"Try to see it from his point of view"

I’ve been reading a lot of pregnancy and parenting magazines lately. The occasional piece of advice on what I can do now to make labour easier almost makes it worth wading through the rest: relentless pressure to buy Stuff and soft-focus images of a family life I know I can never achieve. Then I turn to the advice page and find a real slap in the face.

I’m six months pregnant and my partner refuses to be at the birth. I feel so let down – will I really have to go through labour on my own?

I’m not a trained advice columnist, but I do know a bit about how it feels to be facing labour without a partner’s full support. If this woman came to me for advice, I’d reassure her that she doesn’t need to go through it completely alone, but there’s something else it’s just as important for her to hear. She’s allowed to feel let down; she’s allowed to feel that her partner has left her to face what may well look like a terrifying ordeal with no support. If she hasn’t already done so, she should talk to her partner about how she feels – women often feel pressure to keep their feelings under wraps, to deny them in the interests of “avoiding conflict” or because asking to be listened to might be seen as “selfish”.

But what’s the first thing the trained advice columnist recommends? She suggests trying to see it from the partner’s point of view, followed by a string of reasons why fathers-to-be are afraid of labour. Some are valid, like the fear he’ll let his partner down by fainting when she needs him most; others less so, like the fear that witnessing the birth will put him off sex. All of them miss the point.

It makes no difference to this woman why her partner doesn’t want to be present. She’s the one going through labour, he won’t support her, she feels let down. That’s the problem she’s asked for advice about, and the advice to see things from his point of view is suspiciously close to telling her that her feelings aren’t as valid as his.

Chances are, she’s already tried to see it from his point of view. Women are schooled fairly hard at “seeing it from his point of view” – I managed to skip most of my female-socialisation modules, but empathy was one of the ones that stuck. A tendency to look for the other fellow’s motivations stood me in good stead when it came to creating characters in my novels, but it also led me to cut manipulative partners far more slack than they deserved and to make concessions to people who had no intention of making concessions in return.

Empathy is an essential ingredient in a healthy intimate relationship, but it has to come from both sides. If her partner tried looking at it from her point of view, he might behave differently. He might recognise that whatever fears he has about labour, hers are likely to be worse because it’s her body that’s involved. He might see that after everything she’s gone through already in the course of this pregnancy, supporting her during labour is the least he can do in return. And even if he concludes that he cannot face the delivery room, he can understand how let down she feels and possibly support her in other ways so she knows he’s still there for her.

But no. All these things are beyond him because he’s just a man. Men aren’t expected to show any empathy, especially not when there are women around to show enough for two. She has to see things from his point of view in order to relieve him of the burden of seeing things from hers.

When empathy is a one-way street, it becomes all about his feelings. He doesn’t want to be there when she gives birth, and she is expected to understand and respect that. She wants his support, but he is under no obligation to understand or respect that. In fact, she shouldn’t even mention how much she wants him there: “It’s better if you don’t put him under pressure.”

Why offer such lousy advice? I understand that the advice needs to concentrate on things the woman can do, rather than things her partner ought to be doing, but there’s still plenty of advice that can be offered that doesn’t involve making her feelings subordinate to his. Being honest about her feelings means risking conflict and cutting her losses to make birth plans that don’t include him may make him feel left out, but neither of these things will cause the same long-term harm as convincing herself that her feelings don’t matter and her only option is to understand and support his.

Or are women always responsible for looking after men’s feelings? Even when they’re pregnant, and even according to other women? If I wasn’t already a feminist, that would be enough to convert me.

Posted in Anti-feminists and their pals, Feminism, sexism, etc | 30 Comments

'You're Fat And Won't Get Laid!' – Acceptible Medical Commentary?

Okay, not verbatim that, but just about. Here’s what I’m referring to:

A situation regarding the gratuitous ‘obesity’ commentary made by a doctor in New Hampshire has been causing quite a stir in both the media and in the blogosphere this week. I’ve been following the debate and commentary made about the situation and have been horrified at the sanctimonious bullshit people are spewing about the right of doctors to include inflammatory social commentary as part of their medical lecturing on the health risks of being overweight.

So here’s a bit of a rundown on what happened. Dr. Terry Bennett of Manchester, New Hampshire is being investigated for commentary he made to a patient that led to her filing a complaint against him with the New Hampshire Board of Medicine. According to MSNBC, Bennett is unapologetic and explains his actions as thus:

Dr. Terry Bennett, who practices in Rochester, said he has “an obesity lecture for women” that is a stark litany designed to get the attention of obese female patients.

He said he tells obese women they most likely will outlive an obese spouse and will have a difficult time establishing a new relationship because studies show most males are completely negative to obese women.

People have seemed to have a hard time grasping that not only is this charming doctor sizest, but he’s sexist to boot, and has a really poor concept of professional behavior.

A settlement was offered to Dr. Bennett by the New Hampshire Medical Board, but apparently Dr. Bennett feels that his actions were just fine and is in no need of changing his approach:

A settlement agreement was proposed that would have had Bennett attend a medical education course and acknowledge he made a mistake. He rejected the proposal.

“I’ve made many errors in my lifetime. Telling someone the truth is not one of them,” Bennett said.

The abrasive cacophony on web discussions is that being a doctor is a thankless job and the good doctor was being brave and kind for pointing out to the woman that she’s fat and that if her husband dies before her, she won’t be attractive to other men. I’m just boggling.

Posted in Fat, fat and more fat | 136 Comments

Role-Playing Idiocy: Six feet of what?

Everyone who has played role-playing games for a while has their “idiot” stories, about the worst role-playing they’ve ever seen. The wonderful thing about internet role-playing is that the idiocy can be recorded for posterity.

Which brings us to what may be the dumbest role playing in history. And, speaking as a man, let me say – damn!, some men are weird. Check it out.

Posted in Whatever | 22 Comments

Scattered thoughts about Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind

Charles, Elkins and I watched “Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind” last week. This is the third time I’ve seen this movie, which I love – I love all the Charlie Kaufman movies I’ve seen – but the first time that I wasn’t totally exhausted and fighting not to doze off, so there was new material.

Some scattered thoughts:

  • It’s a science fiction movie with no violence and no scenes in which any character is physically endangered. Watching this movie, you’d almost think that science fiction can be about playing with ideas, instead of about action scenes. Is that even legal?
  • Yet another movie that can’t pass the Mo Movie Measure – at no point in this movie do two women talk to each other. (There is a brief moment when Kate Winslet’s character has a two-second exchange with Jim Carrey’s memory of his mother, but I don’t think that counts, since the mother isn’t a real character.)
  • I think that if this selective-memory-wiping technology really existed, couples would use it to purposely do what the two main characters of Eternal Sunshine did accidentally – wipe the memory of each other out of their minds not to break up, but to be able to experience the giddy infatuation stage again. (I mentioned this to Elkins, who said that she thinks Robert Sheckley might have written that idea into a story at some point. It certainly sounds like a Sheckley idea).
  • I really enjoyed Elijah Wood’s character, who is a type of misogynist creep you occasionally encounter in real life, but who isn’t usually presented as a creep in the movies – The Guy Who Believes The World Owes Him A Girlfriend.
  • Favorite quote:
    Joel: Is there any risk of brain damage?
    Doctor: Well, technically speaking, the operation is brain damage.
  • The movie producers made a website for Lacuna Inc. Cute.
  • Both Kate Winslet and Tom Wilkinson are British but do perfect American accents. You see this a lot nowadays – I wonder if “American accent training” techniques have gotten much better in the last decade or so. I miss bad American accents – remember John Cleese’s American waiter in “The Meaning of Life”?
  • Isn’t Kate Winslet the actress with the rep for being zaftig? That’s ridiculous – she’s a tiny thing.
Posted in Popular (and unpopular) culture | 18 Comments

Feminism has made women less likely to be murdered

The London Sunday Times reports on a new British study:

Danny Dorling, the report’s author and professor of human geography at Sheffield University, said that marked changes in the social status of women explained the shift.

“The decline in the female murder rate is probably due to women being more likely and able to walk out of violent relationships,” he said.

“People have both became aware of how dangerous domestic violence is and how fruitless it is to stay in a violent relationship. In addition, women have become economically better off and so, in increasing numbers, they can afford to walk out.”

Posted in Rape, intimate violence, & related issues, Whatever | 173 Comments

No more federal funding for Silver Ring Thing unless changes are made

Via Feministing and originally the Washington Post, the “evangelistic ministry” promoting “abstinence only”, called Silver Ring Thing, has been cut off from federal funding unless it makes certain changes to its program. And you’ll never guess why they have been threatened of being cut off from federal funding….

The Bush administration yesterday suspended a federal grant to the Silver Ring Thing abstinence program, saying it appears to use tax money for religious activities.

Officials at the Department of Health and Human Services ordered the group to submit a “corrective action plan” if it hopes to receive an expected $75,000 grant this year.

In a letter to the program director, Harry Wilson, associate commissioner of the Family and Youth Services Bureau, concluded that the project funded with federal dollars “includes both secular and religious components that are not adequately safeguarded.”[…]

Teenage graduates of the program sign a covenant “before God Almighty” to remain virgins and earn a silver ring inscribed with a Bible passage reminding them to “keep clear of sexual sin.” Many of its events are held at churches.

In filings with the Internal Revenue Service, the organization describes its mission as “evangelistic ministry” with an emphasis on “evangelistic crusade planning.”

Representatives of the Pennsylvania-based nonprofit describe Silver Ring Thing as a “faith-based” group but dispute charges it has commingled its public funds with religious activities.

“Any religious teaching that goes on is separate in time and place from what the government is funding,” said Joel Oster, senior litigation counsel at the Alliance Defense Fund, which is representing the Silver Ring Thing. “They offer a religious program and they offer a secular program; kids can choose which one they want to go to.”

In an advertisement on its Web site for a set of educational materials on DVD, Silver Ring Thing promises: “A secular program is also in development.”[…]

Why hasn’t it already been developed and available to SRT participants, if they are or have been always able to take secular version of the program? And now, I have to give some props–grudgingly–to the Bush Administration for actually making a smart move with its “abstinence only” crusade. (lazily claps for the Bush Admin.). If they’re going to flood young people with all the misinformation, anti-women’s-sexuality, homophobic, and anti-sex mythical jargon that goes along with abstinence only “education”, the least thing they can do is not waste tax dollars funding for blatantly religious organizations in order to do so, and deny a lot of young people factual and intelligent information about their sexuality and reproductive health.

Posted in Conservative zaniness, right-wingers, etc. | Comments Off on No more federal funding for Silver Ring Thing unless changes are made

The Anti-Feminists Want to Give You $5000!

Assuming that you’re a female undergraduate, that is.

The IWF, a partisan think tank that specializes in hewing to the GOP party line (the “I” stands for “independent,” which I assume is a joke) and attacking feminism, is holding a student essay contest. To enter the contest, you have to be a full-time undergraduate in the 05-06 school year, and a woman.

I think it would be great if dozens and dozens of undergrads from the feminist blogosphere entered this contest. Here’s the theme:

Please discuss your experience on college campus as an independent woman. How has your college or university helped or hindered your intellectual and personal growth? Please describe what you think it means to be an independent woman in the year 2005.

They only want 750 words, which is nothing. $5000 first prize, $3000 second prize, $2000 third prize, and $500 for 10 honorable mentions.

Since this is the IWF, I predict that the winning essays will frequently touch on these four much-beloved IWF themes (or variations thereof):

  1. It’s so sad how the bitter drones who teach Women’s Studies think that they’re independent, when they’re actually sheep. But by standing up to bullying feministas, I learned how to be truly independent.
  2. Our Adventure in Iraq/reading about women under Islamic law/women under Saddam has taught me that my independence is a priceless treasure. (Bonus points if you personally served in Iraq – or claim you did – before attending college).
  3. I’m a person of color, to use a PC phrase I personally find silly, and boy do liberals strike me as condescending and racist! Affirmative Action is even more racist and insulting than liberals are! Only conservatives treat me like a person, instead of a skin color. I just want to be independent and free, like my hero, Laura Bush.
  4. My best friend thought that “hooking up” with lots of guys meant she was independent, but really she was just being used by men who wanted to avoid commitment. My real independence lies in waiting for the right guy, even though liberal students and profs make fun of me, because they’re all so elite and insensitive.

Nothing in the rules requires the essays to be non-fiction or even sincere, so make up stuff the IWF wants to hear. There’s no entry fee, and no limit on the number of times you can submit essays. Midge Decker is one of the judges, so being subtly homophobic won’t hurt your chances.

Don’t be too obvious about it, and who knows? Maybe early next year, you’ll have $5000 anti-feminist dollars to help with tuition. Or if you’re in a giving mood, give a big chunk to the Feminist Majority Foundation or Emily’s List – and ask them to send a thank-you note to the IWF.

Posted in Anti-feminists and their pals | 47 Comments

Iraq and American Masculinity

Just came across this passage on another blog and it cracked me up.

A ragtag bunch of ignorant losers who want to have sex with 72 virgins against a military increasingly de-balled by an effete media and seemingly intimidated president. No contest.

For some folks (not exclusively men – this blogger is a woman, I think), invading Iraq really is all about masculinity.

Posted in Iraq, Whatever | 3 Comments

Why Feminism?

Recently I have had an interesting question put to me, first in terms of trying to understand the origins of feminism or an overlook of feminism, and now more specifically ‘why feminism?’ Bean offered the suggestion of a book called ‘Feminism is for Everybody’ by Bell Hooks, which I in turn offered to the young man questioning me. He has since directed this question at me, and I’m curious to hear others reactions and opinions to this question.

So besides the obvious answer of valuing equality as a societal virtue, what are some good solid answers for this question?

I picked up that book you said I should, Kim. I am on page 50. It is not answering my questions. It is discussing problems with the advancement of feminism, but it is not discussing why feminism is right.

My question:
Why not domination by men?

It’s true that not all societies have had this kind of domination, but in almost every society I have read about, including primitive hunter-gatherer ones, ones allegedly “egalitarian,” there tends to be greater access of men for power positions and the like. I’ve had feminist friends point this out. They despair of this. One friend said something like, “It’s like it’s human for men to dominate. It really makes me depressed.”

So why not domination? Why is feminism right in putting forth its agenda?

THAT is what I would like to understand. And if anyone can point me in the right direction of this, I would be grateful, but this book has done nothing to really grapple with a deeper philosophical problem. It said, “egalitarianism is good; feminism promotes egalitarianism.” But why is egalitarianism good? Why is it right? I need this question answered.

I am completely open-minded, but I am simply very skeptical. I really want to see all points of view, but I am having difficulty. This makes me think I am missing something. Feminism is one of the few political positions that I cannot personally identify with, and I want to change that. Not because I want to be a feminist, but I want to feel what it’s like to be a feminist. I hope this makes sense.

Posted in Feminism, sexism, etc | 72 Comments

"The true legacy of Margaret Sanger"-Ms.

One of the cover stories of Ms. Magazine this past summer dealt with the retirement of Justice Sandra Day O’Connor and what is all at stake for women’s reproductive rights in this country, and the changing Supreme Court. And with Dubya nominating a guy like Roberts, yeah, it’s going to be one f-ugly battle, and there is indeed a lot at stake for us, considering the man’s stance on women’s rights. Anyway, Ms. received a lot of letters and emails about the story, many coming from readers concerned with the future of Roe v. Wade (and possibly Griswald v. Conn.). One letter in particular was reprinted in Ms. Musings blog, citing the legacy of Margaret Sanger and women’s reproductive empowerment.

[…]One of the letters was submitted to Ms. Magazine Online by Miriam Reed, author of Margaret Sanger: Her Life in Her Words (Barricade Books, 2003). It is reprinted in its entirety below:

In the summer 2005 issue of Ms. Magazine, Ellen Chesler refers to Margaret Sanger and her important work as birth control pioneer. Fortunate we are that Sanger worked so assiduously for birth control, but often overlooked is that birth control for Sanger was only a means to an end. The end was the freeing of the feminine spirit that it might fulfill its mission. And its mission?

To express the feminine; hers is not to preserve a man-made world but to create a human world by the infusion of the feminine element into all of its activities (Woman the New Race [1920], pp. 98-99).

One is at times hard put to find the feminine element in American life today, with the gag rule in force, with American militarism holding sway (Sanger was a pacifist), with access to contraception as well as abortion for the indigent less and less available, with honest information on a woman’s physiology and birth control methodology withheld from many young people.

As a dedicated consumer, by necessity, by custom, and by redilection, American women depend on corporate-produced contraceptives and corporate-produced food. When Margaret Sanger made The Pill possible, it served as an answer for those times. She never dreamed that pharmaceutical companies would become the powerful profit-driven machines that they are today. But what if women knew their bodies so intimately that birth control pharmaceuticals were unnecessary? What if women took the time and the initiative to recognize their cycles and mucus consistency and could control their conception with natural birth control methods? What if women taught this information to each other and to their younger sisters? What if women were no longer dependent on male-run corporations for these matters?[…]

Then their (corporations’) allies in the political sphere will do their damnest to significantly limit or outright illegalize this new form of radical natural contraception teachings among women and girls. Penalties for ‘thought-crimes’ or printing “illict” materials come to mind. Censorship. We see this in another form when it comes to the issue of self-righteous, moral-supremacist, misogynist anti-choice zealots who wear white lab coats in pharmacies, who use their ideological and anti-women-reproductive-rights dogma to thwart women’s access to their contraception–thus, thwarting women’s attempt to determine their own reproductive destinies. Whenever women attempt to break away from traditional societal expectations and even dependency on male politicians and predominately male-institutions such as the corporate world and the field of medical science, never fear, there will always–and unfortunately so–be the more powerful and influential reactionaries there to sabotage all of their (women’s) endeavors to independently empower themselves. It’s a sad fact of life.

For some years before Roe v. Wade, the Jane group in Chicago performed their own abortions. Learning to know your own body and demanding food that is locally grown does not require nearly as much courage. Women cannot be sent to jail for their consumer choices. But women would have to be educated by other than corporate advertising, would have to change their shopping habits, would have to engage within themselves the feminine spirit that Margaret Sanger sought to free when she was sent to jail for handing out contraceptives.

Birth control is only a means to an end. Woman’s refusal to engage in a profit-driven global market but instead “to create a human world” is the true legacy of Margaret Sanger.

Shorter: Women’s refusal to blindly go along with the traditionalist ideal of a woman’s “duty and obligation” to society (ie: having as many children as society dictates, never mind if the woman is personally against having that many or personally having children at all–even if she’s just a young twenty-something with no higher education or significant financial security), is a form of reproductive empowerment. In a nutshell, women standing up and being able to proudly say “I’m not going to have children when you tell me to,” or “I’m not going to have children until I accomplish a, b, c,” or “I’m going to decide how many children I have, not you,” and/or lastly, “I’m never going to have children,” with the aid of contraception and even legal and safe abortions, was the legacy of Margaret Sanger. Reproductive empowerment for women, which in case you haven’t notice, is having to be fought for and demanded all over again. Women controlling their reproductive destinies is just that annoying to some people.

Posted in Abortion & reproductive rights, Anti-Contraceptives/EC zaniness, Feminism, sexism, etc | 59 Comments