Things you should read this week

(In order of priority)

The Washington Post on the backlog in processing evidence of sexual assault.

Then, on a lighter note:

The Dissolve on female characters in movies.

First Things on Not-A-Dates.

Quotidian happenings

These things happened today:

• I got called Mrs. Lastname twice by strangers.
• I ran into an ex-boyfriend.  [Most of the men I know -- including ex-boyfriends -- are really wonderful guys and I am very fond of them.  But there are exceptions every once in a while, and this one is an exception.  Ugh.]
• I stopped at a local sandwich place for lunch and was asked, "are you two paying together?" I said no -- I had no idea who the guy in line behind me was -- and the cashier said, very loudly, "You're here ALL ALONE?!?" Because no woman could ever walk into a chain sandwich restaurant and say yes, she's dining in.  
• I was in a 45-minute meeting with one other woman and a man.  The man -- who was not originally supposed to be attending the meeting -- interrupted me and the other woman again and again and again.  I got three uninterrupted comments in.  She got two.  The meeting was supposed to be between the two of us, and we got a total of five sentences.

Not one of these things on its own is a big deal, but the weight of all of it together (especially the meeting!) took a lot out of me today. 

Concerning #yesallwomen

I've been trying to stay apart from the #yesallwomen phenomenon sparked by egregious acts of violence at UC Santa Barbara not long ago.  This is primarily a survival strategy on my part -- I can't afford to loose that kind of anger right now.

But I do want to respond briefly by (1) posting a link which provides a glimpse of what the movement is all about, and (2) stating what I take to be the underlying point.

(1) This link publishes together 17 tweets affiliated with the movement that succinctly provide common responses to the myriad issues being discussed.  All of them are representative of the broader movement; many of them express attitudes I readily relate to.

(2) I want to respond briefly to the #notallmen counter-movement with a statement that many others have already made, but nevertheless which I believe is the major lesson to be gleaned from this:

Those of us who are speaking out against sexual harassment are not claiming that all men engage in such activities. Yet the fact remains that all of the women we know have been sexually harassed by men (hence "yes, all women").   Can you appreciate the logic here? The issue is not a call to misandry, but rather a call for men to recognize that sexual harassment is a "fact of life" for women -- even in the U.S. -- and that this is an unacceptable, intolerable state of affairs. 

In the country where I currently live, I am harassed (to varying degrees) nearly every day.  This is part of the reason why I haven't been more vocal about #yesallwomen -- it's hard enough to fight my own individual battle.  Just walking to the bus or to buy groceries or to choir practice or taking a taxi is an anxiety-inducing, stressful occasion that saps my strength noticeably.  I am constantly on-edge and often seething with anger just below the surface. It isn't this intense in the U.S. (thank God), as far as just walking on the street goes.  But it is still intolerably bad in other venues.

Awareness is the first step --and that means you, men.  Because all women are/have been/continue to be sexually harassed whether or not you are aware of it, and whether or not you are the cause of it.

We Can't Have It All... But Neither Can Men

I've been re-watching The West Wing lately. And yes -- for those of you keeping track, this marks the second time I've watched the series in less than 8 months -- a level of nerdiness on my part that is only eclipsed by the fact that I read the Tolkien cannon with even higher average frequency...

But I digress.  Last night I watched an episode in which the First Family's oldest daughter, Elizabeth, has decided to help her politically clueless husband run for Congress. Her father (President Bartlet) isn't a fan of the arrangement:

BARTLET
[Your husband's] a great guy and a fantastic father. You're the politician. Why the hell don't you run?

LIZ
Because Annie [Liz's teenaged daughter] pierced her face. And this one [holding up her son's baseball mitt] can't catch, or bathe.

BARTLET
You can handle it.

LIZ
You can't. Forgive me, Ms. Steinem and Ms. Friedan, you cannot do it
all.

BARTLET
Your mother did.

LIZ
No, Daddy. She didn't.


Bartlet goes on to apologize (in so many words) for the moments he sacrificed fatherhood on behalf of a political career, but later in the episode the First Lady -- Dr Bartlet -- also apologizes for the sacrifice her children made on behalf of her career.

And that's what got me thinking.  Elizabeth Bartlet is wrong to invoke famous feminists in the scene quoted above, because she's only taking one side of the perspective -- that of the woman/mother -- whereas the parents, President and Dr Bartlet, correctly recognize that when both parents have a career, neither parent can "have it all". Nor should they expect to.

If "having it all" for a woman means being able to pursue her career just as she would were she not a mother, than this old feminist mantra is an obvious (and, I might add, rather silly) falsehood:  having kids requires sacrifice.  But the same is true for men, and this is something we've not often talked about in connection to the question of "having it all". Should men with children be urged or expected to pursue a career as if they didn't have children? Should women?

If what is meant by "having it all" is that women can and should be enabled to successfully manage a career and a family at the same time, then I couldn't agree more -- but with qualification: it must be recognized that the success of both career and family on the part of the woman is contingent on the man's also pitching in and sacrificing in his career in order to have a family.  In other words: a woman cannot have it all if she's the only one making sacrifices.

The ultimate goal for society should not be, contra third-wave feminists, to get to a place where women can approach their careers "as if on a par with men", because this view relies on an overturned, outmoded, misplaced Mad-Men-esque gender bias that allows -- nay, encourages or even expects -- all men, including those with children, to go on behaving like bachelors.  That is, to align their time, energies, focus and career priorities in a way that supersedes or neglects all other considerations. Instead, we should aim for a society that encourages both women and men to think very differently about their careers and how they will direct their own finite resources once children are part of their story.  Hint: it ought to look different than if they were single.

This is a point the church has understood for several millennia now.  It's why until very recently (relative to its venerable age, that is) the church has always had celibates in prominent leadership roles -- people without children, without spouses.  Because the church has always recognized that the project of puzzling the deep questions of God and leading God's people in right ways is a job that requires total sacrifice to the gig.  When one has a wife or a husband or children, one cannot serve the church in the same way, and that's because he or she has a family requiring nurture as well.

The same is true of other callings, and for me that means as an academic.  I will use this time of my life when I am single to give all I can to the sort of research, teaching, and building of personal and professional relationships as only a single person can. Because I know that if one day I should enter a relationship, then having children will become a possibility and that will mean sacrifice in lots of directions... as well as great reward, of course.

Just as I was finalizing this entry, I was forwarded by a dear friend (thanks B!) a really excellent HuffPost article about Having It All, written by a woman/mother/author I know and greatly admire. I resonated with her deeply on her main point: it's important to ponder how we're defining the "all" in "having it all".  Give it a whirl (click here to read) and get back to me, will ya? Otherwise I'll go on re-watching The West Wing ad infinitum instead of pondering the deep questions of life...

Aspirations

Today, I aspire to a job in an environment in which a comment on my attire is not the standard way to open a conversation.


The first conversation I had this morning went like this: 

Me: "Good morning, [Professor X]."

Prof X, disapproving: "Hello, Lauren.  You look very school-marm-ish today."

Me, cheerfully: "Oh!  In a good way, I hope!"

Prof X, doubtfully: "Well I don't know... I'm really not sure about those shoes."


For Pete's sake. 

What you should read this week

Sara Eckel describes The Hard-Won Lessons of the Solitary Years and answers the question of why you're still single.

Mary Beard addresses the silence and silencing of women in public discourse.

And Stephanie Pappas examines a study that suggests marriage is better than cohabitation.

Responding to Street Harassment

I was in a railway station in a major urban center tonight.  I was thinking about the lecture I'd just heard and walking quickly so I'd have time to dart into one of the shops and buy a bottle of water before getting on the train.  A guy comes up to me.  He falls into step beside me and gets very close to my face.  I take about five more steps, long enough to hear some commentary about what I'm wearing, and interupt him by saying coolly, "do I know you?" His answer does not bear repeating -- although it was a decided no -- and I did something I have never done before.  I raised my voice and said loudly, "Leave me alone!"

This did not work, so I yelled:

"LEAVE ME ALONE!"

Now, I am a singer with a reasonable lung capacity and no fear of volume.  I was in a crowded and particularly acoustically-lively railway station.  


It worked the second time. 

In the past, I've responded to street harassment with a jolt of shock and surprise and then have continued on my way, trying to cool my burning cheeks and ignore whatever had just happened.  Today was not the day for that.  I've felt badly bullied this week, and he picked the wrong girl on the wrong day, and I was not about to take any nonsense from anybody.  The whole thing was an odd mix of completely terrifying and a little satisfying.  But I did learn a few good lessons.

1. It's ok to make a fuss.  Women are so strongly socialized not to do this.  Be polite, take it as a compliment, blah blah blah bullshit.  Make a fuss.  Draw attention to inappropriate behavior.  Alert strangers that you may need help. 

2. But be smart about where you do it.  In the nanosecond before I yelled, I had this flash of adrenaline-driven clarity.  I knew exactly what I was going to say, I knew exactly where I was going to walk as soon as I said it so I could see if he was following me, I saw that there were a lot of people (including several women) standing around who would notice.  Public well-lit place with lots of people? Go for it.  Dark isolated place?  Just keep walking. (This, by the way, is why you should not wear shoes you cannot walk in unaided.) 

3. Be clear and unequivocal in what you say.  No conversation, no deflection, no chitchat, no explaining.  It is not your responsibility to teach him manners or to protect his feelings.  No name-calling or profanity either.  "Leave me alone" worked well for me, and I will try to remember it in the future. 

Any other favorite responses?  Do share.  

Yet Another Argument for Celibacy

To wit: there is deep inequality in the hook-up culture, and it's women who get short-changed.

No freaking kidding.

If this isn't already entirely obvious to you, read more from the New York Times here.  Mind you, this article focuses solely on physical inequality, to say nothing of inequality in other dimensions -- emotional, spiritual, political, social, that whole "I could bear a living, breathing, human child as a result of this random interaction" dimension.

Also, the article tries (rather feebly, by my lights) to end on a chipper, if flippant, note to the effect that it's far better to have bad sex and feign passing intimacy with a total stranger than to have no sex.

Wow.  Really?

"But," the mainstream singleton protests, "what's one to do if not hook-up?" Maybe -- and I'm just spit-balling here -- maybe choose to focus one's energy on fostering genuine, intimate, non-sexual relationships of myriad kinds and depths and richnesses with a variety of interesting people.  Or take up origami.

"But that doesn't guarantee the same kind of pleasurable experience!"  Neither does causal sex, dearie. Not by a long shot.  Did you even read the article?

In Which Hugo Chávez Is Praised

The commercialization of a woman's figure in the US is bad, no doubt about it.  But it is nothing compared to the immense pressure our sisters in Venezuela are under regarding their bodies.

The New York Times International today published a short piece (with video) on the rise of plastic surgery in Venezuela among all classes of women despite dire economic circumstances there.  Women will sacrifice all else in order to pay, and pay, and pay...to be perfected.

You can watch the 5-min video here.  Warning:  there are a few graphic surgery shots.

After you've seen it, you will find yourself entertaining very dark thoughts involving a meat mallet and the face of Osmel Sousa while simultaneously wanting to shake hands with the late, notorious Huge Chávez, who according to this report "...railed against the procedures, saying it was 'monstrous' that poor women were spending money on breast surgeries when they had trouble making ends meet."

Young (Female) Historians

Why yes, I am taking the Daily Mail seriously enough to respond to it.

 


It occurs to me that I can respond in about six different ways:

1. Look!  Female historians!  With jobs!

2. Lady, get your fingers off the ink on that manuscript page. 

3. Why are they all white?

4. Actually, why are they all young and attractive?

5. I wonder what it would take to get the tenured male profs I know to wear outfits and poses like this.

And finally, as always:

Are you £@$%-ing kidding me?

The ERA, Again

So remember that post from a while back, about the West Wing and the Equal Rights Amendment? There I discussed the argument given by a West Wing character against the ERA: it is redundant legislation because equal rights for women are already guaranteed under the constitution.

But now I present you with the opposite view. The folks with the ERA Education project argue that women were not granted equal rights constitutionally -- and in fact women were intentionally left out of the constitution. Additionally, even if this equality truly existed in the letter of the law, it certainly does not exist in spirit: there is overwhelming evidence that 21st America remains socially and legislatively biased against women.

Watch this promo for a forthcoming documentary, and see what you think:

Feminism and The West Wing

So, I began watching The West Wing for the first time about a week ago.  I'm already halfway through season three.

I am a woman obsessed. Bewitched, ensorcelled, enthralled, intrigued, and kicking myself for being 10 years behind the curve.  It's the only show I've ever watched that makes me feel smarter afterwards.

You're thinking, "E, that's great and all, and charmingly dorky of you...but what's it got to do with BtheB?"

Well, let me tell you. Or rather show you.  Last night at an ungodly hour which I will not disclose for fear of prodigious judgment, I was watching an episode in which a fascinating interchange about feminism takes place.  It blew my mind a little bit.

Here are the relevant scenes (Season 3 Ep 14, "Night Five"):

Earlier in the season, Ainsley shocked Sam to the core by revealing that she is, as a prominent feminist, against the Equal Rights Amendment. Her argument is simple: equal rights are already guaranteed to all US citizens under the Constitution, so not only is the EPA superfluous (and therefore odious to hardcore Republicans like herself), but it implies that women are some special outlying category of person not already protected by the Constitution.  Thus the EPA, through its very existence, acknowledges and enforces the inequality it aims to correct.

The statement about feminism Hayes makes in the above clip got me thinking along similar lines.  Am I, in stewing over and blogging about and frequently bending ears concerning minor instances of discrimination, distracting others and myself from legitimate causes?  By bringing so many problems of varying degree into the fold, are we making things too diffuse? Am I missing the point of the whole revolution?

I want to say more on this, and think more on this.  Yes, there is a time and a place for venting the kinds of frustration encountered in our odd little demographic of single Christian women in academia. But there are also issues we have the power and the responsibility to give voice and weighty thought to -- to speak and teach and even proselytize about, and which extend far beyond the stuff of our privileged worldview.

Gender Flipping

So apparently there's been for some time now a media meme called 'gender flipping'.

As usual, I'm late to join in all the trendy-bloggers' reindeer games.  But fear not! If you, like me, are hearing about gender flipping for the first time and are curious to learn about this sometimes hilarious, often disturbing and always thought-provoking movement, I direct you here.

(Readers may be interested to see that the author kicks off her article with the very same Dustin Hoffman clip posted earlier this month on BtheB.  I just, you know, want it to be noted for posterity: I at one time managed to post something while it was trending.   Let's all give me a nerd high-five!)

Historians with(out) kids

We blogged about this before, but Friend-Of-This-Blog Laura asks some provocative questions about gender, parenting, promotion, and historians here.  Take a look.

Speaking of domestic violence...

... you may have seen the horrifying pictures of Nigella Lawson being strangled in a restaurant by her husband, who later said that the incident was merely a "playful tiff."  Wiser people than I have responded to that particular incident, but I just wanted to take the opportunity to issue this general reminder:

Domestic violence is a real problem.  It is everywhere: among the wealthy, the poor, the beautiful, the homely, the educated, the illiterate, the religious, the secular.  No group of people is magically made immune.  And violence from a date, a family member, a partner, or a spouse is never ok. 

Update: Everyone, men and women, should read Gavin De Becker's The Gift of Fear.  This book had been on my list of things to read for years, and I finally got around to it.  I'm sorry it took me so long.  If you think you may be suffering from abuse, call the National Domestic Violence Hotline, 1-800-799-SAFE. 

Feminist masculinity

From the women of WiT: 

"So I end up having to defend the legitimacy of feminist concerns and method to somebody who has never taken the time to learn these fundamentals and who perhaps asks questions from the baseless presupposition that feminist concerns are invalid and perhaps even dangerous.... This kind of exchange can be infuriating, as it feels like an exploitation of my labor: men who proudly proclaim their ignorance or at least lack of familiarity with feminism and feminist theology (or, even worse: they don’t know that they don’t know) then insist that I, in that one exchange, answer all their questions and concerns as they have seen fit to articulate them."


Read it all.

Writers and women writers

Every so often, I have a conversation with someone, usually a well-meaning man of above-average intelligence, about whether or not sexism is A Real Thing in 2013.  Yes, yes, it is.  And for today's example, I bring you wikipedia.  Go ahead and read it all.

 When sex is an important identifier only for women, not for men, that's sexism, folks. When women are systematically moved from the category "writer" to the category "woman writer," while men get to keep being called "writer" instead of "man writer," that's sexism too. 

The girl test

from Emily McDowell via first person singular.

A sobering Valentine's Day

Distressed by the news from South Africa this morning, I spent a few minutes on google; how frequent is murder by a partner or ex-partner, I wondered.  Here, for your perusal, are some chilling statistics from the UN:

Women aged 15-44 are more... at risk from rape and domestic violence than from cancer, car accidents, war and malaria.

Half of all women who die from homicide are killed by their current or former husbands or partners.

In the Democratic Republic of Congo approximately 1,100 rapes are being reported each month, with an average of 36 women and girls raped every day. It is believed that over 200,000 women have suffered from sexual violence in that country since armed conflict began.

Between 100 and 140 million girls and women alive today have undergone Female Genital Mutilation.

So I spent today not celebrating love, but mourning for those whose lives have been broken by that violence.  And, as sad as it made me, it somehow felt more productive than resentfully flicking candy hearts across my desk and into the wastepaper basket.  Kyrie eleison. 

The "Placeholder Syndrome"

"We judge others by their actions and ourselves by our intentions."


On Monday L posted an interesting NYTimes piece and some thought-provoking commentary. I agree with her entirely that the idea of having no alternative between "hookups & hangouts" and Joshua-Harris-inspired courtship/dating is as unimaginative as it is harmful.

L suggests as a positive way towards establishing middle-ground options, that "dating" in a reasonable sense should definitely be left on the table. I'm all for the "intent begetting actions" motto that I suspect undergirds her thinking: the intent of getting to know each other as multidimensional, unique people gives rise to interesting, meaningful interaction issued from both sides. The details of how this plays out will of course differ, but this foundation remains to guide.

But here's my question: What happens when there is meaningful action or behavior (beyond or excluding the physical) without any intent? I've seen it happen with both men and women, and I call it the "Placeholder Syndrome": A person who is perhaps a good friend (and yes, perhaps a la When Harry Met Sally there has always been a little something "extra" in the mix) begins to act in ways traditionally interpreted as "significant" toward the other. For example, you go to concerts together, you make each other dinner, you are each other's plus-one to dances or informal gatherings with colleagues, you are spending most of your free time with each other, and mostly uno-y-uno. And yet no clear intent is declared until finally, at a point of utter confusion (or in some cases, the arrival of another...more datable?...person on the scene), one party forces the other to protest that s/he never meant anything other than good, even best friendship, and that is all.

Maybe this is an inevitable if heartbreaking byproduct of our being humans and thus often misunderstanding one another. Maybe it all boils down to the age-old question of whether singles can be friends if the possibility for romance exists even as a hope in the glimmer of the twinkling of the eye for either party. And it must be stated for the record that many true and lasting romantic relationships ARE borne of the awkward, ambiguous friendship stage.

But I want to ask this question specifically in terms of intention verses action, and what this might look like in a dating culture where the rules of interaction between "potentials"--and in particular between "potentials-qua-friends"--are in such flux that we are told to give up on anything that isn't easily managed, convenient, self-serving. So I ask: can we hope to get rid of the Placeholder Syndrome? Or more generally, are there better rules of conduct for engagement here, regarding one's intention verses one's actions, that help us avoid the extremes of never going deep enough (either via perennial hanging out or hooking up) or always going too deep (marriage-or-bust)?