Honoring others' truth

I recently listened to this fmh podcast about perfectionism and the perfect mormon family (the fmh podcast is great, if you haven't already heard it).

It should come as no surprise to my friends and regular readers, but I was not raised to be comfortable with different narratives and different needs.  I was not raised to be comfortable with disagreement.  In fact, most things were black and white (hence I identify with Christine's experience).  I believe many mormon families (particularly those with mental illness or tendencies towards scrupulosity) may have a similar experience or experiences.

I find it challenging to not give advice, to not jump in with my take, and to honor other people's feelings while still honoring my own.

That's what I want, in the end, to show love to the people in my life.

I don't have any answers on this one.  This particular part of relationships is not easy.  The only thing I've found that has been helpful is to acknowledge that there are multiple truth(s), even in the same family - even in the same relationship.  Each person is able (or not) to acknowledge certain events, and views them in different ways.  And each person processes things in their own way.  I find I'm incredibly opinionated, and it's hard to not always share my opinion.  But my opinion is often not helpful.

I'm doing the best I can, and I acknowledge the others in my life are doing the best they can.  And, as I was discussing with my friend Kathryn the other night, time tends to bring clarity.  I wish I had known that at 20.

Consent

Recently some prominent celebrities made some unfortunate statements.  Chanson has some good analysis on the subject.

My first caveat is that I'm not 100% familiar of the specific situation, who said what, what may have happened.

But it sounds like there are some older males (I'm considering over 35 old) who are adjusting to society's new understanding of consent.

Because there is a new understanding of consent.

I think about the rape scene in Sixteen Candles.   I'm embarrassed to say that I was much older (much too old) when I became aware that the behavior in the movie (sex with someone who is too drunk) was rape.  I was never taught that was rape (particularly growing up mormon).

That's why the conversation about consent is important.

I'm not surprised that there are older people (male and female) who hadn't revisited this.  It's true, sex and relationships  can be complicated.  And our society changes (our ideas of appropriate/acceptable change).  This is a good thing.

And I think this should be part of a larger conversation in our society.  Conversations can lead to new understandings. I wonder if it's frightening for people.  It's not comfortable or lauded to admit one was wrong.  Some people will do whatever is possible to not admit they made a mistake.

I'm glad our society has changed and continues to change.  I'm glad we're having a conversation as a society; it means that beliefs have changed.  For a long time, women simply had to accept the status quo - and many men didn't realize they were doing anything wrong (privilege).

I'm not trying to defend the rape apologists here (perhaps I am defending the rape apologists).  What I'm saying is, it's okay to change your mind and to admit you were mistaken.  Consent is a good thing (particularly as an over 35 male) to revisit and gain a new understanding.  Our society sees consent differently than we did, so it behooves all of us to understand why and what that means for our daily lives.

Doing it all for the holidays

The older I get, the more I realize what went into creating the holidays.  It's a bit like seeing the man behind the curtain as an adult, as a parent in charge of making it happen.

ornament 2013

Like my cousin chanson, I also got sick right before the holiday.  What really happened was my daughter was intensely sick with a stomach virus, then my son got sick.  And then I got sick.  Basically, two weekends of prime holiday shopping and planning didn't happen.  And some of the holiday parties and performances were missed.  Typically I hate getting sick, but getting sick around the holidays is even more difficult and stressful.

Because the holiday thing is a lot of work. There is shopping for gifts.  (I've gotten over finding the best deals for presents, it's just too time-consuming).   There are lines and grumpy people.  Although next year I resolve to have the gifts wrapped by a charity organization - usually I like gift wrapping but this year it seemed overwhelming.  And it doesn't have to be this way.  And every year, inevitably, by the time we get to the toy store it is the last minute and gifts are picked over.  Next year, I also resolve to start the process earlier so I have time to order online.

Then there are holiday cards, if you send them.  Holiday cards seem to be one of those traditions that are fading fast.  Like reunions, I blame certain social networking sites.

Usually there are family meals, food that has to be prepared.  Bonus if you have some family members with food allergies and children who are picky eaters.  I was amazed by all the food I purchased - and we have consumed it all.  As I get older, this process gets easier (I remember to prepare for breakfast, for example).  And I'm not responsible for the turkey (I can't imagine) - fortunately most of the meals are much simpler/more manageable.

There is the baking.  I like to bake (I baked this year, on Christmas itself).  I'm good at it, not sure if it's part of being raised mormon or not (I strongly suspect mormon culture had something to do with it).  I've heard in some families someone (usually the mom or Grandma) bakes boxes and boxes of cookies to send to friends and relatives.

On top of all of that, there are also games/movies that keep everyone entertained.

I honestly don't know how all the people in my life did it all.  My grandmother seemed to effortlessly throw together huge meals.  And I read the other day about a great grandmother who was responsible for feeding the ranch hands - she too never knew how many people she would need to feed on a limited budget - two or twenty.

And yes, usually it was the women who made it happen.  All the holiday making seems to be a feminine responsibility - sometimes chosen, sometimes simply assumed.  I think it's holdover from the angel in the home.

I suppose I'm simply recognizing all the work, unseen and perhaps unappreciated.  Were there things done that maybe didn't need to be done? Was there extra stress that didn't need to be there?  Was there communication that could have been there, requests that could have been made which weren't made?  Of course.

In the end, for the most part, I enjoy what I do, I enjoy entertaining, selecting gifts and mailing cards. And I'm well aware that I choose to do all of this, even with a full time job.  I just realized that without the hard work of many people, often many parts of the holiday just wouldn't happen.

The Personal vs. the Political

There's a concept in sociology that there is a difference between individual problems and issues.  Problems, the theory goes - are more personal in nature.  Social issues are when a similar experience happens for many people.  I don't fully understand it myself and may not be able to articulate it clearly.  It's just interesting for me that some experiences can be very common for people in similar cultures and with similar backgrounds.

For example, after all these years of reading former mormon stories, blogs, posts on the internet, there are definitely many things that people have in common after leaving the mormon church (even leaving fundamentalist religions).  The experiences are not universal, but there are many hallmarks that are typical and not unusual.

I read this article in the atlantic some months back.

I am not surprised that chores are a good indicator of marital satisfaction. It seems so basic.  It also seems  incredibly obvious.

This quote from one of the participants in the article was interesting:

Personally, I don't have a life. My life is my family because whatever their needs are they always come first before mine and I can honestly say that. He—and I think it's great—he does his golfing, he does his bike riding, and it doesn't take a long time and he needs that. I don't get that yet. I don't have that yet. I don't have the time or the luxury. That for me is like a huge luxury that I don't see happening in any time in the near future.

Yikes.

What's surprising for me is that this experience is common.  It really shouldn't be so shocking for me.  We still live in a patriarchy. While American society doesn't have the same strict gender roles that mormonism does, strict gender roles still exist.  Discrimination against women still exists.

When something goes wrong with kids, society still (often) looks straight at the mom.  Was she doing stuff for herself?  Was she putting herself first?  And is it her responsibility to negotiate all this stuff with her husband because ultimately she is responsible for the marriage, for maintaining the family?  Some of these ugly beliefs are still out there, and still often referenced consciously (or sub-consciously).

What surprises me as well is that for me and my husband, despite being two college educated individuals, both self-proclaimed feminists, we still have run into this issue (negotiating about who does what).  Truthfully, it's a bit embarrassing for me, because I've read "The Feminine Mystique".  I've read lots of feminist theory and I thought my relationship(s) would be different.  

It's difficult to be co-parents.   It's tough to work and raise kids (and maintain a home). And it's not that one of us should stay home, or that one of us is shirking our duty.   It's that these negotiations are hard.  Being equitable is not easy.  It has to be conscious.  And it can't be assumed - it's a continuous process.  Both of us grew up in families where this negotiation either failed or wasn't equitable - despite at least one set of parents being feminists.

The space between idealism and reality is larger than I'm comfortable admitting.

And it's not just about who does the dishes, but about who plans. Who picks up the slack.

For me, I appreciated the article because it's nice to know that this negotiation is not just me.  This is not just my relationship - a personal thing between me and my husband.  This is a societal trend that many people struggle with, some more than others. And being aware that it exists and admitting it can help promote change.

In which I put my foot in my mouth (pt. 2)

I attended the funeral of a friend's mother recently.  At the funeral, there was a blonde woman who looked incredibly familiar to me.  After we were introduced, I realized that we had gone to middle and high school together.  It is a small world (particularly in the suburbs).  She was my friend's cousin - the familial relationship which I had never realized.

We talked about our current lives (as one does).  For the record, in school, we hung out with completely different groups of people.  During the conversation I found out she has three children, and she works at home with them full time.

Perhaps it was because it was her aunt's funeral, perhaps it was just that she and I have always been completely different people with different values.  Most likely, it's that I often put my foot in my mouth.

I asked her what she did to keep busy.  She seemed taken aback and offended.  My husband jumped in (remember, he was a stay at home dad) and said - chasing after kids is enough!

What I meant to say was - what do you do for you?  What do you do outside of being someone's wife and mother?  What makes you fulfilled?

I suppose that this was a political question, even though I didn't mean for it to be.  And I wasn't trying to offend her.  What I was trying to acknowledge was that while being a stay at home mom is a full time job - each person should have their own interests.  Kids grow up.  And being able to be a full time mom is a privilege.

But it's not my place to tell someone else their choices are invalid, or to play the Cassandra.  Just because I would want to have outside interests, doesn't mean everyone has the same needs.  Later, I found out that she had loaned her car last week to my friend to help make arrangements.

And I couldn't help but think - when people work at home full time - this is how they're able to support their friends and family.  They have the resources to run the PTA, to take their kids to hockey practice and ballet - to pick them up from school.  To step up to the plate when others need help.

So perhaps it's political of me as well to acknowledge that these services aren't valued by our society (monetarily).  How many Moms do I know without adequate social security (because they were out of the workforce for years)? How many rejoin the workforce and make drastically less than their peers (working at jobs far below their education)?  These issues are very complicated, and it's not for me to approve or disapprove of another person's choices.

I was just struck about how off base my assumptions were, and that my question (which was meant to be supportive) turned out so poorly.

Taking one's lumps

My grandmother told me a story about being pulled over by a police officer (or perhaps my Mom was telling the story about her Mom.  It works either way).  My grandma said she just started crying.  She couldn't stop.  I don't know if she was deliberately trying to get out of a ticket, or was simply under an intense amount of stress.  In the end, the officer (male) let her go with a warning.

I tend to be outspoken and opinionated, which I've tried to reign back in recent years.  I don't have "feminist" tattooed on my forehead.  I believe in equal rights and opportunities for everyone, regardless of gender. 

So I was surprised to find out an acquaintance had figured me out. The acquaintance observed (to my husband) that I was not the type of woman who would cry to get out of a ticket. 

And he's right.

I wouldn't (and haven't) cried to get out of a speeding ticket.  To my mind, if I was speeding (or I ran a stop sign), I will own up to it.  Some would argue, in a flawed system, I should take every advantage I can get.  And yes, it is a flawed system. But things have changed (quite a bit) for women. And it's legal for us to drive (unlike some places in the world).  And despite all of that, it's quite possible that I would still get the ticket, despite the waterworks.

The observation was an amusing anecdote.  It's always interesting to find out what other people think of you - if they're picking up on the messages you're sending (or misreading them).  Nevertheless, I took it as a compliment, because it's true. 

I expect equal treatment and consideration, and I'm not about to tap into the patriarchy/ "Fascinating Womanhood" if it will limit my choices or the choices of other women.

Camping

Lake Sunset 2013

It's been a great summer, but very busy.  We went camping for a weekend in mid July with friends.

I always liked camping.  And by camping, I mean real, tent camping.  The description of LDS girls' camp in the feminist mormon housewives podcast rang very true to me.  I have fond memories of camp.  I learned a lot.  I still know different ways to make fire, and how to lash two sticks together.

So it was nice to go camping with friends recently.  What was interesting to me, however, was that I realized why I would not want to live on a commune.  Please let me explain.

The food coordination was not really defined beforehand.  We have lots of friends with food allergies, and others who are vegetarian or vegan.  So it would already be difficult to find meals that everyone could eat.

Then, the person who was in charge of a communal grill didn't arrive at the campsite until 6:30 p.m., and then promptly set up their tent.  So it was 8 before they started cooking, and the meal wasn't served until 9.

Sometimes I'm willing to wait to eat with other people (particularly when it's just me), but 9 is too late to eat with kids. And that's a difference among families - some families like to eat at regular times - others are more flexible and fluid.  So we started cooking our own food at 6 and ate around 7.

Back to the reason I couldn't live in a commune - it would involve these types of conversations daily.  It's one thing to coordinate with my own family (four), it's quite another to coordinate cooking, preparing, food with 8 other couples and their kids, given all the food allergies.  And how does one make sure everyone does their share?  There was one couple that seemed like they were not pulling their weight (monitoring or feeding their own child).  There may have been more going on than what I observed - but it's uncomfortable to be in that situation.

The way to make it work -through communication and coordination.  But living in a commune would mean constant conversations about that type of things ALL THE TIME. And from my understanding, often in communes in the 1960s, women did a great deal of work - picking up the slack.  And I'm not comfortable with that either.  In our camping trip, there was an equal sharing of work amongst the couples- cooking, preparing food, watching kids.  But I could see that not always being the case.

I had a great time.  I look forward to returning next year.  I'm even open to a conversation about a communal grill - one side for folks who eat meat, and one for the vegan/vegetarians.

But I realize that living with friends all the time would not be roses and rainbows (we've returned to college dorm living!).  It would be a great deal of work, communication - and would greatly depend on the people we were living with.

Traditional Marriage

My fb feed has been lit up this week about the marriage equality issue. 

Many people have written eloquently about this issue, much more eloquently than I could.

I was listening to a commentator today explain their position against same sex marriage.  First, he started by saying that he appreciated that we were able to agree to disagree, to disagree peacefully (specifically in the protests in D.C.). 

I agree. I'm glad that the protests (on both sides) are peaceful.  Violent protests help no one, and violence with this issue would not be helpful.

Then he explained why he supports traditional marriage, between a man and a woman.  This is where his opinion offended me, a married mother of two.  From what I could surmise, his argument was that society had changed, that marriage was no longer a long term commitment.  That many children were being raised in single families without fathers.

Now I can't explain the causes of poverty, and I can't speak to parts of the community where fathers don't take an active role in their children's lives.  But it seems to me that the issue of gay marriage is not related to this at all.  The argument is that same sex marriage "cheapens" the marriage brand, and therefore makes fathers unwilling to marry their children's mothers.  Or divorce is easier and children suffer.

Again, I can't speak to some of the community issues.  I live in a middle class area, I have an education.  I have friends who may not be married to their children's mothers, but they all support their children.  I also know people who have gotten divorced - and for some - it was really the best solution.  I am thankful that divorce is an option for everyone.  Sometimes people do get screwed in divorce, and perhaps there should be divorce reform.  That's not an argument against gay marriage.  I

I enjoyed the pbs "Makers" program that recently aired.  And I can't help but think, when some people talk about traditional marriage, it's a euphemism for returning to the bad old days.  Where a woman couldn't divorce her husband, even an abusive a**hole non-providing husband.  Where it was perfectly acceptable to beat and/or rape one's wife (there was no such thing as rape within marriage).  Where women were routinely paid less for equal work and were not given promotions.    

I don't want to go back to that society.  Maybe there are parts of our society that have been lost, and perhaps that harms us going forward.  There are certainly values worth maintaining.  A wife who is property is not one of them. A marriage where the wife is a slave is not one of them.

My husband and I lived together before we married - I was shocked by how many people told us we were on the road to divorce (at least nine).  And these were not necessarily my conservative mormon relatives either.  (And yes, they were almost saying - maintain two separate residences before you make it legal - even if you never actually live at one of them).

While living together first can be complicated, I will recommend it to my children (if they ask my opinion).  As long as children from a union are supported (physically, financially, emotionally), that's what matters. 

Some people simply can't live together, and some relationships are better off ending.  I would much rather my friends and loved ones had happy, fulfilling relationships, than just staying together miserably. And legally, it seems to me if two people want to commit to one another, we should support that. 

History as we want it to be

***Downton Abbey season 3 spoilers ahead!  Don't read if you are sensitive to spoilers***




Like many Americans, I've been watching Downton Abbey.  It's a good program, although at times it can be rather soapy.  And a part of me is surprised by its popularity, since I've enjoyed most Masterpiece/BBC programs for quite some time.  I'm not sure what's so unique about this.

However, in one of the episodes of Season 3, there was more than a small anachronism.  Thomas (the valet) is a closeted gay servant.  He's also caused quite a bit of trouble and drama from day one in the household.  (Remember all the trouble Mary got into during the first season with Mr. Pamuk?  That was Thomas' doing).  In this season (after the war) he's back in a life of service. 

He mistakes another servant's friendliness for a love interest (with the help of another scheming servant, O'Brien).  Barrow hits on him (the character Jimmy) and is discovered by another footman. 

The point of all of this is, while some of the servants are shocked and dismayed, in the end, everyone accepts that Barrow is gay.  Even Lord Grantham doesn't have an issue with a gay servant.  This is the same Lord Grantham who, for the record, was shocked that his daughter married a chauffeur and that his granddaughter was going to be baptized Catholic (the horrors).  Also shocking for the Earl, his daughter wearing pants and another daughter writing for a magazine.

It would have been wonderful if in the 1920s, it was not a big deal for someone to be gay.  If gay men and women weren't repeatedly arrested and socially ostracized.  But the truth is, being openly gay was still listed as a disease in the DSM until 1986.  The American Experience program about Stonewall was amazing to me. Clubs were raided and upstanding citizens were arrested, simply for being gay.  Looking at Evelyn Waugh's Brideshead Revisited, set around the same time, had an upper class gay character - who ends up full of despair (because at the time, gay characters couldn't be successful and happy - they were doomed to ruin).

The mormon church is far from 1920s Edwardian England, but I can quote many mormon church leaders who agreed with this disease model.  In church leader Spencer W. Kimball's book The Miracle of Forgiveness, it says that it is better for someone to come home dead than dishonored.  This book and its message has been repeatedly discussed in the bloggernacle, but has never been formally repudiated by the LDS church.  Even in 2010, an LDS church leader (Boyd K. Packer) implied that god would never make anyone gay.

But in fiction, we don't have to be fully honest or historically accurate.  Even if it is unlikely that an openly gay servant could remain in a conservative household, the creator could stretch reality.  And there are many uncomfortable parts of human history, some of which we would rather ignore.  I would like to pretend that the United States wasn't founded with slavery.  I would like to pretend that women weren't treated as property for most of human history. 

But that's not the truth. 

This slate article explains that each character defended Thomas for their own reasons.  So perhaps it does work.  I am simply wary of revisionist history that ignores the very real sometimes violent struggle that many people had to face, for human rights.  If we don't accurately depict the way things were - it diminishes how much we have had to overcome.

My Mom and Pants

1940s women's pant suit

For my friends who are not highly attuned to the pulse of the disaffected mormon underground or mormon things in general, there is a big hullabaloo because some faithful mormon women intend to wear pants to church this Sunday. And they created a facebook group about it. 

My Mom went back to work when my youngest sister was in kindergarten.  It was a very good thing for her to work outside the home, for many reasons.  I left home a few years after for college, so I haven't seen what my Mom wears to work most days.

Yet the times I have seen her go to work, I never remember seeing her wear a skirt or a dress.  She may have, but I certainly don't remember it.  She typically wears business casual pants (just like I do).

It always seemed odd to me that the only time I saw my Mom wear a skirt was to church. The only times I ever saw my Mom wear skirts was to church or to important events.  She wore a dress to my wedding, to various funerals, graduations, etc.  Somehow there is this association that skirts (and nylons) are more dressed up, are more appropriate, are more reverent.  

My Mom is a very faithful mormon.  She's also never been terribly feminine, like some of the mormon women I remember growing up.

Countless after school specials would decry peer pressure - but social pressure is incredibly real.  You may not believe it's there, but step outside those boundaries and watch the storm.

Social norms and the vehemence with which people stick to those norms can be astounding.  My Mom never wore pants to church, because it just wasn't done.  I recall the serious looks that I received when I wore pants to church twenty years ago.  I think someone did say something to me, although it's been so long I don't remember exactly.

Americans scoff at those British dramas where someone claims in a haughty way that things just aren't done that way - but we can't escape it ourselves.  We are governed by social norms, and however we try to escape it, they are still there.  Mormons have their own unique social norms, which are informed by misogyny (entrenched social roles for women and men).

One of my young woman group leaders used to wear this black dress with a white rose.  It had sleeves and was long enough, but it was a cocktail dress.  She looked great in it.  The only reason I remember it is that it was so out of the norm, even twenty years ago.  It was black, and it wasn't shapeless. I don't attend church regularly, so I assume many more mormon women wear dresses like this to church, and some may even wear pants now and then. 

What we wear matters.  What women wear matters.

I support the women (and men) who are protesting.  Granted, the protests are around 40 years late, but better late than never.  I suspect many of the protestors will receive personal backlash, some may be excommunicated.

Personally, I am grateful to all the women who came before me who protested so I could wear pants to work every day.  Also grateful to those who were force fed so I could vote.

Wearing pants seems like such a small thing - but really it's not.  It's not easy to play basketball in a skirt. It's not easy to wait tables, run a pre-school or mow the lawn.  It's nice to wear pants particularly when there is a foot of snow on the ground.

Controlling what women wear, controlling what women look like is just a subtle form of sexism.  And it seeps throughout our culture. 

The Good Earth

I've become more aware of female characters in fiction - particularly classic fiction.  I re-read The Good Earth by Pearl Buck for book club.  The novel is a classic - Pearl Buck won the Pulitzer for it.  The descriptions are vivid; and the characters, despite differences in culture, are timeless.  Yet I was struck by the novel's misogyny and sexism.  Of course it's historically accurate.  A woman gives birth to a daughter and exclaims " another slave". 

The main character's first wife, O-lan, is the patriarchal female ideal.  I would give this book to someone to explain this ideal that women are fighting - consciously or unconsciously.  Sold into actual slavery by his parents, she is sold from the family she serves to her husband. 

Without being asked, she takes over care of the home, cooking for the main character's (Wang's) father.  She asks for nothing for herself.  When she gives birth, she goes alone into her room.  She doesn't make a sound - after giving birth she goes out into the fields.

In the book club group, we agree that she is the reason for the family's success.  But she remains unrecognized and unacknowledged.  The husband takes her only treasured possession, twp pearls, to bring a second wife into their home.

She is never supposed to complain, show anger towards her husband.  She is the ideal long-suffering, patient, devoted wife and mother. In the end during her terminal illness, she refuses to die until her daughter in law moves into the home to care for everyone.

The mother/martyr archetype is still the ideal, whether or not people want to admit it.  A woman (particularly a mother) should never want something for herself.  She should never admit she is sick, never directly ask for what she wants or needs.  She should never demand recognition of what she does.  This is the stereotype my grandmother and mother have had to fight against - and yet I wonder how they see themselves.  Would they (would I) have the self-esteem to refuse to give their prized possession to their husbands?  And would they withstand the criticism from their husbands (and society) for being selfish or narcissistic?  A good measure is whether or not men would ever be asked to make the same sacrifices. 

There is a great deal of narcissism and selfishness in modern American culture.  But let's be clear.  Women getting an education, waiting for marriage and motherhood, are not being selfish.  Families limiting their family size to those they can financially, physically and emotionally care for - not selfish.  Women having an identity outside of wife and mother - not selfish.

I'm certainly glad that times are changing.  That this explicit misogyny is no longer the status quo for the majority of American women.  I'm grateful for all the people (women and men) who fought to get rid of this second class status for half of the population.

Not so far from reality

I've been watching Mad Men - I just finished Season 2 on a streaming movie/tv service.  One feminist website I read (the hathor legacy) claims that although the show attempts to paint the misogyny as in the past, it's still smacks of misogyny and priveldge. 

I agree that the writers/producers are having fun with the smoke filled pregnancies and Scotch filled offices.

What strikes me, however, is that while a lot has changed in fifty years, some things haven't changed.

Years ago, I heard an interview with the creators of Arrested Development *.  That show is extreme, the relationships are bizarre, dysfunctional on steroids.  Yet the creators said they made it that way on purpose, as many families are really sort of similar.  They're just not that bad.  There's a part of humor that hits close to home - that's why it's funny.

So while many people see obvious parts of Mad Men that are no longer true, the office smoking, the admonishment by everyone (men and women) to wear shorter skirts - some of it is still around, here in 2011.  I was harassed at one of my first jobs - a fast food place.  Was my boss hitting on me (he was only five years older).  Was it inappropriate?  Yes.  Did he feel entitled?  Why?

And I have been in workplace situations (like Peggy) while I was the only woman at the table - and expected to take notes.  When everyone looks to Peggy to turn on the projector - it rang surprisingly true.  Obviously, this doesn't happen in every situation.  Could I have refused?  Yes.  Could I have even spoken up and pointed out that there was an assumption there - that I would take notes because I'm female?  Yes.  Or maybe the assumption had nothing to do with the fact that I'm a woman.  Yet, I think some things are subconscious.

The culture has changed outwardly.  I don't have to wear heels and a skirt to the office.  Co-workers won't tell me "they like the view".  I've had multiple female bosses.  My husband was a stay at home Dad.

But there is an undercurrent that still rings true and is still around.  Some cultural and political assumptions still impact us.  They're just not as obvious any longer.

* I thought that was the link to the interview, but apparently not.  My google abilities are not working for me today - but I'm pretty sure that's the interview I remember. Unless I was dreaming it.

I Don't Want To Talk About It

Some may wonder why I would be interested in a book about male depression. 

Simply put, depression impacts everyone.  The argument Terence Real makes in this book is that covert depression affects men, and wreaks havoc on their families.  This is different from the traditional model of depression - where a person is not able to sleep, eat, work or function normally.  Real's theory is that anger, workaholism and abuse of substances like alcohol in some men is generally related to depression.  That sometimes depression in men doesn't fit the traditional "bell jar" model, but it can be just as damaging to everyone. 

For some, anger is expressed towards oneself (depression has often been described as internalized anger).  The author gives examples from his own practice and therapy groups (anonymous of course). Traditionally, the only acceptable emotion for men has been anger. 

Real talks about how many parts of American culture are designed to cut men off from their feelings, from appearing weak or feminine.  He mentions the passive trauma that many boys (but in my opinion, many children) face.  That this "passive trauma" can long term be just as damaging and can sew the seeds of adult depression. Real gives examples of his father's explosive anger and physical abuse, teachers watching as a boy is bullied each day for being "fat", kids who ignore a coach who punches a student. 

Boys are often told to "be a man" - but what does that mean, really?
It is weighted and treacherous subject matter.

I have long thought strict gender roles hurt everyone - men and women.  In this book, Real suggest that the socialization of men can be just as damaging as it can be to women.  That men often need to gain access to their feelings, being more relational to develop better relationships - with themselves, their spouses and children. 

He is suggesting that by addressing the covert depression in men - the whole person can be healed. That parts of the cycle of violence can be broken*.  That often, men will not seek therapy or help for themselves, but to not be the same person as their father was.  It's not that

I mentioned "pansy crap" earlier.  This was mentioned in a comment at MSP a few months ago; I can't find it at the moment. 

There is a ton of anger, suspicion and fear towards men talking about their feelings.  It's almost explosive - talk about a problem-with-no-name in American culture.  Comments like "pansy crap" are meant to dismiss men, their perceptions and feelings.  (The ultimate insult for a man is still to be like a woman).  And while men may deny their anger and fear - their families and children can suffer. 

Until the base assumptions are addresses, and men and women are allowed to explore their full potential and authenticity - we will make no progress as a culture.

*One case study in the book talked about his wife's feelings first, her disappointments, fears, etc.  The notion of carried feeling - children trying to make their parent's mistakes right - struck a little close to home for me.  What am I trying to do because it's right for me? What am I trying to do to heal, fix of change my parents....yikes.

The Subversive Nature of Emily Dickinson

I agree wholeheartedly with this Emily Dickinson poem.  If there is a God or Higher Power, I believe he/she/it/they would agree with this sentiment.

*I had a great hike this morning!

Part Two: Nature
LVII

SOME keep the Sabbath going to church;
I keep it staying at home,
With a bobolink for a chorister,
And an orchard for a dome.
Some keep the Sabbath in surplice;	5
I just wear my wings,
And instead of tolling the bell for church,
Our little sexton sings.
God preaches,—a noted clergyman,—
And the sermon is never long;	10
So instead of getting to heaven at last,
I ’m going all along!

Housecleaning and Guilt

I found myself agreeing with this fmh (and NY Times article) about moms, cleaning and guilt.  In case you're not up for clicking on the links, a majority of moms (both those who work outside and those who work full time in the home) feel guilt about how clean their homes are. 

It's a little shocking to me, considering the century.  Didn't we fight a feminist revolution to free women from the chains of the vacuum cleaner?

I was trying to understand the statistics.  I've mentioned it before, but cleaning is a source of stress for me.  I'm simply not talented in organizing, sorting and cleaning.  Some people are (they must be) - something must explain the 45% of moms who don't feel guilty about the state of their homes. Either they refuse to feel guilty (possible) or they're great at cleaning and multi-tasking.  It makes sense - everyone has different abilities.

With that said, the standard of cleanliness  is very different depending on the person.  What one person considers passable, neat and tidy - another considers cluttered.  In the comments to the feminist mormon housewives thread, someone mentioned underwear in the front room as a standard for cleanliness.  I would assume it would come as no surprise to anyone who knows my family that sometimes we have underwear in the front room.  I can explain the reasons why (which involve people cooperating in getting dressed in the morning watching television).  But it's what works for us.

For the record, this is a good time to mention - please do not drop by my home without calling or texting first.  This is pretty much the reason (among others).  It makes me uncomfortable depending on the state of the home (and whether or not there are clothes in the front room).  So please, call first.

There is still a lot of judgment from women, men, older generations about standards of cleanliness.  If you lift the stove cover, is it clean?  (hint, not in my house at the moment).  Now, I support bug free and food decay free.  But others believe in clean walls, dusted bookshelves, organized piles of books (ha!), floors one can eat off of - that's just not my home.

So I'm glad to hear I'm not alone in this source of stress.  I suspect parents and couples often disagree about how clean is clean, how to clean and the most stress - who is responsible for what. 

Here are my theories why:
1- Time - for me, time is the biggest factor.  Cleaning and sorting takes time.  Time that I do not have.  It's true - I have but other things as a higher priority.  Working out, hiking with my kids, visiting friends, volunteering.  I refuse to spend ALL my free time cleaning. 


2 - Money - So I could pay someone to clean my house, but that doesn't seem completely right either.  Eventually we will probably pay someone to clean - but for the moment, funding is an issue. And the idea of a group of people who clean as a career...it's problematic unless they are given fair wages (what would those be anyway)??

Another money consideration is organizational help (baskets, shelves, buckets, etc.)  There are many options out there - they just cost money.


3 - Environmental considerations - I could rent a dumpster and simply start throwing things into it.  The truth is, a family of four accumulates a lot.  So we struggle with sorting and disposing of - there's always a "will I use this in the next year?"  And then, it never fails that after something is recycled or sold - I need it and need to buy new (or used). 

And there are things (like batteries) that shouldn't be thrown away but recycled.  Not to mention the pc in the basement that needs to be wiped clear of data.


4 - Strategy - I need to determine what I want to save.  From this post, it's something I realized I can actually do in the near future.  I have history notes from college - a ton of cassette tapes...do I need to save those? Am I saving my history notes because my sixth grade history teacher said he used his notes for his lesson plans (hint- the answer is yes)...

Do I need to save those? Can I let them go? What do I want to remember, and what others to remember about me?

I don't mean to complain about cleaning - it's fortunate we have so much stuff to organize.  It's simply a constant battle - and one I'd rather shove under the rug than address on any given day.  I do find it reassuring that I'm not the only one who struggles with it.

Prohibition

I enjoyed watching Prohibition, the latest documentary from Ken Burns.  A friend of mine observed that prohibition would never have passed if women had rights (been treated better at the time). 

I agree wholeheartedly.  

What I found interesting, however, is the education in schools prior to prohibition.  The Women's Christian Temperance Union, and the Anti-Saloon league successfully lobbied for laws to teach children about the danger of alcohol.  One of the things they claimed was that one drop of alcohol could lead to alcoholism.  This was part of the curriculum for children, who also pledged to never touch alcohol throughout their lives.

This was fascinating to me.  First, I didn't realize that this argument (currently used against illegal drugs/drug abuse) had been used against alcohol in the U.S. 

To bring it to mormonism (being raised mormon), I always thought the history of alcohol and mormons was interesting.  Drinking alcohol is prohibited by mormons, but many church leaders had breweries or wineries.  Brigham Young owned a bar in Salt Lake City, for example. My family legend suggests one of my ancestors owned a saloon in Utah, one of the first in the region.  

According to wikipedia, it was in 1902 the word of wisdom (abstaining from alcohol) became necessary to enter mormon temples (to be married or to attend the weddings of family members and friends).  This would have been right around the same time that prohibition fervor was growing in the country. 


The way it was taught to me growing up, was that I should never try a sip of any form of alcohol.  Period.  Trying even a sip of alcohol was sinful.  And, it could cut me off from the spirit, from contact with God.  It's a powerful argument, to suggest that a substance immediately cuts someone off from any direction or protection from God.   

As a teenager, I thought this interpretation was extreme.  I didn't think that trying a sip of alcohol would lead to alcoholism, although many mormons suggested that to me.  Were they just trying to get a message through to teenagers, or explaining something they sincerely believe(d)? 

I am not sure that any research shows that an occasional beer or wine leads to alcohol abuse.  There really isn't a clear line between a sip of champagne and buying a case of beer instead of food. In my opinion, there is a huge difference between the two, and true alcoholism takes years.  If anyone can even explain what alcoholism is and who suffers from it (it's fairly controversial).  Since most everyone has tried alcohol at some point, why aren't more people alcoholics?

So in my opinion, it does a disservice to all mormons to continue the strict adherence and ban on any forms of alcohol, to encourage people to refrain from trying a sip of alcohol.  It's really not a black and white issue. 

Why not encourage moderation?  Why not learn how to drink responsibly, but also how to make up your own minds about what substances/food/cultural experiences you will embrace?  Why not teach children and families what true alcoholism is, what some signs can be (when sober is your altered state of being), etc.

In terms of mormon doctrine, the strict adherence is really a modern interpretation.  The Word of Wisdom was never fully required, it was just advice (as chanson points out aptly in her novel exmormon). 

But mormonism (whether or not it's doctrinal or cultural) appears to be about fifty years behind the times.  In this instance, perhaps the leadership is 80 years behind the times of re-examining strict prohibition of alcohol, and allowing personal responsibility and moderation.

Large Families

I've been meaning to write this post (or a similar one) for awhile now.  Each time I try to reasonably explain my points, I find myself getting fairly emotional about the topic.

As many of my readers already know, I'm the oldest of six.  And from what I've read, my experience is not all that unique.  I fit the stereotype of an oldest daughter of six...and there is a reason there is a stereotype!

From my experience, I think it's safe to say that I disagree with the practice of large families.  I will define a large family as six children or more.

If a person has a choice, I think choosing to limit family size is a good idea. 

Here are my two reasons why:
1 - The older children end up raising the younger children
I struggle with this, because I understand the notion of a family sacrificing together, trying to make the most of it.  I don't think children should be handed everything they want, I don't think children should be fully shielded from the world.

But in general, it is simply unfair to have too many children that you (or your spouse) can take care of, where you will depend on an older child to do a portion of the day to day parenting.    In other words, the excuse of  - we can care for this many children because the older children help out!

It's not fair to the older children.  They have a right to be children.  They didn't choose to be parents at the age of eight or ten or twelve.  They don't need to be changing diapers or helping with homework.

There are other, better ways to teach children how to be other-focused. So children can focus on themselves and becoming successful people - not focused on making sure their siblings are cared for.

There are advantages that I've had from being the oldest child who filled the void.

But I don't think this "the older children will take care of the younger ones" should be used as a defense of your choice to have more children than you can physically, emotionally or financially support.  It is irresponsible and doesn't always lead to a good outcome. 

2 - A disproportionate number of women are negatively impacted by this choice.
This was pointed out in this slate article, and I agree. It's easy, as someone who is not raising children day to day - to idealize large families.  But if you're not participating in the day to day, I don't know that you really know what it's like.  I was the oldest daughter, and I have a good idea what parenting a large family is like.  But I don't really *know*. 

In traditional male/female families, I think women are negatively impacted by large families.

Some women have boundless energy.  Some families are able to support a large number of children and have enough financial, physical and emotional resources to be good parents.

But there are just as many women who are stretched too thin by having too many children.  They are not able to focus on all their children's physical and emotional needs, much less their own.  They may not be able to support themselves and their children if they lose a spouse or are divorced.  Raising six or more kids is a lot of work, and the idea that "it will pay off" is not always true.  What does that mean anyway?

Pregnancy is hard enough - much less all the diapers, homework, economical, healthy meals, etc.  In the traditional family, the father usually has to work so hard to support the large number of children - they are typically exhausted themselves.

It's not up to me, of course, and I have no control over this choice or other choices that people make.  I'm just a blogger on the internet, spouting my personal opinion.

But I have some knowledge about this particular subject, and I don't think it's selfish of people to decide to not have children or to have smaller families.  My own personal theory is that there can be stronger family bonds if the parents are able to be present, and not hopelessly overworked all the time.

Limiting a woman's fertility has been one of the best gains for women in the last century - and I wholeheartedly agree.

Parents have a responsibility to themselves, to all their children and to the planet to be mindful of their fertility choices.  To ignore those responsibilities is short sighted at best, and neglectful at worst.

In or Out

So recently, there has been all sorts of discussions in faithful mormon circles about feminism. 

Which is great.  I am supportive.

Before you read any more of this post, know that I am supportive of people inside the LDS church trying to change the misogynist status quo.  And yes, I did call the status quo misogynist.  And no, I don't think I'm going to back away from that term, which some people will find offensive.  Or possibly angry.  But I look at the definition of misogynist, and I observe what's going on in the LDS church, and I can't help but think they're pretty close to one another.

With that said, I can't help but wonder what's different about today, 2010 - than 1993.  Or 1979.  Time has passed, of course.  But many of the situations that those feminists found themselves in, the power structure, the hierarchy - it's all still there. 

An argument I've heard points out how the Community of Christ (formerly RLDS) gave women the priesthood (there is currently a woman apostle) and lost 25% of their membership.  But honestly, I would suspect that a significant number of LDS have left over this issue or other discrimination issues.  We don't really know how many people have left, of course, but we can guess.  Some of the arguments then say "Well, we didn't want you anyway"...which is quite humorous (to my mind, and reminds me of the violent femmes song). 

Those grapes taste awfully sour.

I get in trouble every so often by applying corporate metaphors to religion.  But some of the best advice I ever received was that if I was miserable at a job for over three months, it was time to start looking.  I've heard all sorts of arguments about whether or not you can change a corporate culture - from within or without.  And I've seen both things happen, internal changes and external changes.

But honestly, if you know you are in a dead end job, and you can't tell if you're doing any good at that job - sometimes it is time to move on.  Or to think about moving on.  When you are spending so much time wondering what you are doing there, wondering where the time went - having panic attacks about your job - it's time. 

Life is too short.

Without question, there is an iron ceiling in mormonism (as opposed to the glass ceiling).

Perhaps that will change.  I would love to be proven wrong.  And I am not advocating that feminists leave the LDS church.  I just cannot see any way to change the culture as it stands today, personally.  The LDS leadership holds all the cards. There is no reason for anyone to change - to change the rhetoric.

Better Understanding Lolita

 I sent this ( Reading Lolita and Derek) post to feminist mormon housewives a few weeks ago and they actually posted it! 

If my post doesn't say it strongly enough, I highly recommend the book Reading Lolita in Tehran.  It was a poignant, well-written memoir.  It inspired me to read Henry James (Washington Square).   There were great observations about women, society and how women relate to men in patriarchal societies. 

And most of all, I now finally (finally!) have a better understanding and appreciation for Nabakov's Lolita. 

I first read Lolita in college.  To say I hated it with a passion would not have been strong enough.  I intensely disliked it.  I read it on my own, not in a course. I think if I had read it as a part of an English lit course, maybe it would have made more sense to me at the time .

As it was, Nafisi's description of  the novel made so much more sense.  It was her English teacher/ professor's perspective that I didn't have on my own.  I'll admit it, I couldn't see past the evil of Humbert Humbert; the horror of the subject matter.  Yet after reading Nafisi's account, I understand that a reader isn't always supposed to appreciate or identify with the main character. This is the comment I wrote about it (after reading Nafisi's work):

And the novel [Lolita] describes a triumph of the human spirit - that despite everything that Lolita goes through (and she goes through a lot) - we never really see her. Humbert (her abuser) tries to pin her down, tries to capture her but he’s not able to. She has her own way of dealing with her life. She escapes and he is left to flounder. And despite Nabokov’s beautiful words and flowery phrases, we can see evil for how it is. Humbert’s actions speak far louder than his words.

I think this is what some friends were trying to tell me back in college, but I was young.  I  wasn't at a point where I could get it.

I'm not suggesting everyone should go out and read Lolita (by any means).  I strongly support people's right to read (or not read) what they choose - and to limit their own personal contact with various subject matter (including rape, abuse, incest, etc.) Although I admit, I will probably re-read it  after finishing Reading Lolita in Tehran.  

As an aside to this post, I have to be amazed at the art of Lolita. It is still an incredibly controversial novel.  Even now, bring it up in polite conversation (if you dare) and almost everyone has a strong opinion about it.  That's saying quite a lot, given the time that has passed and our society in general. 

Women in the music business

It's no secret that I listen to npr often.  I heard this great interview with singer/songwriter Jackie DeShannon on Fresh Air the other day. 

I was going to forward the link to chanson, because every so often I hear interviews or book reviews I think she might be interested in.  (No doubt she looks at them and thinks "Man, another link from aerin??" ).   She's posted some of these on the "Sunday in Outer Blogness" weekly review on Main Street Plaza.  Which leads me to start a "links I would have sent to chanson" topic. 

Why let chanson have all the fun?  Why not send the npr links and interviews to all the cranberry blog readers?

The excerpts (on the webpage) miss some of the interesting parts of the interview.  Jackie DeShannon is being inducted into the rock and roll hall of fame.  She toured with the Beatles and wrote some hits like "Bette Davis Eyes". 

What I perked up at was when Jackie spoke about being a female songwriter in the early 60s.  It sounds like it was pretty difficult at the time.  In the studio, women were (rarely) allowed to be arrangers, or to have the final say on the work. 

She also performed her songs on some of the early 60s showcase tv shows.  And instead of being able to hold and play her guitar, she was expected to lip sync and dance.  (Some of the videos are on youtube).

The music industry has changed, thankfully, over the past few decades.  Some good changes, some not so worthwhile changes.  But clearly barriers surronding what women could and could not do have changed.  And women now have greater creative control over their own work. Women can be taken seriously as singers/performers - and not be expected to be pop stars.

It was an interesting interview, and gave me lots to think about. How far we've come, and how far we have to go.