Lets train: Man

Showing posts with label Man. Show all posts

Saturday, August 12, 2017

Working Like a Man or How American Feminism Failed Part 2

As the 1960s dawned, so did the birth of feminism in earnest. Many arguments exist in regards to how the women’s movement gained steam. One theory is that the jobs were there waiting, so the women’s movement was a reaction to market pressure combined with a loss of national focus on families and childbearing (such as Marvin Harris in his book Why Nothing Works). Another theory, associated with Joan Williams in her book Unbending Gender argues that the women’s movement was a reaction to an actual loss of status of women as homemakers toward the end of the 1950s and beginning of the 1960s which was caused by women exiting the home and entering the workforce in increasingly larger numbers. It was at this time that the seeds of what we now refer to as “the mommy wars” was born (Anticipate an extensive exploration on that topic throughout the month of June). As the movement gained steam in the 1960s, American feminists focused more on redefining and redistributing gender relations which involved challenging the roles that women and men performed in the home and at work on both a public and private front. This in turn gave birth to the concept of equal rights, equal pay and being treated as equals in the workforce. Women at this time began challenging their entry into traditionally male professional positions as well. As Sylvia Ann Hewlett wrote in her book, A Lesser Life: the Myth of Women’s Liberation in America;

The slogans of the day were extraordinary: Marriage was hell, sex was political, coitus was killing, married women were prostitutes, babies were traps, intercourse was rape, love was slavery, families were prisons, and men were the enemies.

The problem with this push for equality is that the workplace was not asked to conform to the addition of women, specifically mothers, but that the mothers were asked to conform to the workplace. As a result, women ARE treated equally. They are expected to work 40+ hours, they are expected perform at the same levels with the same time commitments as men. In many ways they achieved their dream of equality: they compete equally in a workplace that still assumes that someone is at home taking care of the children and the home but without the supporting addition of the family wage. Now there is the assumption that most households subsist off of two incomes, unless the family has enough economic advantage (or is disadvantaged enough to secure assistance) to subsist off of one.

At the same time in Europe, in the 1960s, women and feminists were challenging things on a drastically different front. European feminists contrasted with American feminists in that while they experienced a similar shift of mothers into the workforce it has been supported through government benefits while the United States offers less governmental support for child care than does any other industrialized nation. European women focused their movement on the difference rather than equality and reconfiguring what would be considered the public and private spheres (what is considered private responsibility and what is considered public responsibility) rather than the American re-distribution of gender. In other words, they challenged that the family belonged in the public sphere and that instead of assuming that childbearing belonged within the privatized sphere of the family they fought for the idea that child care should be a publicly supported endeavor. As a result most European countries have generous, paid maternity leaves, easily available part-time jobs , subsidized child care and subsidized preschools for all children. The economic costs of these programs are offset by the reduction in turnover and the wider pool of labor looking to remain in the workforce (Ann Crittenden, The Price of Motherhood). In other words, few of the choices that European women make create an undue burden on their long-term financial future, at least not in the way similar choices would affect women in America. For example, when a woman in America chooses to stay home, she does not just lose salary, but a long-term security because she is not paying in to social security, thus becoming economically dependent on her spouse.

In conclusion (just in case you were wondering if I would ever get here) there was American feminism and its focus on re-coding gender stereotypes through “equal rights” and European feminism which focused on providing specific help for women’s unique gender positions. The result for American women was that they are expected to compete “equally” in a work environment that still operates under the assumption that all domestic labor (child care, domestic chores, house cleaning, laundry and other family maintenance) is being performed by someone who is still at home (an extensive subject to be addressed in future posts). So women are supposed to work 40hrs a week and compete equally without any compensation for having to place children in child care, or having to either hire a housecleaner or add a second shift. Meanwhile, in Europe, women are enjoying their “special status” as women and are much less conflicted in their roles as both mother and employee, seamlessly passing between the two.

Sunday, June 4, 2017

Man versus Vampire in makeup

The following post was written by my wannabe blogger husband, Nate. Do enjoy:)

So tonight I was blessed with the opportunity [semi-forced] to watch parts of the teenage hit movie Twilight...and all I can say is “really”?!? I don’t get it. Is this one of the mysteries about women that us men will never understand? What would make an otherwise sane, perfectly normal 27 year old girl obsess over a high school drama about sexy [yet creepy] vampires? Come to think of it, my wife also likes Britney Spears and Miley Cyrus, so I might be onto something here. Regardless, a movie centered around love and sexy vampires made for high school girls isn’t my idea of fun but I sucked it up anyway and pretended to care.

Julia threw in the DVD and cued it right up to her fave part, Edward’s intro. The suspense was building as I was imagining how amazingly gorgeous this guy must be - I mean J wants his poster in our bedroom?!? Creepy what? In my head I quickly thought about the epitome of male perfection, but all I could come up with was Jack Black in Nacho Libre...pretty hot! Julia went all ‘Ceasar Milan’ on my butt when I tried to mention this vision during the movie, silencing me with the patented ‘shusht’ and an abrupt hand gesture. You know the move I’m talking about, right?

The scene starts with the Bella sitting at a table with some other girls talking about the swim team stuffing their speedos (funny what I remember from the scene, right?). And in walk four really really good looking, Zoolander-esque, people. Then...wait for it...following the four supermodels...wait for it...in walks Senor Edwardo - blue faced, lipstick, and eyeliner - talk about HOTT! Did I miss a memo, when did Smurf-esque looks become sexy? And the lipstick and eyeliner? People, look how we’re inspiring our country’s teens. In 15 years the population of San Francisco’s Castro District is going to sky-rocket! I didn’t mention the hair, because as you’ve all seen, I’d be a hypocrite to slam the man for his beautiful hair...yup, I’m jealous of his ridiculous mop and yet, I still feel like more of a man since I don’t wear makeup. I’ll always have that one on him.

So what is it ladies, why does this freakishly, borderline queer-looking guy capture your lust? How many of your boyfriends/husbands go out with eyeliner and lipstick? In fact, how many of you would want them dressing like that...or running and jumping through a forest like a freaking monkey on crack?

Other random thoughts: why doesn’t Edward just turn Bella into a vampire so they can live happily ever after? Julia says it’s because Bella wouldn’t live with her parents anymore and that would be sad, but I’m sure Bella could swing a deal and live with humans a while longer. And seriously, the Cullens can't call themselves vegetarians if they eat animals. That's just dumb. Plus, when the rogue vampires appeared and wanted to eat Bella [they aren't vegetarians, obviously] the stare-down from Edward was actually painful to watch it was so bad. And finally, my favorite part has to be when Bella discovers Edward’s true identity through Google. Nice work on that one, producers. Google rules.

And that does it, my schedule (and the NCAA tourney!) has unfortunately prevented me from watching the entire movie but I’m sure I’ll hear all about the next book Julia just started. I can hardly stand the suspense.

I still don’t get the obsession, and you girls must admit the movie IS corny! But if it makes you happy, so be it...and enjoy lusting over your diamond-skin-covered, pale, and make-up donned vampires.

See, he just gave us the stamp of approval somehow. Let's go look up more Edward pics, shall we?

And with that I'm off to Chicago for Kristen's highly anticipated bachelorette party. My biggest worry is what on earth a homebody like me shall wear for not one but TWO nights out in a big city. Um, I guess yoga pants and cotton tee shirts won't do, now will they? To make matters worse it's not quite Spring [and the highs are only going to reach 40] but I refuse to wear one of my Mr. Rodgers cardigans out to clubs in Chicago. I'm not THAT pathetic, am I? It's time to get creative, my friends. I swear I used to be a social butterfly with multitudes of going out clothes and now look at me....an old married hag who considers it 'dressing up' if I wear jeans and a sweater to the grocery store, instead of my sweats. Sigh. My new numbingly cold city inspires me to be a homely, I suppose. I can always blame it on the weather:)

But seriously---I cannot freaking wait. It might get nasty. G-rated pictures to follow.