What I'm Reading

Note to self: There’s no such thing as “light” reading about working mothers.

So, after Jezebel did this piece, I decided to buy the book. If you know me, you know that this means nothing. My list of books to buy (a word document I tried to fix and upload at one point, but got too busy) sits at about 300 right now. I have eight books on my dresser waiting to be read. I’m in the middle of two books right now, and there are three other ‘unopened’ books hanging out on my Kindle, waiting for my attention. I have a book problem.

(I really don’t have a problem, and if I do it’s the fact that my brother-in-law gave me Game of Thrones and the Hunger Games early this year, and reading those 8 books threw off my schedule. I give him full credit for the backlog this year. Next year will be different.)

So I bought this because I’m reading a nonfiction book about a German pastor I learned about via the Kindle Daily deal (damn you Kindle Daily Deal!) and it is so. damn. dry. I want to finish it, but I go through these long phases where I just don’t care about his siblings, the family holiday celebrations, or the letters to grandma. I need frequent breaks.

Hubby and I went to Chicago for the funeral and I knew I didn’t want to read Holocaust-themed nonfiction, so I picked up I Don’t Know How She Does It and settled in to the trip.

Note to readers: What follows is not a review. It’s a personal, visceral, profanity-laden rant about my feelings after reading the book. If you’re looking for in-depth analysis, you’ll have to catch me on another day. Also, spoilers.

So this book made me want to open up a vein. I went into it expecting something like “Bridget Jones becomes a mom,” and I got something more like 9 to 5, except the bad guys kind of win. Apparently the only way to succeed at a parenting is to give up your high-stress high-profile career and live on your less ambitious husband’s salary. Also, single women that don’t want children should have them anyway, because the main character felt ‘awe’ when her children were born. That doesn’t make any damn sense.

I’m in a labyrinth here. The book tries desperately to paint a picture of the unfairness of judging the main character’s choices in parenting. I don’t actually want to judge her parenting choices. Thing is, every person in her life judges her parenting choices, AND SHE LETS THEM. She’s a well-paid, high-powered hedge fund manager with no backbone. Ultimately, she decides that everyone in her life that made her feel small, from the misogynists to overcompensating moms to her heinous in-laws, are somehow right. If all of these characters are right and she is wrong, then why isn’t a single one of them likable? I stayed up all night after reading this book, trying to figure out if my decision to TRY to get pregnant was going to destroy any hope of a career. I know that she’s a fictional character; I know she has more money than I do, and I know that she worked in a field with a LOT more men. Yet I found myself troubled and anxious about this book because it seemed to say that, no matter your gifts and talents, there’s only ONE WAY TO BE A MOTHER, and that way is all-consuming.

I’m not a mother (yet), but I’m obsessed with the mechanics of working motherhood. I’m less interested in the opt-out/opt-in debate, because it is presented as an argument for rich people. It’s never, “do I want to stay home?”, it’s always “am I squandering my intelligence/pedigree/greatness on kiddie time?” The real-life SAHMs I know don’t present their problems or choices in this way. A lot of them stay home because they don’t demand pay that would exceed day care. That’s an issue I can understand.

The thing is, even if I was rich, I’d still want to work. I’d want my children to see me working. I’d want to them to understand that coming home after accomplishing something is important. I think that ambition gets a bad rap in our society, and I want my kids to appreciate and nurture their ambitions. If, heaven forbid, one of my kids ends up in an abusive or otherwise nonfunctioning relationship, I’d want him or her to realize that economic independence is the way out. That’s easier to do if he or she grows up in a situation where economic independence is the norm for both spouses.

I can’t be appeased by a tacked-on ending about securing funding for a “lady business.” The ending almost makes it worse. She can only use her skills for a dollhouse factory. Because she’s a MOTHER. She can’t fight back against the environment in her office. She has to leave. Because she’s a MOTHER. It's the only option. How fucking depressing is that?

Definitely NOT progress

“If women want to vote and shit, they need to do this kind of stuff. I feel the same way about girls asking out boys and women opening their own doors. If chivalry is dead, it’s women who killed it.” – comment on my husband’s Facebook status on this morning.


Every once in a while I read or hear something that sets my teeth on edge. I’ve done a lot of work to avoid the obvious traps, for good reason. Living where I live, and knowing who I know, I have come to expect that my friends will disagree with me, as we represent a wide swath of experience. If I’m too amped up on the obvious triggers, it makes it difficult for me to give the benefit of the doubt to the people I love, and that is a path that leads to screaming. It’s better to try and focus your energy on things that matter and not wrap your head in knots over hyperbolic, deranged, intellectual midgets. That suck.

Comments like the one above though… they just fill me rage. It starts with my husband (and I’m not sparing him in this) posting this:

It is 2011, yet in my office when a mouse is found in a trap all that can be heard is, "We need a boy to take care of this." #notprogress

This is obnoxious on several levels. Here are a few:
1. My husband doesn’t even use Twitter
2. The women in his office shouldn’t be obligated to present “progress,” as he sees it, every moment of their goddamn lives.
3. The incident in question involved a 4-year-old that stepped on a live rat in a glue trap. The situation was a gross nasty mess that a lot of “boys” would’ve balked at, and the kid just wanted her shoe back. (Hubby didn’t balk, because he prides himself on being a burly Eagle-Scout fixer type. They were right to seek him out, though it was an expensive solution overall.)
4. The shit show comment listed above.

The person who posted it is a friend. We have drastically diverging views, but I like to think that we can respect each other’s opinions even as we disagree. I generally treasure my friendship with him, as it is one of the many things in life that reminds me that there are real, kind, thinking people in the midst of this screaming match of ideas. I’m not trying to make him into a strawman. I want to say that, and also say up front that I’m trying to present my view as calmly as possible.

“If women want to vote and shit, they need to do this kind of stuff.” The Nineteenth Amendment was ratified 91 years ago. How is it that men still think that my rights as a citizen exist at the whim of their perceptions? I’m not talking about governmental leaders here. I’ve heard everyday men from all walks of life utter similar phrases without a moment’s doubt. They feel comfortable saying such things because they still have the lion’s share of the power in this country. The steady (but damn slow in some cases) progress that women have made is edging ever closer to something resembling equality of opportunity, and statements like this ring out ever louder in the present day. It betrays a sense of resentment on the part of modern men who’ve never enjoyed the privilege of being the “head of household” of yesteryear. (Clearly this is an exaggeration, as these structures still exist in my country and others, but bear with me here.) Even taking this into account, this statement is fucking stupid. There’s still all manner of privilege to spare for them, including the rather pervasive cultural language that equates women with “bad” and men with “locked in an endless battle not to be women.” Also, we’ve used all manner of fiery hoops to disenfranchise voters in this country, but the “release the live rat from the toddler’s flip-flop test” would likely result in next to no one getting a vote.


“I feel the same way about girls asking out boys and women opening their own doors.” Fine. Whatever. A lot of us uppity voting women already do that shit. If men don’t ask out women they like, and treat them kindly on dates (the door-opening thing, thought it was supposed to make a woman feel special? Didn’t realize it was some gendered requirement that we sacrificed with the vote, and I’m betting I’m not alone in being confused by that.), I’m sure there will be some consequences, but they’re not really my problem or my responsibility.


“If chivalry is dead, it’s women who killed it.” This part actually made me laugh.

Dictionary definition of chivalry
• The medieval knightly system with its religious, moral, and social code
• Knights, noblemen, and horsemen collectively
• The combination of qualities expected of an ideal knight, esp. courage, honor, courtesy, justice, and a readiness to help the weak
• Courteous behavior, esp. that of a man toward women

First and 30’s definition of chivalry
• A bunch of awkward and forced gestures that generally make me feel like the man I’m around thinks my arms and legs don’t work.


Chivalry (fourth bullet first list) is dead. We’re not a particularly courteous society a good chunk of the time. Blame the internet, blame the ever-shifting definition of community and failure on some fronts to enforce basic social norms, blame whatever you want. The end result is that we live in a world with less kindness than it should have (note that I didn’t say less kindness than it used to have. That’s how you know your blogger is black, people. I’m not fucking nostalgic for the “bad old days”). This is something that makes me both sad and tired. All people should be courteous to other people because it makes life easier and more pleasant. If it can only happen because of gendered assumptions, then we’re all fucked. Fuck dictionary chivalry, long live (un)common decency.

Chivalry (second list) is not dead, and I can attest to it, as it’s forced on me on a daily basis by random men that I’m usually not even paying attention to, and they take umbrage when I’m not interested. I’m totally sorry for opening my own door guys. I’m pretty sure I didn’t notice you holding open that other door because I was balancing my checkbook in my head, or drafting a meeting agenda in my head, or generally living my life, in my head and because you, as a stranger, are somewhat inconsequential to me. If I noticed, I would’ve thanked you, but now you’re acting as if my failure to register your existence is akin to murder, and I really just want you out of my face. Feel free to be mad about it though. That sounds like a good use of your energy. Fuck First and 30’s definition of chivalry, with absolutely no caveats.

My fundamental beef with both comments (my husband’s and my friend’s) is that everyone involved in this situation is an imperfect person that made imperfect choices. My husband’s coworkers heavily gendered their request, and that is problematic. I know what they meant (someone helpful, and not squeamish), and I know why they worded it that way (a lot of men really enjoy being “needed” in this way), but it’s still problematic because my stomach is in knots and I’m at like, 1300 words here. I shouldn’t have to defend their choices… but I feel like not defending these choices means not standing up for women. And if we’re going to denigrated together, then we need to hold shields together too. My husband put on his superhero cape (cuz that’s how he rolls), but then called them on the carpet because of the way they asked for help. Except…half of his damn identity is predicated on being the guy you go to for help. Just be happy about it, for fuck’s sake. Then my friend uses this conversation as a platform for his (unreasonable) belief that women should choose between their equal rights as citizens and their rights to ask for assistance in the interdependent society that we all participate in. That’s a fool’s choice.

In short, it’s 2011, and I’m still explaining to men that demanding that all women that “vote and shit” live up to their individual perceptions is sexist as hell. Definitely #notprogress.

Why this pisses me off....

I got two facebook emails today on the same subject. Here they are:

This was in my inbox and thought I'd pass it on...not sure in teh least how it is supposed to spread cancer awareness but I have gotten the idea it is annoying some of hte guys and who can resist that? *evil laugh*

"Some fun is going on... Just write the colour of ur bra in your status nothing else and send it on to only girls no men. It will spread the wings of cancer awareness. It will be fun to see how long it takes b4 the men will wonder why all the girls have colour in their statuses!"

and...

Something fun is going around! Update your status with the color of your bra, nothing else in the message, just the color. Then send this to all the gals on your friend list, but none of the guys. Let's see how far this goes to spread cancer awareness and how long it takes before the guys start wondering about the color updates!

I wrote this status update as a response:

Dear friends: if knowing the color of my underwear helped heal cancer, my husband wouldn't be lying in a hospital bed in the fucking emergency room right now. Feel free to spread all the bullshit forwards you want, but leave me the fuck out of it.

So here's a brief list of my issues with this message, mostly for the benefit of people who sent it to me, and then saw my status update:

1. Secret memes don't raise awareness of anything. It's a game, which is nice for people who remain untouched by this illness, but why send it to me? I don't PLAY cancer games. I live with cancer. I know that you know the difference.

2. If the only way to raise awareness about a serious health issue is to titillate friends and acquaintances with talk of your underwear, then there's something wrong with your friends and acquaintances, or there's something wrong with you. Using your tits to sell concern about cancer is crass, base, and is the sort of behavior that makes you complicit in your own objectification. Even if you don't consider yourself a feminist, you know that I DO. So again, why send this to me?

It didn't help that I was getting these emails while I'm trying to communicate with John's oncologist while in the ER. (He was admitted tonight, apparently he's got a nasty unidentifiable infection and he needs [another] series of blood transfusions.) I have ignored the other stupid facebook cancer meme, with the stupid heart shapes in the fucking status updates, but this one...is just fucking appalling.

What I'm Reading

You Suck: A Love Story by Christopher Moore

Christopher Moore is best known for the book Lamb: The Gospel According to Biff, Christ’s Childhood Pal. I haven’t read that yet, so I don’t have much to say about it (I think I’m reading that after my next book) other than this: the topic doesn’t strike me as a stretch for this author, and I’m betting it’s pretty good.

This book is a sequel to Bloodsucking Fiends, and follows the adventures of vampires set loose on San Francisco. I loved Fiends, it really captured the best of Moore’s skills, creating lovingly-created wacky subcultures that find themselves interconnected through loneliness and necessity (the book contains one of the funniest marriage proposals I’ve ever read).

That being said, there’s a passage in the book about how sleeping vampires don’t wake up during the day, and how a mortal considers dressing his vampire girlfriend up in a cheerleader outfit and sexually assaulting her. The book doesn’t treat the idea as assault (though that’s what it is), and our meek little beta male seems to think better of it.

And then, it pops up in You Suck. Except now, it’s actually happened, and the two characters discuss this egregious breach of trust as if it were a social faux pas. So now I hate the book. There were some interesting elements, it overlaps with another Moore book I enjoy, and I finished (because I rarely put a book down forever), but rape is not okay. It’s not something that happens because an awkward young man that’s new to relationships doesn’t know the score. It’s something that happens because of fucking rapists. I don’t understand why that’s so fucking confusing for people, and I’m fresh out of understanding on the topic. So, thumbs down, and a break from Christopher Moore for the moment.

Other favorites by this author: Bloodsucking Fiends

What I’m reading next: The Brief Wondrous Life of Oscar Wao by Junot Diaz. I want to see what all the fuss is about.

Links for Friday

I said I wouldn’t post a link without comment. I didn’t say I wouldn’t post TWO links without comment. Here are two things I read today that caught my attention:


http://jezebel.com/5376642/dr-phils-teen-oral-sex-show-is-infuriating
When the women of Jezebel are on, they are ON.


http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gEpCqGB1apmy7fj_k0ARdkEdw06gD9B554IO0


One more time people: restricting the clothing choices of women is not the same as standing on the side of women’s liberation. In fact, it is the opposite (are you listening France? Don’t look away).