Okay, did EVERYTHING change on the blog? It doesn't look the same!
I wasn't actually at my desk today -- out reviewing cell tower locations. Interestingly enough, although this seemed like a problem site, it seems like maybe the best location in the city for its lack of visual impact on culturally-significant sites. Cool. Usually, the cell towers are a problem -- a losing battle.
Good to see Susan back. Taking a break can be a really good thing.
Oh, and on the windows and siding, I have a ton to say, and I can justify it as work-related (educational outreach) and will save that for Monday. Haven't forgotten.
My upcoming weekend: escorting the s.o., daughter and her friend to a ballet. Will report later.
27 February 2004
24 February 2004
Goddesses above – Daniel’s a Techie???? Ack! Okay, well, you write remarkably well for a Techie, and coherence has never been a strong point of this blog. Forgiven.
I did build a database – it is a simple one to keep track of the technical assistance requests I receive. By technical assistance, I mean sending out packets of information explaining the National Register of Historic Places, tax credits and incentives, grants, and assistance on actual construction projects (explaining why vinyl siding and replacement windows are BAD and WRONG.) It is in Access. We do not have an integrated database system, and our department has not moved past basic database systems (I dream that it may happen someday!). This isn’t my first database – I built one as an intern at the Oregon SHPO a few summers back. Again, Access, but they are moving to an Oracle system currently.
Anyway, have you ever considered that, beyond biological imperatives and “social order” (which you seem to conceptualize as a universal system in your last post), there are political and cultural factors that may be greater than both? A highly educated and wealthy woman has no better access than a poorer family to the support systems necessary to raise children. She may be able to hire someone else to do it, but that isn’t a support system. We, as Americans, do not really support Motherhood or Parenthood in a substantial way.
With credits to Naomi Wolf, I call for a REVOLUTION! Wolf states, in her book “The Beauty Myth,” that the right-wing concern over homosexual partnerships is a deflection, a smoke-and-mirrors routine designed to distract us from the fact that our society – social, cultural, political, and economical systems – work to keep an imbalance in the standard heterosexual relationship. She cites many examples of how this work, and it does have the hard-to-hear feminist rhetoric of patriarchal power structures. The difference in her writing is that she asks MEN to recognize what this power structure, ostensibly offering them more freedom, opportunity, and power than it offers women, takes from them. It takes from a man the freedom to be sensitive and emotionally-involved, to be family-oriented, if he so chooses, to admit to not being competitively-driven, if he is not. In some ways, the existing paradigm punishes men who do not fit the Myth of Man in the same ways it punishes women for not fitting. Men have both more and less freedom than women under our current structure.
What if, Wolf asks, women and men looked beyond the myths and deceptions and paradigms? What if heterosexual partners reconceptualized their relationships as truly equal partnerships, removing the power dynamics? Are power struggles as inherent in the gender dichotomy as we are led to believe? Is the gender dichotomy what we are led to believe? What basic, underlying assumptions do we make about one another as men and women that destroy the balance before we’ve even spoken? If we questioned these assumptions, brought them into the light, what kind of personal relationships would we form? What would this do to the structure of our society? Revolution.
I did build a database – it is a simple one to keep track of the technical assistance requests I receive. By technical assistance, I mean sending out packets of information explaining the National Register of Historic Places, tax credits and incentives, grants, and assistance on actual construction projects (explaining why vinyl siding and replacement windows are BAD and WRONG.) It is in Access. We do not have an integrated database system, and our department has not moved past basic database systems (I dream that it may happen someday!). This isn’t my first database – I built one as an intern at the Oregon SHPO a few summers back. Again, Access, but they are moving to an Oracle system currently.
Anyway, have you ever considered that, beyond biological imperatives and “social order” (which you seem to conceptualize as a universal system in your last post), there are political and cultural factors that may be greater than both? A highly educated and wealthy woman has no better access than a poorer family to the support systems necessary to raise children. She may be able to hire someone else to do it, but that isn’t a support system. We, as Americans, do not really support Motherhood or Parenthood in a substantial way.
With credits to Naomi Wolf, I call for a REVOLUTION! Wolf states, in her book “The Beauty Myth,” that the right-wing concern over homosexual partnerships is a deflection, a smoke-and-mirrors routine designed to distract us from the fact that our society – social, cultural, political, and economical systems – work to keep an imbalance in the standard heterosexual relationship. She cites many examples of how this work, and it does have the hard-to-hear feminist rhetoric of patriarchal power structures. The difference in her writing is that she asks MEN to recognize what this power structure, ostensibly offering them more freedom, opportunity, and power than it offers women, takes from them. It takes from a man the freedom to be sensitive and emotionally-involved, to be family-oriented, if he so chooses, to admit to not being competitively-driven, if he is not. In some ways, the existing paradigm punishes men who do not fit the Myth of Man in the same ways it punishes women for not fitting. Men have both more and less freedom than women under our current structure.
What if, Wolf asks, women and men looked beyond the myths and deceptions and paradigms? What if heterosexual partners reconceptualized their relationships as truly equal partnerships, removing the power dynamics? Are power struggles as inherent in the gender dichotomy as we are led to believe? Is the gender dichotomy what we are led to believe? What basic, underlying assumptions do we make about one another as men and women that destroy the balance before we’ve even spoken? If we questioned these assumptions, brought them into the light, what kind of personal relationships would we form? What would this do to the structure of our society? Revolution.
22 February 2004
I hope you all celebrated National Margarita Day. Gotta love the Turbo Tangerine (no citrus fruits were harmed in the making of this drink) Margarita.
Did you ever have one of those weeks -- or a few weeks, in this case -- where all you see of yourself are the inherently negative parts? You think you're doing okay with self-image and self-esteem, and then one week you just strike yourself as the nastiest, most selfish, bitchiest and most unpleasant person on the planet? Weren't we supposed to move past these moments when we moved past adolescence? Why do we tell these poor kids that these things pass? They do lessen -- the insecurities, mass confusion, and hatred of self. They even disappear for a month or so at a time. But just like "figuring things out," it doesn't all magically get better or become alright. Why do we lie and try to sugar-coat things? I'd rather eat my grape nuts than have cocoa puffs with the g.nut hidden inside. Yuck. Just give me the fucking fiber and be up front about it.
Did you ever have one of those weeks -- or a few weeks, in this case -- where all you see of yourself are the inherently negative parts? You think you're doing okay with self-image and self-esteem, and then one week you just strike yourself as the nastiest, most selfish, bitchiest and most unpleasant person on the planet? Weren't we supposed to move past these moments when we moved past adolescence? Why do we tell these poor kids that these things pass? They do lessen -- the insecurities, mass confusion, and hatred of self. They even disappear for a month or so at a time. But just like "figuring things out," it doesn't all magically get better or become alright. Why do we lie and try to sugar-coat things? I'd rather eat my grape nuts than have cocoa puffs with the g.nut hidden inside. Yuck. Just give me the fucking fiber and be up front about it.
20 February 2004
I agree with you on several things. No one, anywhere, should ever have a child “just because they can.” What are our procreative urges based on? Is it truly biology, or is it that “biological clock” bullshit that even at my age is being shoved down my throat? I do not have a biological clock that is ticking. Maybe, like all the other clocks in my life, it was neglected and not wound and is currently not working. But I think that clock is a social construct, part of the construction of femininity and womanhood that is designed to keep my in a position that is subservient to the dominant, masculine societal paradigm.
I think that one reason that more educated, career-oriented women either wait or decide not to have children is that there is no societal support for the career mom. Either your career suffers or your domestic life suffers. I am allowed to “choose” being a career mom, but I will also be made to feel guilty about the fact that I am not and cannot be Superwoman and do EVERYTHING. I cannot have the perfectly clean house, home-cooked meals, constant supervision and chauffeuring of my children and work a 40-hour week with no institutional support for my family life. It doesn’t work. And maybe I don’t want to choose. Maybe I don’t want the guilt and maybe I don’t want to try raising children in this fucked up, every man/woman/child for herself world. I don’t have a village to help raise my child. I would have a choice of sketchy day-care centers, processed food from companies far more concerned with their profit than my health, a job with minimal family leave time, and a few billion make-work chores at home, with my personal, individual self and identity sacrificed to a greater whole. Uh, no. Maybe I don’t want to waste the 7+ years of higher education on a life that does not appeal to me.
The American Dream has always been many things to many people. Interestingly, despite the vast social changes in the years since WWII ended, the mirage of the Dream has changed little. The single-family home, on its little plot of grass, complete with garage, motor vehicle, appliances, swing sets, 2.5 kids, and dog now includes a working mother (to help pay for all the “financed” equipment in and supporting the house, not to mention the mortgage on the house) and aspirations to own a larger home and car in order to hold more consumer goods. We are no longer pursuing wealth for the leisure it affords us. We are pursuing wealth as an end in itself, and we will place ourselves in debt for the conspicuous consumption of goods we cannot afford but think we “deserve.” If we buy enough, won’t we be happy?
Oh, and on eugenics: there isn’t a panel of people you could put together who could be trusted to come up with a good way to decide who is ready or who should have kids. The idea/ideal is good, but the implementation would be catastrophic. Like communism.
I think that one reason that more educated, career-oriented women either wait or decide not to have children is that there is no societal support for the career mom. Either your career suffers or your domestic life suffers. I am allowed to “choose” being a career mom, but I will also be made to feel guilty about the fact that I am not and cannot be Superwoman and do EVERYTHING. I cannot have the perfectly clean house, home-cooked meals, constant supervision and chauffeuring of my children and work a 40-hour week with no institutional support for my family life. It doesn’t work. And maybe I don’t want to choose. Maybe I don’t want the guilt and maybe I don’t want to try raising children in this fucked up, every man/woman/child for herself world. I don’t have a village to help raise my child. I would have a choice of sketchy day-care centers, processed food from companies far more concerned with their profit than my health, a job with minimal family leave time, and a few billion make-work chores at home, with my personal, individual self and identity sacrificed to a greater whole. Uh, no. Maybe I don’t want to waste the 7+ years of higher education on a life that does not appeal to me.
The American Dream has always been many things to many people. Interestingly, despite the vast social changes in the years since WWII ended, the mirage of the Dream has changed little. The single-family home, on its little plot of grass, complete with garage, motor vehicle, appliances, swing sets, 2.5 kids, and dog now includes a working mother (to help pay for all the “financed” equipment in and supporting the house, not to mention the mortgage on the house) and aspirations to own a larger home and car in order to hold more consumer goods. We are no longer pursuing wealth for the leisure it affords us. We are pursuing wealth as an end in itself, and we will place ourselves in debt for the conspicuous consumption of goods we cannot afford but think we “deserve.” If we buy enough, won’t we be happy?
Oh, and on eugenics: there isn’t a panel of people you could put together who could be trusted to come up with a good way to decide who is ready or who should have kids. The idea/ideal is good, but the implementation would be catastrophic. Like communism.
This is a post from a listserv I belong to on the History of Sex, Sexuality, and Gender. Fascinating to know that so many people are studying this in academia, but little of what they are talking about has yet filtered down. We are so fucked up about sex in America.
Anyway:
On that note, today's kitch break is brought to you by Elinor Glyn's "This Passion Called Love" (1925) ("Would you care to sin on a tiger skin with Elinor Gyn? Or would you prefer to err with her on some other fur?"):
"What will happen to the race in general, and our civilization in particular, if the best women refrain from mother hood or limit their offspring, and leave this function to the newer citizens who are constantly coming to this country, or have recently come, from the peasantry of Europe? . . . . If only the women with intelligence, freedom of thought, strength of character, and talent had children, a race of mental giants would follow. But unfortunately very clever women each year grow less inclined to make ties, and the population is carried on through the willing, the brainless, and the mediocre, with the result that the quality of intelligence is bound to decrease. . . . Do you care, or are you quite indifferent to the future of your race? . . . .if you do care, then it is your duty to study this matter and when you have come to a conclusion, act accordingly. . . ."
Anyway:
On that note, today's kitch break is brought to you by Elinor Glyn's "This Passion Called Love" (1925) ("Would you care to sin on a tiger skin with Elinor Gyn? Or would you prefer to err with her on some other fur?"):
"What will happen to the race in general, and our civilization in particular, if the best women refrain from mother hood or limit their offspring, and leave this function to the newer citizens who are constantly coming to this country, or have recently come, from the peasantry of Europe? . . . . If only the women with intelligence, freedom of thought, strength of character, and talent had children, a race of mental giants would follow. But unfortunately very clever women each year grow less inclined to make ties, and the population is carried on through the willing, the brainless, and the mediocre, with the result that the quality of intelligence is bound to decrease. . . . Do you care, or are you quite indifferent to the future of your race? . . . .if you do care, then it is your duty to study this matter and when you have come to a conclusion, act accordingly. . . ."