Bottom Line Folks: Sarah Palin is a Man...

Stephen Colbert sets us straight on the official Palin position with the National Organization For Women (read: huge feminist organization). In classic manner, Colbert quickly punches NOW's argument out: All feminists are interested in equal rights for women. Discrimination against Palin is acceptable since she supports positions against women's rights. However, NOW clearly supports equal rights for ALL women (not just SOME women). But Palin's not interested in women's rights, she's not a feminist, and not interested in women. Thus, NOW is not interested in Palin. She is a woman though, but obviously she can't be interested in her own rights.

Colbert then brings his point to the fore, "Is Palin actually a woman then?"

Huh. Probably not.

NOW is probably just an organization for SOME women anyway. Okay... so it's not a clearly defined position for NOW, but hey, it's humorous. Sorry gals. Roll with it.

Wendy McElroy on "Financial Frugality"

Any time is a good time to learn to live more efficiently. Right now, in fact, is a perfect time. In a recent post by Wendy McElroy, she outlines the personal significance added to her through engaging in daily yoga practice. On the one hand, the time it takes to practice yoga is negligible considering the outweighing increase in health. It also provides an enjoyable way to occupy time, leaving less time for doing other things that take time and money, like purchases or other activities.

Bottom line then...follow Wendy's point: find something inexpensively and enjoyably healthy to do while learning to spend less!

I cite her article partially below:

"Perhaps I should return to the theme of frugality. For me frugality is a choice and a tool through which to gain control of my time and life. Simply stated: if I do not waste time making money to purchase things/activities I don't value as much as the time they represent, then I am better able to pursue what I do value -- e.g. writing, the people for whom I care, my health. I think frugality is fun; I find cooking from scratch to be relaxing; I'm proud of owning a car that's old enough to have its own driver's license; and, home-grown tomatoes just taste better. (One reason I embrace frugality, however, is that it is a choice for me and not a driving necessity. )

One of the most frugal things I do is yoga because it helps to preserve a key aspect of my life -- one that makes all other aspects possible: health. It is not merely that medical care is ruinously high. Putting my life in the hands of a "medical system" that is notorious for getting even simple things wrong -- like the proper dose of a drug -- does not appeal one whit to me. Moreover, yoga (or any health regime) has the same goal as other forms of frugality...it deepens the quality of my life. If it extends my life, as I believe it will, then it also gives me more time."

Read the full article here.

SNL Short: Palin & Clinton Address "Sexism"

Third Time's A Charm

Lately, I've been reading quite a bit on individualist anarchism and feminism, specifically focusing on the works of Wendy McElroy.

These readings have led me into the historical events behind third-wave feminism, which is essentially a cumulative critique of all the events and circumstances arising after 1848, or when the Seneca Falls Convention (SFC) took place. If you have some time, please amuse yourself with the "declaration of sentiments" pertaining to the SFC or wade casually through Eleanor Roosevelt's Presidential Commission on The Status of Women. They are both well worth the read - and created for the sole purpose of igniting thought. I'm delving into this stuff rigorously as I concurrently prepare to attend a week-long Austrian economics conference next summer. Yes, I said economics. Before giving me a weird look, know that I can tie the two topics together --and actually quite harmoniously.

This evening, however, I was more in the mood for prose. So after reading some McElroy, I decided to springboard off a few of her provocations. So here it is, I landed on this lovely little piece by early political activist and feminist Olive Schreiner (a favorite of Sara Elizabeth Holmes, also a notable feminist writer). Wow. Quite a discovery, I might add. It's quite lengthy for a blog post, however anything worthwhile I've ever read has been lengthy, so I won't apologize for that. Simply put, investments take time. In any case, I have posted it in its entirety since it is available freely online and without copyright restriction.

Be forewarned, those sensitive to the analysis of gender issues and embittered by the ill-too-often confused and highly unwarranted connotation associated with feminism should stop treading here immediately.

Um, can you handle it?

V.  THREE DREAMS IN A DESERT.

Under a Mimosa-Tree.

As I travelled across an African plain the sun shone down hotly.  Then I
drew my horse up under a mimosa-tree, and I took the saddle from him and
left him to feed among the parched bushes.  And all to right and to left
stretched the brown earth.  And I sat down under the tree, because the heat
beat fiercely, and all along the horizon the air throbbed.  And after a
while a heavy drowsiness came over me, and I laid my head down against my
saddle, and I fell asleep there.  And, in my sleep, I had a curious dream.

I thought I stood on the border of a great desert, and the sand blew about
everywhere.  And I thought I saw two great figures like beasts of burden of
the desert, and one lay upon the sand with its neck stretched out, and one
stood by it.  And I looked curiously at the one that lay upon the ground,
for it had a great burden on its back, and the sand was thick about it, so
that it seemed to have piled over it for centuries.

And I looked very curiously at it.  And there stood one beside me watching.
And I said to him, "What is this huge creature who lies here on the sand?"

And he said, "This is woman; she that bears men in her body."

And I said, "Why does she lie here motionless with the sand piled round
her?"

And he answered, "Listen, I will tell you!  Ages and ages long she has lain
here, and the wind has blown over her.  The oldest, oldest, oldest man
living has never seen her move:  the oldest, oldest book records that she
lay here then, as she lies here now, with the sand about her.  But listen!
Older than the oldest book, older than the oldest recorded memory of man,
on the Rocks of Language, on the hard-baked clay of Ancient Customs, now
crumbling to decay, are found the marks of her footsteps!  Side by side
with his who stands beside her you may trace them; and you know that she
who now lies there once wandered free over the rocks with him."

And I said, "Why does she lie there now?"

And he said, "I take it, ages ago the Age-of-dominion-of-muscular-force
found her, and when she stooped low to give suck to her young, and her back
was broad, he put his burden of subjection on to it, and tied it on with
the broad band of Inevitable Necessity.  Then she looked at the earth and
the sky, and knew there was no hope for her; and she lay down on the sand
with the burden she could not loosen.  Ever since she has lain here.  And
the ages have come, and the ages have gone, but the band of Inevitable
Necessity has not been cut."

And I looked and saw in her eyes the terrible patience of the centuries;
the ground was wet with her tears, and her nostrils blew up the sand.

And I said, "Has she ever tried to move?"

And he said, "Sometimes a limb has quivered.  But she is wise; she knows
she cannot rise with the burden on her."

And I said, "Why does not he who stands by her leave her and go on?"

And he said, "He cannot.  Look--"

And I saw a broad band passing along the ground from one to the other, and
it bound them together.

He said, "While she lies there he must stand and look across the desert."

And I said, "Does he know why he cannot move?"

And he said, "No."

And I heard a sound of something cracking, and I looked, and I saw the band
that bound the burden on to her back broken asunder; and the burden rolled
on to the ground.

And I said, "What is this?"

And he said, "The Age-of-muscular-force is dead.  The Age-of-nervous-force
has killed him with the knife he holds in his hand; and silently and
invisibly he has crept up to the woman, and with that knife of Mechanical
Invention he has cut the band that bound the burden to her back.  The
Inevitable Necessity it broken.  She might rise now."

And I saw that she still lay motionless on the sand, with her eyes open and
her neck stretched out.  And she seemed to look for something on the far-
off border of the desert that never came.  And I wondered if she were awake
or asleep.  And as I looked her body quivered, and a light came into her
eyes, like when a sunbeam breaks into a dark room.

I said, "What is it?"

He whispered "Hush! the thought has come to her, 'Might I not rise?'"

And I looked.  And she raised her head from the sand, and I saw the dent
where her neck had lain so long.  And she looked at the earth, and she
looked at the sky, and she looked at him who stood by her:  but he looked
out across the desert.

And I saw her body quiver; and she pressed her front knees to the earth,
and veins stood out; and I cried; "She is going to rise!"

But only her sides heaved, and she lay still where she was.

But her head she held up; she did not lay it down again.  And he beside me
said, "She is very weak.  See, her legs have been crushed under her so
long."

And I saw the creature struggle:  and the drops stood out on her.

And I said, "Surely he who stands beside her will help her?"

And he beside me answered, "He cannot help her:  she must help herself.
Let her struggle till she is strong."

And I cried, "At least he will not hinder her!  See, he moves farther from
her, and tightens the cord between them, and he drags her down."

And he answered, "He does not understand.  When she moves she draws the
band that binds them, and hurts him, and he moves farther from her.  The
day will come when he will understand, and will know what she is doing.
Let her once stagger on to her knees.  In that day he will stand close to
her, and look into her eyes with sympathy."

And she stretched her neck, and the drops fell from her.  And the creature
rose an inch from the earth and sank back.

And I cried, "Oh, she is too weak! she cannot walk!  The long years have
taken all her strength from her.  Can she never move?"

And he answered me, "See the light in her eyes!"

And slowly the creature staggered on to its knees.

And I awoke:  and all to the east and to the west stretched the barren
earth, with the dry bushes on it.  The ants ran up and down in the red
sand, and the heat beat fiercely.  I looked up through the thin branches of
the tree at the blue sky overhead.  I stretched myself, and I mused over
the dream I had had.  And I fell asleep again, with my head on my saddle.
And in the fierce heat I had another dream.

I saw a desert and I saw a woman coming out of it.  And she came to the
bank of a dark river; and the bank was steep and high.  (The banks of an
African river are sometimes a hundred feet high, and consist of deep
shifting sands, through which in the course of ages the river has worn its
gigantic bed.)  And on it an old man met her, who had a long white beard;
and a stick that curled was in his hand, and on it was written Reason.  And
he asked her what she wanted; and she said "I am woman; and I am seeking
for the land of Freedom."

And he said, "It is before you."

And she said, "I see nothing before me but a dark flowing river, and a bank
steep and high, and cuttings here and there with heavy sand in them."

And he said, "And beyond that?"

She said, "I see nothing, but sometimes, when I shade my eyes with my hand,
I think I see on the further bank trees and hills, and the sun shining on
them!"

He said, "That is the Land of Freedom."

She said, "How am I to get there?"

He said, "There is one way, and one only.  Down the banks of Labour,
through the water of Suffering.  There is no other."

She said, "Is there no bridge?"

He answered.  "None."

She said, "Is the water deep?"

He said, "Deep."

She said, "Is the floor worn?"

He said, "It is.  Your foot may slip at any time, and you may be lost."

She said, "Have any crossed already?"

He said, "Some have tried!"

She said, "Is there a track to show where the best fording is?"

He said, "It has to be made."

She shaded her eyes with her hand; and she said, "I will go."

And he said, "You must take off the clothes you wore in the desert:  they
are dragged down by them who go into the water so clothed."

And she threw from her gladly the mantle of Ancient-received-opinions she
wore, for it was worn full of holes.  And she took the girdle from her
waist that she had treasured so long, and the moths flew out of it in a
cloud.  And he said, "Take the shoes of dependence off your feet."

And she stood there naked, but for one white garment that clung close to
her.

And he said, "That you may keep.  So they wear clothes in the Land of
Freedom.  In the water it buoys; it always swims."

And I saw on its breast was written Truth; and it was white; the sun had
not often shone on it; the other clothes had covered it up.  And he said,
"Take this stick; hold it fast.  In that day when it slips from your hand
you are lost.  Put it down before you; feel your way:  where it cannot find
a bottom do not set your foot."

And she said, "I am ready; let me go."

And he said, "No--but stay; what is that--in your breast?"

She was silent.

He said, "Open it, and let me see."

And she opened it.  And against her breast was a tiny thing, who drank from
it, and the yellow curls above his forehead pressed against it; and his
knees were drawn up to her, and he held her breast fast with his hands.

And Reason said, "Who is he, and what is he doing here?"

And she said, "See his little wings--"

And Reason said, "Put him down."

And she said, "He is asleep, and he is drinking!  I will carry him to the
Land of Freedom.  He has been a child so long, so long, I have carried him.
In the Land of Freedom he will be a man.  We will walk together there, and
his great white wings will overshadow me.  He has lisped one word only to
me in the desert--'Passion!'  I have dreamed he might learn to say
'Friendship' in that land."

And Reason said, "Put him down!"

And she said, "I will carry him so--with one arm, and with the other I will
fight the water."

He said, "Lay him down on the ground.  When you are in the water you will
forget to fight, you will think only of him.  Lay him down."  He said, "He
will not die.  When he finds you have left him alone he will open his wings
and fly.  He will be in the Land of Freedom before you.  Those who reach
the Land of Freedom, the first hand they see stretching down the bank to
help them shall be Love's.  He will be a man then, not a child.  In your
breast he cannot thrive; put him down that he may grow."

And she took her bosom from his mouth, and he bit her, so that the blood
ran down on to the ground.  And she laid him down on the earth; and she
covered her wound.  And she bent and stroked his wings.  And I saw the hair
on her forehead turned white as snow, and she had changed from youth to
age.

And she stood far off on the bank of the river.  And she said, "For what do
I go to this far land which no one has ever reached?  Oh, I am alone!  I am
utterly alone!"

And Reason, that old man, said to her, "Silence!  What do you hear?"

And she listened intently, and she said, "I hear a sound of feet, a
thousand times ten thousand and thousands of thousands, and they beat this
way!"

He said, "They are the feet of those that shall follow you.  Lead on! make
a track to the water's edge!  Where you stand now, the ground will be
beaten flat by ten thousand times ten thousand feet."  And he said, "Have
you seen the locusts how they cross a stream?  First one comes down to the
water-edge, and it is swept away, and then another comes and then another,
and then another, and at last with their bodies piled up a bridge is built
and the rest pass over."

She said, "And, of those that come first, some are swept away, and are
heard of no more; their bodies do not even build the bridge?"

"And are swept away, and are heard of no more--and what of that?" he said.

"And what of that--" she said.

"They make a track to the water's edge."

"They make a track to the water's edge--."  And she said, "Over that bridge
which shall be built with our bodies, who will pass?"

He said, "The entire human race."

And the woman grasped her staff.

And I saw her turn down that dark path to the river.

And I awoke; and all about me was the yellow afternoon light:  the sinking
sun lit up the fingers of the milk bushes; and my horse stood by me quietly
feeding.  And I turned on my side, and I watched the ants run by thousands
in the red sand.  I thought I would go on my way now--the afternoon was
cooler.  Then a drowsiness crept over me again, and I laid back my head and
fell asleep.

And I dreamed a dream.

I dreamed I saw a land.  And on the hills walked brave women and brave men,
hand in hand.  And they looked into each other's eyes, and they were not
afraid.

And I saw the women also hold each other's hands.

And I said to him beside me, "What place is this?"

And he said, "This is heaven."

And I said, "Where is it?"

And he answered, "On earth."

And I said, "When shall these things be?"

And he answered, "IN THE FUTURE."

And I awoke, and all about me was the sunset light; and on the low hills
the sun lay, and a delicious coolness had crept over everything; and the
ants were going slowly home.  And I walked towards my horse, who stood
quietly feeding.  Then the sun passed down behind the hills; but I knew
that the next day he would arise again.

Ah, what an enjoyable piece of prose!!!

Cambridge Women's Pornography Cooperative

Babies or Bust

Right after the honeymoon I remember getting asked, and more than once, with a sort of gentle jab in the side and a wink, "So, when do you expect to start making babies?"

It was in my jarred response that suddenly I knew I had forgotten to make the connection of marriage with such, dare I say, multiplicative properties. (In fact, I think I challenge a kung-fu fight in my head with anyone when they make that sort of implication to me. If only they knew what I was thinking.) But after getting over my initial repulsion at what seemed an absurdly irrational idea at the moment, I thought maybe this lack of thought on my part was merely due to my frazzled state of mind from planning and executing a wedding in three weeks time, or that just maybe it was an idea I should get used to thinking about.

Well, to bring things up to speed currently, I can confidently state that everyone has and continues to tell me things like the following, "Oh honey, some day you will want them, when you're ready." I have no intention of dishonoring the mothers out there by candidly discussing this topic--especially for the sake of my own awesome mom, plus my first hand experience with one of my very best friends that is a mother of two. However, although I am consistently fascinated by the relationship a mother has to her children, I simply don't understand it. Although I naturally enjoy other people's children, I instinctually call down anyone that suggests these actions mean I am displaying some sort of "baby fever" behavior. I'm even down with the whole family unit idea in general, but holy crap, will I ever make babies? Right now, that's like asking can I shoot myself without committing suicide?

Fast forward again, specifically to today when I have concluded there is most definitely something in the water at work. Two of the ladies in my department, both good friends of mine, are pregnant. Two managers are on or shortly going on maternity leave. One male partner is on paternity leave. Another manager just got back from maternity leave and regularly makes use of our "mother's room" for breast-feeding. One of the female partners that actually has kids, asserts her ease of raising them with a live-in nanny. So, with the extent that I am surrounded by "oh the surprise!" people making babies, the question has again come directly at me. When are you going to make them? I get dumbfounded looks when I display the sheer honest fact that I have not given it much thought. Most women will do anything for their babies, but will also do anything to get ready to start making them. Still I answer emphatically negative to my friends, but my intrigue for the topic continues to grow furiously. Why are women prone to the "babies or bust" idea?

Overall, I just wonder, how can I be so dense on a topic that is expected as self-explanatory to a woman?

Well, Screw That......

glumbert.com - Women: Know your limits

He's Finally Getting It

I thought it was just me. Turns out, I'm not alone. That is, in my irrationality.


It all became so clear the other day when my husband stated emphatically that my lip gloss tasted like the smell of cigars.


......huh?


That's what I said. Yeah, and I think spring makes me think of polka dot blog templates. Yes, I pride myself in being irrational. Sometimes. I like to think of those as my special, creative times. But I love pinning my husband on his unwary boffles. Oh how exciting since generally this category is reserved for...I'm not going to say it. Ah, what a womanly feeling. Or maybe I should say womyn with a "y." That also makes me feel better, and it's so....rational as well. Why don't you tone up that estrogen, and give it some giggles. Join the club, sweety.

A different kind of love language...

My husband sent this to me:

WOMEN'S ENGLISH

1. Yes = No
2. No = Yes
3. Maybe = No
4. We need = I want..
5. I am sorry = you'll be sorry
6. We need to talk = I need to complain
7. Sure, go ahead = I don't want you to
8. Do what you want = You will pay for this later
9. I am not upset = Of course I am upset, you moron!
10. Are you listening to me? = Too late, you're dead
11. You have to learn to communicate = Just agree with me
12. Be romantic, turn out the lights = I have flabby thighs
13. You're so manly = You need a shave and you sweat a lot
14. Do you love me? = I am going to ask for something expensive
15. It's your decision = The correct decision should be obvious by now
16. You're certainly attentive tonight = Is sex all you ever think about?
17. I'll be ready in a minute = Kick off your shoes and find a good game on TV
18. How much do you love me? = I did something today that you're really not going to like


MEN'S ENGLISH

1. I am hungry = I am hungry
2. I am sleepy = am sleepy
3. I am tired = I am tired
4. Nice dress = Nice cleavage!
5. I love you = Let's have sex now
6. I am bored = Do you want to have sex?
7. What's wrong? = I guess sex is out of the question
8. May I have this dance? = I'd like to have sex with you
9. Can I call you sometime? = I'd like to have sex with you
10. Do you want to go to a movie? = I'd like to have sex with you
11. Can I take you out to dinner? = I'd like to have sex with you
12. Will you marry me? = I want to make it illegal for other men to have sex with you
13. You look tense, let me give you a massage = I want to have sex with you within the next 3 mins.
14. Let's talk = I am trying to impress you by showing that I am a deep person and then I'd like to have sex with you.
15. I don't think those shoes go with that outfit = I'm gay

What a Fetching Idea!

On Class Struggle & Literature

I'm going to quote a bit of Hazlitt from a passage I particularly like - read the full article here.

I want to be careful I don't take anything out of context - so I'm just going to keep this in mind and comment more on it later. In the mean time I must say (especially to myself) : read and think about it.

~
It may be well at this point to ask just how much a culture is invalidated or suspect because it is a "class" culture. We are led to suppose, under extreme interpretations of the doctrine of economic determinism, that our economic status inevitably determines our opinions, that those opinions are mere rationalizations of our class status. Let us admit the element of truth in this; let us admit that our economic status influences the opinions of each of us, in various unconscious and subtle — and sometimes not so subtle — ways.
"Those who seek to dismiss practically all existing culture by the mere process of labeling it 'bourgeois' are not necessarily Marxists. They are simply new barbarians, celebrants of crudity and ignorance."

Is it impossible for the individual to surmount these limitations? Is it impossible for him, once he has recognized this prejudice, to guard against it as he guards against other prejudices? Is the limitation of class necessarily any more compelling than the limitation of country, of race, of age, of sex? Because Proust was a Frenchman, his writing is naturally colored by his French environment; it is different from what it would have been had he lived all his life in England. But does Proust's Frenchness diminish, to any extent worth talking of, his value to American readers?

Shakespeare, as a seventeenth-century writer, was naturally limited by the lack of knowledge and many of the prejudices of his age; his age colors his work. Does that mean that he is of little value to the twentieth-century reader? Because Dreiser is a man, does he lose his value for women readers? Does Willa Cather lose hers for men readers? The answers to these questions are so obvious that it seems almost childish to ask them. The great writer with great imaginative gifts may universalize himself. If not in a literal sense, then certainly in a functional sense, he can transcend the barriers of nationality, age, and sex. And certainly he can, in the same functional sense and to the same degree, transcend the barrier of class.

Boys & Games II: Fair Enough

I have encountered a certain blog post which remedies my situation quite satisfatorily per part I of Boys & Games.

Now, I think I'll go sniff out Eve to evaluate its merit.

Peace out, Dorks.

Boys & Games

When I was a young girl I was that annoying little sister that always wanted to play/emulate/follow along with what my brother was up to. I didn’t have a big sister to play dress-up with, or put on makeup or talk about boys to (although, mind you, this did come later under influence with my girlfriends. I don’t even want to think of what my parents went through on this, especially my dad). I know my brother probably had no idea at the time and neither did I, but – playing with my brother – all of those things are some of the best memories I carry with me about being a little girl. Remember those things like Nintendo, Ninja Turtles, Transformers, to name a few? Well we also did crazy stuff like make Superman videos and brown bag puppet shows. I didn’t even care when he used our home-built Ninja Turtle catapult to launch my Barbies across the room. After all, it was for the sake of Baby Ninja Shamoo's command which was my brother through proxy.

Need I say more?

Now that I’m a big girl (heaven forbid too big – I do work out). These memories have driven me to a state of befuddlement on another issue I must contend with. So folks, here it is:

My darling husband.

I must admit it is different being married. It’s a challenge standing on its head, with great rewards. The best times of the day that I consciously savor are when my husband and I come home from our work/or studies and actually get to spend some time together bantering on about current events, philosophy, business, programming, politics, art, and other topics of interest to us. But it stops somewhere. And precisely, that is when the games begin.

Don’t get me wrong. I am not a self-inflicting martyr or presenting a “woe is me” argument by any means, (if you think that, you’re forgetting I’m a reasonably big girl and I lift weights) but I’ve definitely got something to say. And here’s what I’m talking about: Boys & Games. When they are together, I don’t like’em.

So what gives?

My perspective is this: You can assume once you’re married that in most cases people will expect you to go to work, in some shape, form or fellowship (that last one is for the über-smart or in the case of affirmative action, lucky). But, you also assume that you have in a sense created a new household separate from your parents. This household is a unit in itself that should take great pains to be properly nurtured, maintained, and stimulated. It’s a community of partners that creates a sense of well-being for each party. With that, comes the proper balance of work and play – we must not only sustain ourselves, but we must constantly take up things that will keep us happy. It’s also a partnership that demands encouragement and belief in the other partner’s capacities, even when the other partner refuses to grapple with their shortcomings or disbelief in those things.

But, what is the proper balance for work and play?

The more one plays the less time they have to take care of other things that must be done. In the case of a household that means one partner either leaving things impartially undone or taking up a disproportionate amount of things like care of the house itself (assuming you have one), routine domestic duties that simply must be done whether one partner helps out or not, or making sure the house is in a pleasant condition when visitors are present, or even perhaps making sure to meet financial budgetary obligations that simply have no fudge room.

Once again as for play, too much of a good thing can have adverse consequences for all of the above, especially for the continuance of the well-being for both parties. It is in affect a long-term mode of displacement. Too much play (i.e., too much time wasted on games, boys, ahem) will be pleasant temporarily, but only until other things get out of whack.

Whenever boys come into contact with computer games or any games of that sort it always causes a severe disruption in other things and I thus contemptuously remain unabated on this topic until compelling ideas to the contrary are presented.

Edit: Ekhehh... have I been reading too much Violent Acres or what? ;-)

Re: “A lot of economic theory and a bit of common sense”

So there’s a convention…and then more conventions… and oh wait – more conventions. Let’s blindly keep following them because, well, they are conventional. Forget about intellectual freedom. Equality. You know, those basic rights. Not to mention the rational foundation on which we make choices. Nah.. it’s just how it always has been and so it should remain so. But wait, there was this thing recently called the Civil Rights Movement. What did that have to do with anything?

He doesn’t get into that. Instead, he wants to talk about “Career Women” with a capital “C.” Michael Noer is his name and he's the executive news editor for Forbes magazine.

In his much debated article originally published August 22^nd 2006 (a revised version and with co-response is linked under "Career Women" above), he gives a word of marriage advice to today’s modern man: “Marry pretty women or ugly ones. Short ones or tall ones. Blondes or brunettes. Just, whatever you do, don't marry a woman with a career.”

What exactly does that mean? Well, he goes on to define his terms. “To be clear, we're not talking about a high school dropout minding a cash register. For our purposes, a ‘career girl’ has a university-level (or higher) education, works more than 35 hours a week outside the home and makes more than $30,000 a year.”

According to Noer, marriage is a “stressful” situation and [based solely on that idea] “professional” career women are more likely to suffer a greater chance of divorce, be more likely to cheat on their husbands, and have less kids. Marriage is merely an “exercise in economic labor specialization.” Even more to the point, he says “Women's work hours consistently increase divorce, whereas increases in men's work hours often have no statistical effect.”

Tell me Noer, why should women be stripped of making their own choices for what role they choose in a marriage? Better yet, why should they alone carry the burden for what makes a happy marriage? I suppose these notions struck the core of me when reading this, as when I was a child, frankly, I didn’t dream of sitting at home having a bunch of kids and playing house like that was my destiny in life. Instead, I saw having a happy family and a career. I guess it meant kind of like having an identity, or something to define me outside the home. To me that fundamental idea was, and still is important to me. Just how to carry that out from a female perspective [and that’s a complex subject for another day] is not at all what he gets into. In fact, the way I see it he’s got the whole situation backwards.

Conceptually the fundamental assumption he holds is that the status quo should be maintained since there simply is no way around the “traditional” fact that women typically have stayed home to raise a family and men have gone out to work. In other words, there is no alternative, since “statistically” working outside the home does not affect men in the same way as it does women. But much of his purported argument doesn’t even get off the ground because of the high flying assumptions he attempts to make rational.

In my opinion, any one of these ideas could be replaced with “either spouse” and the logic would work the same. Simply because a marriage [ahem… it’s intuitive here] involves two people and not one. So in sorting out the few specifics he actually gives for not marrying career women (i.e., don’t marry..b/c of increased cheating, divorce, less kids) he doesn’t even acknowledge or anticipate the potential weaknesses to his reasons or even recognize the exclusivity of his claims. I agree with his idea that marriage is indeed something you have to “work” at, and it’s hard work. But he must know this… every marriage is not the same in regard to "cookie-cutter" roles, but any marriage can be a happy one. And the rewards for that work are not only satisfying, but ten fold. Or, you know, even more than that. There simply is no limit. I'd like to know how many times he's been divorced. But let’s be realistic about his claims. Marriage is for a long time. So inevitably there are going to be an abundance of temptations to “cheat” on a spouse. But what he doesn’t even come close to saying is that in any role, traditional or not, either spouse is prone to these risks. But we all know that’s where the importance of love and commitment come into play; maintaining and meeting each other’s needs and desires. So in a stable marriage the issue of whatever either spouse is doing career-wise or not doesn’t make a bit of difference, as long as each spouse consistently makes a concerted effort to maintain the relationship. Likewise, then there will also be no need for divorce if these things are upheld, so his second reason is also thrown to the wind. Finally, the issue of being faced with having fewer kids brings up several points I’d like to contend with. In my experience with young newly married working women, I don’t know any of these working “career” women that don’t wish to have children of their own one day. While I agree it may be more difficult while the children are young to raise them while working, it doesn’t seem impossible, or even illogical to not be able to have both kids and a career. There are many ways to work around this, and companies are making it [albeit slowly] easier to happen. And to use this situation to the best advantage - if both spouses are working, why can’t that extra income be used to pay for private school for the kids, save for their kids college education, or chuck a hefty bit of money away for both spouses to have a comfortable retirement. I mean, if you have the extra income why not spoil your kids to the N-th degree? In my mind, this should be just as much an option as either spouse choosing to stay home with the kids. And realistically, all of these financial things would be more difficult to achieve with only one spouse working. And of course there are the reasons for the traditional role, mainly more time spent between parent and child, greater ease with breastfeeding, less daycare costs, housekeeping costs, etc. etc. In short, (and this has turned to be everything but that, hehe.) I think every couple should be afforded the option to have choices, and weighing the pros and cons are important in any marriage. The structure of each marriage is a function of the individuals themselves, including all the unique characteristics and factors that go along with that. And these are the reasons marriage is so exciting [Remember Noer?] Thus the answer to the equation simply cannot be churned out by a simple formula for all, and my comments have been aimed to show that this is precisely what Noer has intended to suggest.

The Perfect Car for a Woman

Could I get a Camry with that?