My friend wrote the following email to me. I asked her if I might be able to post it and she said yes, as long as I make it anonymous:
So maybe you’ll understand my irritation. Yesterday I found myself defending feminism to a couple of otherwise fairly liberal women. I’m not yet able to articulate precisely what about this conversation I found most disturbing. I’ll spare you the details, but one of them was arguing that feminism didn’t accomplish anything because women have always been able to do whatever they wanted to. To me, this just displays astounding ignorance (and how do you counter that, really?). Both of them, however, were arguing, essentially, that a woman’s primary purpose is to have and raise children. Really? And they weren’t so subtle in what they thought of me by way of implication. (It’s very possible I was reading more into this than I should have.)Now there are certain circles where I expect this sort of bullshit (and this is by no means a slight on women who choose to have/raise kids). And I’ve been distancing myself from those circles as much as I can. But it doesn’t look like I cant dodge this issue much longer, seeing as it appears unavoidable even amongst purported liberals. I’m hoping that with these women at least–I probably won’t see them again until after the new year–the issue is dropped, particularly because I don’t really feel that, in a professional setting anyway, I can really say what I think, in the way I really WANT to say it.Why, why, why in this day and age are women still most valued–even among other women–not for their brains, their wits, their gifts, their abilities, their accomplishments, but for their uterus? I had no idea this line of thinking, is this country anyway, went beyond the usual suspects. I thought that being valued for who one is, man or woman, should be a given. Or am I just pissed as an inherently flawed person because I’m not a nurturer? And what should I say/do the next time I run into this sort of thing?
Firstly, I am honored that I was included in the email — I am the only boy — with the subject line, “You’re enlightened people.”Secondly, I studied feminist theory in college and have always been a proponent of equal rights for women as they choose to define it.Thirdly, I would really love to get a discussion going about this issue because it means a lot to me, to my friend, and to loads and loads of women who value themselves for “their brains, their wits, their gifts, their abilities, their accomplishments” and not just for their uteri.
{ 45 comments… read them below or add one }
This woman has it wrong. When her friends say that a woman’s primary purpose is to have and raise children (a sentiment I don’t agree with), it doesn’t mean that women are valued for their uteri, it means that women are valued for motherhood. She’s treating it as if society (meaning men) have set these standards and women that believe what these women believe are somehow brainwashed into believing what they believe. No, they’ve concluded it themselves. I don’t agree with them, but they, as individuals have come to that conclusion.
Tell that to your friend please.
And perhaps she should tell her friends that we’re all individuals and that we’re not collectively designed to be any one particular thing. Her friends have created a standard that could easily make them become judgmental about people such as your friend.
My two cents.
Hopefully I got things rolling here.
So, if that is the purpose of women exactly what purpose did they think men serve. I’m serious. Are women and men only here to fulfill their role in the reproduction of the species? So, then guys should just do their thing and get lost? I would imagine there are a lot of men who’d live to be involved with their kids but jeeze nature just didn’t give them that role. I think these women have some really strange reasoning. Or more likely, they haven’t really thought about it at all.
People are essentially shallow. We are organic creatures and as such reproduction is a primary goal of our species. Men are most valued for their reproductive qualities and pocket books. Women are most valued for their reproductive qualities and looks.
People who mate with people who are good looking tend to produce offspring that are more likely to mate and continue the genetic line. Those that do not procreate cease to have genetic influence on the system.
I choose not to procreate. As such I remove my genetic line from the future. That which I am at my most basic will not propagate into the future of humanity.
However I am as a human a spreader of thoughts and ideas. I like to write which makes some of my thoughts and ideas a little more survivable than others. Regardless, some of my ideas (anyone’s ideas) will likely make it into the minds of future generations. In that manner some might say that something which is essentially me will propagate into the future. A procreation of ideas mixing with other ideas.
The question becomes which is of greater weight. Propagation of the genetic code or propagation of the mental structure?
I don’t know.
Who cares what other people think? I rarely encounter people like that, and I get around, but when it happens I don’t dignify it with energy or discussion.
It’s not hard because I’m confident they are wrong.
What they said about ‘feminism doing nothing and that women could always do everything’ is not true, and provable historically, so we don’t waste time getting upset. We have compassion for those women because, damn, where have they been living, and it must suck coming from such a uninformed place.
Woman’s primary purpose is to have and raise children. Not the woman Jane down the street, but Woman, and to argue otherwise weakens your position. It’s primal and necessary. Only when we bring it back to our self as an individual to we find offense.
The way I protect myself from ignorance in the world, and I’m still learning, is by becoming more informed and being close with people who have my ideals and accepting everyone else as they are by staying away from them.
BTW I wish guys would stop using the work Uteri.
Michelle, what is the work Uteri? How, as a guy, am I using it?
Well, the only reason I do care what these women think is that this country is a democracy and therefore ideas spread and have power — and yes this of course proves the idiocy of these women because as we know women could not always vote — and people will vote based on their own ideas and values and the people who get elected will shape the society and will have impact over what opportunities I have as a woman. So, I do think it is important to engage these women and try and change their thinking. The question is how to do it effectively. Maybe pointing out that women could not always vote even if they wanted to vote would be a good start.
(continuing from what I was saying above)
Although in the end what I believe. . . is that yes, setting aside the role of any given organism, for human beings (and as is true for all species) procreation is the primary goal. The species that fails to procreate is a failed species.
Does that mean everyone should procreate? No. Some organisms should not procreate and should thus remove from the species any potential hindrance to the continuation thereof.
So, those of you who do not wish to procreate, please do not. Your children would likely also feel uninclined to do so, and would consume resources that could go to those that would readily propagate humanity.
Nameless female
You are quite right that this is a democracy and ideals and values are the backbone of the laws we create. I think Michelle is saying one thing though…that by nature, women are made to have babies. In many species, the father plays a role, in many, they do not. So often it is the mother does the raising. That, by itself, shouldn’t be offensive. But then comes your point. The attitudes that seem to put every women in the same boat with the subtle judgmental attitude.
I wouldn’t start with the vote issue. It’s deeper than that. I mean, if these women think that women have always been able to do what they want, then they are grossly blind and ignorant. You can limit their damage by working to convince others of that belief.
women are the ones who are able to have the babies and that is just a reality. Men can’t do it — at least not yet. I think the difference between humans and the other species is that we have consciousness in a way that as far as we know no other animal has. I don’t know why we have the kind of minds we do — I’ll leave that to the biologists and the theologians to argue about — but we are capable of more than just having and raising babies: we write books, create art, build towers and take them down. We contemplate the meaning of our lives and write books about it. Yes, biology underlies much — but human beings are so much more complex than other species. So, yes women physically have the babies but I know of plenty of men who have done the raising of them. We are not complete slaves to our biology in the same way that other species mostly are. We have the power to think!
Many biologists would argue that “human thought” is no more than an evolutionary advantage to procreation. As for building towers. Beavers build and destroy dams. Bees build hives. We are not the only builders. We are not as special as we might think. However, “belief” that our species is the “best” helps insure procreation, as we are less likely to give resources that we need to another “lesser” species when it comes down to the line.
We are biological systems. We are natural and a part of nature. Everything about human beings is natural. From our excrement right up to our atomic bombs.
As far as who should be a child rearer. That’s up in the air. Both genders in the human species have done it. Women come equipped with food stores for the growing infant, however men can and do find alternatives to the natural food of a growing infant.
My main point here is that humans have not somehow magically escaped nature. We are as much a part of nature as any other creature. We are simply the current dominant species on the planet. Nothing more.
Nameless
I am one of those men who has raised his child.
I think overall people in the this debate have to delineate between the concept that a major function of women in our society is to be mothers – to have and raise children and the concept of positioning women as that being the ONLY thing they’re good for OR that every women has to live up to this…if not they’re not a woman.
It is the generalization and the subsequent expectations implied that are offensive.
Now, not to touch on a sensitive point…but why can’t you name yourself…you’re living up to yet another stereotype by being afraid to really put yourself out there.
Let’s say I can’t name myself for very good reasons and leave it at that. I have no fear — believe me — of asserting myself or making myself known when it is appropriate.
I do believe human beings are different from other creatures. Show me the other species that writes books about their condition. Human beings do not have instincts in the way other creatures do…. That is complex behaviors that we inherit at birth rather than learn. We are different from other species. For example, we feel shame when naked. Show me the other creature that feels shame and awareness at being naked. Although Freud certainly believed in biology part of what drove him was a desire to figure out what was unconscious base desire so that we could use rational thought to overcome irrational behaviors. Only humans have that ability on such a complex level.
while I wouldn’t dispute that we have been made by evolution, evolution is complex process that can result in many, many different outcomes and behaviors. I think we may be the only creatures who are able to think past our most base selves. What other creature has come up with the concept of equality, freedom, etc. Anyway, nuff said. I think we all can agree that biology is not destiny and that we as human beings can make conscious choices. My sense is that we all concur that women are not biologically destined to spend their lives doing laundry, making dinner, and changing diapers. But, may want to do other things with their time and if they chose to do other things should be able to.
Shame is merely conditioning. A dog can be conditioned to feel bad or good about any number of things. People are the same. Our differences from other species are of no great consequence and in the end we are driven by our biology. We do have instincts, just as any other animal. One of the main instincts of a human is to imitate. We do that very well. We look around, see that which works for other creatures and imitate.
An ape will reason it’s way through many situations. A wolf or other canine will “reason” out which prey is weak and sick so that they have a greater chance of gaining a meal.
Reason and imitation do not put us above nature. They are a part of the human nature. No different than tusks, or claws, or flippers.
Ego of a species is normal. Every species does all in it’s power to become dominate. Part and parcel of that is putting the self-species above other species. Rationale or not, the same end result is reached. Wolves protect that which is wolf. Humans do that which is best for humans.
Human “consciousness” is ill defined and will remain ill defined. As such it has no valid weight in discussions of being a special case creature somehow exempt from natural law. Do thoughts of equality, freedom, etcetera really matter in the long run?
In the end it is about the survival of the species. In the end it is about which type of creature continues while others become extinct.
We are just another animal. We happen to be the dominate animal on this planet at the moment. We will become extinct and a new species will become dominant.
Not all women are “biologically destined to spend their lives doing laundry, making dinner, and changing diapers” but some are. Some women _and_ men are biologically predisposed and best suited to subservience. There is nothing wrong with being subservient. There are alpha creatures and beta creatures. Some that rule and some that are ruled over. There is nothing wrong with each person finding their natural place in the pack/herd/tribe. It is also normal for a human to try to convince others to imitate itself. The women who say that “the primary function of a woman is to give birth and care for the home” merely are expressing that part of human nature that wishes for other to imitate itself. We like to propagate our mental image into others. Each of us believe our thoughts to be the best. Why else would we have them? If they were not the best ideas we would have other ones. So we argue and “reason” and speak until our tongues are dry.
When they speak it is the barking of dogs. When you speak it is the barking of dogs. And when I speak it is the barking of dogs.
Well Phillip…you are obviously a bit a know it all. I know your type. Look up the definition of instinct. Human beings do not have instincts. Instincts are complex behaviors that are inherited and simply know by virtue of being born a particular species. Human children, left unattended and without any instruction will die. They don’t know how to do anything at all instinctively. Impulse is not instinct because it is not a complex behavior. Bees know know from birth how to do certain dances and so forth. If I gonna dance ballet I need an instructor. Again, look it up. Instinct is a complex behavior that is biologically determined. Your complete arrogance for example, is a learned habit. Tone it down buddy. Then again, perhaps its just a male flaw — cause you dudes seem to have it more than us chics. Totally arrogant. I’m not being species arrogant here. You’re just being dense. Civilization — is all learned …nothing instinctual. It is passed down over generations. I beg to differ that we dominate the planet. I didn’t say we were superior to other creatures. But, we are distinct from all other animals on this planet in terms of complex reasoning facilities and the ability to create entire civilizations. Show me the chimp that builds a space ship. Now, I’m gonna stop here cause you are of a type and you will keep going cause you can’t help yourself. You need to keep arguing. I’ve said my piece. Good night.
The complex behavior of imitation is an instinct of the human species. Left alone a human child (beyond the age of an infant) will scavenge and and hunt. It will find sustenance on it’s own if _physically_ capable. It does not need to be taught how to eat. A human being has instinct. Don’t be foolish.
Civilization is all built on the human instinct to imitate.
You, nameless and female, are the dense one here. You lack the ability to see beyond some dogma and rhetoric about human beings being a special case creature.
You have fallen into the pit of the species-ego and you will likely never make your way out.
We are the dominate species. That’s simple fact and nothing more. We have the greatest share of resources and territory. The other species of the planet are at our mercy. That is called being the dominant species.
Civilization is the result of a natural and instinctive imitation of the world around us. Building is an imitative system. Plumbing is an imitation of rivers. Society is an imitation and reimplementation of the pack/herd structure. but it all boils down to humans instinctively imitating.
If I come off as arrogant it’s only because I know more than you. If I talk down to you, it is because your arguments are childish and without basis.
What we imitate may not be instinct, but the act of imitation is it itself instinct.
Wow, look at this! I went to sleep right after I posted this post. I am off to Church, believe it or not, and will respond afterward. Thanks, all, for all your amazing responses!
One uterus, many uteri.
I don’t think that either Jonathan or I generally use the word “uterus” ever; however, we did not choose the word, Michelle, so we’re not in a place to change or redefine language. I am sure the word was a very intentional choice by my friend — it is a clinical word — even “womb” is too warm and rife with meaning. See what I mean? The discomfort you have with Uterus or Uteri is completely built into the tone and tenor of the conversation. Am I correct?
Good morning – Point take that the word was used in the letter, thank you.
For me I don’t try to change people through dialogue, or I hope I don’t too much, because it doesn’t work, and what usually happens is our differences are amplified and relationship suffers. Of course the best way to influence people is by living your ideals, which probably means not trying to change people all the time.
Well, I don’t know what I believe on this because I think that it is a decision not to engage with people in dialogue that allows and enables people to keep behaving the way they do: racist, sexist, perverse, intolerant, etc. I can completely understand why you yourself — why someone — should decide not to participate in such a dialogue; however, I also think that these sorts of conversations do have an important effect.
This effect almost never changes the POV of the people who are participating in the dialogue, but it often does effect the audience — very much. Very much. To be honest, the blogosphere has been able to take on these sort of things. Actually, “best way to influence people is by living your ideals” requires that you don’t only walk quietly and carry a big stick. If you’re going to pursue exemplarism, isn’t it essential to do a little bit of evangelizing, a little bit of mentoring, a little bit of teaching.
So, which I think you can’t change the mind of someone, you surely can make them look like a backward-ass, ignorant, primitive, jerk-off if you play your cards right! :) So, my goal is never to try to change someone else’s mind mind but to make an example of him or her. Generally, you don’t have to work very hard at making someone with obsolete, unenlightened, and self-destructive thought patterns look like a moron in front of other people. My friend did an amazing thing in bringing this discussion away from the wall she was hitting her head against and bringing it to her friends. At that point, I brought it to you.
It all comes down, sadly, to a gender issue. I understand what Phillip is saying, but I don’t think he is so cynical. I also don’t think that it is the same thing, the egg and the sperm. A man’s sperm is a plentiful thing while a woman’s eggs are considered to be in limited supply.
I thought this was a thing of the past, but I guess women are still being defined as being old maids, I think they’re being accused of being barren or being pitiful, I think that we have been able to see, more and more, that feminism has taken many steps back. I was just on the phone with my friend Io and she was talking about how there is such an amazing gulf between “woman as CEO” and “woman as sexpot.”
The same gender that can be elected to be German Chancellor and EU President, for example Angele Merkel, can also be relegated to her sexual parts: dehumanized and completely visual. I wrote something like this a long time ago and I will see if I can dig it up — here, I think I found it:
http://chrisabraham.com/2005/09/20/our-men-must-be-wealthier-say-ivy-league-women/#title
That even women who attend Yale, for example, are possibly going to leave one of the world’s best colleges, work for a couple-few years, maybe get an MBA or a Law Degree, and then are going to bail the working life to become mothers. No, I think that this hard won equality isn’t complete.
Just because there may have been a lot of progress, the way people speak about women in popular media, in bars, in modern music, in rap, and on television is appalling. To be honest, the way Hillary Clinton was treated was appalling. People felt very comfortable calling Clinton a bitch and all sorts of things when they would never consider making the same kinds of equivalent comments about Obama.
I remember in the 80s and 90s. Television was much different than it is now with regards to the objectification of women on TV and the media. Yes, there are a lot of partially-dressed women all over Berlin and in Europe; however, these images aren’t nearly so dangerously-charged. A lot of popular representations of women on TV, in movies, and in print are amazingly disrespectful and that dangerous charge is “slut!”
Phillip says that this is all we are — it is our human instinct. Whether or not this is true, I agree that the id was not made to be indulged whole. It is our inheritance as modern, civilized, enlightened, educated, and sophisticated people not to behave this way. While we may physiologically be walking penises and vaginas, I do not personally live in so feral a world.
I know how my friend, the friend who wrote the above piece, feels. She is being belittled because she is not living up to her role, to her gender, to her potential, a potential of Girlfriend, of Wife, of Mother, of Grandmother, and of Widow.
So, what the United States culture of DC, Virginia, and Maryland is saying is that being a Lawyer, Doctor, Writer, Astronaut, Partner, CEO, Scientist, Nobel Laureate, Professor, Academic, Scholar, Artist, Businesswoman, Politicians, or Novelist means nothing if you have not found a Husband who has given you a ring and brought one or more of your children into the world.
It is a double standard, however, because this is not the same case with a man — or I don’t think it is as profound and worrisome. I don’t think it is so clearly “success/failure” as it is with women.
It is a lot different here in Berlin. When the United States zigged with Sex and the City feminism, Germany went forward. While women in Berlin are very feminine, they’re not interested in taking any shit. They’re terribly “liberated” and can be fiercely independent. And this is their inheritance, to be honest. And the men have received the memo, so to speak, which is a problem of its own. It is very amusing to have to fight to pay the bill — everyone pays “dutch” here. There is a very strong concept of self: you’re not the boss of me, so to speak.
So, I need to tell my friend that Washington, DC, is a really shitty place to be anything but a woman in your 20s or a married woman in the suburbs. While there are a lot of powerful women in the city, women who are partners and who are major players on the Hill, Washington, DC, is surely a very backwards sort of town when it comes to being single, finding a man, landing a man, engaging a man, marrying a man, and making babies. People in the area have a very clear definition — a very traditional definition — of what the developmental milestones should be: College: 18-21, grad school: 22-26, married: 27-28, first child: 29-31, etc…
Anyway, I am ranting. Don’t pay me no mind. I am living in Berlin, so all the rules are new and different here!
I wish that women in other countries thought this way. After seeing the world and living abroad I have come to a realization that Western women are so much more advanced than Eastern women. It really is scary to think of 1.5 Billion women who only want to have kids. The world is way over populated and women need to focus on other ways to contribute to society, if not the world will be filled with people. Women please do not have babies we don’t need more babies in this world we already have far to many. Please get a different hobby and do something else productive. We no longer need more kids get out of the stone age please.
Erik
http://www.freefor15.com
well…can’t just blame that on women. last i looked it took two.
@Chris I just got 3 paragraphs, but I want to say that it’s not nice to make people look like morons, alone or in front of other people. That comes from being over zealous. Some people don’t have the luxury of education but want to be part of the discussion. Back to the rest…
Let me share some thoughts.
I think there is rather big problem – the world is fit for men. Successful woman is often a woman adapted – she acting like a man, talking like a man, thinking etc.
Is it wrong? Maybe not. But it is a limitation. A more feminine world is obviously a more colorful one. As for me, I would prefer it.
Second, I think, everyone should choose for herself. And “others think I’m wrong” is not an excuse for going with the crowd.
If one decides to devote her life to the children, respect her choice.
If one decides not to have a baby, respect her choice.
I’m not gonna talk about idiocy, this world strongest religion.
@Chris re: the rest, it’s not that bad.
Just a quick response to Mr. Rhoades…please go and look up the scientific definition of instinct and how it is used in a scientific environment. I’m not ignorant here. I’m just telling you that according to the current use of that word by sociologists, biologists, etc. human beings do not have instincts in the same way that other creatures have instincts that is a complex behavior that is not learned but inherited. You can have your own definition of instinct and decide that you want to fight the current scientific norm but I’m not wrong about its academic definition. Just go and look up what I’m trying to say to you instead of bullying me, which is very male.
Anyway, the point of this discussion remains the place of women in this world and Chris made some really excellent points. It’s so hard to tell sometimes what is biology what is simply social conditioning and what is biological. Taking your husbands last name an enforced societal norm, who pays the bill social conditioning. I think it’s really important to question these societal norms and why we do them.
I personally, don’t want to be treated exactly like a man. I do think women and men are different. I had a sociology teacher many years ago who phrased it this way: “women don’t want to be treated exactly like men, they want to be treated fairly and they are not.”
Hillary Clinton was treated so unfairly. Let’s say I had some conversations with journalists and was amazed by their comments about her. One said that she was just trying to get power on her husbands coat tails. I found this really troubling. For one, she sacrificed her career for his for many years. She was ranked one of the top 100 lawyers in the US. She has been sitting in the Senate for more than six years and from all accounts has been considered to be an excellent Senator by the people of New York. Yet, some how she was just riding her husband’s coat tails. From what I gather he gave her a lot of credit for helping him rise to power. Anyway, that kind of thinking in the media was really frustrating.
Then, I had women friends who didn’t like her. When I’d asked why some would say, “I don’t know, I just don’t like her.” Another said, ‘She’s just too aggressive for a woman.” It was so frustrating to hear people make these comments. My mother was a physician before women did that sort of thing and she told me that when she got the best grade in the class in physics the teacher — who was a woman — told her that she wasn’t supposed to do that because a boy was supposed to get the best grade.
Chances are good that the fastest woman will never run catch up to the fastest male runner and that men will mostly have more upper body strength than women but there are so many areas where physical strength is not the issue and women should be able to rise in the same way as men if that is what they want. Unfortunately, old prejudices die hard. I think dialogues like this are so important. Thanks for starting this Chris. It’s been really interesting.
I also just finished reading a great book called “Three Cups of Tea” about a fabulous guy who builds schools for girls in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Here’s a link to the book. I highly recommend it and if you want to help improve the lot of women in the Muslim world this guys organization seems to be a great place to start giving.
http://www.threecupsoftea.com/
Chris’s comment about his conversation shown here :
“defined as being old maids, I think they’re being accused of being barren or being pitiful, I think that we have been able to see, more and more, that feminism has taken many steps back. I was just on the phone with my friend Io and she was talking about how there is such an amazing gulf between “woman as CEO” and “woman as sexpot.”
seems to be so worrisome to me yet it’s so true. Women often denigrate others for working and not staying home with children but then others who do stay home with children denigrate others who work.
excuse me for be crude (and I rarely am) but WTF?
It’s not just about having children but those without children are left out of the loop. I remember going to a party of women and over 95% of the women were mothers– and when they found out I had no children, they stopped talking to me.
It’s not that I didn’t have anything to say to them or wouldn’t listen– but why do I become a non-person because I don’t have a kid?
And why do those who don’t have kids, think I am not interested or interesting because I have one?
Women have brains, hearts and can out-multi-task most of the opposite gender. Yet I see that sometimes — whether it’s CEO’s, some male of the species and sometimes women who wonder unconsciously, subconsciously that they perhaps have missed out on something feel that without putting the focus on procreation that a woman is only just a pale immitation of a man.
I so disagree with this notion. I really feel for Chris’ friend on this one.
It almost makes me want to pull a Jethro Gibbs (NCIS slap upside the head)
Chris said: “So, what the United States culture of DC, Virginia, and Maryland is saying is that being a Lawyer, Doctor, Writer, Astronaut, Partner, CEO, Scientist, Nobel Laureate, Professor, Academic, Scholar, Artist, Businesswoman, Politicians, or Novelist means nothing if you have not found a Husband who has given you a ring and brought one or more of your children into the world.
Then he said: So, I need to tell my friend that Washington, DC, is a really shitty place to be anything but a woman in your 20s or a married woman in the suburbs. While there are a lot of powerful women in the city, women who are partners and who are major players on the Hill, Washington, DC, is surely a very backwards sort of town when it comes to being single, finding a man, landing a man, engaging a man, marrying a man, and making babies. People in the area have a very clear definition — a very traditional definition — of what the developmental milestones should be: College: 18-21, grad school: 22-26, married: 27-28, first child: 29-31, etc…
What bullshit. DC is a much better place than most. The culture here is work – almost too much for BOTH genders. It is an unromantic wasteland at times. There is less pressure for a woman to marry than anywhere else. First of all, it is very transient. Many people here simply don’t have parents and relatives pushing marriage down their throats. Many of the suburbs that are over 100,000 in population also have the highest percentage of households without children. There are many, many women here who are accomplished and have no children. And while they may be comforted that they’re not alone.
This area is home to some of the pickiest people of BOTH genders. Too high standards and too narrow standards. Then at some point they pay for it.
Then Stevie says ” It’s not just about having children but those without children are left out of the loop. I remember going to a party of women and over 95% of the women were mothers– and when they found out I had no children, they stopped talking to me.
It’s not that I didn’t have anything to say to them or wouldn’t listen– but why do I become a non-person because I don’t have a kid?
And why do those who don’t have kids, think I am not interested or interesting because I have one?
Exactly. Women can be their own worst enemies. In fact, that’s how this conversation started. Chris’ friend reacting to what two of her WOMEN friends said.
I’ve always looked at women as complete beings, regardless of whether or not they have children.
Regarding Hillary Clinton, yes, she was a victim of sorts of sexism, but she also has had years of exposure – and some people grew to not like her regardless of her gender. Her biggest problem in this election was the media. They were often incredibly biased in favor of Barack Obama. They declared Hillary’s campaign to be dead long before it drew it’s last breath.
I’m jumping all over the place here, but I’d say that many women relish the idea of giving birth and being mothers. Nothing wrong with that. But when they start judging other women whose life has take an different path, they make life more difficult for all women – including their daughters,the women of tomorrow.
I think it’s possible that the writer of the post was, as she said, “reading more into this than she should have”. It’s also possible that she feels worse about ‘not being a nurturer’ than others feel about her.
Women have a ton of choices, and each of them are strong, sometimes conflicting, stances. We have come a long way, and there is much more to come for us, but, at this point, we all feel strongly and differently about who we should be as women.
I just think it takes a lot of negative energy and effort to worry about what anyone else thinks. And, I love that women can take a variety of roads.
My hope is that we will find equal footing in pay, in parenting, in work and in politics. Sooner, rather than later. And, I believe this will only happen when we are more tolerant of our many choices. and how strongly we each stand for our choice.
Wow! Thank you so much for all of your deep and powerful attention to this issue and to this conversation. I forwarded this string to my friend yesterday with this note,
And she replied (and allowed me to paste her message here, so I am not being a jerk):
Thanks again, all, for your continued contributions! It is like Christmas to wake up in the AM to more of your words and thoughts!
(With regards to instinct, we are far from the instinctual animals who are our distant cousins, and that is because Big Human Skulls and the ability for Women to Pass Babies simply came to conflict and it seems that lots of our Instinctual ROM was jettisoned in the evolutionary process. We outsourced the kind of innate instinctual programming to culture, which is then carried and proffered to each child in the form of education and enculturation. I might be rusty and it is of course part of the Nature v Nurture controversy, but I have done a lot of research on this because I am obsessed with GroupThink, Memetics, Command and Control, and Culture Hacking. Also, PR would be so less effective were it not for the fact that most of the instincts we do have are mammalian and reptilian — far less sophisticated and “base” than the complete and somewhat refined instincts of Herding, Swarming and Schooling creatures.
There may be instincts there — certainly to reproduce, to have sex, to become aroused, and to bond with each other and especially with the child — well, certainly to reproduce, anyway; however, how base are we want to be? How much of our Id do we want to stir into our coffee in the morning?
How feral and how base? How enlightened and how sophisticated?
And, am I sounding like an elitist yet?)
Methinks Chris’ friend is none other than nameless and female.
When your friend says “Most men seem to believe (or at least act as if they believe), regardless of their religious beliefs or cultural background, that women exist to serve men. And there are a lot of women who believe (or act as if they do) this as well. It’s very evident in the dating scene (what there is of it) here”, it shows me an attitude that I fundamentally disagree with. There’s no working with someone that has that attitude.
Where I agree with her wholeheartedly (as I agree with Stevie) that women often judge themselves and other women based upon the concept of motherhood, she loses me because she sees everything as women as victims and men are (usually) sexist. She believes most men are shallow and those women that agree with them are stupid.
She asks, “Why, why, why in this day and age are women still most valued–even among other women–not for their brains, their wits, their gifts, their abilities, their accomplishments, but for their uterus?”
She makes this claim as a result of her two friends saying that they believe that a woman’s primary purpose is to have and raise children. The opinions expressed that she object to where those of two women, not men. Yet her rhetorical question primarily blames men – with the exception of some women such as her friends. Putting this mostly on men is the first problem because she treats women that disagree with her as likely ignorant fools, duped by those men who have created this system where women are to serve men.
So primarily blaming men is her first mistake. He second is shown in her comment reducing the beauty of motherhood to a uterus. This negates the concept that these women may deeply value motherhood well beyond their uteri ?. These women likely value motherhood, she sees this coming from male dominance, focusing on something primal.
Take a look at the way a lot of mothers responded to the Motrin ad regarding babywearing. Head over to YouTube. You’ll see a lot of moms valuing themselves as mothers beyond the act of procreation.
I am sure it wasn’t the two women who brought her to this, I am sure these two women were the final two straws on the Camel’s back. I am sure there is a lot of this… my other friend wrote this to me via email:
If women were not oppressed by men, feminism would never have been necessary. Or do you really believe, as you imply, that it’s all in our heads? I see you skipped the part about most women in the world being considered property/second class citizens. Do you seriously believe that’s not true?
Your statement, “women valuing themselves as mothers” underscores the point of the original problem: many don’t value themselves–or any other women–as anything else.
When asked what was a greater impediment to success, shrirley chisolm, the first black woman to run for president said her gender not her race.
Laura, that is an amazing insight that I hadn’t heard before. Thanks for sharing that.
to “to Jonathan”
By no means do I think it is in all of your heads. I didn’t come close to saying that.
First of all, I was responding to Chris’ friend’s view of the Washington area, not the entire world. Throughout much of the world, women are fully second class citizens. Entire continents are that way.
And, yes, I fully realize that a significant amount of women value women primarily or fully about motherhood. As a single father, I see this all the time. I see some women who are smart and accomplished suddenly become incapable of talking about anything else. Or show no interest in world events because it isn’t about their kids. Or almost resent non-moms because they don’t have kids. I’ve had girlfriends feel out of place by women like that.
But there’s something that we’re missing here. I see women who do that as doing it out of their free will. Just like her two friends have concluded that a women’s primary purpose is to have and raise kids. (Maybe it is. Maybe more men should learn from that because I think the primary thing men should do is raise their kids too…if they have them)
For those close minded women who don’t care about life outside of child rearing, or those who look down on non-moms, you can’t change them and there is no way to battle that because it’s coming from WITHIN these women. It’s tied to a deep emotional feeling. Whether it is instinctual or out of insecurity, I don’t know. But I don’t think its because men told them to think this way and they suddenly become stupid. And I’d say that if you ask them this, they would say that they believe this/act this way because that’s how they feel. They’ve come to that conclusion themselves. I think “Chris’friend/nameless and female/to Jonathan (because I have no idea who I’m talking to)” gets frustrated and angry at this – for some legitimate reasons – because it does affect society’s overall view of women.
I understand that frustration. I share that frustration. These same women often view men as second class parents just as they view non-moms as being incomplete.
As for me, I don’t think, from what I can tell, that the friends of Chris’ friend are reducing to being a uterus. That’s because there’s a between celebrating motherhood and reducing women to being a uterus.
Am I “enlightened” now? :)
Shit. That last paragraph should be that the friends of Chris’ friend AREN’T reducing women to being a uterus.
Your comment it noted, Jonathan. You have the people posting all wrong. My friend is not who you think she is. Anyway, I think there is a lot more sadness and longing in all of this than we have really addressed. Something I have realized about life is that love, relationship, community, and life is really messy and also a series of beautiful mistakes. I don’t mean that to sound trite, but it does sound trite. Like my friend, I am single, I am unmarried, and I don’t have any children; however, the only aspect of that that anyone cares about it whether I am getting laid or not — maybe why I am single. Once in a blue moon, someone will wonder why I have never been married to why I have never had children, but this is more from potential mates than it is from my mom, my relatives, my family, or my friends. In fact, I am constantly reminded how much time I have and how I should really take as much time as I humanly need in order to find the perfect girl, the perfect mate, and the perfect match. That doesn’t change the fact that I am often as lonely, as forlorn, as full of sadness and longing as my friend feels. While I don’t get the kind of gender-based bullshit she suffers (and I bet this is just the last in a series of events over time, this one being the last straw), I still feel drawn to marriage, babies, and togetherness while still being scared shit. And, like my friend, I am fiercely independent and kind of set in my ways and terribly jealous of everything I would lose were I to take the leap into all of those things I long for. Or do I? Anyway, the feelings my friend has are Universal feelings, and I think that is, in many ways, what this comment string has kind of agreed on, I think. Anyway, I really enjoy this conversation, so thanks for participating.
Aren’t we just mixing up evolutionary purpose with one’s social purpose? Yes, a woman’s biological / evolutionary purpose is to bear and raise children. The women were right to say that, assuming that’s how they meant it. That doesn’t mean a woman serves no other purpose socially, emotionally, spiritually, etc.
Sheesh people, lighten up.
Chris,
This last post of yours takes this conversation to a whole new ‘human’ level.
You wish for children and marriage as much as any woman does. As I woman, I am no less ‘scared shit’ of it all, and so the answer is [nearly] EVERYONE’s purpose, man or woman, is to bring children into the world and develop these little ones into really cool people. You just became known for your sperm!
Lonliness is simply the reminder some of us share.
The fact that women are sometimes valued as child-bearers is because we are. among a million other things that we are. We are adding these other titles all the time. It isn’t happening fast enough, surely, but it’s happening.
Men are known for their careers, their politics, their contribution to society… and their sperm.
This conversation will help women move forward another step. No matter the comments, we are ‘noticing’ the journey.
Soon, I hope, we will see that women and men should ALL just be treated simply as humans who may have children, may have cool jobs, may contribute to sustaining a healthy world, may be in politics, may be married, etc.
Thanks for giving us this space to talk for a minute about it.
Thank you, Pamela.
I received this amazing email from my friend, which is a beautiful insight into her mind and her heart: