Feminteresting, Indeed

Adam brought a new movement for gender-based taxation to my attention.

Gender-based taxation: women are taxed less than men.

From a paper by Alberto Alesio et. al, via The Atlantic:

Gender Based Taxation (GBT) satisfies Ramsey’s optimal criterion by taxing less the more elastic labor supply of (married) women.

So married women are taxed less than men. A convoluted way to make sure women get equal pay for equal work. A convoluted way to pay housewives for their work. Is there no better way?

Well, The F Word posted a Daily Mail article that reports researchers have found that housewife work is worth 30,000 pounds a year.

I feel like I've seen this before, in countless economic surveys. It doesn't make a difference. I think both ideas would eventually fail. Married people already get a break on their taxes (I think). We need to figure out a better way to get women the money they deserve. And a paycheck for housewives, like Jess McCabe at The F Word says, would invite scrutiny and criticism from the public and the government. Will all housewives have to teach their children abstinence? Do they get extra if they homeschool? Do they get days off? Who is their boss? The kids? The husband? The government. Yikes. Sounds horrible.

Neither of these proposals fixes the inequality ingrained in our economy, the sexism we've come to expect in our work system. They are band-aids that will quickly fall off.

I wish there was a simple answer, but there's not. Both of these proposals scare me, because the implications extend far beyond their original intentions. I understand that these people are trying to make the world fair, but they can't. Not this way, at least.

No One's in the Kitchen with Robert

Oh, jesus. Vanessa Richmond posted an article on AlterNet today that made me never want to cook again.

I'm lying. Cooking makes me never want to cook again. But not according to Richmond. She writes that feminists don't cook because they think it's demeaning and oppressive. If they have time to cook, they should use that time to "enjoy life" some more.

So men are taking the reigns. Richmond says it's because cooking is "sweet" when men do it. They get praise. Women are expected to cook, and thus feel pressure.

How does Richmond get to this point? Quotes from her friends, her own interpretation of their tones, and a general sense.

Yes, my man cooks for me. But he J cooks because he's good at it, and he enjoys it. I reap the benefits, and I make sure to thank him very much. If I were cooking, he'd do the same.

Anytime I've tried to cook, I've found it annoying, tedious, and time consuming. I have not found, as Richmond states, that "anyone who's ever cooked will tell you the act of preparing food makes you more powerful and sexy." Oh, is that a fact? Tell my stained jeans and sticky cheeks. Tell my husband that when I've burned or somehow fucked up the meal.

I think the base of Richmond's argument (that women are cooking less because they don't think they "should," because it's too oppressive) is ridiculous. Her survey is unscientific and based completely on feeling. I find it offensive to be accused of thinking that much about cooking (or not cooking in this case). Frozen meals and hot dogs are fine for me. And it's NOT because I'm a feminist. It's because I'm a horrible cook.

The New York Times Gives EcoMoms The "Housewife" Treatment

I realized, as I clicked the link to read the New York Times article "For ‘EcoMoms,’ Saving Earth Begins at Home," that I would be dangerously close to the line.

You know, that line. The one we feminists are accused of all too often, but that sometimes actually applies.

"You're just reading it through a lens."

Right. Yes, sometimes feminists go too far, placing their own values on something without thinking of context.

But this article, about women who start conserving at home (you know, so we don't have to fight pollution overseas), is not a case of over-analysis. It's purely sexist.

Let's start at the beginning, where "housewives" are thrown back to the '50's:

The women gathered in the airy living room, wine poured and pleasantries exchanged. In no time, the conversation turned lively — not about the literary merits of Geraldine Brooks or Cormac McCarthy but the pitfalls of antibacterial hand sanitizers and how to retool the laundry using only cold water and biodegradable detergent during non-prime-time energy hours (after 7 p.m.).

Move over, Tupperware. The EcoMom party has arrived...Here, the small talk is about the volatile compounds emitted by dry-erase markers at school.

Oh, isn't Patricia Leigh Brown whimsicle, assuming women gather strictly to talk about books and tupperware. Gasp! Can you believe these ladies are talking about something important? I'm shocked! (Brown gets NO credit for the mention of Cormac McCarthy, because his book was recently selected for Oprah's Book Club.)

The tone continues throughout the article:

Perhaps not since the days of “dishpan hands” has the household been so all-consuming.

More unnecessary assumption that women have nothing interesting to say, think about nothing but their house-life.

Re: the EcoMom movement:

Part “Hints from Heloise” and part political self-help group

What the hell is a political "self-help group"? Can't it just be a political group? Do women need self-help for politics now?

Also rampant in the article is the assumption that all these women have no other job. I'm fine if someone chooses not to work, but it's just not the case with the EcoMom Alliance (which is NOT linked to in the article). Robin Wright Penn is a member (who, I think is still an actress), and the group was started by a social entrepreneur who co-produced an event for the United Nations World Environment Day.

But the article's not all bad, there is a little of the idea that women are powerful in the changes they can make at home:

Women have been instrumental in the environmental movement from the start, including their involvement in campaigns a century ago to save the Palisades along the Hudson River and sequoias in California and, more recently, Lois Gibbs’s fight against toxic waste at Love Canal.

In public opinion surveys, women express significantly higher levels of environmental concern than men, said Riley Dunlap, a professor of sociology at Oklahoma State University.

And the EcoMom alliance itself pushes the history of women's meetings. Of course, it doesn't refer explicitly to Tupperware:

Much as kitchen table conversations have inspired women throughout history, the EcoMom Alliance is a call to action asking moms to help protect our planet and create a more peaceful, just world.

(from the website)
I'd say the tone is a little more about power, a little less about women gabbing about the best way to iron shirts. The tagline on the website: "Because one of nature's strongest forces is a network of mothers."Despite the brief mention of power, the NYT article ends on a sour note, noting the "domestic strife" eco-housewife-ism can cause and (natch) the cat-fighting within the movement:

And ecomotherhood is not always sisterly.

At the EcoMom party recently, some guests took the hostess, Liz Held, to task for her wall-to-wall carpeting (potential off-gassing), her painted walls (unhealthful volatile organic compounds) and the freshly cut flowers that she had set out for the occasion (not organic). Their problems with the S.U.V. in the driveway were self-explanatory.

The organization is about power, it's about concern for the environment. This article cut it down to coffee talk and internal strife.

NOT good, in my book.

Susanne Pleshette

is dead at 70 from lung cancer (I think from lung cancer, she started chemotherapy in '06).

The articles I read don't really describe her as a person, but, overwhelmingly, as "throaty." The linked article talks about her husbands and Bob Newhart. Damn, I guess that's what happens when you hit the peak of your career in the '70s.

I hope she was cool. I guess she avoided the age of celeb hype. What? We don't know anything about her personal life except that she was married three times? I'm not sure what to do with myself. I wish that happened now. I might be a better person if I knew a little less about Britney Spears.

Hey! Women Can be Sexist Too!

And it's not about the election either! Nope, WSJ article is just random sexism.

The article is about women and tools. (insert funny pic of Chris Matthews or Billy Bush here) Hardware stores are marketing towards women and their nifty notion that they can fix things too! Guess what the color du jour is.
The clever "Ms. Hymowitz" calls this trend "the pinking of home improvement," "the pink hammer brigade," and "the pink hammer revolution."

Newsflash: women have been fixing things for a long time. But advertisers and marketing departments have only just caught on. And everything's going pink-ass frilly. Of course! All women want a pink screwdriver!

According to Hymowitz, if that is her real name, single and divorced women are becoming more self-sufficient out of necessity. Or possibly because they've been called a nag too many times by their "loving" husbands. But watch out, Hym-ey isn't buying any of this "empowerment" shit:

"The only thing to give pause in the pinkhammer revolution is the occasional whiff of ideology that emanates from its leaders. Hang around the movement's Web sites and before long you'll hear rhetoric that implies that learning to install a dimmer switch is not simply a practical means of increasing domestic pleasure; it's a Radical Statement for Women's Progress. "It's more about Empowerment with a capital E," reads the toolgirls.com manifesto. Most of the rhetoric is more Oprahesque heavy breathing than Steinem-style fuming, but it still may not be the most suitable tone to take around people preparing to take up potentially lethal tools. "My true desire is to inspire women to become more self-reliant and confident in their abilities," Barbara K! writes on her Web site. "We all have 'it' within ourselves to do things we never imagined we could."

Well, maybe. But the truth is that while women may want a lovely home, most of them would also like a good man to share it with. You can be sure that, unlike their female counterparts, few single men are spending their weekends restoring the crown molding in their living rooms. Men's domesticity has always been a group affair; they fixed the faucets and built the shelves not for themselves but for their wives and children. Women ought to know that selfreliance isn't everything."

Translation: It's okay to bone up on your handy-woman skills, but make sure you don't do it for yourself. Do it for your future husbands. Imagine how much they'll want to marry you when they see you with that pink hammer! Yeah!

Ugh. I'm gonna be sick.

The Royal "We"

I know this isn't new, but it's still really disturbing.

An LA Times article reports on male anti-abortion activists.

Their new tactic is apparently using the pronoun "we." We had an abortion. I hate it when "we're pregnant" I hate it when "we have abortions." It's got nothing to do with "we."

Sure, "we're having a baby" works. We're in debt. We're having sex. Because those all involve both people. In a perfect world, men and women would be involved in what happens to their progeny, but it's not a perfect world. Bottom line: women will be more affected by a baby. No matter how you slice it. It's a woman's body, she gets final say.

But the reason to read the article is the men they found to interview:

Morrow, the counselor, described his regret as sneaking up on him in midlife -- more than a decade after he impregnated three girlfriends (one of them twice) in quick succession in the late 1980s. All four pregnancies ended in abortion.

Years later, when his wife told him she was pregnant, "I suddenly realized that I had four dead children," said Morrow, 47, who lives near Erie, Pa. "I hadn't given it a thought. Now it all came crashing down on me -- look what you've done."

Does this guy not believe in condoms? What's the deal? "Hadn't given it a thought"?

But here's the really funny/sad one:

Chris Aubert, a Houston lawyer, felt only indifference in 1985 when a girlfriend told him she was pregnant and planned on an abortion. When she asked if he wanted to come to the clinic, he said he couldn't; he played softball on Saturdays. He stuck a check for $200 in her door and never talked to her again.

Aubert, 50, was equally untroubled when another girlfriend had an abortion in 1991. "It was a complete irrelevancy," he said. But years later, Aubert felt a rising sense of unease. He and his wife were cooing at an ultrasound of their first baby when it struck him -- "from the depths of my belly," he said -- that abortion was wrong...

Aubert wonders: What if his first girlfriend had not aborted? How would his life look different?

He might have endured a loveless marriage and, perhaps, a sad divorce. He might have been saddled with child support as he tried to build his legal practice. He might never have met his wife. Their children -- Christine, Kyle, Roch, Paul, Vance -- might not exist.

"I wouldn't have the blessings I have now," Aubert said. So in a way, he said, the two abortions may have cleared his path to future happiness.

"That's an intellectual debate I have with myself," he said. "I struggle with it."

In the end, Aubert says his moral objection to abortion always wins. If he could go back in time, he would try to save the babies.

But would his long-ago girlfriends agree? Or might they also consider the abortions a choice that set them on a better path?

Aubert looks startled. "I never really thought about it for the woman," he says slowly.

Jesus! He didn't even go with that girl to get "their" abortion? And he's never CONSIDERED what her life is like?

No one wants to get an abortion. It's a hard decision that can haunt you, but it's also a hard decision that could be the best decision you make. Yes, it sucks that guys don't get the final say. But it also sucks that guys can't get pregnant.

Huckabee can blame/jail doctors all he wants (we have to protect women from the big scary MALE doctors who just want to abort their precious babies! - another tactic from the "pro-life" crowd), these guys can cry and become alcoholics, but the choice always lies with the woman who has to squirt out the kid. I know it's not fair, but neither is pregnancy.

Abuse is okay. The Qu'ran tells me so.

Picture (right) and story via the The New York Times.

Abused Muslim American women aren't much different from regular abused women, except that their religious text condones the abuse (it's usually public abuse of women that's condoned in the Christian bible.

The current interpretation of Chapter 4, verse 34 in the Qu'ran gives "husbands the right to strike their wives as the final step in an escalating series of punishments for being rebellious."

The problem is widespread. Even more so because within the Muslim community, the abuse is accepted. Even by women. If a woman asks for help, she is usually met with a cleric who offers marriage counseling (WITH the abusive husband) and/or family telling her to suck it up and be obedient.

If an American Muslim woman seeks help at a shelter, her faith is held in question. The article details this woman's story:

After enduring seven years of beatings from her husband, a young Yemeni-American woman recently fled to a local shelter, only to find that the heavy black head scarf she wore as an observant Muslim provoked disapproval.

The shelter brought in a hairdresser, whose services she accepted without any misgivings. But once her hair was styled, administrators urged her to throw off her veil, saying it symbolized the male oppression native to Islam that she wanted to escape.Instead the woman, who asked for anonymity because she feared further violence from her relatives, decamped to the Hamdard Center for Health and Human Services in suburban Chicago, a shelter that caters mainly to Muslim women by not serving pork and keeping prayer rugs handy. Such shelters are extremely rare nationwide, activists say, because Muslim Americans only recently began confronting the issue of spousal abuse.

Do we really need separate shelters for Muslim women? That's really sad. A shelter shouldn't be a place to question someone's beliefs. A woman comes to a shelter seeking help, and that's what she needs. She doesn't need someone to tell her that her entire life is based on something that oppresses her. And this woman filed for divorce, sought help from imams and family, and endured tremendous abuse because of it. The headscarf does not equal oppression for this 29-year old woman. The husband and family do.

It's good that she had a place like the Hamdard Center to go, but it's extremely sad that she needs it. Shelters are hard to start in Muslim communities, because they like to pretend it's not a problem. Well, I guess it isn't if the verse you take literally tells you it's okay.

People are working to change the interpretation, but it doesn't look good. I guess we should feel lucky that Christian and Jewish fundamentalists are a little wishy-washy on the whole literal thing. If I had to leave the city every time I had a period, I would probably have to kill someone.

Behind Every Woman...

is her husband's name. Although I don't agree with parts of this NY Times Op-Ed, it's still depressing.

Nepotism isn't always a bad thing. I know from personal experience. But yikes.
Kerry Howley writes:

Like it or not, the road to female advancement often begins at the altar. History books are thick with examples of women who broke political barriers because their family connections afforded them the opportunity.
If you’ve ever wondered why India, Indonesia, Myanmar, Pakistan and the Philippines seem readier to elect women than does the United States, here’s your answer: Societies that value a candidate’s family affiliation, and therefore have a history of nepotistic succession, are often open to female leadership so long as it bears the right brand. Benazir Bhutto, Indira Gandhi and Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, among many others, slashed through gender barriers on the strength of their family names.As Jo Freeman, the feminist political scientist, has pointed out, six of the first 14 women elected to Congress were widows of incumbents. Three more were the daughters of politicians...

The first three women to serve full Senate terms all succeeded their husbands. Only with the 1978 election of Nancy Kassebaum, a Kansas Republican, did a woman finally achieve a full Senate term without first following her husband into office. (And Ms. Kassebaum was the daughter of Alf Landon, the former Kansas governor.)

To some voters, Hillary Clinton’s husband provides reassurance that the “calculating” senator from New York won’t degenerate into a feminine hysteric if she is elected to the White House. Yet Mrs. Clinton, the first woman who is a serious contender for the presidential nomination of one of the nation’s two major political parties, still has to work overtime to prove herself non-threatening. She clings to the political center like a life raft and rarely ventures from the shallow waters of establishment predictability.

Gift-wrapped Virginity

Via Feministing:

CoolVirginity.com wants you to be a virgin.Of course, that virginity isn't for yourself, it's for your husband. Don't stay a virgin because you're not ready for sex, do it because it makes such a great gift.

Ugh.

Yeah, that's healthy

This article, from WebMD and Redbook, has been Dugg 424 times (the last time I checked).

The title is "Don't-Tell-the-Wife" Secrets All Men Keep." Here's a piece of the intro:

...Then one day, as we stood in line for a movie at the mall, Simone Shaw, junior high prom queen, sauntered by. Suddenly Amy turned to me. "Were you looking at her?" she asked. "Do you think she's pretty?"

My mind reeled. Of course I was looking at her! Of course she was pretty! My God, she was Simone Shaw! I paused for a second, then decided to play it straight.

"Well, yeah," I chortled.

Five days later our breakup hit the tabloids (a.k.a. the lunchroom).

There comes a time in every man's life when he discovers the value of hiding the grosser parts of his nature. He starts reciting the sweet nothings you long to hear: "No, honey, I play golf for the exercise." "No, honey, I think you're a great driver." "No, honey, I wasn't looking at that coed washing the car in the rain."

Some of the "Secrets" are:
Secret #1: Yes, we fall in lust 10 times a day -- but it doesn't mean we want to leave you.
Secret #2: We actually do play golf to get away from you
Secret #3: We're unnerved by the notion of commitment, even after we've made one to you
Secret #4: Earning money makes us feel important

The article itself is bad enough, but the fact that people actually put it up on Digg and 424 people actually took the time to "digg" it. The beginning of the article especially is barf-worthy.

That's it. I've found my candidate

Who wouldn't want a candidate who values his wife, right?

Or not. The AP, in all it's wisdom, asked the candidates what their most prized possession was. Fred Thompson's answer? His "trophy wife."

Honestly.

But don't worry, it was all tongue in cheek.

Thanks to my awesome brother for the link.

Sigh...if only

Thanks, Feministing, for finding this ridiculously misogynistic "funny" e-card.

If only I could meet the man who wants a remote to shut up his stupid, feminist wife. I would ... no, words will only diminish my hatred. Let's just say rope and tape would be involved. And NOT in a good way.

Wait...wait. Where's my sense of humor? Who wouldn't want someone to do everything they wanted, have sex whenever they wanted, stop PMSing whenever they wanted. Doesn't really matter that it's enslavement, rape, and oppression. Oh yeah, that's really funny.

Fuck a Huckabee

Okay, so Huckabee is rocking the polls. Doesn't change the fact that he's a religious Republican who, according to Newsweek, has an explosive temper.

Who knows why he signed the evangelical ad in USA Today confirming his belief in the '98 Southern Baptist Convention's statement on family. ("A husband is to love his wife as Christ loved the church ... A wife is to submit herself graciously to the servant leadership of her husband even as the church willingly submits to the headship of Christ."..."You are right because you called husbands to sacrificially love and lead their wives. You are right because you called wives to graciously submit to their husband's sacrificial leadership.")Aside from completely confirming that I don't like Huckabee, this quote means a little more to yours truly. I've actually been to a wedding...where the minister...wait for it...quoted this affirmation.

As you can imagine, I was speechless and aching to scream at the same time. I'm good friends with the guy who was getting married and, yes, he's an evangelical, but I didn't expect this. I don't know why. I couldn't believe any woman would agree to this. Servant leadership? Submit? How can you say "I do" to something like that?