anythings.org

Not shockingly, each of the presidential candidates issued a statement yesterday about the California Supreme Court’s decision to overturn the gay marriage ban. Even less shocking: all 3 candidates oppose gay marriage. Which, to be honest, is a position I understand for Obama and Clinton because the percentage of people in America who support gay marriage fluctuates to be a little more or a little less than 50%. But nevertheless, here are their statements in the court’s decision.

Sen. Obama:

Barack Obama has always believed that same-sex couples should enjoy equal rights under the law, and he will continue to fight for civil unions as President. He respects the decision of the California Supreme Court, and continues to believe that states should make their own decisions when it comes to the issue of marriage.

Sen. Clinton:

Hillary Clinton believes that gay and lesbian couples in committed relationships should have the same rights and responsibilities as all Americans and believes that civil unions are the best way to achieve this goal. As President, Hillary Clinton will work to ensure that same sex couples have access to these rights and responsibilities at the federal level. She has said and continues to believe that the issue of marriage should be left to the states.

The only thing positive I found in Clinton’s quote was the bit where she claims that she will work for access to rights on the federal level for gay couples who can’t marry because their states are too conservative. Clinton and Obama’s statements are the reason I can’t consider them “liberal” candidates in this election. I’m disappointed in them both, but I had to get behind the lesser of two evils.

And, the most painful, Sen. McCain:

John McCain supports the right of the people of California to recognize marriage as a unique institution sanctioning the union between a man and a woman, just as he did in his home state of Arizona. John McCain doesn’t believe judges should be making these decisions.

My favorite part is the bit where McCain says he doesn’t believe that judges should be making these decisions. But you know, something tells me that if this decision upheld the gay marriage ban, he wouldn’t have made that statement. If the California Supreme Court had ruled that abortion could not be performed in California (which would never happen), he would have issued a statement thanking the judges for making the “right” decision. I’m sorry, but, how is someone running for president when they don’t understand the function of the judicial branch of the government?

Check out the LA Times article here.

In a 4-3 ruling, the justices rule that state marriage laws are unconstitutional.

SAN FRANCISCO — – The California Supreme Court ruled today that same-sex couples should be permitted to marry, rejecting state marriage laws as discriminatory.

The state high court’s 4-3 ruling was unlikely to end the debate over gay matrimony in California. A group has circulated petitions for a November ballot initiative that would amend the state Constitution to block same-sex marriage, while the Legislature has twice passed bills to authorize gay marriage. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed both.

Finally, some decisive action on this!

Here’s a quote from our shitty, shitty Governor, Mr. Schwarzenegger, that makes me feel a little more secure in today’s ruling:

“I respect the Court’s decision and as Governor, I will uphold its ruling. Also, as I have said in the past, I will not support an amendment to the constitution that would overturn this state Supreme Court ruling.”

Not only is today Leap Year (and another lame excuse for things to be one sale in stores), but today is also Sadie Hawkins Day. Which means, for you ladies who are so inclined, today is the one day every four years where a woman can propose to a man and get away with it.

Now I was under the impression that we were living in the 2000s, but I’ll go with it. I remember when I was reading the Sweet Valley High books (back when I was like, 10) and one of the twins was in a wedding where the woman proposed and it was so obvious that he didn’t want to marry her, he was just doing it because he didn’t want to say no.

I know it’s kind of a big deal for women to propose to men, but I think it’s just as big of a deal for a man to propose. However, I believe that you shouldn’t ask someone to marry you unless you are 100% sure they will say yes. And if you say no, you don’t have the right to get mad at them.

Wikipedia and Cate say this completely chauvinistic point of view dates back to 1288:

In 1288 the Scottish parliament under Queen Margaret legislated that any woman could propose in Leap Year; few parliament records of that time exist, and none concern February 29.[1] Another component of this tradition was that if the man rejects the proposal, he should soften the blow by providing a kiss, one pound currency, and a pair of gloves.

And yet, when women turn men down, they don’t have to “soften the blow” with a kiss, gloves, or money. They just get to say no and continue with their spinster-y ways, forever having to live with the fact that they let down women everywhere by saying no to someone who wanted to marry them.

[Image]

Equality is an abstract concept. I don’t believe that it is something that can easily be defined. But apparently, every year, the World Economic Forum thinks it can easily define gender equality. This year, the evaluated 128 countries. The WEF just released the Global Gender Gap Report for 2007. According to their website, it measures gender equality across the following four areas:

1. Economic participation and opportunity – outcomes on salaries, participation levels and access to high-skilled employment
2. Educational attainment – outcomes on access to basic and higher level education
3. Political empowerment – outcomes on representation in decision-making structures
4. Health and survival – outcomes on life expectancy and sex ratio

I sat and stared at these categories for awhile and tried to figure out what about them it was that bothered me. It took me some time and a lot of thinking, but then I realized it. And it was so obvious. They didn’t even consider choice. And I’m not talking about pro-choice or anti-choice, I’m talking about the choice to excel economically or to be a stay at home father.

You can’t measure choice. And if you can’t measure choice, how can you measure equality?

A huge part of equality is the fact that you get to choose what you do with your equality. Yes, there is 20% female labor force participation in Saudi Arabia… but is it because they want to be in the work force, or is it because they have to? In the 7 countries I looked at closely (Sweden #1, Ireland #9, United Kingdom #11, Canada #18, United States #31, Saudi Arabia #124, Yemen #128) the workforce participation of men always exceeded that of women. Mozambique, which was rated #1 in Economic Participation and Opportunity (#43 overall, #120 in educational attainment), in contrast, has 85% of women but only 35% of men in the labor force population. This is also the same country that received the worst score possible on polygamy, an extremely poor score on legislation preventing violence against women, and a mid-range score on genital cutting (the report says “female genital mutilation”). How much do you think choice has to do with women being members of the labor population?

Studies such as these rely heavily on statistics and the use of surveys, which, to a point, delivers the facts. But the statistics deliver facts in a very scientific way. This study doesn’t taken into account the satisfaction people feel towards their gender equality - or lack thereof. While it is a huge step that studies like this are being done, they have yet to catch up with the things that are most important when it comes to equality. The study does make for a very interesting read, and I do encourage you to read it… but do so with a grain of salt. Statistics only give you the numbers, they don’t give you the satisfaction people feel in regards to their home, finances, government, or overall quality of life.

I feel that I should also mention the statistical profiles on each individual country mention nothing about gay marriage.

For those interested in the study, other information provided in individual country reports are:

• Mean age of marriage for women
• Fertility rate in births per woman
• Year women received the right to vote (which they list as 1965 in the United States…)
• Overall population sex ratio
• Maternity and Childbearing: births attended to by skilled health staff, contraceptive practices among married women, maternal and infant mortality rate, length of paid maternity leave, maternity leave benefits, provider of maternity coverage, adolescent fertility rate.
• Education and Training: percentage of female primary, secondary, and tertiary teachers
• Employment and Earnings: female and male adult unemployment rates, women in non-agricultural paid labor, ability of women to rise to position of enterprise leadership
• Basic Rights and Social Institutions: paternal versus maternal authority, “female genital mutilation”, polygamy, existence of legislation punishing acts of violence against women

Sweden (0.815*), the #1 ranked country on overall gender quality, also received the best score possible in all the Basic Rights and Social Institutions categories and the statistical equivalent of gender equality in terms of Educational Attainment (but they did not rank #1 for this).
* 0.00 = inequality, 1.00 = equality

Apparently, we have returned to the classic stereotype that if a heterosexual man has an affair, it is his female partner’s fault. I am just as aghast at the comments to this article as I am with the actual text. Summary: Emily is a busy lawyer with a husband and two year old son. She hasn’t had sex with her husband for months. He had an affair. It’s her fault because she didn’t want to have sex. Feminism is to blame!

Except, the author of the article doesn’t mention that Emily asked to have a separate bedroom from her husband until you’re about halfway through the article. I highly doubt Emily not wanting to have sex was the reason the relationship deteriorated. And, in typical male fashion, her husband didn’t talk to her about the problem. What did he do? He went and stuck his dick in something else that was warmer and loving. I highly doubt sex was what drove this relationship apart.

The author also has the gall to compare sex with chores. The entire article is based on the assumption that because women are finally “allowed” to say “no” to sex with their partners (thanks, feminism!) they are alienating their partners and ruining their relationships. If the only problem in the relationship is the woman doesn’t want to have sex, you’d think the man would up and say something instead of having an affair or ending the relationship. Don’t you think it would be much easier to say “honey, I’d like to have a talk about our sex life”? It takes two people to make a relationship work. When my boyfriend and I experienced the same thing (hey, in my defense, the transition from college to a 40 hour work week is not an easy one… especially when he still works odd hours) he spoke with me about it. I realized what was happening, and it was probably the funnest I’ve ever had solving a problem in my relationship. The thing is, I didn’t realize I was doing it. I doubt these women realize what they are “doing” to their husbands.
Apparently, it’s not. It’s just easier to blame feminism, because feminism is an easy scapegoat. People don’t like feminism because of how it has been represented because of ridiculous articles like this. They get mad because they think feminists are out to destroy men and take away their higher pay, role as breadwinners and rightful place in the patriarchy. While some feminists aspire to do many of those things, this is not the feminism that has allowed women to say “no” to their husbands.

The feminism that allowed women to say “no” to their husbands is responsible for the Supreme Court ruling that yes spousal rape does exist. There was a time before feminism when women could say no: it just didn’t mean anything. It meant you were going to have sex whether you liked it or not. It meant your husband, the partner who you were supposed to love with all your heart and be with for the rest of your life, was going to rape you because he wanted to and you didn’t. Are we returning to this? Is this really what we’ve come back to? If a woman doesn’t want to have sex with her partner, it would probably be more logical to examine the situation closely rather than to just make a snap judgment and blame feminism. I highly doubt the same thing is happening in every relationship where a woman is saying “no” to her partner.

Blaming women for their husband’s affairs, regardless of the excuse (feminism, bad wife, etc), is an outdated idea that returns to the Biblical notion of women as the ones who are dirty and sinful. Men can do no wrong! It’s not their fault their wife is bad in bed! She should know exactly what he wants, at all times, without asking! It’s like in Mona Lisa Smile when Betty’s husband has an affair and she wants a divorce: she gets blamed by her mother for the downfall of the marriage. Betty’s marriage didn’t fall apart because she was frigid and didn’t have sex with her husband: her marriage fell apart because she wasn’t even 21 and had no idea what she wanted from life, let alone a life partner.

I will be the first person to admit that sex is important in my relationships. It is not, however, important in every relationship. These women and their partners may not hold the same views on the importance of sex in their relationship. Perhaps the problem was they had different expectations for their sex lives that they had not discussed with each other. There is one thing more important than sex in all relationships, and that is communication. If you can’t communicate what you do and don’t want from your partner, then it is your own fault when your expectations are not met and you are unhappy. It’s not feminism’s fault. It’s your own.

I adored Knocked Up. I thought it was a funny movie - better the first time than subsequent viewings - that put a rather serious life issue into an amusing context to help people cope with the seriousness of the plot. But as a feminist, I have a problem with it.

While I understand it was a comedy about two adults getting into an awkward situation, with one of them semi-prepared for it and the other not even close. I even get that the movie wasn’t about Katherine Heigl’s character, Allison. I totally get (and was amused by) that fact that the movie is about Seth Rogen’s character and how he comes to grow as a man and accept his impending doom role as a father.

What I don’t understand, though, is why Katherine’s character did not even consider getting an abortion. I would have been able to accept the plot more easily had she even considered the option, instead of just glossing over the somewhat sticky subject. When works in the major spotlight such as Knocked Up decide to ignore all of the options available to a woman who finds herself with a bun in the oven, it makes it more difficult for young women to discuss all of their options if something similar happens to them. Movies like Knocked Up are, essentially, taking us back to the ideal that if you get someone pregnant, you better be ready to marry them and be in it for the long haul. While the two characters didn’t get married in the movie (and Heigl’s character actually turned down Rogen’s proposal), they were involved in an intimate relationship, and the movie made it appear that they moved in together after the birth and remained together years afterwards. I feel like the film’s creators opted to not include abortion as an option in the film because they didn’t know how to balance the seriousness of the subject with light-hearted (and occasionally crude) humor, like they did with an unexpected pregnancy. I understand that abortion is a heavy topic and could have potentially caused the comedy to take a turn for the worse, but they didn’t even try.

I understand the limits of a film and I can grasp the concept that the creators of the film may not have had adequate time in the film to include this plot in the movie. Allison’s “decision” to keep the baby didn’t even feel like a decision. It felt like someone coming to terms with the fact that they were pregnant, accepting it, and moving on. There was no decision because her character wasn’t given any other options. I’m not saying she should have had an abortion (although I would have) because then there would have been no movie. What I’m saying is the creators of the film could have spent 2 minutes discussing her options and then show her character coming to the decision that she wants to have a child and that keeping it is her choice.

Keeping a baby is never a simple choice for a young and single career woman. Knocked Up made it look like a young and single career woman has no other option than keeping a baby.

The scary thing is, if the Supreme Court continues going the way it does, no woman will any options other than having the baby - or adoption. To me, Knocked Up is a frighteningly realistic perspective on what the world could look like after the end of Bush’s presidency.

(Granted, it was a very amusing movie that I opted to eventually become an owner of.)

[images via getty]

I’m getting to that age where when I check out men, I look at their ring fingers. I never thought “getting to that age” would mean twenty years old. I have multiple friends (all within a few years of my age) that are getting married or are already married. I might just be looking at their ring fingers because I tend to date older men… but there’s got to be more to it than that.

I’m also getting to that age where the men I start dating aren’t married for a reason. If they’re in their mid to late twenties and are moderately attractive and hold a good job, it generally means that there is something else wrong with them. Often times they are serial adulterers, drug addicts, drunks, or living at home with their parents. To me, this train of thought is counterintuitive but I still do it. Allow me to explain.

The type of man that I would date probably isn’t the biggest fan of marriage or is in no rush to make himself a part of it. So if he is in his mid to late twenties and isn’t married that should be exactly what I’m looking for - should all the other pieces come together. But instead of seeing it that way, I always ask myself “what is so wrong with this guy that he isn’t married already?”

Maybe I have such a confusing outlook because I think of marriage as a fate worse than death most times. The idea of getting married tends to give me nightmares… but then again, I am only twenty. I can’t pick (and keep) a hair color for more than a month at a time, let alone pick a life partner. So maybe something is wrong with the men who are married in their mid to late twenties instead of the ones who aren’t…

Divorcees and people who have been married multiple times tend to have a higher rate of psychological disorders than single or widowed people. Maybe I am doing something right here!

Not everybody likes children. Not everybody wants to have them. Not every woman (or man, for that matter) has dreams of growing up and having a family. When I tell people I don’t want kids, I always get told “oh, you’ll change your mind. Don’t worry.” I’M NOT WORRIED!

I’m not going to change my mind. I may be only 20, but I can honestly say that I have never wanted children. I’ve thought about the lifestyle I want and the person I am and I’ve decided children aren’t an option for me. I’m not so selfish that I want a child from my own womb so desperately that I’ll pay thousands of dollars for IVF. It angers me that people place the value of their own children that they can’t have over the needs of thousands of abandoned children across the globe. You can love an adopted child just as much. I think the people who have children are selfish. They think I’m selfish. It is all a matter of perspective.

It bothers me that people question my reasoning behind not having children. It bothers me that people think I’m going to change my mind. But even moreso, it bothers me that when people say they want to have children, nobody questions them.

Last time I checked, wanting to have children was more complicated than not. So why aren’t people questioning the choice to have children? It should be a well thought out and planned thing (of course, accidents do happen). If you know you want children, you should organize all the variables: financials, emotions, jobs, day care, insurance, everything that isn’t cute while baby just sits there being oh so adorable. There should be more to wanting children than the “burning desire” to hold something you created in your hands or that you’ve “dreamed all your life” of being a mother/father/whatever.

Perhaps it is because I am extremely defensive of this particular position because I’ve been attacked so many times, but I have yet to hear one reason that doesn’t involve emotion or unrealistic ideals of family life for having children. If you can’t have children naturally, why turn to IVF? Yes, the technology is amazing and yes it has so many advances for science… but you’re always throwing away precious stem cells every time an egg fails to implant in your uterus. What is so wrong with adopting someone else’s baby? You can love that baby just as much.

I think my reasons for not wanting children are solid… just like I believe that many people have convinced themselves that their reasons for wanting children are grounded in something other than emotion or an empty hole they can’t satisfy any other way. What I want to know is if those people who want children ever honestly looked at their lives and thought about not having children.

Why is not wanting children so questionable and wanting them so acceptable? To me, it has always been the other way around. But that might be because I’ve actually thought about it both ways.