tamponblog

After talking about women in politics and the role of wives, it seems a natural progression to discuss the role of the wife of the president!

Ms. Magazine examined the role of First Lady in their spring issue. Scroll to the bottom of the article for links to their interviews with Teresa Heinz Kerry and Elizabeth Edwards. Interestingly, Laura Bush chose not to respond. Hmmm.



Ms. also recently did a piece that talks about women, communication, and public restrooms!

In this month's Cosmo, there is an article entitled "An Inside Look at the New Wifestyle" which looks at highly educated women who stop working after marriage.

On the first page of the article is a quote by Susan Shapiro Barash, who authored The New Wife: "These women have a very good education but want a pleasurable, struggle-free life."

Being a housewife is "struggle free"?

Finally, on the third page of the article, the author explains that many of these women hire help for the various traditional household tasks: gardening, cooking, cleaning, and kids. Okay. So that would be more towards "struggle free!" (Although I would believe that each set of problems solved would breed yet another set of problems, so in the end, the lifestyle wouldn't really be struggle free. Consider a housecleaner who steals jewelry, for example. Or simply the lack of privacy in having someone clean your home.)

But regardless of whether a woman hires out help or does the work herself, it is interesting to think about the issues of respect involved. On one hand, these women might be considered pretty smart to have successfully ended up pampered with lots of free time. (Her husband feels Very Big that he is a lucrative enough breadwinner to support her and she feels comfortable being a Queen.) But on the other hand, they can be considered lazy. And for the woman who does balance traditional household and child-rearing responsibilities, the notion that being a housewife is "stuggle free" and that such a woman is "lazy" is troubling. (As I've mentioned before, being a "traditional" housewife is a full-time job!)

One man in the article commented, "I have a really high-pressure job, and the most important thing to me is that my wife can be supportive and not be a stressed-out partner. Besides, she'd probably learn to become a great cook, which would be nice." So this man does seem to believe that his wife would cook for him, not hire help to do so. Does that mean that cooking won't stress her out? And what if she did have a high-pressure job like him: is it just her role to support him and not the other way around? Ugh! But I digress.

Here is the question: If you could financially swing it, would you like to live "the new wifestyle" complete with servants for any task you could imagine? Or would you feel happier being a career woman? Or something in between?

The broader question: How do most women define themselves? Is it love/marriage (Consider Blaire)? High-powered career (Tampons in the WW)? Children?

Can you have it all?

Robert Reich (my favorite politician) caused a big stir when he resigned from Clinton's cabinet to spend more time with his family. Here was the Secretary of Labor, of all people, seeming to say that you couldn't have it all, and that upset some people:

Many women on the fast track, they wrote, were already battling a culture that criticized them for sacrificing too much -- and here I was, seemingly agreeing that a balanced life was incompatible with a high-powered job. Others said while it might be easy for me to find another well-paying job that gave me more time for my family, they didn’t have that option. I was sending the wrong message to people like them too.

He wrote about his decision to resign in this essay.

He also wrote an amazing essay for Ms. magazine, "The Day I Became a Feminist," which takes on some issues about gender and communication that surely influence whether or not women can be seen as effective leaders. Especially if they choose to capitalize on their strengths as women and don't always try to play the game as men do.

The funny thing is, I've known for years that there are feminine and masculine ways of communicating. (All due recognition that generalities are not absolute, etc.) I've been aware on some level that the only way for me to get my voice heard in some meetings is for me to interrupt and talk over men, using a level of aggression that makes me really uncomfortable, but works. I've watched older men in the workplace not hear me say something repeatedly, or dismiss it because of the way I said it. I've gotten in a little bit of trouble for taking issue with the way that something was communicated, for being too sensitive and "hung up on style."

But I never let myself believe that these were real until I read Robert Reich's essay. Is it because he's an astute person, and was able to articulate something that most people wouldn't be able to see because it's so insidious and firmly established in the culture? Or did I always see it just as clearly as he did, but never felt that my views were valid until a man said them? Is that because having an impartial third party confirm your observations is always validating? Or have I bought into the cultural assumptions that men's views, needs, and interests are universal and neutral, and women's are special interests?

Would having a man point out these biases in our culture influence other men in a way that no amount of communication from women ever could? If so, how do you get every man in America to read this essay?

Senator Blanche L. Lincoln made history on November 3, 1998, when she became the youngest woman ever elected to the United States Senate. (factoid from her 2004 campaign page, link to her Senate page added later by me.) She was born in 1960. So she would be right on that bump when menopause could occur at any time in 2009. Alas, her visibility is not such that she would be likely to be a Presidential candidate that early. But she has had quite a history in politics:

Before becoming a Senator, she had been in the House for two terms. She then annouced she would not seek re-election upon learning she was carrying twins. As you may expect, this created interesting comments from individuals in favor of and against mothers in politics.

Mary Landrieu, also a Senator* and also a mother, wrote a defense Blanche Lincoln (and other young political mothers): Mothers Make Good Senators, Too . It is definitely worth a read.

The fantastic thing about Blanche Lincoln is that she didn't fade away from politics after delivering her twins. She is a Senator today, and currently seeking re-election. Senator Landrieu also has children who are not yet out of the nest.

*(Landrieu ran for a seat in the Louisiana House of Representatives in 1979, becoming the youngest woman ever elected to the state Legislature. She became a Senator in 1996.)

While I was composing this post, my husband said, "There are tampons in the West Wing! Condoleezza Rice works in the WW!" To which I said, "Well, NSF meant the Oval Office bathroom, specifically. " He then responded, "I am sure Jenna & Barbara Bush use it." Then he brought up Monica Lewinsky. I don't even wanna think about it! ;-)

When, if ever, will the Oval Office bathroom need to be equipped with a supply of tampons? Surely someday we'll have a woman president. However, the youngest president so far was 43. Could a woman that young ever be a truly viable candidate?

At the earliest, a woman could be inaugurated in January, 2009. At that point, Hillary Clinton, Carol Moseley Braun, Christine Todd Whitman, and Olympia Snowe will all be 61. Barbara Boxer and Nancy Pelosi will be 68. Madeleine Albright will be 71, and not eligible anyway. Elizabeth Dole will be 72. Dianne Feinstein and Ann Richards will be 75.

If average age of menopause is 51.4 years, our best bet may be Condoleezza Rice, who will be 54.

Did you notice how many of the prominent female politicians were born in 1947? Also born that year: Kim Campbell, the first woman Prime Minister of Canada. I guess that's the baby boom!

I always feel as though I am not in as close contact with most of my friends as I would wish. Months can go by, even years, without a word on either side. For the past few years, I have attributed this to my inconstant lifestyle; the fact that it's been years since I've felt confident that I would be in the same town or in the same job for longer than a few months. I'll get in touch with them when I get a job, I think to myself. That way, I'll have good news to relate. Well, tomorrow never comes, and correspondence falls by the wayside.

Of course, losing touch is a two-way street. I am no more to blame than they. And after a few years, that sank in, and lately, I've felt a lot less guilt about my inconsistent communications. It really is true that if we've been friends since seventh grade, a little thing like not seeing each other for 4 years isn't going to make lunch awkward when we do meet again. Or just because we were roommates in college, that doesn't mean that years later, we have to be in touch every week. In fact, it's especially nice to catch up after a while and to see how the other has changed and stayed the same; I find it's usually a mixture of both.

I have one particular friend who I haven't heard from in over a year; last summer when I called her number, it was disconnected because she had moved. Two months ago, she called and left me a message with her new number. She wasn't embarrassed that it had been so long, and I'm not upset. On the contrary: I'm excited to be back in touch. I look forward to when we finally are able to catch each other on the line, and set up a dinner date. But I'm patient, too: I think we're going to be friends for a long time, so there's no rush.

When someone pays a compliment, the typical response is "Thank you." But what if the comment may not be a compliment? Is the potential complimented simply making an observation?

For example, "You are so tall!" How to respond? "Thank you" doesn't seem right. "Yeah, I am" sounds odd. Or "What a big baby!" If it were "what a big butt!" it would definitely not warrant a "thank you!"

I frequently hear "What thick hair!" Sometimes this is quickly followed by an observation about how it must be very difficult to keep it in check. Does that mean that my hair is currently running wild, or that it is sufficiently styled at that moment? (I think "Yes, it can be hard to manage." is a sufficient reply in that case, but without a follow-up statement, I can't tell the intent.)

Since some of these comments are delivered with sympathy, I can sometimes figure out that it isn't a compliment, that it is just an observation. But sometimes I don't know. I don't want to ignore the comment because that would be rude. But to say "thank you" when it wasn't a compliment isn't a good idea. And agreeing with the commenter should it be a compliment is rude, too! (For example: "You have such beautiful eyes" met with "Yes, I do." would be rude! But "Your eyes are so brown" is ambiguous - because maybe the speaker likes brown eyes, maybe they do not.)

So what to do?

I would like to give the observer the benefit of the doubt, in that maybe they wouldn't comment unless it were meant to be a compliment. But I find it hard to say "thank you" in an ambiguous case, especially when the comment is about something I dislike (such as my extremely thick hair) Plus, people these days aren't necessarily of the "if you don't have something nice to say, don't say it at all" camp. And in the case where the comment is outright rude, I guess just silence is appropriate, though if the commenter didn't intend it to be rude, then I end up being the rude one.

There is much over-thinking to do in just a second after the comment is made!

No, I am not sending out my holiday cards just yet! Rather, I just finished addressing the last batch of "new baby" cards. While deciding to whom to send the announcements, I realized I have several different categories of people on my list:

1) Family. Whether they send me annoucements/cards themselves, I have to keep them on "The List." The exceptions are more distant family members for whom I don't have current addresses, but am actively seeking.

2) People who send my family cards. This is easy because each year, if we receive a holiday card from someone to whom we haven't sent one, we quickly send one back to them, and add them to "The List."

3) People who have sent my family cards in the past, but who haven't recently. I have started a two-year grace period. I send these people cards for two years without having a reciprocal card, then I scratch them from "The List."

4) Friends-of-family (which usually means friends of my parents or past neighbors)who are important enough that they may have become part of group #3 and therefore scratched from "The List for Holiday Cards" but who should be informed of "big deal" things like marriage and new babies. Therefore, these people are temporarily reinstated on "The List." (Perhaps they will then go into category #2 if they realize they've lost contact with us and send us a note.)

5) People who are important to me but who actually haven't sent holiday (or other) cards in the past. These are people who would ordinarily be "cut" after the two-year grace period, but I know that there are other reasons that they may not send cards. First, they may not be the holiday card sort. If they send cards to nobody, then I shouldn't feel entitled to a card myself. Second, they may be very busy and forget (or be unable) to send cards for a few years. I still want to keep them abreast of my events and wish to let them know I care about them, so I don't mind whether they send cards or not.

I wonder how many people in category #3 who have been "cut" should actually still be on "The List" because they fall into the "not-sending-cards" subset of my category #5. Some of these people may still want to know what is going on in my life, but just aren't the card-sending sort. But, my hope is that if that were the case, that these people would at least email / call me to touch base. So I hope I haven't offended anyone!

Juggling people from these lists can be difficult! I certainly don't want to "cut" anyone too early (like my maid-of-honor who I gave a four-year grace period in the desperate hope that she would contact me in any manner whether to say "hi" or to say that I had offended her in some manner. She should be in category #5, but since nobody has heard from her, I wonder if she doesn't want to be contacted.)

The tricky thing about sending annoucements is that some may view these as solicitation for gifts. This is a particular concern about people who I haven't been in contact with recently. I hope that they will view my annoucement as a happy form of contact rather than "gimme a gift."

(Wait, this post isn't about menstruation! Well, I figured that since we've discussed etiquette issues in the past, this was safe territory.)

This weekend, I was discussing cars with some folks. I indicated a preference for a particular expensive car, to which one man said "Well, when you get a job, you can get whatever car you want!"

My first thought was that I do have a part-time paying job, and then a full-time job maintaining the household, and the health and happiness of my sons. In my opinion, I have many jobs and I work just as hard at them as someone who receives money for their efforts. Truth be told, I had heard this argument from stay-at-home moms and full-time homemakers before, and didn't really understand the validity of the statement. I thought it was just crazy feminist whining. But now I understand.

Or, I could take the man's statment to mean "When you are earning more money, you can get whatever car you want!" but even that has insulting undertones. If it meant that I have to contribute to the household financially in order to choose how to spend that money, that is insulting. If it means that the breadwinner of the household (my husband) doesn't earn enough for that particular expensive car, then that isn't insulting my stay-at-home status; however, I cannot see someone making that same comment to a man.

Something else in the same realm that gets under my skin is that a father is "watching" or "babysitting" his own children if the mom isn't present. That implies that it is the default responsibility for the mother to take care of the children, yet when the father does it, his task is considered a job - babysitting. If it is a "job" for the man, then it is certainly a "job" for the mother.

Similarly, it is frustrating to hear what a wonderful father my husband is because he takes care of the kids, such as chasing one around the park while I hold the other or vice versa. Yes, he is a caring father. But nobody goes out of their way to say what a fantastic mom I am for taking our kids to the park!

Check out this website first, then come back here, and consider these questions:

Is, perhaps, her work history a bit intimidating to would-be suitors?
What do you think she thinks of the J.Lo vehicle The Wedding Planner?
Is this website actually just a clever marketing ploy for her self-run business?
Discuss.


Full Disclosure: When I first saw the link (via MeFi), I thought it was some weird Facts of Life followup.

If you have a link to our blog on your site, and want us to return the favor, please leave a comment to that effect on the most recent post on this site. Remember to include your website's url in the request.