Gender equity at home: the chore wars

This is not a scientific study. I did not get my data from a large statistical sample. This is simply an anecdote, a story from my own – and my friends’ – experiences. I should note,  however, that study after study shows that our experiences are actually quite common.

Most of my straight women friends are married or cohabiting with a man; most of them also have at least one kid and a full-time job. Of these friends – partnered, working, mothers – 100 percent are extremely dissatisfied with the housework arrangements they have with their men. I include myself in this category as well. And by “extremely unsatisfied,” I mean, have regular fights about it and have even contemplated divorce or separation because of it. It is a huge source of stress in all of our lives, and it boils down to one simple fact: the men are not doing their fair share of the household chores – and that includes traditionally “guy” things like yard work and car repair.

We’re all with men who consider themselves feminists, and who seem to honestly believe that they are doing their fair share of the housework. But when the coffee table is buried under piles of books and papers, when the ashtrays have overflowed all over every surface, and that same hairball is sitting on the floor of the bathroom after two weeks, that assertion is just weak. The next most popular excuse our men use: “my job is more physically demanding, so I’m too tired to do any housework.” Let’s just unpack that, shall we? We all choose which types of jobs we do. Because they chose traditionally male-dominated jobs, they then expect to garner the traditional male benefits of being able to come home after work and just relax. Here’s a little news flash: everyone’s tired when they come home from work. But someone has got to fix dinner, regardless.

As feminists, we see it as hypocritical to voice the belief that men and women should be treated equally in all areas of life, then turn around and pick up a second shift of housework and childcare at home because our husbands are just too lazy to help. We’ve all gone through the same process to try and resolve the issue: calmly asking for specific tasks to be done by a specific time (to no avail), refusing to do the cleaning so as not to enable their slobbish behavior (and we end up with houses so filthy we fear for our health and sanity), making lists and dividing chores (of which, his never get done), even arguing and yelling. Nothing works. It seems that the men just don’t have any consciousness that houses should be clean. Apparently, living in utter filth is perfectly acceptable to them, or else men just can’t see dirt.

Other bloggers have weighed in on this same issue, and the typical response is the same: just don’t do the housework anymore. Let the dishes pile up. That’s all good in theory, but we have to eat – so meals must be cooked (and dishes washed). Trash must be taken out. Bills must be paid.

And like most of my intelligent, motivated friends, I’m a bit of a Type A personality. I’m uncomfortable in a cluttered environment. I feel embarrassed to have guests over when my house looks like squatters live here (not to mention that women are often judged by their homes’ and children’s cleanliness; men usually aren’t). It’s also my theory that having a dislike of clutter and filth is actually an evolutionary survival mechanism: dirty living quarters attract more diseases and pests. So, all pop psychology aside, housework is something that must be done, no matter how much we hate it.

So, we’re damned if we do and damned if we don’t: Refuse to do housework and live in filth, demand equal household responsibility and cause fights (and still live in filth), or cave in and end up exhausted and angry. It seems petty to resort to couple’s counseling over housework, but then again, maybe housework is only considered “petty” because it’s a traditionally feminine topic.

How “historic” is this election?

It seems like every time I read or see something about the upcoming presidential election, I’m being told how “historic” it is, what with this being the first election with both an African-American man and a woman running for president. The way Hillary is often described, you’d think she was the first woman ever to run for the office – though sometimes you will hear the weak qualifier “the first viable woman candidate,” leaving the question of just what “viable” means. Even Donna Brazile, in this season’s issue of Ms. Magazine, erroneously assumed she was the first woman to run for president.

Counting Hillary, there have been anywhere from 31, to 66, to 100 female presidential candidates in U.S. history (depending on the standards used to determine candidacy). The first woman to run was Victoria Claflin Woodhull, who ran as an Equal Rights Party candidate in 1872, and again in 1892, well before women could even vote in federal elections. Her platform included ending the death penalty, banning monopolies, direct taxation, uniform wages, public works programs, and free trade. However, she was best known for her radical ideas about family life; she advocated women’s suffrage, access to birth control, and free love – the idea that people should be able to move into and out of intimate relationships as they choose, instead of being enslaved by custom and law to one partner their entire lives.

Obviously, these types of ideas were loudly condemned by the conservative forces, including Rev. Henry Ward Beecher. In answer, Woodhull exposed the reverend’s illicit affair in her Woodhull & Claflin’s Weekly. Beecher retaliated by unleashing the wrath of Anthony Comstock on her. Comstock had her arrested on obscenity charges; Woodhull spent election day in a jail cell – and still got several thousand votes. She eventually prevailed in her case and resumed her lucrative speaking career.

Since then, we’ve had a lot more firsts from women on the campaign trail. Though many would point to Shirley Chisholm’s 1972 run as the first for African-American women, it is actually Charlene Mitchell, running as a Communist Party candidate in 1968, that has that honor. In 1976, Ellen McCormack, a Democrat, was the first woman to receive federal matching funds for her campaign. Leonora Fulani, with the now-defunct New Alliance Party, was the first African-American woman to appear on the ballot in all 50 states; that was in 1988 (she ran again in 1992).

This millennium started on a hopeful note – more women ran for president in 2000 then ever before (or since, so far). Including Elizabeth Dole (who withdrew before the party convention), 17 women ran, including four other Republicans, 11 Independents and third-party candidates, and one Democrat.

Believe it or not, Hillary Clinton is not the only woman running for president this year. Gloria La Riva, with the Party for Socialism and Liberation, is a veteran campaigner; she also ran for president in 1992 and for vice president in 1984, 1988, 1996, and 2000. Cynthia McKinney and Kat Swift are both running with the Green Party, and Colleen Stevens Martin is running unaffiliated.

It diminishes us, as a nation, when so many historic struggles and accomplishments are ignored or forgotten. We don’t need bookfires to erase our history when the gatekeepers of the media can simply dismiss it and create it anew whenever they wish. It pays to remind them – and ourselves – that Hillary is not the first and only, but simply one daughter of a long lineage.

*If you count Gracie Allen’s 1940 run, which was really more of a publicity stunt, that number is 67.

[edited to reflect current presidential candidates]

Bag Ladies Needed

The key to living a more ecologically sustainable, low-impact lifestyle is the same as any other major lifestyle change: one step at a time. Our family’s main goal – at least for now – is to reduce our waste. We’ve taken some fairly easy steps so far: ditching almost all disposable products such as paper plates, napkins, and even menstrual products in favor of reusable substitutes. We recently started composting as well. But there was one more bad habit we needed to break.

Plastic bags, which are made of polyethylene, are a huge environmental problem. According to the EPA, over 380 billion plastic bags, sacks, and wraps are consumed in the U.S. each year. The bags don’t biodegrade, but instead, they photodegrade – breaking down into smaller and smaller bits that contaminate soil and block waterways. Hundreds of thousands of sea turtles, whales and other marine mammals die every year from eating discarded plastic bags (source: Reusablebags.com).

After my trip to Ireland last summer, I was surprised that the stores didn’t give away plastic bags (and that the restaurants didn’t give away soda, but that’s another post). The country instituted a “PlasTax” in 2002, which encourages shoppers to bring their own reusable bags to the store. The disposable bags are still available, but they cost $0.15 per bag. In May of last year, San Francisco banned non-biodegradable plastic bags from big stores and pharmacies, following the lead of countries such as South Africa, Bangladesh, and Taiwan.

What an excellent solution – like most people I know, I had an enormous collection of plastic bags under the sink waiting to be recycled. So I’ve started bringing my own bags to the store with me (though they aren’t without drawbacks of their own). There’s only one problem with this: most cashiers don’t know how to sack groceries properly. They usually sack them the same way they would with the plastic bags: toss an item or two in the bag, hand it to the customer, repeat. It doesn’t work that way with reusable bags. They are designed to be filled. So I end up with my bread and produce squashed underneath jars of salsa and cans of beans.

I can’t really blame the cashiers. They weren’t hired, or trained, to sack groceries. That occupation – grocery sacker – is quickly going the way of car-wash attendants and shoe-shine boys in my area. At my local Wal-Mart – where I bought most of my reusable bags, BTW – you can’t use them in the self-checkout lanes.

So if stores are going to get on the bandwagon and start encouraging reusable bag use, they should take a tip from Aldi stores and provide a place for customers to bag their own groceries. Either that, or hire some people to sack the groceries for you – heavy stuff on bottom, bread and produce on top.

Commercials that piss me off, Pt. IV

[Click for parts 1, 2, and 3]

First, it had the E. coli outbreak in December of 2006, forcing it to shut down dozens of stores in five states. Then, it had the rat infestation in New York City in February 2007. Now, Taco Bell has created another major catastrophe: its newest commercial featuring a spokesperson even more annoying than the talking chihuahua, the former “Man Show” host and noted douchebag Adam Carolla.

As if simply having Carolla as a spokesperson weren’t bad enough, the commercial itself is sexist. Granted, the majority of Taco Bell’s repeat customers are 18- to 20-something-year-old men, but by claiming its “Big Bell Box” is “a meal made for men” (leaving aside their liberal use of the word “meal”), Taco Bell tells women that it’s not for them. The most obvious, and insulting, thing about this commercial is that it reinforces the sexist expectation that women must watch what they eat, and that only small portions of low-fat foods are appropriate for us. Men, on the other hand, are free to – heck, obligated to – eat large portions of high-fat, high-calorie, meat-heavy foods. No wonder women live longer than men, on average.

Unapologetically Female and Feminocracy already have excellent blog posts on this, and Unapologetically Female lists all the other ways that this 15-second spot reinforces sexist stereotypes about women, men and eating.

So, Taco Bell, congratulations on a great new marketing strategy. You’ve just told over half of the population that you don’t want their business. If you want to complain to Taco Bell, the form is here.

Who decides who is “fit” to parent?

The latest issue of Ms. Magazine is out, with this excellent article on child-welfare institutions’ discrimination against poor and non-white mothers. In the article, author Gaylynn Burroughs recounts instances where children were taken away from parents on the ground of “neglect,” meaning being too poor to provide adequate shelter, food, or medical treatment. Instead of helping mothers get access to what their children need, child-welfare workers remove the child from the home and place him or her in the foster-care system, which in some places, might be even worse.

I’m glad to see this issue being brought to light. The DHS/foster-care system has long been a tool of the establishment for enforcing racist, classist, sexist, and otherwise regressive social mores: just ask a Native American. Or, take my example.

When I was a teenager, after my mom left her abusive husband of 10 years, she was frequently the target of DHS (Department of Human Services) investigations. Because we were non-Christians, nosy neighbors were constantly calling DHS with accusations of Satanic rituals, child molestation, and promiscuity on the part of my mother. Visits from caseworkers were frequent, if random, occurences; they would snoop through the kitchen cabinets, rifle through our dresser drawers, and worst of all, have private interviews with my siblings and I. The questions were as disturbing as they were ridiculous:

“Have you ever sat in a circle and lit candles?” Well, yes. That’s what we do. Last time I checked, it wasn’t against the law.

“Have you ever seen your mom naked?” Actually, yes. But we knew we had to lie on that one. Although we were raised to see the human body as beautiful, natural, and normal (what a radical concept!), we were savvy enough to know that narrow-minded autocrats would sieze on that sort of thing and we’d be in foster care before the sun was down.

“Has your mom ever had a man over to stay the night?” You’re kidding, right? My mom didn’t even start dating again for at least five years after she divorced her ex. But let’s set that aside and just look at the premise underlying this question: that if she acted like any other adult woman in a free society and indulged in sexuality (privately, with another consenting adult), that would somehow make her “unfit” as a mother. Well, if once you become a mother, you must stop engaging in sexuality, how do you explain siblings? So does that make the mothers of more than one kid (except twins, triplets, etc.) unfit mothers by definition? Do fathers get asked this question? This is just 16th century Puritan prudery with the power of the state to back it up.

But that wasn’t the end of it. Years later, when I was a mother, my ex would call DHS on me for the exact same reasons. This time, I was the accused. And in this system, you are guilty until proven innocent.

In this type of system, non-conformists and outsiders must be constantly on guard; it seem that only the childless can afford to be public with their chosen lifestyle. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of cases like mine, where people who don’t fit the norm – they are too poor, they aren’t Christian, they are gay or lesbian – are punished with (or threatened with) the loss of their children (The Wild Hunt has an excellent blog post on this here). It’s the number-one reason why so many non-conformists stay deeply inside their closets. And when the lesbian moms and Buddhist dads are afraid of speaking out publicly, even to defend themselves against bigotry or discrimination, our society has been bullied into conformity just a little more.

The obesity epidemic is a class issue

I am so tired of hearing about the obesity epidemic in this country, always followed by self-righteous finger-pointing about our “poor choices” and how we’re all a bunch of “couch potatoes.”
Now, I’m not saying there aren’t a lot of actual burger-munching, over-indulging couch potatoes out there. But when such a large percentage of the population (64.5% of adults age 20 & up are overweight, 30.5% are obese – this according to the American Obesity Assn.) is affected, we cannot rule out cultural or societal factors in creating this so-called “epidemic.” Because you don’t catch fat from being around fat people.
First off, America as a whole does not encourage a healthy lifestyle. Since the introduction of Levittowns in the ’40s and ’50s, our towns, suburbs, and countrysides are based on a very car-centric plan. Shops, workplaces, and homes are simply spaced too far apart for walking, and many streets don’t even have sidewalks. Public transit, walking trails, and parks – all the things shown to increase physical activity and reduce obesity – are all but unknown in many parts of the country.
And let’s not forget the very important part food plays in all this. A healthy diet is one rich in fresh fruits and vegetables, whole grains, and complex proteins. Hydrogenated oils, processed sugar and white flour, monosodium glutamate, high-fructose corn syrup, and other artificial additives common in commercial food have been shown to adversely affect blood sugar levels, cholesterol levels, and to cause – directly or indirectly – obesity. Yet these additives are so common as to be nearly impossible to avoid.
While it is true that healthy whole foods, free of these and other additives, are available, they are simply out of reach for the vast majority of Americans. First, whole foods are generally only available in some urban areas.
Secondly, and most importantly, the prices of whole foods are anywhere from twice to five times the prices of regular commercial fare. Ironically, in the same country where obesity is skyrocketing, at least 36 million Americans going hungry because they simply can’t afford to pay bills and buy enough food. The leading cause of hunger: low-paying jobs (source: U.S. Conference of Mayors, www.foodfirst.org/progs/hum…erica.html ). In this situation, paying $2.69 for a loaf of whole-grain bread is out of the question. You buy the $0.69 white bread. You stock up on the cheapest things you can afford to fill your belly – the exact things that are highest in processed starches, lowest in fiber, and filled with additives.
As the Surgeon General’s “Call to Action to Prevent and Decrease Overweight and Obesity” (2001) pointed out: “Environmental factors provide the greatest opportunity for actions and interventions designed for prevention and treatment of obesity, and behavior change can occur only in a supportive environment with accessible and affordable healthy food choices and opportunities for regular physical activity“  (italics mine). We can start with paying all workers a living wage, so they can afford to buy good food. We can also demand our congress ban additives which are being shown to cause obesity and other illnesses. And we can get involved at the local level to push for public transit and more walking space. Together, we can take back our health.

Reefer Madness, pt. II

Oh, the horror! Kids are finding new ways of getting high!
Jack Shaefer of Slate Magazine has an excellent article on the media’s hysteria over the next “drug menace”: Salvia divinorum. Apparently kids are smoking it and getting scared. So eight states have banned it, without one shred of scientific evidence that it is harmful in any way.
This is basically the same thing that was done to most other drugs in this country – first alcohol (which was thankfully reversed, thanks to jury nullification), then cannabis, then LSD…etc. etc. Every time the press creates a new drug menace, usually based solely on anecdotal “evidence” about how horrible its effects are, it is only popularizing it for some (usually young thrill-seekers) and demonizing it for others (usually older moralizers).
It seems our “leaders” never learn. It’s a cycle of stupidity and self destruction that’s clear to anyone with a functioning brain cell: based on hysterical conjecture alone, the new menace is declared illegal, driving it underground, criminalizing a whole new swath of the citizenry, feeding organized crime, and eroding our civil liberties even more – at this point in history, between the war on drugs and the war on terror, do we even have any left? Is there any hope of sane, rational discussion about our nation’s drug policy? Sadly, I fear not.