Bob Herbert speaking out and speaking up for women - again

[lukasahero]

http://select.nytimes.com/2006/11/02/opinion/02herbert.html?n=Top%2fOpinion%2fEditorials%20and%20Op%2dEd%2fOp%2dEd%2fColumnists%2fBob%20Herbert

"Punished for Being Female"

"The report, a compilation of many studies from around the world, should have been seen as the latest dispatch from that permanent world war — the war against women all over the planet. Instead, the news media greeted its shocking contents with a collective yawn."

"Not only are we not doing enough to counter this wholesale destruction of the lives of so many women and girls, we’re not even paying close attention."

"There was a time when activists cried out for our consciousness to be raised. It’s not too late. We can start by recognizing that the systematic subordination and brutalization of women and girls around the world is, in fact, occurring — and that we need to do something about it."

A male co-worker turned me on to it - one that gets the "war on women".

[ThomCat]

1. That's twice recently that the NYTimes

has printed something that really supports the idea that misogyny is a serious issue that needs to be reported, considered, understood and dealt with.

:applause:

[mrreowwr_kittty]

2. It's just women, you know

What's that expression? When men are oppressed it's an outrage, when women are it's culture. Or something like that.

Until this fundamental effed-upness (for lack of a better term) is acknowledged and addressed, at a global level, every problem in the world, be it war, destruction of the environment, overpopulation, poverty, etc. will continue. It all has deep roots in patriarchy and misogyny. All of it.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

3. Especially overpopulation

The one consistent correlation with a country's birth rates is the average educational level of the women. Countries with high percentages of illiterate women have high birth rates. Most countries where the average woman has at least a secondary education are at replacement level or below. (The U.S. would be at replacement level if it weren't for immigrants.)

It's easy to see the reasons.

An illiterate woman has no way of gaining prestige other than being the mother of many sons, and she also lacks knowledge of birth control.

Yet as one anthropologist covered in either Discover or Scientific American a few years ago pointed out, "When given the choice, most women opt for small numbers of children or none."

Reading that article reminded me of the Somali refugee women (all from one extended family) whom I tutored in ESL about ten years ago. Once they had learned some basic English, they picked a day when none of the men were home to ask about birth control pills. They wanted to know where to buy them and how many they had to take. They were disappointed when I told them that they had to get a doctor's prescription and had to take the pills 21 days out of the month. I think they were hoping that they could buy them retail and just take one before sex, or something like that.

But it struck me that coming from a culture with very repressive attitudes towards women, they were highly interested in being able to control their fertility.

[bliss_eternal]

4. But what about those that are educated...

...that think like the illiterate? They have kids as a means to prestige or instead of figuring out what else they could do or be? I hate to say it, but I've seen this example and it's kinda' scary. Women having kids because then they are a mom--and don't have to think about what else they might like to do or be.

When I met dh's (now former) friends, in a small town I thought I was in a Twilight Zone episode. :scared: The women in a family (he grew up with),seemed to feel that having children gave them respect, favor and prestige within their family, and in society (their assumption being that society functioned the same way their family did). It didn't help that the matriarch and patriarch of the family fed into this. :eyes:

A few also spoke candidly about not knowing what they wanted to do (in terms of life, career, interests, etc.). They didn't have a sense of purpose. It seemed when they were most confused, they tried the hardest to get pregnant. :crazy:

Oh, and let's not forget that corporations seem to have a vested interest in the latest media onslaught of making pregnancy "fashionable." With campaigns like, "where's your bump?" Women that are open to the power of suggestion (and fashion trends), suddenly find themselves with an overwhelming desire to get pregnant.

And then of course, there's religion--the be all, end all of destroying even the educated person's sense of reason. I've encountered religious women (that are also educated) that fall under the ultimate patriarchal trap of "a woman's ultimate purpose in life is to create and be a support to her family." :eyes: In those cases it seems they learn early on that the religious ideals trumps anything they may have learned in school (i.e. question authority, etc.).

Would these situations (among educated women) contribute to our issues of overpopulation?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

5. You do find such social pressures, especially in relatively closed-off

communities, and yes, the media are trying to push motherhood. You know, as in those New York Times stories about "all" the women who have given up corporate careers to be a full-time stay-at-home mother.

They set up a false dichotomy--either you're a corporate lawyer with 80 billable hours per week, or you jump off that train entirely and land in June Cleaver Town.

But that's an option really available only to the wealthy or exceptionally thrifty.

In real life, most married women have to work at least part-time to keep the household finances in balance, and that leaves less time to have five or six children.

Having grown up half in the June Cleaver era, I can sort of understand where those women are coming from. The idea back then was that a girl should get some basic job skills in an acceptably feminine field, such as nursing or secretarial work, so that she could support her children in case her husband died. Therefore, girls weren't supposed to have ambitions of their own and tended to dream of marrying a man with the occupation that they themselves really wanted. That was okay, because "they were just going to have children anyway."

Not knowing what one wants to do is a common enough problem for both men and women, and if the social structure says it's okay for women to be aimless because they can always be housewives, then they'll tend to fall into that pattern. It's easier than setting and meeting one's own goals. (There are days when staying home and cooking and not having to meet deadlines or figure taxes sounds attractive, but the feeling soon passes. :-) _

[bliss_eternal]

6. Yes, they were a very closed off community...

...very small, not particularly diverse, middle class to upper middle class. Very relgious (Catholic), republican. :eyes: Most of them sent their kids to private catholic schools, paid the church a small fortune to do so.

I see a backlash on the horizon. When many of these women that have become sahm's (stay at home mothers), become empty nesters and question their life.

It seemed to happen to many of the June Cleaver era (as you put it ;)), and I wonder it it's going to happen again... Perhaps if women awaken to the conspiracy that put them back at home in the first place. If they don't, :shrug:

When the women of the June Cleaver era awoke to empty nests, husband's trading them in for younger women, divorce, etc. we got the women's movement. I wish I could be as hopeful about the women of today.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

7. Or, in a case I know about, a divorce coming when the wife has

NEVER held a paying job and is now in her forties. :scared:

[bliss_eternal]

10. Oh no...that poor woman!

I hope she comes through it all alright, and doesn't fall apart.

You know, I spoke to a lot of women like that when I worked for a bank's credit card customer service division. Women would call asking if we could explain how to read their bank card statements. :wow:
Their husband's had died, he handled ALL the finances and they didn't have any idea what any of the numbers on the bill meant. One woman had no idea how much she should pay, or what she even owed, even though it was HER credit card. She used it, but he paid the bills.

:scared: I was SO young at the time, I didn't have a true appreciation for the true meaning of those calls. I do recall they confused me and made me very sad at the same time.

[mzteris]

8. um - I don't suppose you could pm me the rest

of that, could you?

:hi:

also - did you see the MSNBC article on sex myths? (I'll go find a link)

[lukasahero]

9. Oh crap

The whole article was available earlier. I will try to sign up for their free trial (again) and send it to you via PM.

Sorry about that - I should have copied it when I had the chance. Back in a bit.