Everyone, Meet Jimbo The Sexist Moron

I recently wrote a post for D.C. Metro Moms about sexism in advertising. You might want to read it if you want the back story.

Well, I got a comment last night from my post that I just had to share with everyone. It's from someone aptly named, Jimbo. I'm picturing him in a wife beater t-shirt, with a remote in his hand, screaming at his wife, "Bring me another beer, b*tch!"

Here's his comment in full, typos and all:

You broads are really something else. I feel so sorry for your husbands, if they are still around.

Listen carefully: Feeding your kids is not a bad thing. Keeping a clean home is not a bad thing. It is part of mommy's responsibility, and she should do it happily. This is not sexist. It is woman's work. And it is a lot easier than typical men's work.

Even in a family where both parents work, it is the man who generally makes much more money. This is also not due to sexism or a glass celing. It is because he has chosen a much tougher, dangerous job and works more hours. Also, in the majority of these duel income families where the man earns more, he contributes a greater % of his income to the family's necessities and bills. The wife gets to "play around" with her income, spending it on herself and "fun stuff". The man contributes more financially.

In a family of a man and a woman, there are gender specific chores. Ever notice which gender an auto part store targets? It's men. Does that infuriate you too? When mommy drives for two weeks with the check engine light on, it's daddy's job to fix the car. He also does repairs around the house, mows the lawn, takes out the trash, and does most of the heavy lifting. If there is an unwelcome guest or intruder, it is the daddy's job to handle the situation and keep his family safe. While, hopefully, this is not an everyday duty, it is a man's responsibility that no woman would want.
Bottom line, until you are ready to do man's work, don't complain about your woman's work.

Personally, I think Black Eye Peas send a much more negative messege to kids than "mommy is racing to feed us".

Apparently Jimbo didn't do his homework before he commented on a post written by "Lawyer Mama." (And he doesn't know how to use spell check.)

Discuss!

Oh, and if you'd like to comment to email Jimbo directly, his email address is jimbojonesx@hotmail.com and his IP address is 99.163.183.176. Just to help everyone out, I'll tell you that the IP address is located in Los Angeles.

Welcome to 2008, Jimbo. It's full of uppity women. Enjoy!

Sexism: This is What Hillary Clinton is up Against

Sometimes I live in a little bubble. A comfortable little bubble with no overt racism, sexism, or even social conservatism. I'm surrounded by people who think like me. I read blogs of mostly people who think like me politically. (With a few awesomely wonderful exceptions. You know who you are!) I may make forays into the non-like minded blogging world, but it's usually just to keep abreast of what anti-Liberal propaganda is floating around out there.

I like to think there is a little more air in my bubble than, say, George W. Bush's. But sometimes I wonder if I'm just as out of touch with reality. In this case, a woman's reality.

My parents taught me, like so many other girls of my generation, that I could do anything or be anything. My gender was never an issue.

As a little girl, I played soccer on a team full of boys. I played tee ball and baseball on a team full of boys. I joined a swim team, with girls and boys. I climbed trees; I played flag football; I mowed the lawn. I took advanced math classes; I started out college majoring in Computer Science; I took the hard science classes; I went to law school.

It never mattered that I was a girl and then, a woman.

There were a couple of incidents here and there, but I chalked them up as isolated happenings and not a symptom of the larger world. I clearly recall an argument I had in my college black studies class with a fellow class mate and Male Chauvinist Pig. In our class, our discussions generally started out with race and then moved to our sheltered little college world. Or, we started out talking about our lives and then moved onto race. It was an effective teaching tool and I looked forward to our twice weekly discussions.

On this particular occasion I can't recall how the argument started, but I remember the MCP raising his hand and stating that, of course, a man was far more important to the stability and health of a relationship than a woman was because of the male earning power. He went on to say that a woman wasn't without value but that if he or his future wife wanted someone to stay home with their children, it would be her. Because, of course, Mr. MCP would be making more money.

That was like waiving a red flag in front of a bull.

I raised my hand and retorted that his argument was based on antiquated gender stereotypes, that in my future career I would undoubtedly make more money than my husband (sorry, T.) and that if one of us stayed home it would be him. Did that make *me* more important in our marriage? Then I told the class that if Mr. MCP didn't change his attitude, his importance to a marriage would become a moot point because no one would marry such a blatant misogynist.

I got a standing ovation.

So I assumed that encounters I had with future MCP's were similar and that the rest of the world was cheering me on.

Then I entered the professional world.

Before I headed off to law school, I worked for an insurance company I've mentioned here in the past. I began to notice that most of the lowest level employees were women: the claims processors, the administrative assistants, the clerks. Men who started out in the lower ranking jobs moved up more quickly, with the same experience and education. The vast majority of the upper level supervisors were men.

About this time I also started to deal with something that had happened to me in college and began actually paying attention to the world around me. What I saw was frightening. Girls and women were starving themselves to meet some strange physical ideal. I had friends and co-workers who twisted themselves up inside and completely changed their lives, interests and personalities to make their men happy.

I had begun doing volunteer work in college and, as I became more and more involved with the Violence Against Women program, I began to see what was happening outside of my little bubble. While clearly not everyone was suffering as much as the women I counseled, I saw how our society was hurting all women.

Women had lower salaries, lower expectations and more difficulties in the professional and non-professional world. We live in a "girl poisoning" culture. Sexism is rampant and deeply ingrained into our culture. It may be overt, such as sexual harassment, or it may be as subtle as the magazine covers in the grocery store.

It's there.

Now that I am a lawyer, I work in an area of the law that is dominated by men. I specialize in construction litigation. I have to admit that I enjoy being underestimated by opposing counsel or opposing experts. I've always assumed that it's not because I'm a woman, but because I'm a 5'2" cute woman. I also love that there is never much of a line for the ladies' restroom at the conferences I attend.

I've gone back to pretending that gender doesn't matter because it hasn't overtly affected me.

One of the professional organizations that I belong to is the National Association of Women in Construction (NAWIC). It's purpose is to promote women in the construction field and to break down barriers and eliminate stereotypes. I've been proud to be a member of a professional organization with such an important goal.

Then I received our NAWIC magazine for the month.

In case you can't read it, that headline says "What's hot in Residential Construction." That is Extreme Makeover: Home Edition's Paige Hemmis on the cover in a hardhat, shorts, pink tool belt, a light pink tank top, and hot pink sports bra.

This is what Ms. Hemmis generally wears on her show. I'm sure it is comfortable and, let's face it, the show is on TV for entertainment. I'm sure ABC thinks that Ms. Hemmis is far more entertaining in that get up than in usual construction attire. Although I hope to GOD that none of my clients allow someone dressed like that onto a construction site. Jeans and steel toed boots are safer and more appropriate.

It doesn't annoy me to have Ms. Hemmis on the cover. After all, she is an accomplished woman. She was a certified EMT. She has college degrees in theology and psychology. She is a self-taught carpenter and co-founded Rent to Own Investments, a company that renovates houses and helps develop rent-to-own arrangements for people who can't afford down payments. In her spare time, she races cars.

This is one woman who has it all.

The interview with Ms. Hemmis was nice, as were the additional photos inside the magazine. However, the NAWIC IMAGE editor chose to put the most provocative photo of all on the cover, along with the headline What's hot in Residential Construction. What does that cover say to you?

It doesn't say, "I'm a confident, intelligent, ambitious, ans successful woman in construction." It says, "I'm a pin-up girl who happens to work in construction. Don't I look sexy in my tool belt?" At least that's what it says to me and every other woman in my firm who has seen the cover. In fact, our NAWIC chapter wrote a letter of protest to the editor.

I don't blame Ms. Hemmis. I don't even necessarily blame the magazine editor, who claims that she didn't view the cover in this manner at all. Instead I blame all of us. I blame society. It is second nature to all of us to use sexy instead of competent as a marketing tool. Those of us who accept it are just as guilty. An accomplished woman like Ms. Hemmis is viewed as hot rather than intelligent and capable. And this is from an organization dedicated to eliminating stereotypes and breaking down gender barriers.

With sexism so firmly entrenched in our society, I ask all of you: Does Hillary even stand a chance?

Maybe I'll go back to my bubble now.

**********
The D.C. Metro Moms are discussing Parenting Guilt today. Pop on over to read all of our posts about guilt and the chance to win Devra Renner and Aviva Pflock's book, Mommy Guilt.

Why I'm Not Voting for Hillary

So I suppose I should just suck it up and tell y'all who I'm voting for on Tuesday. Now that Edwards is out of the race, Barack Obama has my vote.

I wish I could say that it was a clear choice between Obama and HRC, but it wasn't. Honestly, the only viable progressive candidate in the race was Edwards. HRC, however, is one of the most polarizing figures of our time. As much as I would love to vote for a woman and have a woman as our Commander in Chief, I don't think it will happen with Senator Clinton. In fact, there's nothing that will motivate the Religious Right more on election day than the chance to vote against HRC.

McCain is clearly going to be the Republican nominee. While he's playing to his base right now, he's not nearly conservative enough for many Republicans. I'm not talking about the majority of Republicans here, but Republicans who make the most noise and preach from the pulpit. Some of those Republicans may very well stay home on election day. Unless HRC is the Democratic candidate.

Don't get me wrong, I like and respect Senator Clinton. I will forgive her a host of political missteps simply because I think she gets a raw deal from the mainstream media and mainstream America. Why? Because she's a tough, smart, involved, and politically aware woman. When HRC got involved in the universal health care debacle at the beginning of her husband's first term, people weren't enraged because of her policies. They were enraged because a wife was stepping into traditional male territory.

I, and many of the people I know well, tend to forget that while much of the country has taken giant leaps with respect to women, there are many out there stuck in 1958. I tend to forget because I don't often hear those antiquated voices. I'm a woman, yes, but I'm also a lawyer surrounded by progressive men and very well educated women. But every now and then I hear a whisper of times gone by and it stops me short.

Many might call me a sell out. Many would say I should support HRC for all the reasons I just stated. After all, things will never change if we don't actively work to change them. But what I'm trying to say with this post is that, while I think we're ready for the next step, a woman in charge, I don't think that HRC is the woman who can make that happen.

I'm afraid that if Clinton's candidacy fails, we'll be stuck with another 8 years of Republicans running roughshod over our civil rights. And based on statements McCain made today in Norfolk, Virginia, I wouldn't be surprised if we ended up with a nice war in Iran to go with our conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan.

That can't happen.

I've just said an awful lot about why I'm not voting for Hillary Clinton, but not a whole lot about why I'm voting for Barack Obama. I promise, that's next....

This post was originally written for a "Why Not Billary" post day on MOMocrats. Then Edwards dropped out and I had to rethink some things.

When Did I Become The Adult?

I have a new review of The Ultimate Tea Diet up on Lawyer Mama Review. I was skeptical going in, but it really works. Go check it out.

I also have new photos up on Lawyer Mama Dabbles. Well, they're not exactly new, but what I did to them is! Want to see a vintage Holden? How about a chocolate and lilac Hollis?

Finally, I have to thank everyone for your emails, comments, and hugs since Pandy got sick. Hell, I have to thank all y'all for your unflagging support all the time. I neglect your blogs for weeks at a time. I post sporadically or post only nonsense and you keep coming back just to let me know you're listening. You open up your homes to me (yeah, I'm looking at you, Joanne and Heather!). You call me and send me your phone numbers. Or you just let me know that you're there.

You have no idea how much all of this means to me. Or maybe you do. Either way, there's a house next door to me for sale if anyone wants to buy it. I'd be thrilled to have any of you as neighbors. And for me, that says a lot!

************
Last night was the culmination of weeks of dread. Ever since we got that little slip of paper from Hollis's preschool, I've been nervous as hell. The reason for my anxiety?

Parent Teacher Conferences

That's right. For 3 year olds.

As a child, I was never worried about conferences. I was a nerd model student. Even if I hadn't been, I can usually handle criticism. (Cognitive dissonance works great. You should try it.) But the thought of listening to someone tell me what my baby is doing wrong makes my heart race and my brow break out in a sweat.

It's not that I think Hollis is perfect. To the contrary, I know he's not. I know he's the youngest in his class and that he's probably behind most of them. I know that he's an introvert but he tends to get pumped up and rowdy (and stop listening) when he's in a comfortable environment. I don't know which option frightened me more, hearing that he was completely comfortable to the point of disobedience and insolence or hearing that he was too shy to fully participate.

Well, having actually been in his classroom and witnessed The Toddler in his native habitat, I knew it was more likely we'd be hearing about behavior techniques to get him to listen. I just don't want to be the mom to "That Child." Not that I think we couldn't handle it, but knowing that Holden is far, far worse than his brother, I would be completely freaked out to discover that Hollis is a behavior problem in school!

Plus, every time I go into school as Hollis's "mother" I feel like a teenager masquerading as a parent. Does anyone else feel like this or is this some bizarre personal psychological reaction to schools and bulletin boards?

Hollis's teacher also keeps asking me to call her by her first name and I, stupidly, keep calling her Mrs. N and writing "Mrs. N" on notes to her. I probably make her feel like a grandmother masquerading as a teacher, but really, when did I become the adult? I still feel like I'm not allowed to call a teacher by her first name!

Anyway, it turns out that my fears were groundless. Hollis's teacher told us that, yes, he is young and has a few problems with things a few of the kids have mastered, but he's constantly showing improvement. Hollis is happy and cheerful and obedient (for the most part) and plays well with the other kids. Whew! I mean, we knew Hollis was happy, but it's nice to hear confirmation from his teacher. And to hear that she likes him. We all want our children to be liked, don't we?

At the end of the conference, Mrs. N shared something with us that she calls the "Tell Me" sheet. It's a list of questions she asks the kids and then she records the answers. It starts with basic things like name, age, favorite color, etc.... (By the way, Hollis is still insisting that he's 5. At least he's consistent.) Then she asked him things like, "What makes you happy or sad?" and, "What do you want to be when you grow up?"

Hollis, to his credit, didn't answer the, "What do you want to be?" question. Honestly, I wouldn't know how to answer if you asked me and I'm 35. How do you answer a question like that? "I want to be happy/thin/tall/a princess/a fireman?" I don't know. On the way home, I decided to ask Hollis the question again, worded a bit differently. Being a creative genius, I asked Hollis, "What do you want to do when you grow up?" My literal-minded toddler answered without missing a beat, "Drink coffee and soda."

That's my boy!

There were a few answers on Hollis's "Tell Me" sheet that cracked us up. For the question, "What do daddies do?" Hollis answered, "Go to work and eat chocolate. I went to Daddy's office and he gave me some chocolate and it was yummy and crunchy." Clearly the kitchen in T's office has made an impression.

In response to, "What do Mommies do," Hollis replied, "Take baths and eat popsicles." Oy. It's time to start indoctrinating the toddler. Does anyone have a copy of The Feminine Mystique that I could borrow? Or maybe I should start out with some Wollstonecraft? Do they publish A Vindication of the Rights of Woman in a picture book?

Hollis redeemed himself towards the end though. His answer to, "What is pretty?" was "Mommy and her smile." Say it with me now, everyone, "Awwwwwwwwww!" When his teacher followed up with, "What makes her pretty?" Hollis's response was, "Her hair and her hair clip."

T was a little disturbed about Hollis's public acknowledgement of his obsession with my accessories. The kid loves to wear my necklaces, hair clips and headbands, and shoes. Clearly, there's hope for my boy!

Can I Get You Some Coffee, Sir?

I was born in 1972. I grew up believing that I could do anything I wanted. My gender was never an issue. The idea that some people would think less of my abilities because I am female was foreign to me. Thankfully, my parents kept me fairly well insulated from people with throwback attitudes. I never encountered the "fear of math and science" that so many girls experience and frankly I was always taken seriously at school because of that. My mother has a degree in math and my father, degrees in physics and computer science. Maybe that had something to do with my educational self-confidence. I don't know. But I do know that, until I reached high school, no one ever even attempted to make me feel unworthy of my intellect or my dreams because of my gender. Yesterday, I had a 1950's flashback that reminded me why I was so lucky to be so insulated during my formative years.

The Partner with whom I work closely, took me to a trade association luncheon. I've been at my current firm for almost two years now and I have been slowly getting to know the local players in my little specialty area of the law. Rubber chicken lunches aren't my favorite way of networking, but I was looking forward to attending with Partner and meeting a few new people. It was a good lunch. I met some people in the industry, made some small talk, listened to an interesting speaker, and generally avoided saying anything stupid. That's a good lunch. The real fun came afterwards. As we were making our way through the crowd, Partner introduced me to several industry players. Everyone seemed pleased to meet me and, while no one ever looks forward to needing to consult their lawyers, I am sure that I will be working with some of them in the future. Then Partner introduced me to an Older Gentleman who placed himself in our path. Partner made some flattering comment about how I generally "keep him out of trouble." Polite chuckling ensued and then Older Gentleman proclaimed that he could use someone like that because he could never "remember how to work that pesky teleconference feature on his phone."

Blink. Blink.

Alrighty then.

Partner proceeded to explain that I kept him out of trouble with regards to all things legal. I could tell from the look on Partner's face that he understood that a request to me to figure out his phone would result in my possibly inserting said phone into an extremely uncomfortable area of his anatomy. We quickly beat a path to the door. On my drive back to the office I had to call my husband and rant. I explained what had happened and asked if I was overreacting. T seemed confused for a moment and then he got it. He asked incredulously, "You mean the old geezer thought you were Partner's secretary?!?" Yep. You got it, honey. He saw a youngish looking woman with this lawyer he knows at a trade association meeting, and he assumed I was the guy's secretary. Or legal assistant, if you prefer that term.

Now I realize that I'm a little over-fixated on this small incident, but stuff like this rarely happens to me and it pisses me off. While I do look young, people usually assume I'm a braniac within 2 minutes of meeting me. I've been told it's just the way that I talk and the vocabulary I use. Yes, I work in a male dominated field, I'll give the guy that. But I have never been mistaken for a secretary, especially in a professional setting. Hell, I've walked into rooms full of older men, and nothing but older white men, for meetings and court hearings for years and no one has ever assumed I was there to take the lunch orders. For a moment I was willing to give "the old geezer" a pass because of his age but then I realized that, while he may be 65-70, he's still working in the year 2007. If you are going to be in business in the 21st Century, you need to park your antiquated notions about gender roles at the door. Or this little lawyer might shove a teleconference-capable phone up your butt.

Thanks, Mom & Dad.


Folks, I'm not saying that there's anything wrong with being a secretary or that secretaries are somehow intellectually inferior to the god-like lawyers. I'm just a little pissed off right now, so bear with me. The context in which this incident happened should have told any but the most dedicated neanderthal that I was a lawyer.

Happily Ever After

The other night Big H demanded yet another story to prolong the inevitable bedtime. I gave in and started to read his proffered book - the Disney version of Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs from a Disney Storybook Collection he received as a gift. I started reading with trepidation. It's been awhile since I've seen the Disney movie, but I was pretty sure I remembered something about Snow White cooking, cleaning and keeping house for seven little men. Not really something I want to pass on to my sons. But hey, I figured since Big H can't read yet, I could just change the story a bit. Well, I made it about half a page into the story:

Once upon a time, there lived a lovely princess named Snow White. Her lips were red as roses and her hair was the deepest ebony. Snow White's father, the King, had died, so she lived in the castle with her stepmother, the Queen.

The Queen was very pretty, but also very cruel. She was jealous of Snow White's beauty and treated her like a servant.

Snow White was obedient and hard working. She dreamed that someday a prince would take her away.

She dreamed that a prince would take her away??? Yeah, that wasn't going to do it for me. So I tossed the book aside and gave Big H my own very abbreviated version of the fairy tale:

"Yeah, that's not how it works these days, sweetie. Yes, Snow White was stuck with an evil, vain caretaker who tried to swindle her out of her inheritance, treated her like a slave, and tried to have her killed. But in actuality, Snow White didn't go off to cook and clean for a house full of men. She went to see the law firm of Doc, Happy, Sneezy, and Partners, LLC. Mr. Grumpy, DHS&P's best litigator, helped Snow White bring a civil RICO action against the evil Queen, by showing that the Queen had been using an enterprise (the Kingdom) to conduct a pattern of racketeering activity (such as kidnapping and murder) indictable under federal law. Snow White recovered her fortune and the Queen was brought up on federal charges, including some nasty allegations of involuntary servitude. Unfortunately, there was some question as to the Queen's sanity because she kept talking to this mirror and claimed she was getting answers. In any event, the Queen spent the rest of her life in a very comfortable community based mental health facility. Snow White then went on to abolish and dismantle the monarchy and G.W.B. Dopey became the Kingdom's first democratically elected leader.

Oh, what's that? You asked about the Prince? Well, he lived off his father's money, went clubbing all over the world, became a one hit pop idol, then a reality TV star, and went on to marry Paris Hilton. Snow White lived happily ever after.

The End."

So, how does your fairy tale end? Write me a modern day fairy tale (nothing overly long required). Let me know in the comments & I'll post all the links.

Mommy Blogs are the New Pink

The recent brouhaha over at Pundit Mom's has made me think about a lot of things. Some are obvious if you've been following Linda Hirshman's attack on Pundit Mom and the aftermath - what I think feminism should be, of course, and combining motherhood and family. But a comment by a poster at PM's place really stopped me cold. A 25 year old, childless law student, I suppose in defense of Linda Hirshman, went after PM personally. She managed to hit below the belt, attacking a blogger I consider a "friend" and an important part of this little blogging community I've found here in cyberspace. I made the mistake of responding to her comment, which was clearly intended to provoke ire, by pointing out that it is awfully easy to judge women with children when you don't have any yourself. Only I didn't say it quite so nicely. I believe my exact words were "come back to play when you're a bit older and maybe we'll listen to you." That resulted in an interesting comment exchange on my last post, where she insulted all Mommy blogs as "creepy:"

[...]the theme on all these mommyblogs seems to be an almost creepy mantra of "mothering is the most important job." Why the need for constant restatement of your position? I don't understand it. In other words, if you (plural) knew in your heart of hearts that mothering is the most important job, or more important than lawyering, why do you (plural) need to state and restate it at every chance you get?

Yeah, I know I shouldn't have let myself get drawn into a pissing match, but I did. Live and learn. However, the whole exchange has made me think quite a bit about how my life has - no, how I have changed since having children and why it is that I, and so many others, feel the need to blog about it.

Before you have kids everyone tells you how much your life will change, blah, blah, blah, blah. But you don't get it. You can't get it. You won't get it. Until you join that sleep deprived, wondrous, frustrating, awe inspiring, hands in poo, overwhelming, beautiful, baby puke covered, life altering Mommy Club. (Or Daddy Club.) I hate to quote that corny Johnson & Johnson commercial (makes me cry every time, damn it!) but having a baby changes everything. Being responsible for this little creature not only feels like someone cracked open your chest and pulled your guts out with a pitchfork, it changes how you think and how you view the world. You start to see the world through the filter of Motherhood, with a capital M.

I watch the news or hear about a car accident, a murder, or even worse, abuse of a child and through my Mommygoggles, I picture one of my children dead on the side of the road/stabbed/battered and beaten. Having children has changed how I view war and global warming and even my job. I think very carefully about how I treat people, how I act, the example I set, all in a way I never did before. As a mother, I am motivated to truly make the world a better place in a totally different way. Welcoming a child into your world fundamentally alters everything about you in way you couldn't possibly have expected. It's the converse of a brush with death, but it alters you in a similar way - you realize that your family, the people you care about, your children, are the most important thing in the world.

And then we all step into the dark underbelly of the Mommy (or Daddy) Club.

The guilt. The judgment.

The fear.

Oh, the fear. We push it out of our minds, and move back to the guilt. And the judgment.

Nothing evokes more passionate feelings of hatred and judgment than the work versus stay-at-home debate. We're hit with it from both sides. If you stay at home, you're wasting your education and are a drain on society (ala Linda Hirshman). If you work and enjoy it, you're worse than a child abuser. (See comments). If you have to work to pay the bills or work part-time, then you're somewhere in Mommy purgatory. But really, honestly, all of us are part of that same wonderful, scary Mommy Club. We should support one another rather than tear each other apart. Deep down, I think every Mommy who lets a grenade fly knows that. They know how hard it is to make a choice.

The complaint I got from the comments of the vitriolic poster I quoted above was that we (meaning Mommy bloggers) keep repeating over and over that motherhood is the most important thing in the world unnecessarily. What she didn't understand, and I don't know how to explain, is that being a parent is the most important thing that many of us will ever do. But motherhood, and the way it elementally changes you, is scary as hell. And so we write about it. We try to make others understand how we feel, we seek others who understand, and we share all those frightening and overwhelming feelings in the way we know best. We've built our own little blogging community of people who understand exactly why it is that our families are more important than any paying job we will ever have.

The commenter above also made a valid point - that everyone can have something to say about the work versus family debate. I completely agree. I agree that everyone in our society should be able to join the discussion about combining work and family. It's an issue that concerns all of us, male and female, young and old, childless or not. But how do you explain to someone who doesn't have children, who doesn't yet know what's in store, just how hard that choice between career and family is? How do you explain how wonderful and terrifying it is to be so completely and irrevocably changed by another human being? I have absolutely no idea. But I think that all these Mommy Blogs are a damn good start to the conversation.

Mr. Know-It-All

Here's another reason to lose the guilt about being a mom working outside the home. As much as I generally loathe linking to Fox News, I loved the article by Megan Dowd.

And thank to my Mom for the tip!

(Sorry for the non-post. I, and the kiddos, have been sick. Real posting to resume shortly!)

You've Come a Long Way, Maybe?

An article in the Washington Post yesterday really pissed me off. You've Come a Long Way, Maybe, by Linda Hirshman, debated whether or not women will elect Hillary Clinton to the White House in 2008 and skewered womankind along the way.

Linda Hirshman is, to say the least, a polarizing personality. Most recently, she's turned her poison pen toward the stay at home mom. In her book, Get to Work: A Manifesto for Women of the World, Hirshman is extremely critical of well educated women who opt out of the work force. Hirshman believes that women have a duty to remain in the work force, low quality daycare and family unfriendly company policies be damned, and to force their husbands to step up to the plate. Until then, Hirshman argues that women will continue to create their own glass ceiling and hurt the feminist cause. While I commend her thoughts about forcing men to truly shoulder their share of the burden at home, Hirshman rarely veils her contempt for women who have chosen a different path from hers. While I have not chosen to stay at home, I can still see the fork in the path that led me to my chosen life. That being said, I should have known to relax or perhaps have a bottle glass of wine before reading her article. Ms. Hirshman did not disappoint and, although I did not check my blood pressure after reading the article, I could feel that little vein in my forehead throbbing away.

Ms. Hirshman's latest article basically discusses why Hillary Clinton won't be able to rely on women's votes to win the 2008 presidential election. Her theory is that women do not vote rationally. To "prove" her theory, she surveys six well educated white women who are stay at home moms, supposedly the soccer mom demographic. The results of her survey?

A 49-year-old former public relations executive in suburban Maryland told me she votes the political agenda she learned from her lefty father. She reads The Washington Post, but there are no books on her bedside table. She counts on her husband to tell her what's in the Nation magazine and on the Web.

A 36-year-old former financial sales executive considers herself an independent, reads only the Style and Weekend sections of The Post and the Marketplace and Personal Journal sections of the Wall Street Journal, and also counts on her husband, a Republican, to tell her what's interesting in the rest of the paper.

A former human rights activist told me that she still reads the New York Times, skims the Economist, and gathers political information from PBS's "News Hour," a local broadcast from the BBC and from her church.

Neither the former teacher nor the retired television reporter read any newspapers at all.

There are some constants. Most of the women read People and Real Simple magazines. They all listen to news on the car radio, mostly National Public Radio. And almost all their full-time working husbands consume immeasurably more political information than they do ("He reads 10 times what I do," one told me), reading news magazines and political Web sites and bringing home political information from their jobs. The women gather little information from their almost exclusively female society of other stay-at-home moms.

You can practically see the disdain she has for these women dripping from the page. But it doesn't end there, she also compares the female vote to a high school popularity contest where we apparently vote for the best jock or the guy with the prettiest hair. She goes on to quote statistics:

To this day -- as even my D.C. area correspondents seemed to confirm -- women just aren't as interested in politics as men are. The Center for Civic Education recently reported that American women are less likely than men to discuss politics, contribute to campaigns, contact public officials or join a political organization. About 42 percent of men told University of Michigan researchers last year that "they are 'very interested' in government and public affairs, compared with 34 percent of women."

Worse, women consistently score 10 to 20 percentage points lower than men on studies of political knowledge, regardless of their education or income level. Studies dating to 1997 have shown that fewer women than men can name their senator, or know one First Amendment right. They even know less about the Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Wade than men do.

As a 2006 study by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press put it, American adults live in "A World of His and Hers." Two million more men than women read either Time or Newsweek; more men listen to radio news and talk radio, read the paper and get news online. Only broadcast television news plays to more women than men, and a lot of that is TV news magazines and morning shows. Not only do fewer women read the newspaper, but almost half the women surveyed said they "sometimes do not follow international news because of excessive coverage of wars and violence."

What was the point of Ms. Hirshman's detailed insult of women and their political acumen? To show that women are more likely to vote for the person than the policy. If Ms. Hirshman's premise is true, then HRC's clear problem is her discomfort with getting personal.

What annoyed me about the article was not Ms. Hirshman's conclusion about the obstacles HRC faces in an election. I'm with her there. No, what sent my blood pressure through the roof was the argument that women are not rational and are less informed politically than men.

And then I thought about it for awhile.

And now I realize that I am not angry with Ms. Hirshman. Although she clearly chooses to state her arguments in a manner intended to provoke ire, I'm afraid that Ms. Hirshman might be correct. No matter how much I fight to be thought of as an equal there are still women who simply do not care. How can any woman who does care about equality or the future state of our world remain so ill informed? That thought makes me sad. How can we change the world for our children if we don't educate ourselves and vote accordingly? I'm not angry at Ms. Hirshman, I'm angry at every woman out there who doesn't pick up a newspaper and read it, or turn on the TV and watch some news, or read through a news magazine instead of People. Of course there are almost as many men who are equally apathetic, but they aren't my sisters. I expect more of women.

After reflection, I was still a little bit angry at Ms. Hirshman but then she saved herself with this comment in response to a question from Philadelphia during the online discussion of her article.

Philadelphia: If there is a gender difference in terms of attention paid to politics and world affairs, why do you think that is? Is there something about the way women are socialized that would lead them to be less interested or vice versa? Is it because the major players in these issues mostly are men?

Linda Hirshman: From time out of mind, western culture and doubtless other cultures that I know less about have assumed that women are from nature and men are from culture -- in other words, that men are responsible for the built environment and women for making babies. Although we have indeed come a long way, it is hard to see the data and not think that women continue to be socialized, and to choose to be socialized, to occupy themselves with the private, the individual, the family, the children. Just looking at the "baking cookies" submissions to this live chat makes me think about how hard it is to get out of the kitchen. But whatever is is not necessarily right. Women are human, and politics is part of the realm of the human. My work is aimed at breaking the iron bands of men are from culture and so forth. If Elizabeth Cady Stanton -- mother of, god knows, eight or something -- could see that women belonged in the world of politics, surely we literate, liberated, birth control-empowered, law school-educated women can see it too.

I'll drink to that. And now I'm off to read the paper. Join me?

The Ultimate Girls' Club

Did you catch Diane Sawyer's interview with all 16 of our country's female senators? If not, you can find it here. Part I aired on Wednesday and dealt mainly with the reaction of the senators to Barak Obama's recent announcement and a discussion about whether more women in power would mean fewer wars. (I only found it notable because Diane Sawyer asked Hillary Clinton what she thought of the announcement. I'll let you watch it to see what Senator Clinton said but, no, it's not earth shattering.) Part II aired on Thursday morning and I caught it on my trusty Tivo.

Everything I've read about the interview has focused on the women/fewer wars discussion, but I found the second part of the interview, titled Power Women and Balance, more intriguing. Diane Sawyer asked the senators for their thoughts on everything from family to the differences between men and women. I loved it when Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) told us that the morning before her first floor speech she rehearsed while she made her daughter's peanut butter and jelly sandwich for lunch. I loved it even more when one of the senators admitted that she is addicted to Project Runway. But what really struck me was the response to Ms. Sawyer's question about whether or not it is possible for powerful women to "have it all"? The uniform message of every senator was that it is possible to be a powerful woman and have a family. Clearly, there are limitations. For instance, Mary Landrieu (D-LA) pointed out that women and men need support at home to do both jobs well. A response from Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) also gave me pause. She told Ms. Sawyer "You can't have it all," but then went on to say, "but you can be a mom and a senator." The aired portion of the interview didn't expand on Senator Murkowski's remarks, but I'd like to think that she was trying to remind us that we don't have to "have it all." We can't all be perfect mothers, work 80 hours a week, bake cakes, and shuttle our children to every activity known to mankind. But women can hold powerful positions and be good mothers at the same time.

I realize that not all of us are like those 16 amazing women, but I loved hearing what they had to say and I loved hearing their message about work and family. (And, yes, I'm about to start talking about a relatively privileged set of well educated women who have the luxury to "choose" whether or not to work. So sue me. I write about what I know.) All too often, I hear young women lawyers around me worrying about how on earth they will ever be able to have families. Already many of the women in my law school graduating class have dropped out of the legal world. Some of them wanted to be stay at home mothers but some of them weren't left with many options. When you work for a large firm that expects in excess of 2000 billable hours a year (more if you want to make partner) and expects you to be available on a whim 24/7, working part-time isn't really an option and working full time means never tucking your children into bed at night. But not all firms are like that. Mine certainly isn't and in fact prides itself on keeping its lawyers fat, balanced, and happy. (Well, maybe not the fat part but you know what I mean!) The powers that be at The Firm (my firm) understand that lawyers who have time for life are better lawyers and that it is in The Firm's best interest to keep its women from becoming part of the "opt out revolution." Being a lawyer and being a working mom doesn't have to be an all or nothing proposition.

The senators probably aren't the best examples of "balance" but they, and other powerful women like them, are part of a changing force in this country. If we want family friendly policies, part-time work options, flexible schedules, and a change in social attitudes that will make working and having a family easier, having high profile Senator moms pushing for them can't hurt. Now I'm not saying that all women must stay in the work force, family or not, and blaze a trail for future generations. Part of the feminist movement was about choice, wasn't it? But only when changing social attitudes push more and more employers down the family friendly trail will women truly have a "choice" about whether to work or not. I'm just happy to hear that the new Girls' Club agrees that the roles of mom and corporate/legal/medical/(insert profession here) maven are not incompatible.

What About Moms Who Want to Work?

I am the Tuesday guest blogger over at Leslie Morgan Steiner's wonderful blog On Balance on the Washington Post online.

Check it out if you have a chance. You have to register to view Washington Post online content, but it is free.

What About Moms Who Want to Work?

Edited to add:

Please keep in mind if you read the article that I'm not making any judgments about women who do stay at home or work part time. I'm simply talking about why I choose to work and not making any judgments about other choices. I'm not even making any statement about the blog to which I was responding, aside from the fact that I have received overwhelmingly supportive comments from female mentors regarding work and family. I just wanted to share that support with other working women.

I'm not entirely sure why this is a hot button topic for so many women, but it is. I guess we all feel judged by others, no matter what our choices are. Anyway, a (stay at home) friend was hurt and insulted by my article and that was never what I intended.

Gender Stereotyping at McDonald's

I've always been absolutely positive that I would never be guilty of reinforcing gender stereotypes in my children. As a child I played with trucks just as much as baby dolls and I now work in a very male dominated field of the law. My parents expected my brother and me to alternate washing dishes and mowing the lawn. B and I hated both chores equally. As a parent, I vowed to do the same. I would ensure that my daughters and my sons were treated equally and would go forth into the world expecting and demanding the same treatment throughout their lives and careers. Of course, you would never catch me dressing my daughter solely in pink and frills and she would never, ever own an Easy Bake Oven. Smug in my enlightened superiority, I have never really reexamined my views since actually becoming a parent. Occasionally T and I will have a spirited discussion about whether or not Hollis's choice of the pink Dora toothbrush or the pink and purple fish sippy cup is socially acceptable, but that's been about it. (FYI, I'm all for the pink toothbrush but T is slightly against it.) However, last week I was forced to look at my own behavior after an innocent trip to McDonald's.

So call me naive, ignorant, or just plain stupid, but I had no idea that McDonald's had "boy" and "girl" toys for their Happy Meals. When we swung through the drive through after a trip to the Children's Museum on Saturday, the cashier taking our order asked if the Happy Meal we ordered was for a girl or a boy. Flustered, I answered "boy," but honestly had no idea why they asked. It only occurred to me as we pulled up to the window that the toys were different for girls and boys. On the occasions when Hollis has gotten Happy Meals in the past, he's been with us in the restaurant and we were never given a toy choice. I guess everyone just assumed he wanted the "boy" toy because, looking back on it, he's never received anything remotely girly, pink, or even Disney in his earlier Happy Meals. (This time Hollis ended up getting some sort of dragon Yu-gi-oh thing but I have no idea what the "girl" toy was. It might have been much cooler. The dragon thing only held Hollis's interest for a few minutes and then he handed it over to his brother for chewing.)

After I worked myself up into a lather over McDonald's policy of gender stereotyping our nation's children, it occurred to me that I haven't been much better. I don't overtly hand out "girl" and "boy" toys but almost all of my toy choices for H&H have been traditional boy or gender neutral toys. They have lots of blocks, toy cars, trucks, books about trucks, truck puzzles, and truck jammies, but no baby dolls. Despite the fact that Hollis loves to try to help us cook and clean, he doesn't even have a toy kitchen or pots and pans. The closest we've come to encouraging the domestic arts in my son is the toy vacuum cleaner that we routinely hide in the closet because the constant whirring of the motor drives us insane. So, for all of my talk about raising children outside of the boundaries of traditional sexual stereotypes, I've fallen right into the "boy" toy trap myself.

So how do I fix this? I need to look more closely at whether or not I'm unconsciously steering my boys in a certain direction and make sure that I allow them to make choices. T and I already model the behaviors and attitudes we want to instill in our boys, so I am positive that they will grow up to be strong, independent men who respect and seek out strong, independent women. What we do in our home is the easy part. What concerns me more are the attitudes H&H will encounter once they leave our home - for daycare, school, sports, and, of course, McDonald's. I just hope that I can help them develop enough self-confidence to ask for the "girl" toys they want and the wisdom to ignore what anyone says about their choices.

Parenting Manifesto

Brian over at Rebel Dad has started a new Parenting Manifesto project. You can find Brian's top 10 manifesto points here. I've added to them:

11. Don't feel guilty about your parenting choices. If you want to work, do it and be proud. If you want to stay home, do it and be proud. What's best for you is best for your family.

12. Learn to say "I'm sorry." We all make mistakes and teaching your children by example to take responsibility for their actions will be invaluable.

I'm sure I could think of more but I'm just doing a quick post today.

What's your "parenting manifesto?"

Edited to add:
For those of you who can't seem to post comments here, it's not just you! Apparently Blogger knows about the problem and is trying to fix it. Hopefully, I won't shrivel up and die from comment withdrawal in the meantime.

From Blogger's Known Problems page:

Logging in with an old Blogger account to post a comment on the new Blogger is giving a “please try again later” error. Until we fix this, it may work to log in first at http://www.blogger.com/login.g, and then go to the comments page on the new version of Blogger in beta. — latest update on Thursday, December 14, 2006

Damn them!

Vote for These Boobs!

Political campaigns seem to reach for new lows every election cycle and this year is no exception. The attack ads and negative campaigning make me want to scream, or at least not vote. (Don't worry, I will vote. If you don't vote, you can't complain.) But a Libertarian candidate running a write-in campaign for governor in Alabama has come up with an even lower low. Loretta Nall is using sex to sell her politics.

The AP reports that:

Loretta Nall, the Libertarian Party’s write-in candidate for governor of Alabama, is campaigning on her cleavage and hoping that voters will eventually focus on her platform. “It started out as a joke, but it blew up into something huge,” said Nall, a 32-year-old with dyed blond hair.

Her campaign is offering T-shirts and marijuana stash boxes adorned with a photo of her with a plunging neckline and the words: “More of these boobs.” Below that are pictures of other candidates for governor — including Republican incumbent Bob Riley and Democratic Lt. Gov. Lucy Baxley — and the words: “And less of these boobs.”

Her Web site has a cartoon of someone stuffing bills down the front of her low-cut top. And for $50 donation she apparently offers to show a cartoon of herself flashing her breasts.

Nall, who spoke in an interview Friday on the Capitol steps, realizes that is about as close as she is going to get to the governor’s office. But her outrageous antics have helped her attract attention not normally enjoyed by write-in candidates.

Nall is calling for the withdrawal of the Alabama National Guard from Iraq, tax credits for sending children to private school and home schooling, opting out of the No Child Left Behind Act, legalizing marijuana, and not complying with the Patriot Act and the Real ID Act.

The Libertarian Party could not collect the 40,000 voter signatures needed to get her name on the ballot, and she has not reached the $25,000 threshold in contributions that would require her to file a campaign finance report.

Despite the political handicaps, she knows how to get free attention. Early in her campaign, she talked about how her misdemeanor arrest for marijuana possession in 2002 led her to start the U.S. Marijuana Party. Then she entertained readers of her campaign Web site with lots of information about her personal life, including a discussion of why she doesn’t wear panties.

My reaction is disgust. Now I'm sure Ms. Nall is entertaining and I definitely agree with portions of her political platform. I read through her campaign site and she appears to be more than just talk. She backs up her beliefs with action. But I simply cannot get on board with using sexuality, even in a funny way, for a political campaign. Yeah, I chuckled a bit when I read the story. But then I got mad. People running for political office have the ability to influence public opinion and to reach a wide audience. Defaulting to the quick joke about boobies is an insult to intelligent women everywhere and an insult to the political process. Yes, it got Ms. Nall some attention, but it also made her into a joke. So, Ms. Nall, do us a favor and keep talking about your policies. But, please, leave the talk about "the girls" to the adolescent boys.

Between a Rock and a Hard Place

Anna Quindlen's column in Newsweek has a great discussion about the politics versus reality of abortion this week. I think she's probably right, that many women who are pro-choice are still conflicted about abortion. I know one or two women who had abortions and never looked back, that's true. But the remaining friends who have had abortions have been torn up about it. Not necessarily torn up about the decision they made, but about making the decision in the first place.

It's not easy to admit it, but my own feelings about abortion have changed dramatically in the last few years. As a teenager or a young woman, I considered abortion a medical procedure. I can say with certainty that the choice, if there was one to be made, would have been fairly easy for me. Now, I think I see abortion from both sides of the debate. As a mother, well, the idea of the ending a potential life horrifies me. But as a mother I also understand and completely agree that someone who is not ready for this awesome responsibility should not be forced to shoulder it. Outlawing abortion could only lead to more tragedy.

Whatever your views, I hope you'll read the article.

Did Katie Look Fat?

It was a big day in broadcast journalism yesterday. Katie Couric made history in her debut as the first woman solo news anchor. I have to admit that I only saw portions of the broadcast. I did not watch the entire 30 minutes. It was certainly a different format for the evening news and yes, it was a little light on actual news. But what concerns me more are the reactions from the pundits today.

Someone please explain to me why it is necessary to comment about what Ms. Couric was wearing? Tom Shales, had this to say - "Couric, who began the newscast standing up and promoting what was to come, oddly wore a white blazer over a black top and skirt, the blazer buttoned in such a way as to make her look chubby, bursting at the button, which we know she isn't." Please, Tom, stick to writing your column and leave fashion to, well, anyone who has purchased new eyewear since 1986. The Associated Press was a little more restrained, but still felt it necessary to include this comment, "As the end credits rolled, Couric, wearing a white jacket over a black shirt and skirt, was leaning against the edge of her desk, showing her famous legs."

Again, why is this necessary? Yes, she's a woman. Get over it! I can't recall anyone ever even mentioning Dan Rather's legs - at least not in connection with his broadcast. I don't remember any comments about Bob Schieffer's red tie making him look fat either. Why is this somehow relevant when a woman takes over the anchor desk? It certainly says a lot about how our society really views women, doesn't it? Katie Couric may be a highly accomplished interviewer and now one of the most powerful women in the broadcast news industry, but, according to the critics, at the end of the day she's still a chick in a skirt with great legs and a jacket that makes her look fat.

Can Part-Time Work, Well, Um...Work?

So I'm finally going to do it. I'm going to ask my law firm to let me work part time.

I've wanted to do this for two years and have kept justifying it away - we need the money; we're getting ready to move; I haven't been there long enough; it's not a full moon; etc.... What it really came down to was fear. Fear of having my colleagues look down on me as a "Mommy Track" lawyer. Fear of become dispensable and maybe losing my job. Fear of becoming a soccer mom. Who knows what it was, but I'm finally going to do it. Next week.

Or maybe in a couple of weeks.

Or next month?

Sigh.