Do we need any further proof that women are still treated like chumps?
On my Twitter feed I came across this article, from a woman explaining why she was late for work. Turns out she is, somehow, the only person responsible for rounding up the kids in the morning:
So where the fuck is her husband, who presumably sired the kids in question?
Women of the world: it's time to leave those useless hunks of flesh called "husbands" and "fathers" who feed off your labour while you earn 70 per cent of their wages.
And by the way: don't forget to leave them custody. Leave your guilt at the door. The kids will work out fine. Your husband will have to make sure of that, just like you would if you were the sucker. Don't be.
After all, men earn more money. They can look after the kids better. Let them.
3
Right on, both ways. A spouse that refuses to help with the kids they created or agreed to take care of doesn't deserve free labor or the share of your cash. The fact that this happens to women more than men is proof that we still have sexist backward ideas about society. So happy my boyfriend is ready to split all house work half and half.
why should women who are very happy with their lives leave their husbands? Why should we all be forced to live with your ideal? I am very happy with my fiancé. We have an equal partnership, a partnership I might add that provides both of us with what we need and what makes us happy. If not being married works for you then great, glad to hear it, but some of us enjoy our spouses and want to be with them. I am very much in love, as I know that my fiancé is as well. He is a kind gentle man who loves me for me, and is very much a feminist. Why shouldn't we be able to have that in our lives if we want to? Why shouldn't we as women be able to settle down with the one (or two or three) people who we love very much and lead our lives together if that is what makes us happy?
Went right over your head....
Shes not living in an eqalitarian relationship, shes living like its the 50's-so, no happiness. Her anger is point on and what worse is its affecting her career. She's disrespected in the house and so are the kids. The mother isnt there to raise his kids for him. Its supposed to be a partnership thing. Women are told to just expect this kind of treatment and its not right and its not something to tolerate.
You didn't read the original article, did you?
Yeah, I did.
Kind of a deflated response to me.
yes but dark persephone isn't referring to just this woman. She is telling all women to leave their husbands and children. She is telling women to do exactly what the far right accuses all of us of doing, which is to have women abandon their husbands and children. Nothing good comes from that, simply because a lot of women are actually happily married with wonderful husbands who love them to pieces as well as their wonderful children.
Come on, the womans allowed to be angry. Dont take that part seriosuly. Shes only talking to those who experience this kind fo disrespect in the home (which sadly is ALOT of women).The main message is quit allowing yourself to be treated like a doormat and to stand up for youself.
why am I not allowed to take "useless hunks of flesh" seriously, especially when it is reference to another human being. A human being who has feelings and doesn't need to be called useless. Lets turn it around. If it was radical men calling women useless hunks of flesh we would be outraged. Shouldn't that outrage go both ways? Oh and she was not referring to only women with louses for husbands. She was referring to all married women, all mothers, and in essence all straight women in general. That isn't okay. Criticism even of each other is needed. We are fighting for equality here, not for alienating and hating all men.
Shes not living in an eqalitarian relationship, shes living like its the 50's-so, no happiness. Her anger is point on and what worse is its affecting her career. She's disrespected in the house and so are the kids.
Does Working Mom actually feel any of those things or have you just decided them on her behalf?
Aleks, aleks, aleks, another easy home run off of your slow pitch....just read her other articles its clear who's doing the most and its her.
Maybe the blog describes more of her doing stuff because it is a blog about her. Did you ever think of that?
I have no idea why so many feminists think that equality means striving to mimic the qualities of the very worst men. I'm sure you're being hyperbolic, but still.
THIS COMMENT HAS BEEN DELETED BECAUSE IT VIOLATES OUR COMMENT POLICY.
Yeah, I have to agree. I don't see the value in leaving children with someone who's apparently so horrible that you can't stand to be associated with them in the slightest way. It's actually really irresponsible.
I know men who help with the child-rearing duties. They may be in the minority, I'm not sure, but they're out there. So I don't see the situation in the article as being a blanket one or a reason why women everywhere should leave their husbands.
Exactly, my dad helped with me. My mom wouldn't have had it any other way :) At the risk of sounding victim-blamey, I think that's part of that article's author's problem, and maybe what DarkPersephone is getting at: she needs to quit accepting that the responsibility for getting up at the crack of dawn, packing lunches, quieting tantrums, getting the kids and hubby ready, etc. is entirely hers. It's not.
This kind of thing also feeds into the whole "moms/married women are angry and grouchy" stereotype. Well, duh. If I were working two full-time jobs and running on 4 hours of sleep a night while my partner slept in, I'd be angry and grouchy, too, if not completely burnt out.
Def they are in the minority
Jeez...I cannot be the only one who felt the hyperbole in this post. It also sounds like she is venting, and we tend to be hyperbolic when we want to vent about something that frustrates us. Why do people have to get so reactive to someone blowing off steam? I didn't take her post as a directive for all married mothers to leave home. What I got from it was her frustration that so many of us continue to LET the men in our lives off easy while we work full time t help pay the bills in addition to getting stuck with all the cunt work. So many men insist on spreeading their seed and want the family image but in reality they leave more than their share of household responsibilities to the women in their lives. Too often we just grudgingly bear it, all the while allowing resentment to fester. She's saying, "Stop it!" and I agree.
It also sounds like she is venting, and we tend to be hyperbolic when we want to vent about something that frustrates us. Why do people have to get so reactive to someone blowing off steam?
So... the next time I have a problem with a woman in my life I can post a community post about how she is such a bitch (is that really worse than calling someone a useless hunk of flesh?)... becuase I am just venting?
Sweet!
Yeah, steve, way to completely take it out of context. Also, no, it wouldnt be acceptable because your gender is not dealing with this to deserve a 'vent.' If you said it, it would be immature and misogynistic. Privilege my friend,...check it.
THIS COMMENT HAS BEEN DELETED BECAUSE IT VIOLATES OUR COMMENT POLICY.
Now, if you started referring to all women as bitches...........
My reading of the article makes it clear that the OP considers all "husbands" and "fathers" to be worthless hunks of flesh. So, if I followed her example, and the example of the editor that let this travesty through moderation, I would be well within my rights to call just about every woman I wanted a bitch.
if she is such a bitch it doesn't say much for you that she is still your girlfriend, does it?
On a personal note, I have been happily divorced for about... gosh, going on about six months now. Gone on a handful of dates, nothing serious, though. It was a 11 year relationship, after all.
She doesnt specify ONLY that. She isolates the subject of the article and then tells the demographic of women dealing with this NOT to put up with it. Thats it. Shes not saying all women. Theres nothing that says shes talking about ALL women and ALL men, that wouldnt make any sense since the OP is probably hetero and wouldnt take her own advice. Why would she say that if the marriage was egalitarian? Its not rational to conclude that. Its like a proletariat getting angry at the higher classes. Theres always been a level of exploitation and disrespect and shes just saying not to take it anymore.
That is an interesting interpretation of "women of the world".
A bitch? Gawd steve, seriously, check your privilege. That wouldnt even be right since that would be even more sexist than what youre
claiming is wrong with the OP's post. There is no equivalent to bitch for men. That would be like calling a black person a 'n' word just because you disagree with something.
Thank gawd there's posters like comrade kevin and marc who dont stoop to such babiesh ignorance. I would think all male 'feminists' to be worthless in understanding these issues and not at all loyal or trustworthy.
Gopher,
Calling someone a useless hunk of flesh is completely dehumanizing them. On that level, it is worse than bitch, which is commonly used to refer to either an overly aggressive woman or a weak male... which allows them to retain some humanity.
Even if you take the definition of bitch all the way down to a breeding female dog that is better than being a useless piece of meat.
I will admit, bitch comes with more cultural baggage than useless hunk of flesh, but I am sure when you look at it, it is still a pretty bad thing to call someone, especially when it is reserved on demographic lines.
THIS COMMENT HAS BEEN DELETED BECAUSE IT VIOLATES OUR COMMENT POLICY.
I have not! I dont dehumanize men. Where would you get that idea from? Completely off-the-wall thing to say.
But they ARE being useless piece of flesh-AND screwing her life up with it. Whats even more dehumanizing is being treated like crap everyday because he thinks he's so special simply because he has a penis and also thinking that simply because she's the female that she should revolve around him, wipe his ass and raise his kids. Just because its not flattering doesnt make it dehumanizing. Is he not useless? Is he only being a piece of flesh taking up space and sucking her life? Yes.
Useless bag of flesh IS gender neutral therefore it is not equivalent of bitch. Calling a woman a dog only good for breeding is much worse, especially as it is quite dehumanizing and explicitly aimed at females where men have no equivalent. Supposedly weak men are called bitches because its an insult because they are being called females. To be called a female is an insult for a man. It perpetuates the inferizing of women. Its quite explicitly misogynistic where useless hunk of flesh is gender neutral and can be used for women as well. So, no, the UPOF is not the same as bitch, which always refers to a female. And unlike bitch a person can actually be a useless hunk of flesh, especially when they expect the female spouse to do everything for them like a servant because they undermine women. THATS dehumanizing, not calling them what theyre being.
Useless bag of flesh IS gender neutral therefore it is not equivalent of bitch.
I hold it to be self evident that the harm a of a word is not just limited to if it is gender neutral or not.
THIS COMMENT HAS BEEN DELETED BECAUSE IT VIOLATES OUR COMMENT POLICY.
because I do not think that it is helpful to our cause to bash on all men and call them assholes all of the time. Just because this one woman has a neglectful husband and because dark persephone clearly has issues with men doesn't mean that we all do. I think that people need to deal with their issues not blame other people for them. She sounds like a man hater that we all get accused of being. It is feminists who say things like that that anger me because I get lumped into the same category as people like that and then get called all sorts of names because of it. I don't appreciate it and I don't think any of us need to be subjected to that kind of treatment because of a few select people's views on life
But its not just this one woman. Its the majority of women. I've heard countless times even my professors explaining why they were late...because they had to drop off their kids at daycare, ect, ect. Its not just THIS ONE woman. If it was, why would she be writing about it? She has to have a readership relate to it otherwise she wouldnt write it.
okay so do you think that only men should be responsible for kid drop off duty? Do you know what their situation is? Did you stop to consider maybe daddy has to be to work earlier or that he gets off earlier and that he has pick up duty? Or maybe that it was just that day that she had to drop them off at daycare? The dad also has been on parental leave for quite some time with the youngerson if you would have read some of the back blogs. She has a following because both moms and dads can relate to that kind of stressful environment where you are trying to get kids ready in the morning. What that particular blog doesn't say is that her husband also works and was trying to get himself and the one year old ready to go for the day. They are still trying to adjust to their new morning routine where both of them have to be to work and both of the kids have to go to daycare (the older one is in preschool). Before making these judgment calls and saying that he is off base you need to remember this is one family, who is still trying to adjust to their changing situation. Her husband actually seems to pull his weight in the family according to her other posts. She is always talking about how he is doing baby duty or how he is doing this or that to help out. But even if he didn't, just because this one guy doesn't do his fair share doesn't mean that all guys don't do their fair share. Telling all women that their husbands are useless pieces of flesh does no one any good.
Why would he have to work earlier when he gets to sleep in? That makes no sense. If that were the case than he should be up when she is. Its actually her that needs to get to work earlier because shes the one thats late-because he was loathe to get up. I think they should split drop off duty equally and according to her other posts she picks her kids up after day care. The dad has only been on parental leave for three months from mid-August to November.She was on parental leave from Oct 08 to Aug. 09. She did the longer stint. I read where he woke up...at 7:20a.m. (20 minutes late) and dressed his younger son and bottle fed him. She got up early, woke her older son up (who weirdly was awake earlier than the father), cooked him a breakfast of fried egg, dealt with a meltdown, made her husbands lunch (which if you look back shes been doing that since she started writing the blog), woke him up (which she had to do just to coerce him into doing his duties as a father, she couldve easily have just woken her son up herself), got her older son dressed and took them to day care + had to get older sons winter clothes off. Its obvious she did more and the more difficult stuff. And according to her other diary entries she also picked them up from day-care. According to her other diary entries, him loathe to wake up is nothing new and even when they were both working she did this routine with him waking up at 7, often late (which caused her to be late) and still did everything, so its not that theyre getting used to a new arrangement theyre repeating the old one that they had when she was still pregnant with her second child and they both worked. And I have read her other posts and no where in there is there much of anything he does. If he 'helps out,' that says ever anything about the inequity of their relationship.
Why are you so loathe to admit what you see everyday? Women do more. Oodles of studies affirm it. Government confirms it, stress levels confirm it, everyday scenarios confirm it, commercials confirm it, free time and who has it and doesnt confirms it. The men who are egalitarian are the MINORITY not the majority. Darkpersephone was completely within her right to be angry. Why are women putting up with this, even at the expense of their own careers and self-respect?
okay here we go again. They split the household duties according to what works for them. He is not a morning person, she is. She willingly gets up an extra hour early to hit the gym for a workout. Maybe her work is closer to daycare and so it saves the family money and time for her to do drop off and pickup duty. Or maybe her schedule allows for that. Also, the reality is that a lot of jobs will give women longer for parental leave than it will give to men. Do I like this concept? Of course not. I fight against THAT. Not bash on the people who are affected by it. She took off that long because she could. I would also like to point out that he took the harder time period to be off with the kid. 1 month olds are sooooooo much easier to take care of than 1 year olds. Plain and simple. The one month olds sleep longer, are easier to feed etc. I would also like to point out that this is one family and one family's dynamics. Not all households work like this. Some have husbands who do a hell of a lot more than the wives.
Yay, you get a cookie for writing one of the most inane and offensive posts EVER on the feministing community blog.
Yes, because the children we have are SUCH A BURDEN that we have to throw them off like the yokes they are. Women have to be free to not give a hoot about their offspring! Only then will we be empowered to go forth and...do whatever it is you seem to think we should be doing, instead.
If my husband (who is a stay at home father, but hypothetically let's imagine he made oodles of more money) and I suddenly divorced tomorrow, I'd fight tooth and nail for custody. He would, too. That's because we -wanted- our children and I prefer to spend my time around my kids than at work or by myself. I didn't have kids looking forward to the day that I pat myself on the back at their college graduation and then sail off into Mint Mojito Bliss. If I could afford to spend all my time at home with my children, I would.
I know, I know. It's a radical thought. Liking your children. Thinking childrearing can be fulfilling. Blech. How very 1950s of me.
And, please, you have NO IDEA about what's going on in that woman's personal life. Maybe she has a perfectly valid reason for being the one to care for her children. Maybe this is a mutual arrangement she came to with her husband, and there are other benefits (perhaps she doesn't have to be burdened with the little pieces of "guilt" on the weekends). Maybe she WANTS to be the one who has primary responsibility.
Could you possibly be a little more stereotypical in your anti-"breeder" rant? I don't think the American Family Association would post this on their webpage QUITE yet.
The dad woke up and took care of the youngest son... no word about him getting ready for work... maybe he stays home with the little one?
Not really the useless peice of flesh the OP claims if that is the case.
But it wouldn't be convenient to the OP's thesis to notice that the mom seemed to be responsible for the older son while the father was responsible for the younger son.
The article writer calls the husband and the baby "the home team," and if this couple is anything like my cousin and her work-from-home husband were, the husband was the one who'd get up all night to feed the baby since he didn't have to be anywhere at a particular time in the morning. And therefore he slept in later (and you know there's a baby in the house when sleeping until 7:00 am is considered sleeping in).
I guess when it comes to the OP's question "Do we need any further proof that women are still treated like chumps? in this instance the answer is: yes, we do.
These are the facts of the article:
* She got up at 5:30a.m.
* she started making her HUSBANDS lunch
*She got her older son up
*she made her picky son a breakfast
*she calmed him down and dealt with his meltdown
*husband is loathe to wake up-this causes her to panic, so she wakes him up after 7:10a.m.
*She is repsonsible for waking them up (even though he's an adult man) 10 minutes before they were supposed to leave
*husband gets up at 7:20a.m. and gets younger son up and dresses him
* she dressed older son in snow outfit
* she brought them to day care
*she struggled with her son to get him to take off his snow outfit
*she talked to another busy mom while dropping kids off at day-care
Its safe to say she did the lions share and he was completely disrespectful of her. He didnt even wake up on time which caused her to be late.
Steve, the proof is all right here-among many studies and governmental data that proves women do majority of child/house/elderly care and have less relaxation time all while getting punished for it. I mean, look around you. Even commercials represent that. I have yet to see a commercial featuring a cleaning/child product being aimed at a man.
This is a good point (about the Dad possibly taking care of the baby at all hours of the night). Hopefully that's what's actually going on.
Why is that a good point? It wasnt in the article and I highly doubt it since the woman did majority of everything, including having to wake him up and make his(the fathers) lunch. Its unverifiable so it hardly is worth mentioning. I'm sure her younger son is also old enough to sleep through the night.
Did you even read the article? All he did was dress him after she did the lions share of work with the kids (even making him a lunch?)and got up earlier than he did plus finished off all the other aspects that deal with the kids after dropping them off at day care. That dude needs to get off his ass. he household needs to quit treating him like a King and herelf the pauper.
Maybe the dude's working two jobs. Or maybe he works second shift to 2AM, which isn't terribly conducive to waking up early. You were talking about checking privilege? Not all of us have the luxury of working 9 to 5 jobs, you know.
Either way, you don't know one way or another. There's a lot going on here that we have no way of evaluating. But you just assume the guy is a lout, probably because that's what the OP told you, and here we see your prejudice coloring your reasoning.
If, if, if. I doubt it and you dont know so dont say. I'm going by the facts of the article and by statistical averages. Its unlikely thats the case. They sound middle class.
They sound middle class.
That's so...factual of you.
He doesnt work two jobs, he's at home by dinner time and they spend $1200 a month on day care. Struggling people cant afford day-care and they are both educated and she reports that she is well off in one of her posts. She says this when a student from her former university calls and asks her to give donations. Middle-class-yup. Also, if he wasnt middle class how would he be able to get up at 7:20a.m.? Most working class jobs start at 5 or 6 and he wouldnt be sleeping in for fear of losing his job.
+ the gym membership and the pool
9 to 5? She had to be at work by 8. He was the one sleeping in.
I mean, she can afford day care but he has to work two jobs? I dont think so. This is a middle class family. Just read her other articles. She also picks them up from day care.
Also sounds like she's the one to stay up with them at night,
"Ah, caffeine. Without it, this bleary-eyed working mom of two wouldn't be upright."
Her schedule:
7.30pm - After a mad dash to the shoe store (longer story), YoungerSon falls asleep, in bed
8.00pm - OlderSon goes to bed happily, with a storm trooper lego man
9.00pm - I jump into the local city pool for an evening workout (party's over, after all)
11.00pm - in bed, back from workout. Wide awake. Blink for about 30 mins as adrenaline eases, and fall asleep. Husband snoring beside me.
2.10 a.m. - YoungerSon crying. Ugh. Get out of bed, stumble across the room. He is standing up in his crib, crying. His pyjamas (big-kid style) have ridden up. He feels cold. I change diaper, go get a bottle and rock him with the bottle.
2.35 - YoungerSon falls back asleep in his crib in his signature pose: bum up, face planted into the mattress.
2.40 - blink, blink... can't sleep. Wonder if I should get up and blog?
Around 3 a.m. - fall asleep.
3.10 a.m. - YoungerSon awake again, crying. Stumble out of bed (try not to curse as I stub my toe), go to his room. He is standing up in his crib, fingers in mouth. He's cold again. Curse myself for not changing him an hour ago.
3.12 a.m. - Change him into a heavy fleece sleeper (that should do it), give him some Tylenol for painful teeth. Rock him a bit
3.26 a.m. - Give up on rocking as YoungerSon just started talking and singing. Put him in crib, rubbed his back, hoping he would fall asleep. Gave up when he started talking again, decided to leave him, ferbering as we did four months ago
3.36 am. - Go back into YoungerSon's room to calm him, as he hasn't stopped crying for 10 mins.
3.38 a.m. - YoungerSon asleep after I briefly rubbed his back. I'm back in bed, trying to fall asleep. Husband rolls over (he has been awakened every time I get up, OlderSon, however has slept through it all)
.12 a.m. - Change him into a heavy fleece sleeper (that should do it), give him some Tylenol for painful teeth. Rock him a bit
3.26 a.m. - Give up on rocking as YoungerSon just started talking and singing. Put him in crib, rubbed his back, hoping he would fall asleep. Gave up when he started talking again, decided to leave him, ferbering as we did four months ago
3.36 am. - Go back into YoungerSon's room to calm him, as he hasn't stopped crying for 10 mins.
3.38 a.m. - YoungerSon asleep after I briefly rubbed his back. I'm back in bed, trying to fall asleep. Husband rolls over (he has been awakened every time I get up, OlderSon, however has slept through it all)
3.50 a.m. - Blink. Blink. Write this blog post in my head. Blink. Blink.
Around 4 a.m. - fall back asleep
5.45 a.m. - Are you kidding me???? Alarm goes off for me to get up, shower, get dressed make lunches, get kids up (they slept in) dressed and off to daycare. Brew a pot of tea, pray I'll be at work on time.
Sounds like shes the one getting up at all hours of the night
You have a link for this? Or did you just make it up based upon her statement that she's bleary-eyed?
Just click the link Adventures of a Working Mom found near the title page. It should be on the first page.
Interesting, because when I clicked on that, the first thing that came up was this:
http://communities.canada.com/ottawacitizen/blogs/workingmom/archive/2009/12/17/we-re-not-all-morning-people.aspx
She states that she chooses to get up early in the morning because she's a morning person, and her husband isn't. "However ask me to do anything after 9 pm, and you're on your own."
That's what she thinks. Gopher knows better.
THIS COMMENT HAS BEEN DELETED BECAUSE IT VIOLATES OUR COMMENT POLICY.
I have to admit, I did find myself reading the whole blog last night, she is a fun writer to read.
And I am responding generally to your several quotings of the blog.
You are screening out all of the information that points to the division of labor being more equitable. When it comes to him taking are of the kid at home she wrights here and there that she thinks she had an easier time with OlderSon when she was at home than he is having with YoungerSon because Olderson slept more, so the husband is spending more time without a break.
There was also the time after the first son was born where the author was working nights. That sucked in its own right, but means that the father was the one loosing all the sleep at night and going into work the next day as a zombie.
And of course it makes sense that she takes more parental leave than he does... many workplaces don't even have parental leave for fathers, that shit has to come out of your annual leave. When I was in the Marines I saw that fathers got ten days (and only if they where married to the mother), women got three months.
Now, I don't know the specifics of the father's company, but it says a a lot about him that he is willing and able to take three months of leave.
He also does not come home and wait for dinner to be put on the table. It seems they tag team the duties, one makes dinner one night, the other the next.
That could be seen when they where trying to teach their older son to go to sleep with the Ferber method. One had duty one night, the other the next night.
So forth and so on.
Why would the woman make him his lunch then? And all he had to do was wake the younger kid, dress him and bottle feed him. She had to feed her older picky son a fried egg sandwhich and deal with a meltdown. Hardly the same. He was also loathe to get up and she had to wake him. Apparently thats her responsibility.He got to sleep in. I bet he wants her to wipe his ass for him too.
Why would the woman make him his lunch then?
Whenever I make my lunch, I call to my roommate, "Do you need a lunch today?" Because it's super easy to make an extra sandwich when I'm already making one, or to grab two Tupperware containers to fill with leftovers instead of just one.
I thought I was being thoughtful and efficient. I guess I'm just an oppressed schmuck.
THIS COMMENT HAS BEEN DELETED BECAUSE IT VIOLATES OUR POLICY.
come on that is ridiculous. so she made her husbands lunch. Maybe he made her lunch the day before and she wanted to return the favor. You don't know these things. Also, its easier to get a four year old ready and out the door than it is a one year old, even if said four year old is the hardest child to deal with in the world and the one year old is an angel.
"there are other benefits (perhaps she doesn't have to be burdened with the little pieces of "guilt" on the weekends). "
I dont think HE's feeling that. And isnt that what the mom wars of the 80's inspired; irrational guilt for working? She shouldnt be feeling guilty for anything. Those are artificial feelinsg induced by patriarchal society. Catering to that guilt maintains it and perpetuates it. Its not healthy. You sound like youre making excuses for the guys negligence.
There's no evidence she IS feeling "guilty" about working while having children or that her actions have altered as a result of guilt. DP apparently assumed that was why she was taking care of morning childcare duties, but there's no evidence of it in the article.
And we don't know that the guy was "negligent", either, or that he isn't pulling his own late. We know only a few things: that the author made a lunch for him, and that he woke up later than she did. There is no other information about when he works (if he even works outside the home), or whether he has night-time childcare duties and was up until 3AM with a screaming infant.
DP took a short piece from a woman describing a hectic morning; read into it that this woman was doing a bunch of stuff she didn't want to do because she was poor and oppressed by her mean, lazy husband; and said that she should unburden herself of her husband and children.
ALL of that is based upon speculation which has no factual basis in the article.
That speculation is HUGELY offensive to those of us who choose to have children and retain some childrearing duties. I am not an idiot because I make my kids breakfast in the morning.
You wrote this
"Maybe she has a perfectly valid reason for being the one to care for her children. Maybe this is a mutual arrangement she came to with her husband, and there are other benefits (perhaps she doesn't have to be burdened with the little pieces of "guilt" on the weekends). Maybe she WANTS to be the one who has primary responsibility."
Thats impossible this is a mutual arrangement.
What were you alluding to about guilt?
And its not healthy not to have an egalitarian relationship. I also highly doubt it. Most women are simply stuck doing these things at the expense to their lives because the guy simply wont bother. Thats statistical averages and most women want their husbands involved. Sound like youre making alot of excuses for him.Its sad when a so-called feminist is doing this.
When I wrote "little pieces of 'guilt'" I was referring sardonically to her children, in line with how the OP appears to conceive of the relationship between a mother and her children. IE, maybe the author takes over morning childcare duties and in return she has no childcare obligations over the weekend and she does whatever she wants.
We don't know.
How is it impossible that this is a mutual arrangement?
The problem here is that you're not giving this woman any credit whatsoever. You're assuming she's oppressed based upon ONE morning, which is out of context, and which she even acknowledges is not a typical morning in her household.
And you're defending the OP's statement that women should leave their children because they're burdens on us, without even acknowledging that perhaps parents are taking on that burden willingly (or even joyously).
I have difficulty conceiving that some people voluntarily go shopping or get their hair done; those are things I have to steel myself to do, feel to be a burden, and absolutely hate. Yet I recognize that for some people, not only is it not a burden, it's actually something they do FOR FUN.
I feel as if mothers are not getting the same respect, and it's assumed that we're deluded if we say that we enjoy our children. Thus the OP's insinuation that we take care of our children out of "guilt", and that we'd be happier without them, is offensive.
As I suggested in my original post, even if my relationship with my husband fell through, I would still -want- -my- -children-. I wager the same is true of most parents, or we wouldn't have such vicious custody battles. Therefore, even if - hypothetically speaking - it was suddenly revealed that the article's author WAS in an unequal relationship, that she WAS being emotionally coerced into doing most of the domestic chores, and even that her husband routinely beat her...how would it logically follow that she would feel better if she left her children?
In the context of the OP's post, it isn't even relevant whether the author's article is in an unequal partnership or not; the OP's post was still offensive because of her assumptions about the relationship between the author and the author's children.
"You're assuming she's oppressed based upon ONE morning, "
No. I checked her other stories all the way back to 08'. She still was doing the lions share of everything. Even waking her husband up (when she was hugely pregnant) and once again he avoided getting up causing her to be late...again! She also got up earlier.
"And you're defending the OP's statement that women should leave their children because they're burdens on us"
I'm not defending it, I'm sympathizing with the sentiment. I'm also not taking it seriously because obviously you can tell by simple logics she doesnt take that part seriously. Shes just blowing off steam. She's upset at how common this is executed and accepted in society. Shes saying, 'wake up!'
"I'm also not taking it seriously because obviously you can tell by simple logics she doesnt take that part seriously. Shes just blowing off steam. She's upset at how common this is executed and accepted in society. Shes saying, 'wake up!'"
Translation:
"Settle down, little woman. You're just taking this the wrong way. It's obviously a joke. Or an exaggeration. We didn't mean you. Don't take things so personally. And...you know some women really are like this, anyway."
Gee, where have I heard that before?
She didnt just make his lunch, she woke up earlier than him, woke HIM up, dealt with a kids meltdown, cooked her son a lunch, took them to day care and dressed him in winter clothes. He woke up later than her and...late...and then dressed the kid and bottle fed it. Thats it and judging by this schedule, shes the one staying up:
"7.30pm - After a mad dash to the shoe store (longer story), YoungerSon falls asleep, in bed
8.00pm - OlderSon goes to bed happily, with a storm trooper lego man
9.00pm - I jump into the local city pool for an evening workout (party's over, after all)
11.00pm - in bed, back from workout. Wide awake. Blink for about 30 mins as adrenaline eases, and fall asleep. Husband snoring beside me.
2.10 a.m. - YoungerSon crying. Ugh. Get out of bed, stumble across the room. He is standing up in his crib, crying. His pyjamas (big-kid style) have ridden up. He feels cold. I change diaper, go get a bottle and rock him with the bottle.
2.35 - YoungerSon falls back asleep in his crib in his signature pose: bum up, face planted into the mattress.
2.40 - blink, blink... can't sleep. Wonder if I should get up and blog?
Around 3 a.m. - fall asleep.
3.10 a.m. - YoungerSon awake again, crying. Stumble out of bed (try not to curse as I stub my toe), go to his room. He is standing up in his crib, fingers in mouth. He's cold again. Curse myself for not changing him an hour ago.
3.12 a.m. - Change him into a heavy fleece sleeper (that should do it), give him some Tylenol for painful teeth. Rock him a bit
3.26 a.m. - Give up on rocking as YoungerSon just started talking and singing. Put him in crib, rubbed his back, hoping he would fall asleep. Gave up when he started talking again, decided to leave him, ferbering as we did four months ago
3.36 am. - Go back into YoungerSon's room to calm him, as he hasn't stopped crying for 10 mins.
3.38 a.m. - YoungerSon asleep after I briefly rubbed his back. I'm back in bed, trying to fall asleep. Husband rolls over (he has been awakened every time I get up, OlderSon, however has slept through it all)
3.50 a.m. - Blink. Blink. Write this blog post in my head. Blink. Blink.
Around 4 a.m. - fall back asleep
5.45 a.m. - Are you kidding me???? Alarm goes off for me to get up, shower, get dressed make lunches, get kids up (they slept in) dressed and off to daycare. Brew a pot of tea, pray I'll be at work on time."
Note she also says that she prays she'll be to work on time. So its obvious this isnt the first time.
You DO realize that was from ONE night right?
While breastfeeding I did the night shift. I thought it was stupid to wake him out of his sleep just to bring me the baby so we'd BOTH be red eyed in the morning. But after that we pretty much did a week-to-week method and reading her articles it seems they do the same thing.
She actually *gasp* loves her husband and *gasp* cares that he gets his sleep when its HIS turn to rest while she handles the night time fussing.
Jerks dont take night shifts when they have to go to work in the morning (like her husband did), plan parties (like her husband did), take leave and actually be stay at home Dads for a while (like her husband did), equally share cooking and cleaning duties (like her husband does) amongst other things.
Try telling the author of th eblog her husband doesn't care about her and see what kind of answer you'll get. *hint* check out her blog about their trip without the kids to see how much you REALLY dont want to go there with her about the man she loves who loves her just as much.
Here we go again....she was talking about her own experience, NOT YOURS! The post was almost rhetorical, she wasn't instructing anyone to be unhappy with their life if they are indeed satisfied. But she clearly isn't satisfied with hers and neither are a lot of other people.And yeah, there are plenty of people/parents who give lip service to the statement that their kids are the best/most important part of their lives, but isn't it almost a social requirement for parents, especially mothers, to say just that? We all know parents who SAY they love their kids but at every turn they are passing them off to someone else and are over the moon excited any chance they have to get away from them. There are parents who don't even want custody of their kids because of the impact it has on their lifestyle, but of course they will insist that those kids are their proudest accomplishment. Plenty of folks get Kodakitis when it comes to kids and the reality seldom measures up to the tv commercials. Plenty of guys SAY they will 'help out' with the kids and the house while both parents work, but the very phrase 'help out' implies that he is assisting the wife/mom with HER responsibilities....it's still on her by default and isn't he a generous soul for babysitting his own kids for 2 hours on Saturday?
Women of the world: it's time to leave those useless hunks of flesh called "husbands" and "fathers" who feed off your labour while you earn 70 per cent of their wages.
If this isn't a universal call-to-arms, i don't know what is. At best it's poorly worded. At worst it's a pretty wretched intrusion into the conduct of peoples' lives. Kessei is spot on by calling this out.
And why do you even bring up "lip service?" Are you seriously accusing her of having disingenuous feelings for her children? The hell?
She is clearly talking about the ones who take what you give and don't share the load. She isn't calling all men wasted flesh or whatever. This is a subset of men we are talking about. I'd feel the same way if a man posted something critical of the women who want them to work 30 hours a day so they can afford to be SAHMs but then complain ungratefully that he is 'never home'. It would be a subset of women, and one that does exist, just like there are men like she described that exist,too.
If you'd feel the same way then you'd certainly understand why we take umbrage with anything that begins with the female equivalent of
Men of the world: it's time to leave those useless hunks of flesh called "wives" and "mothers" who feed off your labour while you earn 70 per cent of their wages.
Actually, I have known a few women that your statement would apply to. I'm not one of them so it wouldn't bother me. I am able to acknowledge that just because I am a woman and just because we as a group have been discriminated against and oppressed does not mean that there aren't plenty of sorry assed women out there. Some of them are lazy and looking for a free ride and feel entitled to that because they are women. Does that apply to most women? Not by a longshot, but I can't get all bent out of shape because someone had an experience with a woman like that and isn't happy about it.
You are completely missing the point. See nattles_thing below. Start with "hairpin turn into insanity."
Yeah scottrock, sorry to inform you but some people do lip service for their kids without feeling any sincerity for it. My dad has a picture of me on his office desk and tells people I'm his daughter but in reality he was verbally abusive, physically abusive to my step-sister and was/is a complete ass. He only uses his child as a networking tool to make him 'look' a certain way to his business peers. And I think in regards to mothers, what she means is that women are forced to smile and say everything is perfect and to carry the burden exclusively for making kids feel loved. Its tied up in gender roles and the cult of motherhood. She has to deny alot of reality she's experiencing to make 'the perfect family.' Its suffocating and unrealistic.
motherhood isn't a "cult" that is the most absurd thing you have managed to say on here, and that's pretty damn impressive because you have said some terrible things on this post
She wasn't talking about her own life.
She was judging somebody else's, and using that other person's life as a jumping board to say that women should leave their kids with their husbands and take off.
"And yeah, there are plenty of people/parents who give lip service to the statement that their kids are the best/most important part of their lives, but isn't it almost a social requirement for parents, especially mothers, to say just that?"
Yay, more "breeder" judging.
We're all just pretending to love our kids because we've drunk the Patriarchy Parenting Kool-Aid, huh? And we've been socialized to SAY that we love our kids, when really if we were just HONEST we'd admit that we can't stand taking care of children and would much rather leave them with someone else.
Consequently, your default is to assume that if we're writing a humorous article about a particularly crazy morning (like the article's author did) that we are secretly nursing unhealthy resentment against our children and our husbands, but that we've just been socialized to not complain about it. And this will be assumed as true even when, like the author, we DON'T SAY A DARN THING about having an unequal work load or feeling resentful.
We simply have to be rescued from ourselves.
Oh, please, gallant lady-knight! Save me! Save me!
Okay, seriously? Woman do not become morons simply because they adopt or have a child pass through their vagina. Can you give us the decency to assume that if we're taking care of children, that it's because we want to? Assuming that we're only caring for children because we're acting on our internalized oppression or are in some sort of emotionally abusive relationship is REALLY, REALLY sexist.
It's interesting that you took what I said and turned it into an anti-parent statement when all it was was a statement acknowledging that such parents do exist, even if in the minority. It says something that you took it as an attack on you. Only you would know if what I said applies to you or not. And I will judge parents who say all the right things when it comes to their kids but fail to actually DO the right things.
Why the hell is it so challenging for people to acknowledge that there are some people in whatever group they belong to who happen to suck?
The original post was dealing with the general population of parents/mothers. YOUR post was dealing with the general population of parents/mothers. Claiming somehow that you meant it only to apply to the author of the original article now that I've called you on the sexism in your argument is wholly disingenuous.
That's particularly true given that you made a statement about "lip service" by parents who really aren't interested in their kids in a circumstance where there is no evidence that anything of the sort is going on.
That's the equivalent of going into a thread on sexual assault and saying, "Some women say no while they're pulling guys on top of them. I'm just saying, you had to admit that women like that exist."
And trying to make a little "you're wrong to be offended" ad hominem by saying my response "says something about [me]"? Cute.
It's interesting that you took what I said and turned it into an anti-parent statement when all it was was a statement acknowledging that such parents do exist, even if in the minority. It says something that you took it as an attack on you. Only you would know if what I said applies to you or not. And I will judge parents who say all the right things when it comes to their kids but fail to actually DO the right things.
Why the hell is it so challenging for people to acknowledge that there are some people in whatever group they belong to who happen to suck?
to add: if there wasn't any truth to what I said, CPS would be out of business instead of drowning because there are more complaints of child abuse than there are qualified social workers to follow up on them. You wouldn't read about dead kids who were killed by their parents and the parents wouldn't be viewed as the number one suspects by police. Do you know why that is? Because most kids who are killed are killed by.......................you fill in the blank (but if you guessed 'their parents' you win a trip to Disneyworld).
So give me a break. There was NOTHING I said that anyone here should have taken personally unless you were the kind of person I was talking about. If you aren't aware that, yes, there are parents who resent their position, then you must live in Fantasy World.
So now your defense of your comment was that you merely intended to bring up the wholly irrelevant fact that some parents abuse their children?
I don't credit that explanation whatsoever.
Can you not just deal with the fact that not every parent or mother is as content with her situation in life as you are? Is that sooo hard to digest? And yes, some people give "lip service" to caring about their kids more than anything, even as they hand them over to abusive boyfriends to molest or leave them in the trunk of the car while they go into a bar to get hammered. What they say doesn't match up with what they do....isn't that what lip service means? It doesn't matter that most parents don't behave that way. It is still relevant to say that even if only 2% do things like that, that is still a lot of people. If you really don't believe that there are parents who are disappointed with the realities of parenting you are delusional. I don't know how someone can even argue with that. It's as if you are saying that because it doesn't apply to you so it couldn't apply to anyone else, either.
I would like to point out that dark persephone is telling all of us to do just this, hand over our children to people who according to her do not care or take care of the kids (which I find both statements highly offensive) but you are just off the wall here.
No, I'm pretty sure she was just venting. I dont know how long youve been alive but when people vent sometimes they say things they dont always mean. I think especially if darkpersephone is heterosexual it would be completely illogical for her to 'mean' it since why would she say that? She would be saying leave your egalitarian husband and kids? I dont think so. And she's only referring to bad husbands not good ones.
I agree. I mean some women are sold this perfect idea of motherhood and expectations placed on their gender tell them that this is what they want. When they have kids they realize this isnt what they wanted and its not what they were sold but they have to perpetuate this stereotype of women and mothers or else theyre not good people. She's not insulting 'breeders (kesseis word, not mine)' just identifying a aspect that particularly affects women.
"I mean some women are sold this perfect idea of motherhood and expectations placed on their gender tell them that this is what they want. When they have kids they realize this isnt what they wanted and its not what they were sold but they have to perpetuate this stereotype of women and mothers or else theyre not good people."
And is there any evidence whatsoever that this is occuring in this situation? Or are you merely projecting onto the article's author?
"She's not insulting 'breeders (kesseis word, not mine)"
The word has been applied to directly to me and to other parents (particularly mothers) many, many times. If I use it sarcastically, to highlight a demonstrated bias against mothers, that does not make it "my" word.
Similarly, if I'm complaining about gender oppression, and I sarcastically comment about having to keep down "faggots" or "trannies", those are not "my" words. I am using words of other people in order to link and highlight forms of bias, hatred, and discrimination.
Are you familiar with this tactic?
And the husband does work, "it's Husband's last week of parental leave (back to work on Monday, an adjustment for all of us!!), "
The woman writing the article certainly sounds like she has an unfair division of labor in her house. If she doesn't -- maybe the husband sleeps in because he works late? -- there are many, many other women who do. Okay, good point.
But then your logic takes a hairpin turn into insanity, because somehow the fact that many households have an unequal division of labor means that all men are leeches. That's hateful.
Also, an article about a woman who MAY have a lazy husband is somehow proof that women need to leave their husbands -- because of course all you need to know about someone to determine whether they are a good person is whether they have a vagina -- and abandon their children.
Honestly, it's kind of disgusting that this got past moderation, and you're far too full of hate to do anything productive about the very real problem you're pretending this post is about.
Did you even read the article? The OP's anger is well earned.
The article did not happen to the OP.
From the article we can make a list of unknowns:
The frequency of the morning miracle breaking down;
The father's occupation and work schedule;
How the couple divides up the house work and child rearing;
If the mother and/or father are overall content with arrangement.
Going off on a rant without those facts is not intelligent, it is just a visceral reaction based on a deep-seated and unproductive anger.
You can suppose and hypothetical the situation into one of the worse abusive relationships on the planet if you wanted to... but that information just is not there.
THIS COMMENT HAS BEEN DELETED BECAUSE IT VIOLATES OUR COMMENT POLICY.
THIS COMMENT HAS BEEN DELETED BECAUSE IT VIOLATES OUR COMMENT POLICY.
THIS COMMENT HAS BEEN DELETED BECAUSE IT VIOLATES OUR COMMENT POLICY.
The father went to work and regardless shes sleep deprived so why is she letting him sleep in while she makes his sandwhiches for him?
I know it didnt happen to the OP, but if it happens to one woman it happens to every woman. I dont have to be the one who was raped/abused to have gotten angry at the injustice.
Contentment is beside the point. Unhealthy gender constructs are often practiced and unquestioned. I'm sure if you wouldve asked a woman back in the 19th century if she was content with her arrangement as a woman she would have said yes, doesnt make it right (as a matter of fact more women were against the right to vote than for it). Disrespect isnt contentable and if she is content with being disrespected thats not acceptable. Reading her other posts its clear she does the majority of the child rearing. Its impossible to conclude otherwise especially since she makes her husbands work food, is sleep deprived, stays up all night with the kids while husband sleeps, and takes them to day care and drops them off. Its clear she does the lions share of these child care things.
I know it didnt happen to the OP, but if it happens to one woman it happens to every woman.
I hold that to be patently false.
Contentment is beside the point. Unhealthy gender constructs are often practiced and unquestioned. I'm sure if you wouldve asked a woman back in the 19th century if she was content with her arrangement as a woman she would have said yes, doesnt make it right
I think you are stretching for that one. Even someone as lazy as I am can go to the wikipedia article on "History of Feminism" and see there was quite a bit activity going on in the 18th and 19th centuries.
"I know it didnt happen to the OP, but if it happens to one woman it happens to every woman. I dont have to be the one who was raped/abused to have gotten angry at the injustice.
Contentment is beside the point. Unhealthy gender constructs are often practiced and unquestioned."
If the woman at issue was saying she was in this situation without her consent, then I would agree with you.
But you are saying that a grown woman does not know what she wants, and therefore you are getting angry on her behalf because she is brainwashed. Maybe she thought she consented to the sex, but really she couldn't possibly have wanted that, and she just doesn't know any better.
You know, to some extent I accept that argument in certain circumstances - female genital mutilation, forced marriage, bride immolation, and pimped prostitutes, to name a few.
But all of those deal with "consenting" to some form of physical assault and physical harm, and usually they occur in situations where (1) there is a much more pervasive culture of oppression and/or (2) the women are convinced they have no alternative.
To be ascribing the same sort of situation to motherhood - to say that a woman couldn't possibly want to have a greater share of the child-rearing duties, and that taking care of children is innately a burden no matter how an individual woman conceives of it, and that if a woman claims otherwise it's because she's internalized some sort of sexist message on the role of women - criticizes parenthood as a whole. And it furthers the stereotype of mothers, in particular, as clueless shells of people with no internal life or agency.
Please be aware of that stereotype. How often do you hear people complaining that their newly mothering friends "just want to talk about babies", or make other comments insinuating that once a woman becomes a mother she no longer has other interests or thoughts? It's pervasive.
And by saying, "You might think you like caring for your children, but I know better, and really you're oppressed" you're furthering that incredibly sexist BS.
Stop it.
I know it didnt happen to the OP, but if it happens to one woman it happens to every woman.
what
THIS COMMENT HAS BEEN DELETED BECAUSE IT VIOLATES OUR COMMENT POLICY.
I think I might need to combine these two sentiments and use the result as my e-mail signature going forward.
If it happens to one woman it happens to every woman; by the transitive property of the uterus, women are interchangeable.
It has a nice, solid, poetic ring to it.
I see myself as Tina Fey to Gopher's Sarah Palin, helping her express her own point with a bit more lucidity.
That's really not necessary. I think everyone here knows that if one's posts are lacking in clarity, that deficiency can easily be rectified by increasing the quantity.
She's now moved on to calling me a girl. She saw another third grader call a boy that during recess today and she knew she had her silver bullet.
Wouldn't that be some kind of weird compliment when coming from a misandrist?
THIS COMMENT HAS BEEN DELETED BECAUSE IT VIOLATES OUR COMMENT POLICY.
Oh. Wow. I had somehow managed to miss a fair amount of the commentary in the ableism post the first time around. That... was something.
Huh. I actually so that in another post and wondered about it. Good to have the record set straight.
If only she were finally right about something. I have a huge crush on Rachel Maddow, who is distinctly disinterested in fellas.
I never said it was 'the most abusive relationship in the world.' As a matter of fact it represents status quo. Thats why its so infuriating.
Tangent Alert:
nattles_thing,
Your blog link don't work no more, did you shut it down, or were you censored, or did it move?
I enjoyed reading it while it was up.
because of course all you need to know about someone to determine whether they are a good person is whether they have a vagina
Thank you.
" the fact that many households have an unequal division of labor means that all men are leeches"
She never said that. She just said that any woman being disrespected by her husband like that should leave. She didnt say to leave if they have an egalitarian relationship or just because they have male genitalia.You implied all that-not her.
no she said ALL women should leave their "useless hunks of flesh" aka husbands and abandon their children. I cannot have kids. To someone who would so love to be a mother and can't because of physical limitations that is insulting. I get it that not all women want to be mothers and that they shouldn't all have to be. But she chose to have her kids. She wanted to be a mom. A lot of moms want to be moms. A lot of women plan their pregnancies, for her to come on here and suggest that all of those women are stupid and made stupid decisions is insulting to every mother on this planet. Get this through your thick head. Just because you and dark persephone hate men and children doesn't mean that every woman hates men and children. Yes its terrible that there are husbands out there who take no responsibility for their job. Yes it is terrible that women have to remain the main care takers because of patriarchal society norms. But not all women live like that. Not all women have that dynamic in their household. To tell those women that they should leave their husbands because some men in this world have their heads shoved up their asses is ridiculous.
Way to go darkpersephone, tell it like it is!
Turns out she is, somehow, the only person responsible for rounding up the kids in the morning
You didn't read the article before you posted this did you? Not only do you have no knowledge whatsoever about the rest of the family's daily routine, but your one point of evidence is in flat contradiction to the woman (remember her?)'s own story.
Women of the world: it's time to leave those useless hunks of flesh called "husbands" and "fathers" who feed off your labour while you earn 70 per cent of their wages.
And by the way: don't forget to leave them custody. Leave your guilt at the door. The kids will work out fine. Your husband will have to make sure of that, just like you would if you were the sucker. Don't be.
Looking back further in her blog, the husband has been taking parental leave because YoungerSon was too little for daycare and he has only recently started work again.
Not only that, but he has often been ostracized for being the only stay-at-home-dad at parent/child activities, so he has been a victim of patriarchal gender constructs.
So don't be so quick to judge people from a snapshot of their lives, especially considering that a lot more of that life is just a click away and paints a fairly egalitarian and so very not 1950s picture.
Maybe she takes charge in the mornings because she is better at it.
She took parental leave too.
yeah and if I had just given birth and was breast feeding I would want to stay home too.
And if youve read she also does nights and all the other times.Read her sleep deprived schedule. She didnt get to bed until 3a.m.! And regardless even when he did go back to work, shes still doing everything, including making his work lunches for him and taking the kids to and picking them up from day care. It was just parental leave, she took it too. And the kid went to day care at 1, so he couldnt have been at home doing it for that long.
She took off 9 months and he only 3. Still sounds like the 50's and anyways now they both work so whats the excuse? Its clear theyre a typical middle class family, went to university and take their kids to day care type. He's not working two jobs.
She was a stay at home mom from Oct 2008-Aug 2009. He only stayed home with the kids from Aug 2009 to Nov 2009. Also its clear if you read the posts she does and did the lions share of parenting. Today with them both working she still does the majority and stays up with the kids and barely gets any sleep. Different from him.
....and the husband was home for dinner so its not like he was working two shifts (to scottrock). Apparently she was even waking him up before she had her second child when she was hugely pregnant. I dont like it when I get little sleep as a 20-something student who has never been pregnant. I can imagine thats gotta really suck when you are + working and majoritively taking care of a kid! Its also not her first time being late due to her husband wanting to sleep in.
Other problems with this rant aside, people don't just partner up with their husbands/wives because they need someone to provide them with funds & divide labor in a mutually agreed-upon fashion. A particular woman chooses to marry a particular guy because she's in love with him, she's sexually attracted to him, he makes her laugh, their personalities go together well, & all those other things that make him a human being rather than just part of the cash nexus. That means that even if a particular husband is inept or lazy about doing his share of household chores, the wife might still want his company & find him a necessary part of her life. If some MRA came on this blog, complaining that women who refuse to get a job are "useless pieces of flesh" & men should dump them, we'd all know how to respond.
Reading the OP feels like a snapshot of my opinions about a year back, when I was more or less convinced that all men, myself included, were absolutely worthless at best and universal rapists-in-waiting at worst.
Then, I went and got therapy, stopped making pointless generalizations, and started actually, really thinking about gender relations instead of parroting lines from the SCUM Manifesto. In doing so, I met and talked seriously with other pro-feminists and real feminists, and started formulating a more realistic view of the world and what can be done to change things.
It may just be my experiences, but it helped to teach me that as hour of frustration and venting are worth less than a minute of objective, rational thinking. Sweeping generalizations about the uselessness of men is not going to break the patriarchy; it's just words, words that run counter to the feminist goal of equality at that. If we are going to use words, they should be as part of a dialog, and they should be accompanied by actions; protest both public and private, pointing out gendered language and thought in society around us in a public, perhaps confrontational, way, and so forth. Posts like this one are strictly "feminists" talking and nobody listening; if you want to make a difference, you should start a conversation, be it with other feminists and allies, non-feminist women, and yes, even men.
you should start a conversation, be it with other feminists and allies, non-feminist women, and yes, even men.
GASP.
Why would we do that? Everything we need to know about men can be learned from Gopher and Friends™.
I'd like to point out that the blog author has since made an entry describing her husband's contributions to their household, in response to this ridiculousness.
The reason he gets up later is because she is a morning person who naturally gets up that early, and he is not. He does most of the cooking and cleaning, traditionally feminine tasks, as well as repairs, so one can conclude their division of labor is based on what they are good at and enjoy, which makes a hell of a lot more sense than dividing every task 50/50 even if one person is craptastic at it.
The blog author is not qualified to describe her husband's contributions. DarkPersephone and Gopher have already ruled on their relationship.
She sure did and HERE is the link!
http://communities.canada.com/ottawacitizen/blogs/workingmom/archive/2009/12/17/we-re-not-all-morning-people.aspx
THIS COMMENT HAS BEEN DELETED BECAUSE IT VIOLATES OUR COMMENT POLICY.
She meant relative to their husbands, not portion of the household's income.
Wait, what?
So women earn 70% of the wages relative to their husbands... but men earn a larger portion of the household's income?
I don't get it.
Women earn seven tenths of what men earn. A man earns a hundred dollars, and a woman earns seventy for the same work.
She means women earn 70 cents on the dollar compared to men (although the last figure I heard was actually 76 cents on the dollar). So if the average man in a household is bringing in $50,000, his wife is bringing in $35,000 (or $38,000 if I'm remembering that 76 percent figure correctly).
That's an oversimplified explanation of course, but it should clarify the math.
Okay, that makes sense. But it's illogical taken in context.
[i]who feed off your labour while you earn 70 per cent of their wages.[/i]
If husbands are making 30% more then their wives, it seems pretty illogical to suggest that it's *the husbands* who are leeching off their wives.
The premise of the OP is that they do the same amount of work outside of the home and the wife does most or all of the work inside of the home.
The leeching is about amount of work going into their life, not income.
Granted, this assertion is proven false in the case referenced, as the husband does plenty of work in the home, just not early in the morning.
I think the implication is that women and men do the same general amount of work outside the home (with women earning only 70% of what men earn), and that further the women then pull an additional "shift" at home, which is unpaid, while men frequently do not.
That's, um, nothing like the division of labor in my home (or in the homes of most of the people I know), but apparently it is common.
THIS COMMENT HAS BEEN DELETED BECAUSE IT VIOLATES OUR POLICY.
Well, obviously housewives are still more common than househusbands, but it is believed that there is still a tendency for the wife to do most housework when both work full time.
Like Unequivocal's, my direct experience does not support this.
My fiance and I have already had this conversation. I will handle all of the cooking, the laundry, bedroom/bathroom cleaning duty. He will do everything else. He likes building things and working outside. I remember all of the wonderful molds and bacteria that thrive in the ground and inside of sawdust, and want to throw up. He on the other hand, doesn't know the difference between a frying pan and a stock pot, and gets grossed out over cleaning hair out of the drains. Making it work isn't about splitting everything down the middle, its about using what you are good at and separating the tasks based on that. Then you flip a coin or draw slips of paper for the rest of the household chores. I don't see what is so wrong with that.
The problem is- and I don't mean to say this is universal because it's absolutely not- but the problem is that, in general, there is a primary breadwinner in the house, and that person is *generally* the man.
So the primary breadwinner (be they male of female) comes home, and no, probably doesn't split the housework evenly, because s/he has been busting ass all day in a paid job that supports the household.
But the cases being discussed involve both people "busting ass all day in a paid job that supports the household," which is quite common. If one person is in charge of all the homemaking as well, this is unfair.
All the studies I've ever seen on the topic suggest that even in dual-income households, on average men spend more hours at work than women.
Of course, that leads to the chicken-and-the-egg issue of 'are women working less because they have household/child obligations that men do not'
Oh my goodness, this has got the be the worst ad hominem attack fest that I've ever seen on this site. And the belligerents don't seem to want to step up and be civil.
There's been worse.
http://community.feministing.com/2009/10/open-letter-to-feministing-1.html
This post expresses some valid anger, but referring to men as 'useless hunks of flesh' is unacceptable and serves only to set us back. As feminists, we should pride ourselves on taking the high road and not responding to the sexism of one man with sexism against all men. This only perpetuates the cycle of sexism we're working to eradicate in the first place! It's no better than what MRA's do, and they tend to be a pretty classless bunch of people.
Do you realize that "the sexism of one man" in this case is that man's audacity to not be a morning person while his wife is?
I figured that out after I read the follow-up blog. Beforehand, I, like a few other people, assumed that the way he went through the morning was the way he went through the entire day. I see that that is not the case, though, and I shouldn't have called him a sexist. I was more annoyed at the fact that even if he was being sexist, there is no need to alert all women of the world to leave their husbands. The post may have been targeting women in unfair marriages, but that isn't how it came off; 'women of the world' is a pretty general term, and that's awfully insulting to women who are happily married. It's even more insulting that women who aren't happy with their spouse should be willing to dump their kids on him-if the spouse is being abusive, or even just inegalitarian, what's to keep him from passing those values onto the kids? At this point, there isn't much questioning that the guy seems to put as much work into his marriage and raising his kids as his wife does, based on what she wrote.
Folks--
Just seeing this thread now, and trying to moderate.
Apologies for not stepping in earlier.
As always, personal attacks are NOT ALLOWED no matter what you think about the OP or other comments.
I'm keeping the thread closed after this because it's already gotten way out of hand.
Moderation should be improving after the new year as we bring on a community moderator. Thanks for your patience.
Miriam