Are you supposed to pretend everything’s perfect or pretend everything’s screwed up?

I read a comment that says that women are supposed to show that they’re always happy and everything is perfect, and they’re not allowed to complain.

I must be reading the wrong internet.

Either that or that’s only true of 1.  women before they have children or 2. religious SAHM (I did read something regarding that, though I’m not sure how valid it is… probably depends on the cultural norms of the religion).

In any case, it seems to be the opposite to me– if you want people to not attack you on the ‘net, you gotta pretend you’re not happy.  Even if you are.  Because otherwise it’s your fault that other people are feeling bad by comparison.

I went through a period of my life in which I felt guilty for being perfect and was constantly trying to find fault in myself to make other people feel better about themselves.  Guess what, it didn’t work and it made me miserable.

Being self-confident and acknowledging my awesomeness, and, importantly, the awesomeness of others, gets out of that crabs in a bucket framework and helps build everybody up.  I’m awesome and you’re awesome too, even if you don’t realize it yet.  We can all be more awesome, and one day we will, because how could we not?  There’s so much awesomeness to build from.

Grumpy readers, do you think society forces women to pretend that they’re happy or that they’re unhappy?  Are there differences in these pressures between IRL and the internet?  Are there different expectations by cultural context?  For example, are working moms supposed to be harried and not keeping it together but professional single women are supposed to have it all figured out?  Or is there a “damned whatever you do” of competing pressures?  (If there is, we recommend acknowledging your awesomeness since if you can’t win, you might as well be confident about it.)

Help us think this one out.

The Bitch Face

Who here has a bitch face?  I’m talking about the face you make when you’re thinking about something, or just relaxed, or trying to figure something out, or listening attentively, and then people think you’re mad at them.

Only women have to modulate our facial expressions when we’re trying to figure out some important scientific theory or risk being called a bitch.  WHAT THE HELL, YO.  Stupid patriarchy.  Only in a patriarchy can we not even think without enacting femininity, or else.  My thoughts are my own and not everything is about you.  Students expect women faculty to be expressing care for them, in a way that I don’t do and in a way that is not expected from men.

If I am mad at you, I’ll tell you.  If my face seems to be scowling, I am probably just thinking.  It’s not your right to have women smile at you all the time!  When I’m thinking hard, I’m really not monitoring my facial expression, because that takes processing power I don’t feel like stealing from my thoughts, and also I don’t care about whether you think I’m nice.  (Except, sadly, my tenure committee does.)  I’m not a rude person and I don’t behave inappropriately at work.  But I do, on the good days, think about things at work.

This is just what my face looks like.  It is here for me, not to make you happy.  In what world would a man be criticized for what his face looks like, and it would have any effect on his career?  Grrrr.

and in other news:

Who’s with me on the rage?

Ask the Grumpies: How do you defeat the patriarchy?

Rumpus asks:

So you blame the patriarchy. I think I get that, even in my mostly befuddled state. I dislike unjust treatment, especially when people are making it unjust. I still don’t get what to do about it. What do you do to make things better? And where do you draw the line between helping things be more just versus becoming labeled and then disregarded?

If we knew the answer, we’d do it!

One thing we can do is examine our own words and actions and question implicit assumptions that other people show through their words and actions.  We can gently or not so gently educate.  We can refuse to feel guilty for being awesome, and let people know that we refuse.  We can encourage other people to find their own awesome.  Sometimes we can do this without being labeled, and sometimes people will label us and ignore us.  But we can still keep pushing, because it is the right thing to do and sometimes it is all we can do.

Gumpy Nation:  How do you battle the patriarchy?

Signage memes I hate

Driving around this place sometimes makes me ragey about the things stores choose to put on their signs out front.

My number one most hated meme: your husband says it’s ok for you to make independent choices.  Or spend “his” money, I guess.  Wow, awesome.

Actual signs:  “Hubby called, says ok to get $30 manicure!”

“Your husband called, he said buy as many beads as you want!”

It’s so wrong I don’t even know where to start!  You can’t communicate in your relationship… the two of you have control issues… your husband has to send a note to the teacher because little you can’t be trusted… ew ew ew ew.

In addition, I got all ragey at V-day advertising and told my partner he is NOT ALLOWED to get me chocolate or flowers on or around Feb. 14th.  Any other time of year is fine, but not for Valentine’s day.  The expectation of it grosses me out more than usual this year.  I mean, I like flowers.  I like roses.  Of course I like dark chocolate.  I like getting gifts and cards.  But the one-day doing-it-cuz-I-have-to thing is grating on my nerves in an entirely sandpapery way right now.  [#2 does not celebrate v-day with her partner, but it also doesn't particularly bother her either.  Christmas is really the only commercial holiday she celebrates.  Mostly it's the benefit from celebrating these holidays doesn't outweigh the costs for her.  #2 also hates cut flowers, so her partner is not allowed to get them ever, v-day or not.]

Grumpy readers, what makes you see red?

Stupid “You should be doing more” arguments from people who aren’t

On the NYTimes or forums or blogs etc, a common refrain among commenters when the subject of fertility treatment comes up is that there are so many kids in the world (and so many kids in the US) that people should really be adopting.  And they should really be adopting in the US (because apparently international children are not as important as US children).  [They seem to think that adopting kids is as easy as calling an orphanage and having Anne of Green Gables sent on the next train.  The reality, of course, being that adoption can be as heart-breaking and uncertain a process as infertility itself, even in states with supposedly easy adoption and quick termination of parental rights.  (We have some friends who tried and failed adoption when a biological aunt came out of the woodwork.)]

Even people that are supposedly skeptical and critical thinkers can fall into stupid fallacies.  For example, PZ Meyers is very vocal that people who homeschool their kids are selfish assholes equal in their danger to society to people who refuse to vaccinate their kids.  He says:

I am not a fan of homeschooling; in fact, if I had my way, I’d make it illegal.

and

If you don’t believe in vaccination, then don’t vaccinate your kids.

Sorry, but the same logic applies. Public schools are for the good of the community; homeschooling is intended for the good of the individual child.  I know that homeschools can be good (but most aren’t), and that public schools can be awful (and most are), but I consider homeschooling to be a distraction from the cause of a greater good.

he goes on from there in the comments, basically arguing that if you keep your kids out of (bad) public schools that hurts all the kids still in public schools, mainly because the school doesn’t get the federal money for the kid being there (partly because he says parents have some kind of obligation to be involved), despite perfectly logical arguments responding to his own (such as:  I homeschool because my child is autistic/requires other special accommodations– he would be costing the district much more than he brings the district in per-student federal funds and isn’t mainstreamed anyway… or, My kid was hospitalized after getting beaten up/bullied to the point of self-harm and the school did nothing… or simply, I pay taxes but am not costing my district anything).

All you holier-than-thou folks on the internet: It’s easy to volunteer other people to be saints.  Not so easy to be one yourself.  If you don’t have 20 foster kids and 10 adoptees, then don’t tell people using fertility treatment there are tons of needy kids out there needing homes and that they’re sinners for trying to have a baby instead of adopting one.  Bless people who do foster and adopt, but if you’re not one of them, then why are you telling other people that they should do more than you are?

If you don’t have your own kids in dangerous crumbling schools (because you decided to live in a more expensive district, your kids are grown, or you just don’t have kids), and you’re not volunteering regularly and donating heavily, at least the amount that the federal government would be giving* for say, I dunno, 5 kids, then don’t say that parents who pull their kids out of public schools for private or homeschooling are selfish.  You’re even more selfish because you have more time and money to give, and you wouldn’t be physically, mentally, or emotionally scarring any minors as collateral damage.**

These “you want/have a child you should be doing X” are all stupid arguments.  No one person can save the world.  And nobody, just by dint of being unable to easily have biological children or by having children should be required to contribute to those specific causes.  Nobody is actually required to contribute to any specific cause.  But if someone chooses to put their kids in private school and also donates to people starving in developing countries rather than joining the school board at the local public,*** does that make them selfish?  What about public school teachers who send their own kids to private?

These kinds of arguments seem to be focused on fertility, race, and gender.  If you have kids then you’re supposed to support specific causes.  If you want kids but can’t have them, then that must be a sign from God that you’re supposed to adopt (but people who can have kids easily have no such obligation).  If you’re a black college grad, then you’re selling out your race if you’d rather be an investment banker than a high school teacher (this is a narrative that two of my black studies colleagues frequently argue about).  If you’re female then you have to have a certain kind of active feminism and aren’t allowed to make choices to be the trailing spouse or the one who cooks dinner, even if your husband is allowed to make those choices.  Why do these immutable characteristics (it’s hard to give a kid back), many of which we have no choice over, provide such obligations when others do not?  Owning a pet doesn’t make you have to support spay and neuter laws or pose nude for PETA.  Being a white male provides no obligation to any race or gender.  And yet, when historically you’ve been chattel, all of a sudden you have an obligation to change the world.  IBTP.

*~8% of the school’s budget… meaning that actually your paying state and local taxes without costing the local district to educate your kid (at a cost of ~10K/year to the district) is probably more than making up for not having your kid in school.  And if you kick an additional $800/kid-you-don’t-have to the school district, you should be able to say STFU to any guilt-mongers.  Me, I prefer to spend my education charity dollars in high poverty districts using Donors Choose because they need my money more than the local school district does.  If our district had less money they wouldn’t fricking change districts every 5 years because they wouldn’t be able to afford to bus kids to schools so far from where they live.

**Before having kids the one of us with a kid volunteered extensively tutoring and teaching math in failing urban school districts and at migrant summer programs in rural agricultural areas.  There’s a lot more time to volunteer when you don’t have a small child.

***After years on the school board, and while still on the school board, my mother sent my sister to a Catholic high school.  Does that make her selfish?  She continued on the school board after my sister graduated as well, even though she no longer had kids in school.  Her research career suffered substantially from her public service.

Men: You are allowed to be feminists at Grumpy Rumblings

I guess that goes for our two male readers….

But if you believe in equality between the sexes, you may call yourself a feminist.

If you believe that society is structured in a way that favors white men, and you want that to change, then you may call yourself a feminist.

Of course, just thinking these things isn’t enough, we also expect you to *act* like a feminist.  (You have to walk the walk, not just talk the talk.)  Do at least half the chores if you’re partnered, listen to women at meetings and say things like, “Yes, that was the point Mary was just making” when a woman is talked over, question when women are automatically passed over in hiring “let’s look at this cv again,” and so on.  Be on the look out for systems that encourage disparities and work to change them.  There are many things you can do and may ways you can prove your feminist bonafides; be open to learning about what they are.

But if some crazy nutjob on the internet tells you that because you have a Y chromosome, you’re not allowed to be a card-carrying feminist… well, that’s just that crazy nutjob’s opinion.  The nutjob may say (s)he speaks for all women, but (s)he doesn’t.  She will also attack any woman who disagrees with her by telling her that she has too much privilege to speak on the subject, despite having breasts and no Y chromosome.  Just smile and disengage, but keep doing your good work and strive to do better.

Those of us who aren’t nutjobs appreciate it.  There’s a long way to go, and we need your help too.

p.s.  We would tag this post “debatable” except… it really isn’t.  We’re providing a definition for our blog.  Definitions, are, by definition, not debatable.

Ponderings on Nature and its misogynistic stance

So with this whole Nature thing…  (You know, the one where one of the most well-known scientific research journals published a sexist story straight out of the 1950s… and now says they did nothing wrong, women have no sense of humor (except their wives), and they’re getting uptight over nothing etc. (Bingo!), and how dare women personally attack sexist asshats by calling them out etc.  Despite the well-written and polite explanations of how they are, in fact, doing harm by publishing a sexist story in what is one of the most well-known scientific research journals.  Etc.)

I’ve noticed in the comments that when a male feminist says something, the sexist asshats in general ignore him.

If they don’t ignore him, they’re at least a little polite to them.

When a female feminist says something without mincing words, they attack her.

When a female feminist says something couched in stereotypical female language (I’m sorry … I don’t mean to say… I don’t mean to offend you… etc.), they attack her.

UNLESS straight-talking female feminists have already said their bit, in which case the asshat praises her for her soft language.  Not like those other bitches.

Also:

Why is Nature doubling down on misogyny?

1. Because they can.
2. Because the men there are insecure and this is the only way that they can feel superior. So they’re taking every advantage that they can to keep women down.

We’re just flabbergasted that in this day and age OVERT sexism is still being countenanced at something that is (was?) supposed to be a top research journal.  While we’re not surprised that there’s still sexism, we are surprised that something like this is not only being allowed, but is so strongly encouraged by the establishment.  Generally at this point a statement has been released by the establishment saying that sexism will not be countenanced and the matter is being looked into.  The fact that even that hasn’t happened is dispiriting.

Many of our readers are more expert on feminism and the way these jerks keep women down.  Do you have any explanations for us?  And how can they be countered?  What is the best action for people to take?

Confidential to Ed Rybicki:  We know you’re going to hit our comment section because you google your name every day and this confidential is going to show up.  Therefore we are going to direct you to this post.  We apologize in advance for your clueless response to our post somehow not getting fished out of the spam filter… we’ve read your same clueless paragraph on so many different blogs at this point that we don’t really need to see it again.  Haven’t you done enough harm already?  Don’t you have some “science” to do?  We don’t care about your apology, but we are eagerly awaiting Nature’s.  Also, you haven’t hit Paul Anderson’s blog, despite his post being quoted (and linked to) all over places you’ve been.  We suspect it’s because you think he can beat you up.

Are all bloggers who are mothers mommy bloggers? Also: how do you feel about the term mommy?

Femomhist has a series of posts in search of daddy bloggers that nears the end with this interesting penultimate discussion on the term “mommy blog.”  Femomhist dislikes the term.

We don’t really have any problem with the terms “mommy blog” or “mommy forum,” if that’s what they are. Generally that indicates something focused on mothers of kids age 0-6 or so. (Older and they become “parenting” blogs… or, more often, the parents aren’t so tied to home and computer at that point or have developed other interests.) We’re not crazy about BlogHer and all its advertising, but not because of the term.  I also don’t mind being called DC’smommy because I don’t remember other people’s names either when the only connection I have with them is their kids.  If my colleagues or students called me DC’s mom instead of my first name or title, I’d get pissed, but if all you know about me is my kid, go ahead and call me by that relationship.

But what’s more interesting in the post, and the comments of her previous posts in this series is the observation that a lot of blogs are categorized as mommy blogs whose sole purpose is not motherhood, and if the parent were a different gender it wouldn’t be considered a daddy blog, even if the guy talks about his kid(s) a lot. For example, Retireby40 or Manvsdebt or even The Simple Dollar. Those are personal finance blogs. But if a woman wrote the exact same thing they’d be considered mommy blogs. That’s a problem. But it would still be a problem if they were termed parenting blogs if a woman wrote them and finance blogs if a man did.

Apple Pie and the universe added a poll to her blog– what kind of blog is it?  In the comments it is interesting how folks who joined her blog at different times have different perceptions.  But if her tag were mrcomethunter instead of mrs, would the perception be different?  Would the telescope overshadow the clipart baby?

I didn’t really get when FSP and Historiann made a big deal about coming out as moms after hiding that identity for so long, but maybe they didn’t want to be positioned as mommy bloggers instead of science and history bloggers.  It never really occurred to us.  And honestly, we’re ok with being mommy bloggers about once a week, even if one of us has never reproduced (that she knows of).

Do you dislike the term “mommy blogger”?

Are you more likely to mentally categorize a blog as a mommy blog if it’s written by a woman rather than a man?  (Would retire by 40 be a mommy blog instead of a personal finance blog were it written by a woman?)

How do you categorize your own blog?

RBOC

• Reading Enchanted April (free on Kindle)… very happy that not only do I live in the 21st century (and was not raised in a cult), but that I come from a long line of strong working women (good pioneer stock!).  How SAD to have nothing to look forward to but making your husband’s dinner (not YOUR dinner)… how sad to have to be referred to as Mrs. Melmesh Watkins (where Melmesh is your husband’s first name, not your maiden name).  I suppose this is like reading the Feminist Mystique if I’d been able to get through the introduction… except everything gets solved by a villa in Italy, which I understand doesn’t happen with the Feminist Mystique.
• That professional thing that I wanted so badly that they accidentally listed me as having but I really didn’t have it?  I have it now.  No, I will not say what it is because it is THAT awesome.  (Note:  it is not as awesome as a genius award or a Nobel prize.  But still plenty awesome.)
• I have a really hard time reading blogs written by women whose husbands are douches.  Seriously hard.  Because I want to shake them and say, WHY DO YOU PUT UP WITH THAT?
• DH has recently gotten two of the Lego Heroicas (first one, then it was such a smash hit, he bought another) for use with DC. I cannot express to you how, I dunno, awe inspiring?  weird? it is to see little DC acting so much like DH with all the dungeon crawl nerd seriousness and vocabulary.  Our adorable little nerd!  (I speak that language too, but not these days in polite company…)  Update:  DH has purchased a used copy of Heroscape.  There was much rejoicing.
• DC also beat me at mancala today.  On hir way to becoming a gamer.
• They are currently playing Black and White together.
• If I die this semester it is because a crazy student shot me to death.  Seriously.  (Update:  YAY!!! The sociopath just dropped my class!)
• I tend to get a little depressed after something awesome happens to me (once the elation wears off).  I think I’m not good with strong emotions of any kind other than comfort.
• I had massive pain in my left buttock while walking to and from work.  So I looked on the internet.  I found this on a forum:   “Orthotics are inserts in your shoe(s) that help realign your stance if it is off balance. This type of problem can throw out all the muscles and bones from toes to head, and can be the cause of major foot, knee, hip, posture, muscle alignment(s) pain.   Do your shoes wear down on one side more than the other? That’s a goood indication you may have some problems there…or, are you flat footed? That, too can cause so much pain and misalignment of the body. ” So I took my shoes off and walked around the office:  no problem. Then I looked at the heels of my shoes.  The right side is worn down more than the left.  I guess I will go sock-foot a lot today and not wear these shoes again.  Update:  my colleagues made fun of me when I tried (and failed) to sneak in the coffee room unnoticed.

Date Rape and the Fantasy Novel

WTF, nerd authors?  Raping a woman is not going to make her want to be your girlfriend.  SRSLY.

Read some current romance novels!  Note how they no longer do that!!  Women do not want to be raped.  No means no.  No might mean you need to become a better person or it may mean to get lost forever, but it never ever means yes.

Not that some Vampire novels are much better, but at least they generally seduce rather than force.  Though in some cases, depending on the Vampire universe, the seduction is akin to a roofie.  Though definitely not in all Vampire books.

And while I’m at it, why do Cosmo covers always say, “How to please your man”?  Why don’t they say, “How to get mondo enjoyment from your sex life?”  I guess I have seen covers in which they say that but they are always talking about masturbation.  Can’t a woman have sex with a man for her own pleasure?

No wonder loser* atheist nerds get all bent out of shape when a woman requests politely that she not be propositioned in elevators anymore.  What kind of literature are we feeding these people?

*Not all losers are atheists.  Not all atheists are losers.  The subset of atheists who are sexist bastards is also a subset of losers.