I wasn't planning on being all anti-man tonight. But the other post made me think back to this post that was written on my previous blog in March of 2002. It is kind of fun to see what my mindset was pre-children. Most of this is still accurate today. Saying I don't need a man is not the same as saying I don't need people, and D is a people that I need who happens to be male. Also, one could argue now that I needed 'Sergei', our donor. When writing this, I was on the adoption track, not the DI track, though. And although I did need a bit of Sergei's DNA, I do not feel a need for Sergei, the man except that he was willing to give me a bit of his DNA. Having two male children, now...They need men in their lives. They need all kinds of people in their lives, and I work all the time to give them opportunities for this. As I've explained before, having D in the children's lives is a really bit of icing on the cake, but I'm so happy I didn't force myself to wait it out for the traditional man relationship. Men can be nice, but I still don't see the need. I hope to raise Naim and Aaron to see ways that they can enhance the life of a woman in positive ways, and not to expect the woman to "need" them in a dependent way but in reality they are more of a burden on the woman than they really fulfill a need. Time will only tell how good of job I can do with that.
I was watching an ABC news report the other day about the resignation of top Bush advisor Karen Hughes. Apparently she wants to spend more time with her family. Fair enough. But then the story segued into a look at working women struggling to Have It All, and why that is so hard.
Afterward, D and I looked at each other and said almost simultaneously, "How FUCKING sexist was that?"
We were irritated that while it showed women struggling to meet the demands of a career and raising a family, and showed the sacrifices women were making to be able to handle all of the responsibilities in their lives, they did not mention husbands or fathers once. Did these women truly want to Have It All, and couldn't? Did they really want to have a lucrative and challenging career outside the home AND have the primary responsibility for all the childcare AND the home management? Because that is how our society defines this euphanism for women, Having It All.
I would argue that most woman don't want to Have It All. Most women would like to kick a nice chunk of that "All" to their lazy, no-good husbands. The women profiled in this story were not single mothers. They were upper middle class working mothers with children and husbands who also work. Peter Jennings, nor these women ever mentioned the possibility that the husbands could cut back on their hours, stay at home, pick up their share of the chores and child rearing, take a different job that would not require them to travel, etc. That's just not how it's done.
Didn't it seem nice in the 50s? It was such a nice, working system. A man was a provider; a woman was a house manager and child rearer. Everybody went along happily co-dependent. Except then women got bored. I mean, c'mon, there is no challenge or glory in keeping a nicely vacuumed floor, and although parenting has many treasured moments, its exhausting work, and sometimes even the company of a darling 5-year-old leaves a lot to be desired. So women went out and fought and rallied for their right to work and have a workplace where they wouldn't be harassed and maybe even equal pay for equal work would be peachy, too.
So all of that was well and good and women increased the net worth of their families up to and over 100%. Great for men…more net worth. Great for women…they are no longer dependent on men for financial security! But funny, men are still largely dependant on women to turn their spawn into actual contributing members of society, keep their house from wreaking, and maybe even keep them from starving. Think I'm stretching here?
Well, lets see here. Its been reported in books like Arlie Hochschilds' "The Second Shift", Mahony's "Kidding Ourselves" and more recently in an AP news article (that I can't find right now, but this ain't my Master's Thesis), common statistics such as these:
In 1965, men spent about 55 hours doing outside paid work and about 3 hours of work in the home each week, for a total of 58 hours worked. Women did an average of 20 hours of outside paid work and 44 hours of work in the home, for a total of 64 hours worked.
In 2001, men did an average of 45 hours of outside paid work and 8 hours of work in the home each week; a total of 53 hours worked. Whereas women do an average of 42 outside work hours and 31 hours of in-home work each week, a total of 73 hours worked.
So, although men do contribute five more in-home hours than they did 37 years ago, they also work less at paid jobs now. Although women have gained 22 hours of paid work opportunities, they only lost 5 hours of in-home work. Women are working two jobs and one doesn't pay squat. And it infringes on her ability to advance as much as her male counterpart in the workplace. So basically, in spite of all the advances women have made in the workplace, their quality of life may very well be worse now than it was in 1965.
So now, I often get told, "Gee, SLW, it sure would be nice if you would go out and find a nice man to take care of you." Part of this is because I'm disabled; most of this is because I'm a woman. But who would be taking care of who here? I just don't see the advantages. Since September I have been pulling my own version of the second shift. I work all day and then come home and work for several hours taking care of my quadriplegic roommate. Now it should be noted that I get paid for this, I do work that he physically can't do himself, and I chose this knowingly. But yet, to do this type of schedule for the rest of my life for no pay for a man that can fend for himself but won't? No. Besides the fact that it is too exhausting, and that I'd end up getting so mad that I'd have to eventually grill the guys privates in the George Foreman Indoor, its just not in my best interest.
Part of the problem is that our society, including women, have absolutely no expectations for men to pull their weight. When I used to teach, and now in my work at the children's hospital, I deal almost exclusively with moms. Moms took off work to come pick up their sick kid, moms came to parent/teacher conferences, moms transported their kids back and forth to daycare and extracurriculars, moms are the ones who spend the night on the parent bed in each child's hospital room, moms are driving the grocery cart, filled with kiddos, up and down the grocery isle… and no one ever wonders why. How many times do you hear a dad say, "My wife is going out tonight. So I have to baby-sit." Baby-sit???? Baby-sitting, by definition is caring for a child for a short period of time in the absence of a parent. Uh, Aren't YOU the parent, buddy?
John Scalzi, (with whom most of you are familiar because of my current silly schoolgirl crush) works at home and cares for his 3-year-old daughter. Recently, he wrote about the reaction he gets when he takes his daughter out to the mall in the afternoon. People tend to think of him as either unemployed or a divorcee on mandatory visitation. At least they don't think I'm a deadbeat dad, he mused. But what I really couldn't believe is that apparently someone emailed him to complain that he was implying that he was better than deadbeat dads. Well, uh, yaa. This whole thing is just bad on so many levels. First that it should be so unusual for a dad to be seen alone with his daughter in the middle of the day, and second, that anyone would defend deadbeat dads. There are no expectations whatsoever.
Oh, you say, but it doesn't have to be that way! There are enlightened, freethinking men out there that pull their share. Sure. There are. But they are few and far between. And if one comes along someday, then great. But I'm not going to try to convert one. I don't have the patience or energy for a fixer-upper. And right now, because I am so involved in some of my own things to improve my own life, I don't have the time or energy to go hunt one down. I want him to come to me prepackaged, shiny and shrink wrapped. Asking too much? Well, at least I have expectations. I never said I didn't want a man, I said I didn't need one. If a guy comes along and is interested in a true partnership, then icing on the cake. But until then, I'm going to go ahead and dig into my cake.
A note on single motherhood. Some of you seem to be appalled that I have even been considering the idea of adopting or foster care as a single mother. I wonder if you would be more appalled at the conditions some children live in who are waiting for adoption. I cannot give a child everything life has to offer. Either can you. No one can. Can I give a child all the necessities of life, guide him or her to the best of my ability to becoming a happy and contributing adult, and unconditional love? Absolutely. That is more than thousands of children get. Would it be nice if there was a father to add to the mix? Yes, only if it's the right kind of father. But can I ensure that my child has loving male influences? Yes, to that, as well. It would be nice if my child would be able to go to Montessori school, to have my fake grandmother (who is 70) as a caregiver, to have an acreage with a pony as well. But he or she probably won't. My child will get a loving, stable, safe and enriching environment to grow up in. Isn't that what you are providing for your child? Until every one that complains about foster children who go off to single parents, gay parents, disabled parents, (or whoever else doesn't look exactly like the mythical Cleaver household) will go out and adopts or fosters a child, their complaints have no credibility with me.
Simply brilliant !
Posted by: Emel Ersan | March 09, 2007 at 04:41 AM