skin-hating

Today I read a post on one of my favorite blogs, NieNie Dialogues. I’ve been reading her blog for about two years now.  It’s a typical “Mormon Mommy blog” except for one thing: almost a year ago she and her husband were in a plane crash and were severely burned, NieNie on most of her body.  They both survived and she continues to blog.

Her post today is about how she is feeling sorry for herself because she used to look so beautiful and now her skin is scarred from the burns.  I was struck by this post, I thought, “How many women in their 20’s hate their skin when in fact their skin is perfectly lovely?”  I’m afraid the answer is, most of them.  I hope the women reading NieNie’s blog realize how thankful they ought to be for their healthy skin.  Even NieNie herself, though she is (understandably!) struggling because she looks like a completely different person, and people stare at her, and her kids were afraid of her at first, probably realizes that her skin is one reason why she is still alive today.  It is what protected her body from the fire.  We should all be greatful that we have skin that protects us, and even more so if it looks nice.

I checked out a few magazines from the library a while ago, including Martha Stewart Living and Real Simple.  Both were, of course, about 75% ads, and most of those ads said things like “fight against aging” and were just obsessed with facial skin and how keeping it looking impossibly smooth and dewey would not be so impossible if you would only buy X product (ranging in price from $ to $$$).  It was really disturbing to me, probably because I never watch TV and haven’t read a magazine like that in months.

It is such a waste of time, money, thought, it’s bad for your spirit, it’s bad for your heart to hate your body like those ads suggest you should.  They claim loving your skin means obsessing over it, when actually that probably just breeds more dissatisfaction.

My philosophy is, I look better now than I am ever going to in the future (as I age, have babies, gain weight, etc) so I might as well enjoy how I look or I’ll be kicking myself in ten years, twenty years, wishing I still looked that good.

Thank you, feminism

I’m going to graduate in April!  With a Bachelor’s degree!  I don’t plan on having a career, necessarily, unless Samuel were to die or become disabled.  But if that happens I should be able to at least make enough money to live on, however humbly.

It just occurred to me today that if I had lived 150 years ago or so, and Samuel died, I would (unless I were very, very lucky) basically have two options if I wanted to keep from starving to death: marry myself off or become a prostitute.  Really, as different as the two options are, they are still frighteningly similar!  Especially if I had children already, I would not be able to do much else.

There are many things about feminism that I don’t agree with, but I am so glad we now have an equal opportunity to get education and jobs.  And we can even have our own bank accounts and property!  What a wild idea!

Seriously, it boggles my mind how long it took the world to figure that one out.

Actually, technically the whole world hasn’t, I suppose….

more feminism, coming up!

I’ve been having a facebook conversation about my recent blog post with one of my friends. I’ve learned so much about what I believe that I’ve decided to post what I wrote.  Beware, it’s 3 pages single-spaced on MW! If my friend wishes to identify herself she can do so in a comment

She said:

I have been thinking about your feminism post and I think it has good stuff: it’s so true that we, mostly as Americans, have lost our appreciation for well crafted goods. We are a disposable nation/generation. Now, while trying not to criticize per se (because i know you hate it and i have also done my fair share of poking your opinion out of you) but rather prompt a discussion: how is this a woman-specific argument?I see what you are saying in terms of offering this as a women’s possession, but I suppose I just see things a little differently then these more traditional models you present. What can be said of the single father raising children, or the single mother? The father who likes to cook or the mother who earns the living? I see how your view is well meaning, indeed, but I am trying to explore feminism. I don’t like all feminists- the man haters or women who victimize themselves, so I would really love to hear more about your view, but also apply it to a realistic sociologists-type model in which there is more poverty and other unwanted problems than you or I have surly been exposed to.

On the one hand, it’s such a touchy subject- like race or religion, but it feels like now, at our age (as opposed to those crazies in high school) we can finally begin to have true mature conversations.

sorry for babbling, I am trying to avoid an essay

Aleatha said:

Why is my argument a woman-specific one? I believe that the two genders are equal in importance, but have different purposes or natural abilities. Some feminists take “women are equal to men” so far as to say that the biological aspects of gender mean nothing, and gender is completely a social construct. I do not believe that. I do believe that some aspects of gender are social constructs, but also some we are born with. Most women are born with the ability to bear and nurture children. In addition to this I believe that most women are better suited than most men to be the primary caregivers of children. I also believe that most men are born better suited to provide the necessities of life for their children, i.e., work for food or money. Of course, women can do that too, and men can raise children, but I believe that it is, in general, better for a wife to be the one who primarily cares for the children, and the husband the one who provides for them. The feminist aspect of this is that much of the time, this female role is ridiculed or not even considered as important. In reality it is extremely important. This is what my church believes.

Also, just because females have one role and males have another doesn’t mean that they are restricted to that role at all times. In many circumstances, things are switched around, sometimes even for the better. Or, single parents might have to do both roles, which is very, very difficult, but quite possible. But in general, things run most smoothly and turn out the best when the mother raises the children and the father provides for them, as long as both parents work together and help each other perform their roles and be happy. I don’t have any statistics for this, but it is what I believe. Anyway I never had much faith in statistics. I’m not going to go around telling people how to run their families, but I do want to encourage women to be mothers to their children, and stay home and care for them as much as they can. Not only is it fulfilling to the mother (as long as it is not forced) and beneficial to the children, it also would help reduce consumerism. These days many people believe that both parents need to work to have enough money. In my own experience this is not true. Most of the time, what really needs to happen is for these people to be more frugal, have more modest houses, buy fewer toys and gadgets, and not waste as much.

All of what I’m saying is what my church believes also. In my church this kind of father-mother, husband-wife relationship is called “equal partners”. The wife/mother has the role of caring for the children, the husband/father of working to provide for them.  But since they are equal partners, those roles are flexible, and they help each other out with the other person’s role as needed. Specifically how they help each other is determined solely by the couple. For example, my parents believe all of this. My dad worked, and my mom stayed home with us. She hasn’t had a job since before David was born, except for running a small daycare in her home for a few years. She is a homemaker and keeps track of cleaning, cooking, etc. However, my dad (and us kids) have always done much of the cleaning and cooking, simply because we are part of the family and my mom appreciates the help. If my dad were disabled or something, and we needed money I’m sure my mom would do whatever it took to find a job of some kind. In another family, the mom might work more, or the dad might cook more. It is all decided between the couple according to their circumstances, likes, and dislikes. But in general, especially when the children are young, it is best for the mother to stay at home with them, if possible.

If someone is a single parent, doing all of these roles would be very difficult, and they would have to find help in the form of daycare, welfare, friends, family, whatever. Because they don’t have their partner to help them out, they’ve got to find others to help them make sure everything gets done. This is one reason why my church stresses education for women so much. Though the church teaches us to stay at home and be moms, where a degree isn’t exactly necessary (though helpful) in this day and age moms have got to have degrees in case they suddenly become single parents and have to go work. With a degree those moms will hopefully be able to find decent jobs, be able to afford good daycare, and so on. Of course, men in the church are encouraged to get lots of education too, since they will most likely be the main providers of their families.

Anyway, now I’m babbling! I know lots of people don’t agree with me about gender-specific roles and such, but I -and Samuel- believe all this stuff and it is really important to us. Both our families were run this way and have been really successful.

I would say the only feminism I truly disagree with is the kind that promotes:
1. laughing at men who want to perform traditional fatherly roles
2. laughing at women who want to perform traditional motherly roles
3. parents neglecting their own children

She said:

that sounds like a fair assessment. so, just for kicks, i’ll propose: the woman I work for is a loving wife and mother as well as working full time teaching and doing cutting edge, important research on effects of greenhouse effects on plants. Would you have this situation any other way? ( side info: Her husband also works full time as a professor/researcher and from what I know her kids are doing well.) In my view, the world is benefiting substantially from her untraditional way of life.

Aleatha said:

I’d say this woman is totally awesome, as long as she, her husband, and kids believe that her family is more important than her work.

I personally would not want to have that life, but that’s because I hate the working world -I just don’t feel comfortable in it. I love staying at home, and I love homemaking types of tasks. Having to work someplace all day would make me really unhappy and stressed. I have the coolest job in the world right now (making costumes for plays) and most of the time I still wish I could just spend those hours at home cleaning, cooking, relaxing, whatever. The accomplishment of having a beautiful home is more fulfilling to me than the accomplishment of seeing my costume work on stage.

Conversely, if your boss were forced to stay at home, she might feel like I do when I have to work- a lack of fulfillment. That is certainly not good for her or her husband or kids. Each family needs to decide what’s going to work out best for everyone involved. Sacrifice -of a career, time, whatever- is always part of marriage and parenting, but excessive sacrifice can result in depression or worse. Parents need to decide what they’re willing to let go of for the benefit of their family, and what they aren’t willing to sacrifice, to maintain their own happiness.

Another point which I’m sure you’ll agree with is that no matter how much she adds to the world’s knowledge of greenhouse effects on plants, if she is neglecting her children and not teaching them how to take care of themselves and be kind and good citizens, the world will not have gained anything really. If she is able to teach her children at the same time, that’s awesome! But not all women can, want to, or should be expected to do the same.

My Views on Feminism

I call myself a feminist, but sometimes not out loud because the word has so many different definitions, some of which I prefer not to be associated with.  I want to share a portion of a life-changing “manifesto” I read when I was a teenager.  It perfectly states my secular views of feminism.  My “spiritual feminist” side is harder to articulate, so for now you only get the secular side.  Some other time, maybe.

To me, being feminist means I am proud to be a woman: a feminine woman.  I do not necessarily have to be “feminine” by every single cultural standard, but I enjoy many aspects of femininity and take pride in them.  Being a feminist means that I take pride in my sex’s history of childbearing, child nurturing, and homemaking, and strive to use and develop those traits and skills, whether or not they are “inherent” to women, or merely roles placed upon us by culture -a debate which will never end, I think.  Well, besides childbearing, which is obviously a trait inherent in women only.  I believe many skills related to child nurturing and homemaking are inherent in most women, but I am not sure exactly which skills or even how inherent they are.  It is something I think about often, but I’m afraid none of us will ever completely understand in this life.  In my brand of feminism, calling these kinds of skills “drudgery” or “simple-minded” is out of bounds, because it supports the idea that being like a man -performing men’s traditional roles and skills- is more important than being like a woman, a clearly anti-feminist idea, in my book.

In short, I guess you could say that as a woman with the same rights as men, rights which were won for me by past feminists, I celebrate my right to be feminine and domestic.

The rest of this post is my favorite portion of “The Crafty Manifesto” (I’ve italicized my absolute favorite parts, for those who don’t want to read everything):

When Betty Friedan searched for the cause of “the problem that has no name” affecting middle class white suburban housewives in 1963, she found it in housecleaning and caring for the family. According to Friedan, all things domestic were actually the root of women’s malaise and depression. As I read through The Feminine Mystique now, forty years later, I have a lot of sympathy and admiration for Friedan as someone who was trying to make sense of her world. But I think her analysis is too narrow. It isn’t the activity of housework that is so stifling, but rather women had so few other options and, more importantly, women’s work has always been devalued.

From cooking to cleaning to caring for children, our culture views “women’s work” as stupid, simple, suffocating—things that can easily be replaced by mechanization, crappy fast food, hiring poor women and neglect—precisely because women have always done them. Even feminists aren’t free from this type of thinking; we have internalized patriarchal thinking to such an extent that we also dismiss our own history of domesticity. And although we may not be aware of it, we have bought into the lie that women are inferior so we set out to be more like men: important, big, self-centered and good at getting ours.

Debbie Stoller, the founder and editor of the third wave feminist magazine Bust, believes that if the feminist movement wants to achieve real equality, we have to embrace domesticity. “We already know what’s respectable and fulfilling about the workplace–basically going out and making money—and there is a certain amount of pride and independence in doing that,” Debbie continues, “But I think we, as a culture, need to relearn what’s valuable and fulfilling in the private sector. The home, children, crafts and making things.”

What if, instead of dismissing it, we thought of domesticity as an important part of women’s culture? Don’t get me wrong, I am not suggesting that every woman should enjoy knitting and cooking and embroidery. But I am suggesting that we give women’s work its props as something valuable, interesting and important, like knowing how to build a house, keep accounting records or play basketball. Skill, love and creativity go into creating a nice home, making things by hand and raising children. It’s not stupid and it’s not easy; it’s damn hard work that we need to respect. Moreover, it is our history, and dismissing it only doubles the injustice already done to women who didn’t have any choice but to be domestic in the first place. And it is as relevant as ever. Taking care of our homes and children is important for our happiness and the health of our entire society.

I love wearing dresses

I like to be inspired to be modest, and so I often search online for articles regarding the topic. Most of the websites I have found are religious, and most Christian. Many of these Christian websites believe that women should always wear dresses that are plain (or perhaps a better word is “drab”) as well as modest. My problems with this idea are the following:

They almost always quote one or all of these scriptures:

“Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel”. -I Peter 3:3

“In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;” -I Timothy 2:9

“The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman’s garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God.”-Deut. 22:5

And neglect to quote the following verses:

Rebekah was a total babe:

“And the damsel was very fair to look upon, a virgin, neither had any man known her: and she went down to the well, and filled her pitcher, and came up.” Genesis 24:16

She wore expensive jewelry:

“And it came to pass, as the camels had done drinking, that the man took a golden earring of half a shekel weight, and two bracelets for her hands of ten shekels weight of gold;” Genesis 24:22

“And I asked her, and said, Whose daughter art thou? And she said, The daughter of Bethuel, Nahor’s son, whom Milcah bare unto him: and I put the earring upon her face, and the bracelets upon her hands.” Genesis 24:47

She was so beautiful that her husband was afraid that men would kill him for her:

“And the men of the place asked him of his wife; and he said, She is my sister: for he feared to say, She is my wife; lest, said he, the men of the place should kill me for Rebekah; because she was fair to look upon”. Genesis 26:7

The Virtuous Woman in Proverbs wears beautiful clothes:

“She maketh herself coverings of tapestry; her clothing is silk and purple.” Proverbs 31:22

I don’t know any Christian woman who would think that Rebekah or the Virtuous Woman are immodest or vain. Other examples of beautiful women in the Bible are:

Abigail

Esther

Sarai

The daughters of Job

The Bride of Christ, a figurative woman symbolizing the Church

In fact, almost all of the women in the Bible are described as being beautiful, and many are described as wearing beautiful clothing and jewels. Obviously the problem does not lie in being beautiful or wearing beautiful things. The problem starts when we
begin to think that our apparel makes us better somehow. The truth is, I believe, that God does not really care how expensive or inexpensive our clothes are. I believe He wants us to find happiness in looking beautiful and modest, and at the same time be humble and charitable.

“…for the LORD seeth not as man seeth; for man looketh on the outward appearance, but the LORD looketh on the heart.” I Sam. 16:7

I like the way President Susan W. Tanner put it in her Conference talk which can be found here:

“You must do everything you can to make your appearance pleasing, but the minute you walk out the door, forget yourself and start concentrating on others.”

Or the way President Hinckley put it:

“Of all the creations of the Almighty, there is none more beautiful, none more inspiring than a lovely daughter of God who walks in virtue with an understanding of why she should do so, who honors and respects her body as a thing sacred and divine, who cultivates her mind and constantly enlarges the horizon of her understanding, who nurtures her spirit with everlasting truth”.

Regarding the verse in Deuteronomy, “The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman’s garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God.”-Deut. 22:5 :

A few of the Christian websites use this verse to show that women should always wear dresses and men should always wear pants. To me, this is not logical. I do not know much about Old Testament history, but I am pretty sure that both genders wore long, loose robe-type things and that neither wore pants at the time this verse was given. Obviously, though, there was some kind of distinction between what a woman wore and what a man wore. There was a cultural distinction between what apparel looked feminine and what looked masculine.

To my mind, this idea of distinguishing the genders with apparel is still in practice, but not in the way that these Christian websites would have it. Truly, a dress is a very feminine look, in today’s western culture. But what about other cultures? In a great many areas of the world, men wear what might look like dresses or skirts to us westerners (or if they don’t look like dresses, they definately do not look like pants). However, these men are, without question, considered masculine. So what does this mean? To me, it means that “that which pertaineth to a man” and woman, regarding clothing, is cultural. In today’s culture in this part of the world, it is commonplace for a woman to wear pants and still look feminine. The cultural distinction is still there. Therefore, in my mind, women do not have to always wear a dress to please God.

Having said all of that, I really love wearing pretty dresses, own several (far more than I do pants), and wear them often. I find pants rather uncomfortable unless they are somewhat loose and soft. Dresses are comfortable and really not cumbersome unless you are going to be rock climbing, motorcycling, riding a horse, etc. In winter, I love to wear dresses with thick socks or stockings and boots. It is an outfit not in the least colder than wearing pants.

My own experience with dresses has led me to believe that, in our culture, by wearing pretty dresses more often a woman can very soon develop more gracefulness, more confidence, and better posture. However, perhaps that statement deserves its own post.

*Please note that all of these ideas are my opinion and that you do not have to believe what I believe or do what I do, etc. Think about this topic on your own and decide from there.