Perhaps you all remember some news out of Australia earlier this year, where a ten year old girl was gang raped, and all nine her attackers were all let off with non-custodial sentences or no sentence at all. Well, the case was appealed and now some of them are going to jail and the younger ones are on parole, that is, "Convictions have now been recorded for all offenders." Hoopla. From The Age.

The song "Big Girl (You Are Beautiful)" was also made into a remix for the show Ugly Betty called "Hey Betty (You Are Beatiful)."

I LOVE "Big GIrls You are Beautiful"! When I went to the beach with 8 of my best girl-friends, that was our theme song for the trip! We love it!

I might feel better about the Mika song if I believed he really had the slightest attraction for any women. Since I don't believe he does I keep reading the song as a joke.

I know there's a problem with that...

From the ovulation photo story:

"These are the clearest pictures ever taken of what is the starting point of every human life: ovulation occurring inside a woman's body."

Um...no it isn't. Unless you're a psycho, Every-Sperm-is-Sacred type of pro-lifer. Then I noticed the Catholic university blurb and I was like "Oh. I see how it's gonna be..."

Luckily, judging from the comments, I wasn't the only one who noticed.

Sarah Haskins at Current has a new video about the targeting of women voters in the 2008 presidential election:

http://current.com/items/89019993_target_women_suffrage

The article on equally shared parenting is enlightening. Spouses ought to help each other out at every step along the way. If he is out with buddies three nights a week while she's being the parent, that's a problem. And equally shared parenting ought to be the presumption after divorce, too. Despite the statutory abolition of the tender years doctrine in most states, most sexist judges still default to the woman as the "real" parent. That's not healthy for gender relations in general, and it's not healthy for children.

I listened to that discusion about online misogyny the other day! Really interesting. Was also great to hear two of my favourite feminist bloggers (Jessica and Jess Macabe from the f-word) get involved in the same discussion.

Those ovulation pictures are amazing. I still picture my reproductive bits as that 2-D diagram they showed us in year 7 biology. Or occasionally a cartoon version I saw in one of those 'girl's guide to puberty' books when I was 10 (the uterus had eyes and a huge smile, and the fallopian tubes were arms). So seeing the squishy, veiny reality like that is incredible.

That Mika song - I never thought of that song as being in any way feminist. I always saw it as jumping on the bandwagon of the trend for celebrating 'real' and 'curvy' women, a trend which I can't help but see as generally patronising and still objectifying. I'm all for positive body image, but something about that song kind of annoys me. Maybe it's the fact that most of the women in the video are wearing corsets. The corsetry thing seems to be pretty widespread in this trend - think of Gok Wan telling women to 'love their curves', just before binding them into a pair of magic knickers. So we are celebrating realistic images of women, as long as they keep their fat bound up and under control? Hmm.

Poor Mika. I guess you don't have to be sexually attracted to women to think they're beautiful. Some of my girlfriends are big girls and they love the song! It's not everyday you hear something with Big girls and beautiful in the same sentence. Whether it was a joke or not (which I seriously doubt it was) it is not being taken as such by my friends, who feel uplifted and happy when they hear the song.

The Newsweek article was awful, vapid and shallow. The thrust of the article seemed to be "These girls are smart and breaking barriers...but's ok...'cuz they're pretty!"

Marry Your Babydaddy day is making my head explode. I'm all for free weddings if people want them, but this is part of the whole crappy set of ideas that if single moms are poor, the answer is convincing them to get married, not providing them with adequate social support programs. God forbid anyone want a different kind of family. Every study ever done has shown that blaming impoverished groups for not believing hard enough in traditional institutions is a load of crap. They believe in it already, for the most part, but they also believe either in personal independence or in waiting until certain other life conditions are met before committing to marriage. Really... making...my head... explode.

Research shows sexist jokes and stereotypes can lead to "toleration of hostile feelings and discrimination against women."

um...hugest DUH ever, anyone? I think if we time it right it could be the "duh" heard 'round the world...

I hate to be this jerk, but isn't this waitress story old? I thought I saw it here before?

Oh wow, I love the pictures of ovulation! It's so gross and mundane and fascinating all at once.

Also, I can totally sympathize with Krystal Sipp. My dad is a gambling addict who has never given me any money without being forced to by a wife, and I hadn't had any contact with my mom for years when I was trying to get into college the first time, yet I was supposed to report one of their incomes as if it would somehow help me?? My dad then lied on his forms so that I ended up being audited. I, too, had to eventually drop out and just work full-time because I couldn't manage it. I was lucky that I found a wonderful man to marry (marriage automatically makes the gov't consider you independent) and was able to go back to school when I was 23, but here I am, 5 years later, still trying to get through school by working full-time, going to school part-time, and taking out massive amounts of loans. At one point in my life, I thought all I had to do to go to college was be smart; now I realize that I should also have been born into a family that was much better off financially.

About 5 years ago, my partner and I visited the clinic in Allentown that is mentioned. We were lucky, it was a very cold day and there were only one or two 'protesters', and they weren't very energetic.

The people of the clinic itself were amazing and helpful. We never felt judged or pressured.

In the end, we decided it wasn't the option for us, and part of that was just knowing that the option was there, and that we were emotionally supported.

We've gotten by and do not regret our choice. We love our daughter, and she is an amazing child. And I will fight to the death for everyone to have that right to choose what is best for them.

I know the "pro life" people like to claim that the clinics are in it for the money, preassure women to have abortions, etc, etc. I am not at all hesitant to stand up and say 'I've been there, and they were not'. I think they were happier to see us go than stay, but not in the creepy 'crises centre' way of making you feel Evil and Wrong for even considering it; there is a huge difference between support and humiliation/intimidation.

Hey everyone, Mika is one of my favorite singers. I went to his concert, and it was amazing!

He gave his inspiration for "Big Girls" in an interview once. He was home schooled for much of his childhood and very close to his mother. Mika has said that the fact that his mother was a big woman and that he had seen the prejudices against her because of this, helped him to write the song.

So no, it was not a joke, it was for his mom!

McCain showed some political sense. I was 21 years old in 1990 when that first hit the fan. I agree with those who say that better than returning the alleged $300,000 raised by this idiot, he should donate it to a good cause like RAINN. Too bad that either option would be seen as political pandering on McCain's part, regardless of intent or possible sincerity.

Noah, the place to attack fathers' rights is not after divorce, but before, and it is not in rights, but responsibilities. As the article demonstrated, mothers still assume the larger burden of childcare, and complaining about "sexist" judges assuming a mother is the more involved parent when all evidence shows that the overwhelming majority of the time, the mother is, in fact, the more involved parent, is missing the target. What those concerned with fathers' rights should be doing is campaigning for more involvement by fathers in early years, for child development books aimed at fathers that contain all the same information as those primarily aimed at mothers, for longer leave for fathers when a baby is born, for greater education of boys about childcare, and for a greater assumption on the part of employers that fathers have as much responsibility for children as mothers. Start working for a world where fathers attend every Well Baby visit, where fathers known what kind of baby food the infant likes, where fathers know what size clothes the child wears, who his or her daycare teachers are, how much Baby Tylenol she or he can have. That is where change in custody must come from, not judicial reform.

that sponsor-a-protester is awesome! I sometimes participate in anti-animal abuse demonstrations and there are ethical guidelines you should follow. This includes not starting fights, respecting property boundaries, etc. These people are totally abusing the right to protest.
And also, fucking ADMIT you are protesting!

that sponsor-a-protester is awesome! I sometimes participate in anti-animal abuse demonstrations and there are ethical guidelines you should follow. This includes not starting fights, respecting property boundaries, etc. These people are totally abusing the right to protest.
And also, fucking ADMIT you are protesting!

that sponsor-a-protester is awesome! I sometimes participate in anti-animal abuse demonstrations and there are ethical guidelines you should follow. This includes not starting fights, respecting property boundaries, etc. These people are totally abusing the right to protest.
And also, fucking ADMIT you are protesting!

I like the article by Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie. It explains a lot of what I felt like when I moved to America, although I left Ghana when I was 1, so I had always grown up being defined by my race. However, in Japan, the stereotypes about black people aren't so pervasive, since it's not like blacks are a widely represented demographic. That's not to say I didn't face a lot of racism, but it manifested itself in a completely different way.

I did see some problems with the Nerd Girls video: too much emphasis on makeup and heels, not enough diversity of body shapes.

However...

I was taking a look at this book the other day, and the author outlines a social standard I recall from my own school days -- the way that intelligence and attractiveness are viewed as polar opposites, the way that "nerd" stereotypes are taught to children at a surprisingly young age, and the way that kids, with their binary thinking, are taught to view nerdiness as bad. Also, as one of the Broadsheet commentors noted, there is a perception that a woman has to unsex herself to enter a science-heavy field. These are pervasive and powerful stereotypes, and I think that the Nerd Girls are doing a good thing by combating them.

Also, as another Broadsheet commentor pointed out, the desire to be sexy isn't always about pleasing men: often, it's about wanting to look good for yourself. When you feel confident about your sexiness, you want to flaunt it a little.

It's true that people judge too much by appearances. But even there, I think there's hope: there was a study done years ago indicating that the less people subscribed to stereotypes in thinking, the less they judged others according to appearance.

The "Big Girls" song is totally stuck in my head now. The video is cute too, and not mean or jokey or disrespectful to anyone.

His style is clearly inspired by Freddie Mercury (not so obvious in this song, but very obvious in others), which makes me think that "big girls" was also inspired by Queen's "fat bottom girls, you make the rockin' world go round". If it takes gay men to write uplifting pop anthems about big women being beautiful, what's wrong with that? I'm still dancin'!

Apparently Beth Ditto, who is a lesbian, fat activist, and proud feminist, has performed duets of this song (and others) with Mika, which I'm sure she wouldn't have done if the song was a joke. She is my hero.

Apropos of nothing, some links:

Two female fighters throw down on a televised Mixed Martial Arts event. Mr. ShifterCat (who loves MMA) watched it, and reported that while he was impressed by Gina Carano and Kaitlin Young, he found EliteXC's "rap videos and T&A" between-fights entertainment to be insulting and pandering.

Also: An "anti-mugging skirt" that disguises its wearer as a soda machine.

"in Japan, the stereotypes about black people aren't so pervasive"

That is one thing I liked about Japan. The same form of US anti-black prejudice was nowhere near as prevalent. Many of my African-American colleagues felt positive relief in Japan.

Meanwhile, there was practically no end to the complaints by Caucasians. I tried to be the one during one regional workshop to point out that it is how it is for minorities in the US; and in Japan, it is the white people who are the outsiders.

Very few got it. It's as if the men in particular wanted to experience only the "positives" such as being elevated to near rock star status in the eyes of adoring Japanese. I preferred to blend in with the locals, going so far as to pass for years on end without strangers realizing I was foreign (surprising even years long neighbors who knew me through my wife or children), when e.g., it became necessary for me to present government ID for service.

"What's this?"
"I'm American."
"EEEEEEEEEEEEEEH?"

Loved it. Never tire of it. I had fun at the visa section in the Japanese Consulate in Honolulu last month as well.

Don't get me wrong, a male, people still definitely looked down on me for being black.

That Geek Girls article was fucking ridiculous.

And wtf? The term nerd IS negative. That's the whole point. A nerd is someone who is socially awkward and focuses all of his attention on academics, to the point of excluding social interaction with other people.

That doesn't mean that all people who enjoy learning are nerds...

Regarding the whole sexy nerd woman thing -

It's always been a bit of a paradigm in nerd culture. I am an astrophysicist who fits within the realm of 'attractive' by societies standards, but in science a successful woman walks a line between sexy and unsexy. It wasn't until after my PhD that I came to the realization that I had been rejecting (and even looking down) on things considered feminine - sexiness was there in my private life but absolutely not in the lab. A fabulous role model helped me find a balance of femininity that suited me in my personal and professional life.

At the same time, a woman who goes far to the other extreme (who is not within the societal definition of 'attractive') can suffer as well because they are obviously not men but they don't fit into the sexed up image of women that we are exposed to on a daily basis. As with many other professions, women scientists can not simply be perceived as scientists because our unconscious image of a scientist is masculine. I am still recovering from the culture that I had unthinkingly absorbed as a student, and as a professional, I am encouraging other young women to first be true to their own identify and to remember that THEY define what it means to be a scientist. Ironically (or not surprisingly), some of the harshest criticism I have heard about the image of women in science have been from other women in science!

I remember Clayton Williams, too. That two-bit redneck peckerwood also bragged that he was going to "head and hoof" Ann Richards. He used to brag about blowing his money in Mexican whorehouses and made it sound like the hookers were livestock. Which is fitting since he looks like the result of bestiality.

"Don't get me wrong, a male, people still definitely looked down on me for being black."

Yes, but did you need to worry about police harassment, public suspicion, or racial violence the same way? To some African-Americans who commented, they felt they could simply be considered foreign, like other non-Japanese people. Caucasians from North America, Oceania, or Western Europe were "high" status foreigners however. People of color are not.

People I definitely did not want to be mistaken for in Japan, are Chinese or (North) Koreans, because that could result in some serious consequences among racists or Japanese nationalists. Physical assaults in broad daylight and even brutal deaths at the hands of racist gangs are cited by Brazilians in certain regions. Then is the traditional "untouchable" class in Japan (by some reckonings I and my entire family are members, and it is fact that my family lived among the community during my entire 12 year stay in Japan), against whom prejudice continues to be SO extreme (I cannot tell anyone of Japanese origin of my family's, or that geographic region's status), that it is a social taboo in Japan to even name the group, or bring up the issue of their historical or continued persecution in a non-academic setting. Though it is a gross oversimplification, it would be akin to living in the US in the mid 1980's and telling people you were a gay man with AIDS.

Yeah, well A male, I have to say I'm glad that I'm no longer in America ( and I will never live there again) but now I'm in China, and they're pretty fucking racist too.

Oh, and seriously, I don't understand the Clinton turned McCain supporters. How can they be willing to support a candidate who hates women when mere moments ago, they wanted to elect a woman??????????

I'm sort of wondering why the woman on Wall Street was even mentioned.

Even the linked article says that not only was she fired, that a high ranking male was fired, as well.

They were also kept in lower positions in the company. That company posted a 2.8 billion dollar loss, and a woman reporting on it saw that it was an employee not doing their job well, which was why they were demoted.

It really had nothing to do with her being a woman.

In this case there were flaws to notice, if the $2.8 billion loss is any indication. “It seems to me, she would be the right person to go," says Zehner says, who does not know Callan personally.

I really appreciate that Frank Rich op-ed: It was about time somebody called that canard for what it was. Of course, I'm not surprised that the Dems and the mainstream media has, for the most part, already trotted out a readymade excuse in case of defeat in November: Blame those women who supported Clinton, the traitors!

Also, I'm surprised y'all haven't linked to Susan Faludi's NYT piece on the use of gender tropes between our now-presumptive nominees. I love Faludi, but she sounds suspiciously like gender-baiting Maureen Dowd in parts of that op-ed. Her point comes together better in the end, I think.

The endless need for math and science to be marketed as "sexy" in order to appeal to young women drives me crazy. I hate to think that this is the only way to encourage girls to give math and science a chance. Wouldn't a more logical path be to demonstrate why they are interesting topics? That is what got me into engineering, not its potential for getting me a date.

From my experience...

Being a geek or nerd has become more socially acceptable in the last decade or so as the internet has become ubiquitous and fluency with technology has become necessary in so many fields. I would guess that envy/admiration of Bill Gates and other techies who happened to get extremely rich has something to do with it as well.

But I would hesitate to say that this acceptance has really extended to women in science and tech fields, much less women who enjoy geeky or nerdy hobbies. Anecdotally speaking, I've lost track of the number of times I've been reading public chat channels in World of Warcraft and have seen misogynist 'jokes' or conversations that run more or less like this: "Girls don't play WoW!", "Yeah my girlfriend does", followed by either "You're really gay" or "You'r girlfriend is fat and ugly".

In short, the assumption is that women either don't engage in/aren't interested in geeky activities (video games, science projects, role-playing games, etc), or that the ones who do are so hideous or otherwise not socially acceptable that they can be insulted or ignored without any repercussions.

So I would take the Newsweek article as a product of that culture. "Wait, girls are interested in science? Ok, sure. But they're not ugly?? O M G!" And to a certain extent I think geeky women often feel some pressure to reject the 'geek girls are gross' stereotype--and the easiest way to escape it is not by trying to argue it down and change people's beliefs, but to make the quicker and easier argument that "Well I'm hot and sexy, so that doesn't fit me!" This is basically the easiest way to make your 'unfeminine' interests more acceptable. . .

What I did LOVE seeing in that article was a club of women who are geeked out on science and are building their own support networks for it. That's awesome.

First off: Rock Star, China =/= Japan.

Second point: the hyper-sexy nerd girl stereotype doesn't really do much to help actual women in STEM. It only encourages male participants to view their female coworkers as sexual objects instead of peers. The assumption is that because she shares his interests, sexual tension will develop and it is inevitable that romance will occur--although the reality is that she probably just wants her ideas to be taken seriously.

I don't think that the growth of the "sexy nerd girl" stereotype is due to nerdy activities becoming more socially acceptable. If that was the case, I think we'd see a lot more "cool nerd dudes". Instead, I think the trend results from the "gamer" and "anime" subcultures becoming sort of catch-alls for intellectual youths. That was an awkward way of saying that nerds share more interests and consume more of the same types of goods now. The increased consumer consumption of this predominately male group means that marketing to them is pretty easily accomplished by (*drumroll*) sexy nerd girls! That's right, I blame the media.

I'm not saying that it's the only source of the stereotype, but since marketing dominates pretty much all the visual manifestations of pop culture, the emergence of the "sexy nerd girl" trope is probably due to focus groups of nerdy boys.

I'd like to throw my support behind astroyoga and shiftercat's view of the nerd girl article. I've gotta say, I really related. When I was in school for engineering, there was the unwritten rule that women in science/math/engineering can't be interested in "girly" things. I wear makeup, I enjoy manicures, I like shopping, and if I want to dance in the cleanroom, then I'm gonna friggin dance in the cleanroom! In being a female engineer, I don't feel I should be forced to shed the "female" part of my identity.

This is NOT to say that I think that any woman in ANY field needs to exhibit any traditionally-female traits if they don't want to.

It really comes down to not being able to win. Women in any field that don't dress the right way or keep their hair coifed are going to catch hell for it, and women who choose to do those things are often thought of as less smart, or less competent, or are assumed to have gotten to their positions through sex-appeal alone. Both are bullshit.

First off: Rock Star, China =/= Japan.

When the fuck did I say that China equaled Japan? Don't put words in my mouth. I said I have LIVED in both CHINA and JAPAN. Fucking Christ.

First off: Rock Star, China =/= Japan.

Are you fucking kidding me? When the fuck did I say that China equaled Japan? I said I have LIVED in both CHINA and JAPAN. Fucking Christ.

"I don't understand the Clinton turned McCain supporters. How can they be willing to support a candidate who hates women when mere moments ago, they wanted to elect a woman??????????"

I haven't read up on it, but I'll out and ask - might such, Anyone but Obama! voters, simply be racist?

The underprivileged woman trying to complete her schooling, so she can reach her goals: "For about a year now I have been saving up $10 a week to help for my college funds."

Holy shit.

And a lot of people who are able to go to college because their parents are better off (or at least actually supportive, unlike this woman's), or because they are able to get student loans, find more economical ways of living, or find better paying jobs to save up on their own, still don't understand what their own privilege means, finding it easier to look down upon those who do not have or have not achieved as they have, regardless of the barriers they face. e.g.: the lowest tuition in my state system is $2,201 per year (about 25% increase in less than two years). She might be saving for 17 years just to go to college.

And if heaven forbid, she is not able to achieve her goals, others will debate whether or not she deserves to reproduce.

"That is where change in custody must come from, not judicial reform."

And when do you believe this will occur? I do not mean when MRAs change their priorities to be in line with feminists, since equality is what both claim to be after. I mean when society will actually be ready for what you are proposing. How long are you telling these divorced fathers feeling alienated from their children to wait? And how old will the children be* when men are able to parent to your satisfaction, to reconsider child custody or visitation?

*A child may say, screw it, by adolescence, if not before. That could be just a handful of years to reform society. Won't happen. If society could be reformed so quickly, so radically, why would people still be going through ugly divorces in the first place, in which one side would want to deliberately deprive the other of relations with their biological children?

Would feminists put up with waiting so long with the clock actually ticking, or do they not want what they want (say a female President, 50% female CEOs and lawmakers, equal pay for equal work, same sex marriage, a realistic arrest and conviction rate for crimes against women, comprehensive sex ed, or unrestricted reproductive freedoms), now?

Human Bean commented at June 16, 2008 12:18 PM: "But I would hesitate to say that this acceptance has really extended to women in science and tech fields, much less women who enjoy geeky or nerdy hobbies. Anecdotally speaking, I've lost track of the number of times I've been reading public chat channels in World of Warcraft and have seen misogynist 'jokes' or conversations that run more or less like this: 'Girls don't play WoW!', 'Yeah my girlfriend does', followed by either 'You're really gay' or 'You'r girlfriend is fat and ugly'."

Yeah, that's the impression I got in some other "geeky" fora outside WoW too. You don't need to be a fully mainstream man or boy to hate women and girls who aren't fully mainstream ourselves.

Meanwhile, here's an interesting example: http://www.gamingw.net/forums/index.php?PHPSESSID=a96cdadd6bd51125d879d4c7fc82680e&topic=71559.msg1306190

You can tell who seems to buy all the stereotypes and who's there just because they actually like certain video games.

Lucy Gillam commented at June 15, 2008 10:09 PM: "...Noah, the place to attack fathers' rights is not after divorce, but before, and it is not in rights, but responsibilities. As the article demonstrated, mothers still assume the larger burden of childcare, and complaining about 'sexist' judges assuming a mother is the more involved parent when all evidence shows that the overwhelming majority of the time, the mother is, in fact, the more involved parent, is missing the target...

"...That is where change in custody must come from, not judicial reform."

Good points.

A male commented at June 17, 2008 3:37 AM: "And if heaven forbid, she is not able to achieve her goals, others will debate whether or not she deserves to reproduce."

Meanwhile, no doubt some other people out there already call her elitist for wanting to go to college and not already having several children, think keeping her access to birth control low is the way to compensate someone else in her demographic group(s) who was denied parenthood, etc.

A male commented at June 17, 2008 4:08 AM: "'That is where change in custody must come from, not judicial reform.'

"How long are you telling these divorced fathers feeling alienated from their children to wait?"

Gilliam's point seems to be not that they and their children should wait but that they shouldn't have alienated themselves from their children before their divorces in the first place. Gilliam, did I get your point right, or misinterpret it?

"How long are you telling these divorced fathers feeling alienated from their children to wait?"

Gilliam's point seems to be not that they and their children should wait but that they shouldn't have alienated themselves from their children before their divorces in the first place.

I think that's exactly what Gilliam meant -- that fathers need to be parents for the entire life of the child, not just look for the privilege at the time of divorce. Why would a judge give you custody of a child now, if you have been working 80 hours/week for your child's whole life and have never had any experience taking care of him/her?

The fact that women typically gain the majority of custody after a divorce and the fact that women are typically responsible for the bulk of childcare in heterosexual marriages are intimately linked and inseparable issues. Equal parenting from the start will most likely lead to equal custody later on.

A male, individual custody matters should be fought individually, and if gender bias is a factor, that should be addressed and fought.

However, if a group is going to focus on an institutional issue, they would be better off fighting for greater flexibility from their employers to stay home with sick kids, for campaigning for books that do not assume the "you" reading them is the mother and only give the father little sidebars, for childcare classes for both sexes in high school, for more supported paternity leave, for all of the things that would allow them to correct the imbalance that has women even in 2-income families doing over 75% of the childrearing. We don't need to combat the perception that mothers are the more involved parent. We need to combat the reality that they typically are the more involved parent.

Lucy Gillam commented at June 17, 2008 10:56 AM: "A male, individual custody matters should be fought individually, and if gender bias is a factor, that should be addressed and fought."

So true. One newly divorced father may have already known what kind of baby food the infant likes, where fathers know what size clothes the child wears, who his or her daycare teachers are, how much Baby Tylenol she or he can have, etc. in the first place. Another may have been too overwhelmed by working working 80 hours/week since his now-ex-wife turned SAHM to get involved in non-financial ways enough to remember that info. A third may have never wanted to know and now just wants his ex-wife to forward that info to his new wife. A fourth may be divorcing another man and going through a family court case that puts a whole new spin on men's rights to custody. No doubt many other possibilities exist too!

"I think that's exactly what Gilliam meant -- that fathers need to be parents for the entire life of the child, not just look for the privilege at the time of divorce. "

Since when is being able to have a relationship with one's biological children after a divorce a privilege? Why, for a man, is it considered a privilege? For mothers who for various reasons (even mothers I see in jail are actually decent human beings if you are willing to know them - so things spiraled out of control they got hooked on drugs: 70-80% of inmates are addicted to just crystal meth. No shit they may have acted violently sometimes including at home, or stolen regularly to support their habit), may not have custody of their children, is being allowed to continue a relationship with their flesh and blood also considered a "privilege" they should not legally expect to have?

See the Belated Happy Father's Day thread and see all the posters appreciative of relationships with their fathers, even if they were not the kind of "equally shared parenting" dads the Post describes, or even if these past generation dads still represent sexist ideals. Would all those posters (or any here) who appreciate their relationships with their dads simply accept having them legally denied a relationship (custody, joint custody, visitation), simply because mom was a better, more involved parent (which I do not deny, if child rearing is your main criteria).

Posters here understand how much of a sacrifice it is to work and be a parent - a good number seem to have sworn off marriage or ever having children as a result, even going so far as to seek sterilization in their 20s or outright call women who choose to become mothers or SAHMs poor role models or some kind of traitors.

Would you believe that the sex traditionally expected to work, and historically allowed to make more money may be making themselves useful outside the home, if not 50% in it? My salary is three times that of my wife. In Japan, I earned four and five times her salary, despite her also having a bachelor's degree (her focus was on being available when the kids were going to be home from day care or school - meanwhile I got home at 10 or 11 p.m., and I am quite proud of the fact that I've had only about three sick days since working full time in 1993, and at times have gone years without taking any paid leave either). That's how it is, and how it will remain for the foreseeable future. My wife will probably never earn like a nurse, even if she worked two full time permanent jobs. And where we live (anywhere in the state), house rents start about $1,300 for rat traps, and are quite more likely $2,000, and houses start at $400,000 (ave. $600-650,000), no matter how small or run down they are.

Why should I deliberately shortchange my family by kneecapping my career (see how those 50% dads had to work, and what they did to their opportunities for promotion - they're getting treated like people on the Mommy track) and restricting my income, to TRY to be a 50% dad at home? Is my wife going to pick up the slack and triple her income for us to get by while trying to save for our futures and that of our children while I try to be a dad feminists approve of? Why should I wait decades or centuries if ever, for society to accept women as workers to earn, and men as parents to nurture, to be a part of my kids' life if my wife chooses (she's considered it at various times, for cultural and other reasons - marriage isn't the big romantic happy she dreamed of, but perhaps 50 years of tedium - think Madame Bovary) to leave?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madame_Bovary

I can see a lot of my wife and myself in those character types: an unassuming guy (me stereotypical Asian - think nerd growing up) making a second class kind of life for himself and his family, and a wife who expects/has expected better. Despite him doing what he believes is what he is expected to do, or to the best of his ability (he couldn't make it as a med student; I am a 39 year old rookie nurse), it may not be considered enough, and she seeks her outlet and escape, elsewhere. I don't blame my wife for what she's done numerous times in search of what she considers better (I've never done anything, but I have eyes as well), but I don't see why HER expectations, or her choice, should mean me losing my kids, perhaps unable even to visit (while expected to shell out to her on their behalf till age 18, or college graduation). Obviously Glenn Sacks readers don't get it either. Could you enlighten us?

"No doubt many other possibilities exist too!"

Yes, like the common one no one here cares to even acknowledge: shitty mothers, or sincere ones simply busy working for their families, who have grandma, daycare or nannies raise their kids for the majority of waking hours; who have custody of their kids regardless.

And I'll say it again: this is why I hate capitalism. I'm sure there are millions of US fathers like myself would like to get back to the land or work at home so I could spend more time with my family like the way my wife and I were during the years we dated. Too bad modern economics quashes that possibility. All I have to hope for is the death of the petroleum economy so everyone will have to live in a similar fashion (think rural or agricultural society), and I will not be considered the freak, or the one coldheartedly shortchanging my family* by earning or living modestly.

* What do you mean, you aren't sending your kids to Sylvan or Kumon? What do you mean they go to public school? What do you mean, it's ok if they go to community or state college? What do you mean it's ok if your son wants to be a baker, and your daughter wants to dance hula? What do you mean you spent their college fund and your retirement, for you to go back to school? What do you mean, you haven't bought a house? (All true.)

I'd like to thank anyone still reading for keeping down the flames. I admit I was snappy on that first comment.

Try to think of it this way, from a male perspective, if you will, no pun intended. How would you all like this:

My wife does her best earning and raising the kids. I consider her my best friend, and greatest source of support. (True.) However, years down the line (she is currently 40), I find a younger, prettier woman, who earns more money and has better nurturing skills, which is not really difficult. For example, a Filipino nurses' aide, LPN or RN, which all but dominate health care in Hawaii, and other than male colleagues I can count on three fingers, our entire state hospital consists of female coworkers. So I decide to leave my wife, because she no longer lives up to my expectations (or I "awaken" to the fact that better partners/nurturers exist - recall my wife is only my second serious girlfriend, and is the one with whom I discovered sex - we were BOTH naive going in).

This is what happens to a lot of women, yes? Hollywood makes big name romantic movies about similar fiction or based on life stories, where women are tempted, or actually take the step to leave, and women like my wife cry watching them. Their man is not the man they thought they married (they didn't know each other well enough, or he lied), or he changed for the worse, getting a gut or balding, or being laid off or having his salary cut, or consistently passed over for promotion, or he's actually a poor father, or they realize their man or marriage is simply blah, or someone simply better appeared, or the couple simply grew apart. As bad as it sounds to the traditional marriage types, this is what happens to adults in the real world, right? (Recall I make no excuses for partners who are abusive. Leave them, and remove the kids at any time.)

[Also, I had no idea entering into our relationship that my wife is irreversibly losing her sight, has cardiac arhythmias, is at risk for cancer, is suffering from trauma as a sexual assault survivor which has precluded her from having sex AFTER getting married (though I knew about the survivor part - didn't stop her from being an animal in bed while we were dating), or was pregnant with a child of unknown fatherhood (even she claims not to know whose it was) and had a secret abortion to conceal the infidelity from me (she had the hospital receipt in her wallet, of all places, years later, waiting to be found), and would continue to have affairs for an unknown length of time (and another abortion which she did NOT keep secret, again because the fetus was of unknown parentage). These have failed to put me off our marriage or stop me from loving my wife the same as I always have, I'm just saying that wives are not exactly everything husbands expect them to be, either. Not forever, at least. How they look, think and behave may change. They may be put off sex. They may devote their time to their kids instead of what was previously devoted to their husbands (or jobs).]

Now imagine this shocker: if the divorce were contested and it ended up in court, the judge awards custody to ME, because I and my "new" model year partner (we would be nurse salary, skills and nurturing types times two), are deemed better able to provide a good home for my children, than a part time clerk/waitress. With this kicker thrown in: because she is the non-custodial parent, my wife is ordered to pay child support to me, her man who chose to leave her for something he considered better.

Sounds pretty bad when it is a man leaving and expecting to take the kids, no? But this is what happens to a lot of non-abusive men who THINK they are being supportive husbands and fathers by focusing on paid work outside the home, and the women decide they have had enough and want to leave with the kids (I can empathize with such women, make no mistake). Such men would be ignorant, but probably not malicious, even when not holding up their share in the home, while their wives and kids become distant. I don't see why they should be penalized by not being allowed to have relationships with their children. By court order, least of all.

BTW, anyone else noticed how, in some (some! not all! maybe not even most!) cases, a parent is just fine contributing approx. N hours/week of breadwinning* for a child and M hours/week of supervising the child, but after breaking up with his or her partner all of a sudden visitation at the same M hours/week of supervising the child is "kidnapping my child!!!" or child support at the same N hours/week of breadwinning is "raping my wallet!!!"?

Meanwhile, custody/visitation/support/etc. should definitely take the children's best interests seriously instead of making bigoted assumptions like mothers always being more nurturing or (I heard this assumption used to be more common) fathers always deserving the child's wages more.

Stuff like "is either household abusive or neglectful?" should totally come first! For one example, if a father keeps his household safe and his ex-wife devotes herself to a violent boyfriend, "the child deserves the safer home" makes far more sense than "she still deserves the child, don't punish her for feeling too battered to get help." For another example, if a mother plans to keep raising her child and her ex-husband lives under the thumb of a cousin who wants to marry the child, "the child deserves the safer home" makes far more sense than "he still deserves the child, don't punish him for his subsubculture's family values."

As for cases that aren't abusive or neglectful, I heard that some people need to live near certain kinds of medical facilities. If the child does and one of the parents has to move significantly further away from any of those, that could be an issue too.

For older kids who lost their ability to soak up a new language as a native speaker, "where would each parent plan to enroll the child in school?" could be important too. Imagine being sent with your parent who's moving to America when you only know Russian instead of English or Spanish too, or sent with your parent who's moving to Germany when you only know English instead of German or Turkish too, and then sent to class in the local lingua franca instead of being homeschooled or specialty-schooled in your native language.

Those aren't the only factors out there either. I bet there are tons of other ones I'm forgetting at the moment too.

* Not just wages and salaries! Grwoing groceries at home to feed the child, bartering for materials to put a roof over the child's head, etc. totally should count too.

A male: All I have to hope for is the death of the petroleum economy so everyone will have to live in a similar fashion (think rural or agricultural society), and I will not be considered the freak, or the one coldheartedly shortchanging my family* by earning or living modestly.

You don't like being judged for your choice, so you don't want the choice to exist? Fuck you.

You talk about modern economics stopping you from living a certain way, yet Western capitalism isn't stopping millions of people in the world from living as sustenance farmers even now. Nothing's stopping you from joining them if you really wanted to, yet here you are, using a technological marvel to talk about how people who are judgmental towards your economic preferences need to have their civilization destroyed so that they won't think you're weird.

"BTW, anyone else noticed how, in some (some! not all! maybe not even most!) cases, a parent is just fine contributing approx. N hours/week of breadwinning* for a child and M hours/week of supervising the child, but after breaking up with his or her partner all of a sudden visitation at the same M hours/week of supervising the child is "kidnapping my child!!!" or child support at the same N hours/week of breadwinning is "raping my wallet!!!"?"

You're right Mina, but I believe it's a simple matter of choice. Once home, I can theoretically see or be with my children at any time I want (or not). Not so if my wife and I were not living together, even if the interaction time and the manner of interaction with the children were exactly the same. And as in many couples, if my wife ever were to leave me, she'd be going quite FAR away (where's a single mother supposed to settle down on such short notice?), so even a court order awarding the man partial custody or generous visitation rights would have little meaning. It would simply be unworkable, and an unfair burden on the children, and the parents who would have to shuttle them back and forth, or to pay for it. Personally, I consider a 30 minute drive to be fair. I'd be ticked if I regularly had to buy $104 plane tickets for 30 minute interisland Hawaiian flights.* Try weekly joint custody like that. AND trying to work out my 24/7 availability work schedule, compared to my wife's day job AT my kids' school, one block down the street from her other job.

If children live across state or international lines, a divorce might basically mean goodbye (Japan does not recognize foreign court rulings, they do not award joint custody, and discourage further contact with non-custodial parents to avoid "disruption" of current relationships e.g. with their "new" moms and dads - did you see "Ringu"? - "How old is he now?" - I mean bang, severed relationships like that). Then throw in how ugly some divorces can be, and how territorial some parents get with the children, regardless of what courts decide. My brother is VERY fortunate that his split was amicable (uncontested, no courts), and he remains friendly with his ex-wife and her family. He intends to live and work however is necessary to remain near his daughter (recall he was the stay at home, and his wife the 100% breadwinner who could be quite clueless regarding child rearing like how to comfort or stop her own baby from crying) to maintain his joint custody (because of his job, he actually only has her two days a week - ex-wife simply leaves daughter with her parents living in her condo building when she works every day).

* So why don't I simply work harder to keep my wife happy and AVOID a possible split? I can try, but ultimately I am not the one in control of what MAKES my wife happy, any more than a wife can (or be forced to) accommodate her husband's changing tastes in women. My wife accepted the proposal of marriage from a 26 year old man who looked a bit younger, whom SHE considered to be funny and charmingly silly. I'm afraid things have changed, and I am no longer that carefree or slim and physically fit (10k runs after school - screw that). For example, I had no freaking idea that houses would ever cost so much, or that the economy in BOTH countries I settled in would suck.

No, that's redundant. My wife did not believe I was funny and silly. She thought I was "cute" and silly when dating. She said so. That was sometimes the trigger for making out or sex in itself 13 years ago. She thought I was "cute."

Well, I'm 40 this year. There's a limit on cute, particularly when "cute" meant parodying anime characters. Now she considers effeminate acting men gross, and she asks me why I baby talk with my cats (I said my cats, not hers or my kids'). Don't suggest me teaching my wife how to give up her ingrained gender role expectations.

Alice commented at June 19, 2008 6:53 AM: "You don't like being judged for your choice, so you don't want the choice to exist? Fuck you."

Right on!

I've seen other people have this attitude about other choices elsewhere, and the idea seems to boil down to "people say it's my fault that I chose this situation I'm in, they'd pity me instead if I hadn't had other options besides this situation, I miss the good old days before those other options existed..."

Alice commented at June 19, 2008 6:53 AM: "You don't like being judged for your choice, so you don't want the choice to exist? Fuck you."
"Right on!"

It seems people who share that opinion are not aware of peak oil and what it means. It is not a matter of the future one wants. It is a matter of when. Our current issues with energy and cost of, have little to do with instability or peace in the Middle East. It is supply and demand. "Fuck you" will not find anyone two trillion more barrels of oil.

It is a matter of the future one wants, because that's what we're talking about. You've trying to completely change the subject from one of desirability to one of fact. You said you hope for the death of our energy economy; that's what I'm addressing. Whether it will actually happen is a different question than whether it is a good thing.

Re: peak oil, here is one explanation:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil

and here is one of the most extremely pessimistic, though everyone of course, claims to be correct:

http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/

"If you've been wondering why the Bush administration has been spending money, cutting social programs, and starting wars like there's no tomorrow, now you have your answer: as far as they are concerned, there is no tomorrow."

As I said, the most extreme I've seen. Form whatever opinion you'd like. The reason former big oil man President Bush would build such a "green" estate along the lines of something former Vice President Gore envisions, despite the way he runs the country, may become clear. He probably expects to survive even without oil.

So back to the topic at hand, as a husband and father, I am attempting to prepare for this possibility during our lifetime. It wouldn't hurt the environment to do so, either. It just so happens that I like a simple life similar to how my ancestors lived (minus the rampant sexual and racial discrimination), and my training and skills might carry over well. My brother as a computer programmer? Not so well. No oil, no computers. He was trained in the 1980's, and is already suffering immensely today post tech boom/bust, as jobs like his went abroad.

A male commented at June 20, 2008 3:13 AM: "Alice commented at June 19, 2008 6:53 AM: 'You don't like being judged for your choice, so you don't want the choice to exist? Fuck you.'
'Right on!'

"It seems people who share that opinion are not aware of peak oil and what it means."

I am aware of peak oil and what it means. That's why I know it doesn't mean that everyone will have to sprawl further apart from each other and switch from specialization of labor to subsistence farming.

Think about it: even before the Petroleum Economy, cities and smaller towns already existed and many non-farmers lived within walking distance of their workplaces.

Now, with oil prices rising, more non-farmers who have access to mass transit are commuting on it rather than continuing to drive their cars every day. For one example: I wouldn't be surprised when an optometrist who lives in an inner-ring suburb takes the bus to work and considers moving further downtown instead of wanting to move further away, switch to farming, and quit optometry or do a little in what spare time she or he has. Check out http://www.planetizen.com/ for more interesting info on changing trends in land use patterns.

"I am aware of peak oil and what it means. That's why I know it doesn't mean that everyone will have to sprawl further apart from each other and switch from specialization of labor to subsistence farming."

Let me try to make it simpler. For example, if I mention a rural or agrarian lifestyle, like in two or three generations past (US standard), why does "subsistence" farming immediately come to your minds?

Let me be more direct. I am getting a "fuck you," not that I have a problem with that, being accused of wanting to deprive all other people of choice, for believing it is better for all people to live more simply or modestly.*

Regardless of what I personally want, limited energy resources (or at least, ways of exploiting them) are limited. It is the lifestyle of people in industrialized nations, the US in particular, which is depriving ALL OTHER PEOPLE IN THE WORLD of choice. Example: Iraq. If Saddam Hussein had not been considered a threat to control of the region's oil reserves, would the US have cared? There are lists of oppressive regimes or aggressive national governments which fail to make the Bush Administration's radar - not that I am putting the blame for the situation on Bush (only) or Republicans (only).

Other examples: China and India. The US will not consciously allow nations such as China, India, or any other to rival or surpass them economically, or to compete with them for limited natural resources. The US will not even allow national sovereignty to stand in the way of the American economy or way of life. The US (China as well) has threatened war if access to mideast oil reserves are ever cut off by oil producing nations, even if they need THEIR OWN resources for THEIR OWN people. How fucked is this?

Don't believe it? Peak oil or no, let us observe the next 20-30 years as they develop. So far, what I learned at university in the 80s, or have read on my own, is turning out pretty accurately. (Obviously, Japan surpassing the US in the 80s or 90s never panned out, for reasons which in hindsight should have been clear to the panic mongers - among them, Japan was seriously short on resources despite all its economic strengths, one reason that they could not win WWII. In comparison, the US WWII war machine literally was a giant. Another, the real estate market in Japan, upon which everyone from corporate giants to common homeowners was basing its wealth, was seriously whack. No, the land under the Imperial Palace is not worth more than the entire state of California, and Tokyo is not worth more than the entire USA.)

* Then the REAL crux of the problem, which I often allude to, and no one I can name actually understands: most readers out there appear to base their world views as if their own lifestyle or culture represents that of the other six billion members of humanity. The near default standard for humanity for most of recorded history IS "farmer," because that is the only choice they had available. It is privileged members of the "educated upper middle class women who dominate the feminist movement," (in the revealing words of one poster on the women on Wall Street thread) who assume that people really have a choice about their lifestyle. If not for the interference of western powers in their affairs, and the competition for limited resources, in history AND the present day, perhaps hundreds millions more in the world COULD be free to decide how to live (till the oil runs low anyway), other than as "subsistence" anything. It does not matter that men made near 100% of those decisions. Women share in that destructive, exclusive lifestyle today. How many of you have considered this? How many of you regret it? How many of you are doing something about it? I have, and am.

You want to know who is really depriving the rest of humanity a choice in how they live? Look in the mirror.

Hmm, I wasn't really thinking about humanity as a whole, just industrialized civilization. That's what I'm interested in preserving. People living simply and modestly don't build space telescopes and particle accelerators, after all. If that's not enough of a justification for a complicated society to you, then I don't think we'll make any headway in this debate.

A male commented at June 21, 2008 2:57 AM: "Let me try to make it simpler. For example, if I mention a rural or agrarian lifestyle, like in two or three generations past (US standard), why does 'subsistence' farming immediately come to your minds?"

A male commented at June 18, 2008 3:58 AM: "so everyone will have to live in a similar fashion (think rural or agricultural society),"

That sure doesn't sound like two or three generations past (US standard). Subsistence farming immediately came to my mind because everyone having to live in a similar fashion means the farmers would have to make everything for themselves - there would be no non-farmers to trade with.

In real life, two or three generations ago not everyone had to live in a rural or agrarian fashion. Many people around the world already lived in towns and cities and/or specialized in work besides agriculture. Lagos, Moscow, Mumbai, Rio de Janeiro, Shanghai, Tokyo, etc. weren't built overnight. Likewise, eyeglasses and typewriters and vaccination weren't invented yesterday.

I'm done here. Just recall that in the same way male visitors to a feminist site are expected to consider their own privilege, please consider yours when believing your reality (such as freedom of choice re: education and career) applies to the other 97% of humanity who are e.g. not middle class, or American.

Also, how or why the other 97% of humans got that way, or remain that way even thousands of years later. Hint: maybe us.

Alice says "I'm interested in preserving [industrialized civilization.] People living simply and modestly don't build space telescopes and particle accelerators, after all."

I totally agree that throwing away or losing the knowledge we have created in the industrial age would be bad. But living simply and modestly isn't the opposite of embracing the good from these past few centuries. I'm thinking of the optometrist example upthread. If we shift our cities to support it, she can be an optometrist and live differently than peopl