I will even concede that many women do undermine themselves by having children when they probably shouldn’t because it is socially acceptable. However, Badinter’s thesis is that there is not only too much emphasis placed on angelic motherhood but that motherhood itself and a child are fundamentally at odds with female liberation. She even includes in her book (because she sees it as an example of how pervasive sexism in motherhood is) a BEAUTIFUL quote from Bruno Bettleheim, child psychologist, when he declined to write an intro for her previous book: “I’ve spent my whole life working with children whose lives have been destroyed because their mothers hated them…Which demonstrates that there is no maternal instinct. Of course there isn’t, otherwise there wouldn’t have been so many of them needing my services— and there are many many mothers who reject their children…this (book) will only serve to free these women from their feelings of guilt, the only means that some children are saved from destruction, suicide, anorexia, etc. I don’t want to give my name to supporting the last buttress that protects a lot of unhappy children from destruction.” 

Women have been taught that culture and society are the enemy. They always have been there to repress women and control them. Culture and society always equal suppression and limiting women’s rights. But isn’t there some basic role that society was created to provide? Doesn’t society, and the demands that we place on women as mother…women who are raising the future occupants of our society…have some say into pressuring and guilting people into doing the kinds of behaviors that lead to a successful society?  Granted, many of these caregiving roles can be provided for by other family members, especially fathers, but even as Badinter decries suppressive motherhood, she also devalues male roles by only mentioning them in secondary positions: “(Women) seek out a partner who is desirable as the father of their children.” And this is the paradoxical crux of the feminist argument towards anti-motherhood; Children are the primary responsibility of women and only women have the ability to chose when they are born, and how they are subsequently raised. However, we do not have to be subjegated by male superiority into providing those offspring with what they need to be fulfilled and resent others in society trying to enforce rights for children that depend on our actions.

Motherhood is a necessary position of compromised freedoms. You cannot be a mother without acknowledging that at some point you are biologically and legally chained to another human being for 18+ years and as the caretaker of another person you have legal obligations that must be fulfilled beyond basic food and shelter. Badinter deeply resents what she sees as a ecological motherhood that is prevalent in modern society, based mostly on scientific and psychological research which she says provides biased conclusions based on loose results. She complains of Hrdy, the primatologist, that while Hrdy concedes that mother instinct does not exist and historically women have behaved against perceived ideas of maternal instinct she still promotes ideas about a primal bonding and uniting of desires between mothers and children. However, in her criticism, Badinter forgets that most women do feel fundamental connections and even transformations after “bonding” with their child and that this desire to please experienced by both mother and child is what has lead to the endurance of our species. Badinter rightly points out that not all mothers breastfeed and are still able to mother, which is true, but even in the act of bottle-feeding, or playing parents are able to bond with their babies. But those who do not bond properly with their children absolutely have problems being adequate parents, which is what Badinter is questioning. 

My mother had an emotionally distant mother and to this day my mother has many issues that has made my own relationship with her hard. My mother says she was rarely held, and we know from studies in orphanages that attachment theory shows itself to be a reality. Is the burden to be the one a child is exclusively attached to unfairly thrust on a woman? Absolutely, but when women take on the responsibility of motherhood it is impossible to not have to compromise your own freedoms and desires to accommodate another human living in such close proximity and in such an extraordinary state of dependence, and I think that it is definitely, to some extent, the responsibility of society to help and hold mothers accountable (at least in a vague, societal pressure way) for children’s well being. This kind of rhetoric is what gives feminist a bad name and arrogant, selfish, and self-centered. All women want to pursue their own lives, separate from their children or husband, and all women at some point have thoughts about wavering love, but that doesn’t mean that they haven’t so tightly bonded with their child that they would be willing to sacrifice what they can. As Edna says in The Awakening, “I would give up the unessential; I would give up my money, I would give up my life for my children; but I wouldnt give myself.” Women will never really give up who they are for their children no matter how much they love them because they cannot. But they do give what they can because that is what is required to be a mother.  I think on the issue of conflicting parental responsibilities and desires Louis C.K. is way more on base than Badinter when he says in his stand-up (and I’m summarizing) “Loving your child is amazing…you love everyone else more because of them. You love people from way back in your family tree because they are connected in this line to this wonderful person. The world is a better place because of your love for them. But as I look at them sleeping I intensely regret every decision that led to their birth.”

oldbookillustrations:

Chat ganté n’a jamais pris de souris (A cat in gloves catches no mice).

Jean-Jacques Grandville, from Cent proverbes (one hundred proverbs), collective work, Paris, 1845.

(Source: archive.org)

feministdiaries:

If you want to fight for choice, I’m sorry feminists, but here it is. You have to fight for a woman’s right to have a child, even if she is having it under all the conditions that seem to be ripe for a pro-abortion argument. If choice is genuine, it means choosing when and if a woman becomes a…

thedailyshow:

buzzfeed:

thedailyshow:

buzzfeed:

thedailyshow:

On Friday’s show, we said Mitt Romney’s claim that he had wanted President Obama to succeed in his first term was — and this is a technical term — bull-f@cking-sh#t, and played a clip of him on Neil Cavuto’s show to demonstrate it. So imagine our surprise when BuzzFeed disputed our call! They say the full context of Romney’s 2009 remarks to Neil Cavuto shows Romney wishing Obama success.

With all due respect, that is — and, again, this is a technical term — bull-f@cking-sh#t. You can watch the full clip above, in which Romney makes it clear that he hopes Obama “succeeds”, but not with “failed policies” like reforming our nation’s healthcare system; rather, he hopes that Obama “succeeds” by adopting Republican ideas, like lowering tax rates. Obviously, memories grow hazy with the passage of four years’ time, but we’re pretty sure that was the exact opposite of the platform Obama ran on. To us, it was an obvious case of concern trolling — the rhetorical gambit of pretending to support an opponent, while undermining the basis of their argument. Perhaps an analogy might help: “I wish the Jews the greatest of success, but not if they continue to pursue the failed policies of Moses and Abraham. Because I want nothing but the best for the Jews, I’m rooting for them to do the right thing, and accept Jesus Christ as their lord and savior.” Sure, the words “I wish the Jews the greatest of success” and “I’m rooting for them” are in there. But the rest of it negates them.

We love BuzzFeed. It’s insightful, funny and perceptive, and we read it every day. Which is why we wish them nothing but success in recognizing the errors of their earlier piece. Really, we have nothing but the highest hopes for their correction, and we feel that their reputation for accuracy will only be burnished by the retraction they’re sure to publish any minute now.

(See what we did there?)

Thank you for your discourse, Daily Show friends. We should do this more often! And thanks for linking to the Urban Dictionary definition of ‘concern trolling.’ It brought to light the myriad of political terms defined on UD, for example:    

Democrat: The more liberal of the two major political parties. Generally holds positions against capitol punishment, but for abortion. Believes it’s the governments job to babysit us when we want help, while telling the government to stay out of their lives.    

Republican: Someone who believes that the rich white male has the only valid opinion in the world. Most republicans are pro-life and pro-war, which also means they are hypocrites.    

Politician: 1. A person who practices politics. “Politics” is derived from the words “poly” meaning “many”, and “tics” meaning “blood-sucking parasites.”    

Regarding a retraction, there will be no retraction. However, as an olive branch we extend this link to these teaspoon-sized hedgehogs! 

Thank you for your thoughtful and considered response. Honestly, we have no idea why people say BuzzFeed is nothing more than aggregated content from elsewhere and links to cute animal photos.

You’re welcome again. Here’s everything you missed last night while you were tweeting about BuzzFeed:

• Benita Veliz becomes first undocumented immigrant to address a party Convention 

• GOP consultant and former Romney advisor Alex Castellanos says Clinton speech “will be the moment that probably reelected Barack Obama.” 

• Delegate Ashley Judd nominates President Obama on behalf of Tennessee

• Hundreds of delegates, journalists were locked out of the DNC!

• 50 MINUTES OF BILL CLINTON

• The Utah delegate makes a “We Built That” joke, takes Olympic dig at Mitt Romney

• Barry Goldwater’s granddaughter had a little trouble with the Arizona delegates’ roll call nomination

• Also, this hug between Bill and Barack

Yeah, well, the jerk store called and they’re out of you! #wewin #internetisclosed

dogshaming:

Editor’s note: Oh dear do I know this feel! With two dogs, it’s even worse. Let me know when you’ve had to reopen a tied up poop bag to try and pick up more poop. Twice. Oh the smell!!

ugh, everytime!

babygooroo:

Beautiful baby mermaid Kenna was born at 24 weeks, 3 days.  She has grown so much and you can follow her story here.  

Peter Pan is our all time favorite movie!

I’m reading this semi-good book by Nick Rosen. It has some fantastic quotes and is a great connection to all of the sustainable living ideas out there. Some of my favorite quotes from this, and re-quotes in the book:

“Simplicity is active. It is something found in moments or in actions or in specific choices. It is not a lifestyle choice.” (This is a response quote to Thoreau’s famous “I went to the woods because I wish to live deliberately”)

“None are more enslaved than those who believe they are free” -Goethe

“Spoken or printed, broadcast over the ether or on wood-pulp, all advertising copy has but one purpose- to prevent the will from ever achieving silence. Desirelessness is the condition of deliverance and illumination” -Huxley

“We are forced to live beyond our means because the basic necessities of living are beyond our means- most importantly the ground we stand on, light to see with, clean water to drink. These basic needs have been hijacked by the wealthy in collusion with governments, starting with claiming large tract of land, which then are parceled and rented out.”