Weekend Links

Girls Spend Less Time Playing Outside Than Boys 

Excited about this new series!

Getting Emotional About Money - Lately, I'm quite obsessed with blogs about finance, budgeting, and building wealth. As I've learned to handle money on my own, I've realized just how emotional feelings about money can be, and how both what I've learned about money and how I feel about money largely comes from my parents. I think it is super important that, as individuals, we stop and reflect about this so that we can be smarter with our money.

The Unintended Consequences of Kristof's Anti-Sex Trafficking Crusade - and most anti-sex trafficking campaigns really 

Fashion and some thoughts from one of Wellesley's most fabulous ladies.

Class Differences in Spending on Children

Class Privilege and Parental Leave 

A guest post on A Cup of Jo, "I'm Not Sure if I Want Kids or Not," highlights something that all Republican men should be made more aware of: NOT ALL WOMEN WANT BABIES. Even one baby, let alone 10. But really, I thought the article would have been more aptly titled if it had been called something alone the lines of, "The Naivety of Thinking Motherhood Will Just Work Out." The author writes:

I never gave a thought to how all of these decisions would factor into MY ultimate motherhood decision, and now I realize how naive that was. It’s not like I thought the U.S. would suddenly turn into a parental utopia like France (check out Sharon Lerner's eye-opening book for more info about how seriously unfriendly America is to families), but I guess I still thought that whatever I decided, everything would work out.

That’s what everyone tells us, right? “You’ll find a way. You’ll make it work.”

Why do we consistently tell women that "they'll make it work." And why don't more people take the reasons why women often don't want to have children seriously, such as the fact that it might take away from their career or be difficult/impossible financially? I have no idea if the author would want to have children if she lived in a "parental utopia." But the factors in her decision would be much different, and it would be much more of a choice.

Guest Post: The Last Name Project

In this new series co-hosted by from two to one and The Feminist Mystique, we will be profiling an array of individuals and couples about their last name decisions upon marriage or what they expect to choose if they marry. The goal is to explore how individuals make decisions about their last name, and to highlight the many possibilities. We will be posting profiles periodically and encourage you to stay connected via Facebook, Twitter, and Pinterest.  If you would like to participate in this series, email Danielle at danielle [at] fromtwotoone [dot] com or Shannon at hill [dot] shannonp [at] gmail [dot] com. 

The following post is from A, an academic researcher living and working in the U.K. 

As an academic, it was never feasible for me to change my name professionally. By the time we got married I had already been published under my original name, and I need to maintain the name recognition that derives from those publications. For this reason, adopting new names together, or hyphenating, were also never really on the table (I would have considered hyphenating more seriously, though, if our names sounded good together – but they don’t). The main alternative to keeping my name was thus to maintain my name professionally and change it legally/socially.

However, the idea of changing my name has always made me uncomfortable. I'm a feminist and while we all inevitably make some compromises in navigating a patriarchal society, this was one area in which I found it impossible to reconcile my beliefs with social expectation. I was deeply unhappy with the idea of changing my identity, giving up the name I'd had for my entire life, and the name linking me to my family, solely because we now would have a piece of paper saying we were married. I was also resentful that the same demands are rarely if ever made of men; no one saw it as strange or disloyal of him to keep his own name, whereas I’ve had more than a few funny looks and comments.

When I explained how I felt to my then-fiance he was perfectly fine with the idea of me keeping my name. I don’t think he ever expected me to change it; he’s always been well aware of how strongly I feel about this issue. This may also reflect the fact that we’re not generally into romantic symbolism, and neither of us wanted to see marriage as a moment of ‘change’ in our relationship. However, I think he would object if I refused to allow any potential kids to have his name. I’ve always been happy to give kids his last name; I suspect that I may start to become a little less comfortable with that idea if/when we have children, on feminist grounds, but I also think it would be unfair of me to go back on all my previous statements if I don’t feel all that strongly either way. My mother remarried when I was little and took a new last name, so it seems normal to me for mother and child to have different names.

I have to admit that when people ask why I kept my name, I tend to focus on the practical reasons (i.e. my job). When asked why I didn’t change my name socially, I usually explain that I think that’s far too cumbersome and unsustainable in a world of social media; I can’t afford to change my name on Facebook or Twitter, for example, both of which I use for work as well as socially. I tend only to bring up my deeper discomfort with the entire concept of name-changing when I know I have a sympathetic, feminist audience. I have to admit it does exasperate me to get letters addressed to Mr and Mrs HisName (not least because my title is actually Dr!) - especially when the letters are from friends who should know better - but I guess there's not much I can do about that!

The Last Name Project

American women today are afforded many opportunities that our mothers and grandmothers fought to give us. We've made significant achievements in the realm of education, politics, business, and the workplace. Family structures and roles are also changing, with many men participating more in caregiving and household responsibilities.

But everything isn't perfect. As any feminist knows, an increase in opportunities doesn't mean parity. The fact that men are participating more in caregiving doesn't mean they're sharing it equally. Sexism, coupled with an array of patriarchal systems and structures, makes achieving equality difficult and often forces the "choices" that we, as women, make.

One of the choices that confronts women is what to do with their last name upon marriage. Despite a growing number of women and couples who opt to subvert the normative (especially among academics), around three-fourths of heterosexual brides in the U.S. take their husband's name and believe that other women should too. A growing number of women even think it should be illegal for a woman to not take her husband's last name.*  Changing your name to your husband's is still, therefore, a cultural norm. And whether they choose to take their husband's, hyphenate, keep their own, or create a new one, the choice is frequently one with a tremendous amount of symbolism and meaning, both for a woman, her partner, and the rest of society.  

In this new series co-hosted by from two to one and The Feminist Mystique, we will be profiling an array of individuals and couples about their last name decisions upon marriage or what they expect to choose if they marry. The goal is to explore how individuals make decisions about their last name, and to highlight the many possibilities. We will be posting profiles periodically and encourage you to stay connected via Facebook, Twitter, and Pinterest.  If you would like to participate in this series, email Danielle at danielle [at] fromtwotoone [dot] com or Shannon at hill [dot] shannonp [at] gmail [dot] com.

*I read this on Jezebel awhile ago, but despite my best sleuthing skills, cannot seem to find a link.

Guest Post: Not an Excuse to Rape

The following is a guest post from my friend D, my partner-in-crime during many a gender theory-based class at Yale and even some non-gender theory classes that became de facto gender theory classes because D and I refused to talk about anything else (I'm looking at you, History and Interpretation of the Old Testament).

 

Not an excuse to rape.

So this may strike you as odd, what is this picture doing above the caption "Not an excuse to rape"? In a way it's meant to be confusing and somewhat provocative. It's not an image generally associated with anti-rape propaganda, but I think it is critical that it be so.

I took a picture of myself and captioned it "Not an excuse to rape" in response to those pictures of women in mini skirts that say "Not an excuse to rape" because, while I agree with the force of the message, I think the camera should be more properly pointed toward the men who perpetrate these crimes. Our culture let's men off the hook ideologically. We accept as a fact that male sexuality is inherently linked to power, domination and excess, as well as the objectification of others to whom our sexual energies are directed. This, we conclude, is nature at work, and we need to reign it in with increased vigilance against its expression with tighter laws and female empowerment. 

I think, however, men should not be allowed to excuse these acts of violence by hiding behind their gender. There is nothing "natural" or "essential" about male sexuality and patriarchy. It is culturally constructed, ideologically supported, performatively reinforced, and summarily excused. This enables the logic behind blaming women for dressing "provocatively" (a thoroughly androcentric configuration of female sexual expression) to have resonance with well-meaning folks. Left uncritiqued it is the very way in which male sexuality is so constructed to furnish men with the "natural drive" to, if he is not careful to restrain himself, act out these violent urges. But who can truly blame him? According to the ideology, men are wired toward aggression and sexual objectification. How this is bolstered by evolutionary psychology is a whole other discussion. Needless to say, men have a wealth of cultural resources to use to slip out the ideologically and blame the woman for enticing the man in her dress, behavior, and location. 

Pointing the camera at the woman wearing the miniskirt, I'm afraid, reinforces not only the "male gaze" that orients our rendering of subject/object relations and epistemologies, but also the continuing construction of female sexuality in male terms, always in reference to the male. The image of the miniskirted woman is right to say that rape has absolutely nothing to do with how she is dressed, but what it misses I think is that it has everything to do with patriarchal constructions of human sexuality that occlude the ideological underpinnings of male on female rape, and diverts the critical eye away from the real problem. With all due respect, woman should be able to walk around naked with no expectation of unwanted sexual attention from men. That this is not the case speaks more to patriarchy's grip on male sexuality than it does with what is communicated by female behavior. So, my construction as a heterosexual male is no excuse for rape, nor is any other construction of male sexuality.

Monday Motivation

Source: Uploaded by user via Shannon on Pinterest