I mean these comments with respect. I know you are obtaining your PhD in Sociology, and I am also doing the same. As aspiring sociologists we are constantly exploring, analyzing, and debating. A researcher must admit her/his/zer attachment to research. It is the passion that keeps us talking. Of course these debates are heated, but I want you to know that I really think these correspondences are crucial to changing the imbalances across America. By imbalances I mean fighting against classism, racism, and standing up for feminism. One of my greatest professors, Dr. Marita McComiskey, once told me “You can’t do everything, but you can do something”. Regardless of who considers themselves a feminists or not, for fear of what they call overzealous activists or otherwise, we are all in this together. These topics and forums are important for outreach.

There is nothing idealistic about my comments regarding marriage and choice for a middle-class woman. Marriage to a man or woman who does not place their spouse’s aspirations on an equal playing field to their own surely has consequences. Why would someone want to marry someone who shows them such obvious inconsiderate behavior? Surely relationship circumstances exist, however some middle-class women can make better choices for spouses if they want a balanced marriage. More middle-class women than ever are enrolled in higher education (exceeding male enrollment in medical schools and law programs), living on their own, and creating their futures.

Idealism would be having false pretences about what your husband will do to help balance marriage/family, and then marrying the man. This alongside the assumption these women want egalitarian marriages. Then once being married to him become shocked over his disrespects. I am suggesting that heterosexual women stop trying to “fix” men into becoming “marriage material.” Instead I suggest that women put their foot down and walk away. The intricacies of love may be difficult to overcome, however women have a responsibility in their agendas as well. Fretting over how you will balance family/work only goes as far as the person you marry or settle down with. If you want equality don’t settle with a sexist partner. That is not idealism that is self-respect. Self-respect should be foremost. If self-respect is idealism then call me John Lennon.

As far as your “source” for “chick,” Amy Richards appears to be an academic however her “source” is personal conversations with co-workers. Be it those co-workers comments come from a feminist magazine, there is pivotal feminist theory argument surrounding these topics, as noted in my last blog. The forefront of the First Wave regarded altering American documents and their literature as integral in equalizing their rights in society. Amy’s grave underestimation of this issue is erroneous to feminist argument, and frankly belittles her status as a knowledgeable feminist. Amy said, “…there are bigger battles” than language debate. I would argue that is an ignorant statement. If there are “bigger battles” I would be curious to see Amy’s face if someone referred to her as a “chick.”

Regardless of her grandiose sentiments of what constitutes an important “battle,” in your case “context” is a poor argument for using words such as “chicks,” because you are attempting to pose “important” issues surrounding women and life/work balance. My point is that your context might be a poor one, deterring people from reading further.

Best,

Christina

And I’m going to go with Amy as far as “chick” is concerned: http://www.feminist.com/askamy/feminism/fem65.html

Liz

Thank you for your response. There forums are important for dialogue regarding these feminist topics and today’s society.

Yes, I did acknowledge the social world that contributes to decisions people (“lovers”) make. I acknowledge the trying decisions of both women and men. I am merely commenting on your blog, from your perspective, as a white, heterosexual (so it seems by your blog), middle-class woman. I also keep in mind I am speaking from a white, feminist perspective. I carefully worded my first post, using myself as an example, not the prototype of women’s behavior across all backgrounds. These circumstances are not the same for all women. That is why “choice” is an important feminist concern. Because some women do not have “choice” but rather they have “options” to consider. Perhaps a woman has to marry a man to feed her children; that is an example of an option versus a choice. I place no judgment women in poverty who are in dire circumstances. I do however place responsibility on privileged and educated women to uplift an egalitarian world. This assertion assumes these women consider themselves feminists. Some women have the ability to choose a husband who uplifts feminist agendas. Everyone is subject to human error, and learns from those mistakes. A feminist with a privileged background, such as myself, has a responsibility to always make her own choice and to help other women be able to make choices versus options. That is my feminist agenda, and one that is widely shared by feminists, regardless of race, class, gender, and/or sexuality.

Perhaps a social context is lacking egalitarianism in a chosen partner or not. I did not say that a feminist woman would not marry an un-egalitarian male. I said I could not understand how one could marry an un-egalitarian and not at least expect trials and tribulations. To marry a man without similar principles might lead to distress in a marriage. Certainly the discourse of marriage is not set in stone, although some blatantly unequal marriages begin every day. Moreover, the “choice” to marry someone can either perpetuate, or help to terminate, a “second shift” or rather an imbalanced marriage. My point was that these decisions of “who” one marries should be considered with great scrutiny if the woman wants both career and family. A woman outside the middle- and upper-class might not even be considering the work/family balance, but rather how she will feed her children. Let me once again mention the middle-class, white, feminist perspectives these blogs are evoking. I am acknowledging my own privilege, although with an informed perspective.

Egalitarianism is a simplistic concept imparting equality for all. It could and does mean a myriad of things to different people. Ultimately egalitarianism and feminism impart autonomy as the determinate of equality. Equality within a marriage could mean the woman washes the dishes and the husband folds the laundry. A husband is half of an equal marriage. It could mean that the woman works and the father stays at home with the children. Equality is perceived differently across marriages and other relationships. My point is that the feminist agenda is to adhere to choices that will promote egalitarianism in their own lives whenever possible. Social context exists, but they can no longer be the excuse for middle-class people with privilege. Unequal marriages have choices to either exist or terminate. Those choices are innumerable. The ultimate goal of feminism is autonomous choice. That is the point. As I stated in my first post it is a hope that people would consider their life decisions with their spouse before marrying, as to be in accordance together.

“These chicks were happier?” Lastly, “chick” is most certainly considered anti-feminist rhetoric. Consider what is being said when women are referenced as “chicks.” It is a term that inherently is referring to a small, delicate, and young animal. Therefore women are being referred to as such. I do not see it as an appropriate nickname but rather a pejorative. If you are not using it that way, but instead wish to use a clever term to describe women, you are not using an uplifting term. I only suggest this because you might lose your feminist audience when placing such terminology at the beginning of your blog. Feminist theory asserts the English language’s origins and certain usages both established and perpetuate patriarchy and male-hegemony. Readings such as Susan Bordo, Adrienne Rich, and Charlotte Perkins Gilman are a great place to start reading about anti-feminist rhetoric and the English languages perpetuations of these oppressions.

Thank you.

Best,
Christina

Thanks for your response. Let me try to address a few things you bring up.

1) Sure, feminists have choices, as do all men and women. Feminists can choose to marry or not, have children or not. Every “choice,” however, is made within a social context. You say that a feminist woman would not possibly marry an un-egalitarian male, but “egalitarianism” is difficult to pin down. A man expressing egalitarian VIEWS, may very well in practice fall into more traditional gender roles. It happens (see “The Second Shift”).

2) Perhaps I wasn’t clear in my musings on “sacrifices.” I don’t think I imply that working women disadvantage their children. I certainly don’t mean to! I’m only saying that too often it’s mothers who make sacrifices–by way of putting their career on the back-burner, working part-time, choosing a more “flexible” profession–than fathers. That’s the norm in our culture. Which is why, as you point out, fathers are never questioned about whether their work responsibilities interfere with their fathering responsibilities. Women face this scrutiny all the time.

Your desires include having a career and children. So do mine! But, unfortunately, I think that’s easier said than done (particularly in a culture that has different expectations for what it entails to be a mother versus a father)…And that’s really all I was trying to get at. Hope that addresses some of your concerns.

Lastly: “chick.” I don’t think there’s anything inherently anti-feminist about the word. Is there? Personally, I think it’s about context. If the word is used in a generally anti-feminist tirade, I could see why someone would be offended. But it’s clearly not being used in that way here.

Again, thanks for writing in.
Liz

I realize this is Liz’s post, although I read your blogs occasionally and see it is a joint effort.

The double-bind you describe where women experience difficulties balancing career and family, assumes a heterosexual relationship, within a nuclear family setting. I realize you were divulging your personal experiences to argue these difficulties. With that being said, above all feminist thinking is the importance of autonomous decision. If a woman chooses to have both a career versus a job, she also has the power to choose marry a husband not an additional child, who requires her imbalanced care-taking.

A large portion of perpetuating gender norms binaries deals with decisions made by women and men. Moreover, I wonder how a feminist woman could possibly marry a man who did not believe in egalitarian living. The cross-over between the social world and the passion of lovers surely exists. My recommendation is that heterosexual women who want to “have it all” ascertain the ways to make an egalitarian marriage work, before making career choices in light of marriage and family choices.

Lastly, “sacrifices” is an interesting word to use about women’s careers and families. The word sacrifice implies a loss incurred. However a child being raised by a working mother is not necessarily a loss to the child’s well-being or parental benefits. Rarely within “family values” discussions around conservative dinner tables do you find a man being questioned for his vocational desires. Sometimes entertaining thoughts alone, such as needing to sacrifice either career or work perpetuates the gender norm binaries. As a feminist, I simply do not consider my career ventures as disadvantages to my future children’s upbringing. I simply see my advances as the essential component to pursuing my feminist desires, and a positive example for my children. My feminist desires include career and children. That is not to say that a housewife is any different, it is rather to say that autonomous decisions will always be the forefront of feminism. Personal pursuits will always be respected, if one respects their own.

As a note, the photograph attached to your blog uses the title “chick”. I was just curious if you had chosen that caption, because when I searched the photograph it had a separate title. I would respectfully suggest that in the future you choose different language besides anti-feminist rhetoric when writing a “feminist” blog.

Best,

Christina

Warmly,
Amy (www.equallysharedparenting.com)