At Crime & Federalism, Mike Cernovich doesn’t write too much about crime or about federalism. These days its about women blaming men for bad stuff that happens, recipes to develop more manliness, and alpha males man-handling their women and killing their own food. Okay, not really, but that’s my take-away. Maybe I read between the lines, maybe it’s because I don’t see myself in the posts he writes, but I am not ever (hardly) offended, and frequently, like today, I’m amused. Yes, C&F; makes me lol and while I think occasionally his logic is loose, I don’t disagree with lot of what he says about religion, about women, and about American society in general.
Yesterday, Mike wrote about women not writing entries for Wikipedia. Now, the basic premise of that post was that women read People magazine and care more about celebrity gossip than facts and information and that is why we don’t write for Wikipedia. (I say I don’t write for Wikipedia because it’s stupid, but that’s a different post) He says that women don’t blog because we are busy blaming men for things like our inability to blog. Here is a post where I am amused, I don’t terribly disagree, but it’s not the tightest argument ever. It’s ok, I still liked the post and at the end of the day, for me, that’s how I decide what to read.
OK, so then Carolyn Elefant wrote a response to this post wherein she says she reads Oprah when she’s done with her day because it is an escape (and then she says it’s good, but I don’t believe that). She also said Mike is sexist. Carolyn writes that the reason why there aren’t more women bloggers is because women bear the brunt of housework and child rearing so when deciding what to do and when, blogging takes a backseat (I’m not even going to touch the Wikipedia angle because, like I said, Wikipedia is stupid). I think Carolyn makes a good point as well. It’s not the life I live since my husband is a true partner in every aspect. He knows I’m growing a business and that takes time and effort so he picks up a lot of the slack. However, he works ridiculous hours and I’m beholden to his schedule. I’ve had to cancel late evening or early morning appointments because he hasn’t been able to get the kids, but hey, it’s life and we manage to make it work.
Look, I’m not going to lie, this having kids and being a full time solo practice go-to-court and represent clients lawyer thing is hard. It takes a lot out of all parties involved and it’s a lot of ducking and weaving and bobbing sometimes to get through the day. I meet clients after the kids go to bed. I work on Sundays. I make most meals (because I am a much better cook) but I don’t do laundry (I take mine to the fluff and fold, it’s my one indulgence). I choose to blog with a little less frequency since I’ve had to make choices on how I spend the little time I’ve got left in a day.
I have a friend, she works at a pretty high profile software company. Her son is the same age as mine. She is a single mom. When I talk to her I try not to complain. She does ALL OF IT by herself every single day. And she has since her son was born. And she thrives and is promoted and does what she needs to do to make sure she gets it done and thrives and is promoted. When school is closed and she has to present at the company international sales meeting she figures this shit out and gets her son where he needs to be and then presents at the sales meeting without a hair out of place. I’m not sure she thinks “gee, this isn’t fair” I’m not sure she thinks anything other than “I love my job, I love my son, I’m going to make this work.”
I don’t think Mike is sexist. I don’t think Carolyn is an idiot for reading Oprah (I mean, Oprah though, really?) But then again, the new feminist agenda is not something I’ve spent a lot of time thinking about in the recent years because I’ve been trying to run a law firm, have kids, raise kids, then run a law firm. Which, I thought, is what our feminist forerunners were trying to make sure we would get to do.
I, too, was amused..and even that… just for a second. I don't have time to worry about what others think woman are or think we should be doing but aren't or even defending womankind. As you say, too busy raising a family and running a business 🙂
I don't have children or a family, but that doesn't mean I want to use my "spare" time to write for Wikipedia or blog. I use it to cross country ski or hike.
There are two things that I fail to understand in this debate. It's genesis is women complaining about the dearth of female bloggers as compared to men, yet the female reaction is that they're too busy or don't want to. Nobody said you had to, but then, why are women complaining about a lack of female bloggers?
Second, this is another in Mirriam's stream of anti-neo-feminist misogynista posts, yet neglects to mention shoes. An oversight?
SHG – I wonder the same thing, but I think it's like this: It's not fair that women are too busy because of they are the primary caregivers in their households. It's not fair because society sets it up that way. So it's society's fault that there aren't more women bloggers. It's a matter of priorities. I'm not a mantle-bearer for women's issues in the way that I'm screaming at the top of my lungs about things over which I have no control, but I'd hope that women such as Carolyn would at least inspire other women to stop making excuses and sit down and write. But that's just me.
And yet again you omit any mention of shoes? I'm beginning to sense a conspiracy, with you, Queen Mirriam, as the hub.
I like shoes, a lot. I spend good money that I don't really have on them. Yes, my husband can't tell one pair from the other (but these are PATENT). I dislike anything that could be called a 'loafer' on a woman. But I'm not about to write a whole stupid blog post about it. OHHH! Maybe I should start a wiki entry?
There we go. Don't you feel better now. I know you do.
M, I haven't read a lot of/about the new feminist agenda. I thought that your feminist forerunners (my contemporaries?) were trying to make sure women would get to do what they were good at and wanted to do rather than be bound by sexual stereotypes. But in the intervening decades, there have been new stereotypes raised. Not ALL women want it ALL, and I don't see why they should. I have no kids, no business of my own, but I have a job I love, a husband, extended family and friends I love, and limits on time that mean I can't take up in an active way all the causes I believe in. How I choose to spend my time, or what I let "force" me to spend it a certain way, is based on MY life and priorities, not what "a woman" or "all women" should do. As for clothes (the earlier fun post), I think a lawyer's clothes should help the lawyer feel as comfortable as possible, help the lawyer "take over" the courtroom (or any room) on behalf of the client, and be limited only by the need to avoid UNWANTED distractions or confrontations.
Is blogging really a glass ceiling type of issue we even need to worry about? I mean, Wikipedia IS dumb, but I always thought one of the greatest things about being a woman today meant that we could do things like practice law, debate philosophy, raise kids, read magazines, and wear lipstick and shop for shoes — if we WANT to!
I was enjoying this discussion of such unobjectionable, trivial subjects as gender until I was shocked by these inflammatory claims about Wikipedia.