Eggs and Motherhood

I went to dinner with my friend Rennat recently and I was telling her about how I had considered donating sperm in an effort to raise money to fly back home more often. Ren immediately thought of the movie The Kids are All Aright and tried whole-heartedly to convince me out of doing it. (I had already been convinced by my girlfriend, Amy, but nevertheless Ren felt obliged to press me against it) I told her that if I weren't concerned about having a bunch of offspring running around, I would not mind. Still, in some sense, I was not really convinced I would view the children of my sperm with people I did not know as my children. Ren had a different view on the matter. She said, in effect, that not only would she consider them her children in some sense, but that it is just different (apparently by levels of degree) between male sperm and female eggs.

Now, to give her credit, there is some serious truth to that. Biologically speaking, men have limitless sperm while females have a fixed number of eggs. However, that "fixed number" is usually around 1.5 million. So despite their being a fixed number, I would not say it is a common occurrence that they run out. The idea that concerned me most was that, in some way, motherhood was better/more important than fatherhood.

First, it is important that the two enterprises are very different but not unequal. I do not feel the need to get into a long debate about the importance of each responsibility, but if we remember that feminism is not about turning the tables against men, but leveling the playing field, then we do not want to say one is more important to the other. My own personal skiddishness comes from the idea that one's "children" is understood in more than just a biological sense, but also a relational sense. We can see this trend in stepparents who call their partner's kids from other situations their own.

Ren later backed down from this point pretty readily. But it gave me pause, and I think it helps us remember that feminism is about eqaulity not a different type of inequality. As the saying goes, every man should be a feminist. I would add, "and everyone should be for equality." 

Feminists Love Divorce? Schlafly and Venker

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/beverly-willett/feminists-love-divorce_b_825208.html

The Conservative Grand Dame and the "No-Bull Mom" have teamed up to write a new book. The Flipside of Feminism: What Conservative Women Know - And Men Can't Say. As part of the publicity of the book, Beverly Willett, in conjunction with Huffington Post, interviewed the two co-authors about the ills of modern feminism and the reasons it is hurting modern America.

When asked why many marriages, not just of feminists, fail, Schlafly responded that marriage and motherhood are not taught as aspirations anymore."The result is women don't think of marriage and motherhood as fulfilling in and of itself. It's silly to think there's something wrong with being in the kitchen--everybody has to eat!" Schlafly said. She went on to say that the feminist movement has not reaped "a single benefit" for women" and that, "Feminists demeaned marriage and motherhood even though most women want marriage and motherhood." When asked to respond to quotes like "You can't legislate morality" in terms of divorce reform, Schlafly responded, "That's ridiculous. We have adopted thousands of federal and state laws to legislate morality. What do you think the criminal code is?" Venker also chimed in, claiming marriages are not viewed as lifelong commitments as they were in the past and that "feminism also taught women that men are idiots". 


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Phyllis Schlafly is the reason I will never buy a Schlafly-brewed beer, even if it is a moniker of my hometown of St. Louis, Missouri. It really pains me to see such ignorance from someone who has so much influence in the conservative media, though I guess I should not be surprised with the likes of Glenn Beck and Bill O'Reilly running around. I think it is necessary to make a few points clear to the Grand Dame. First of all, modern feminism does not downplay the significance of healthy marriage and raising children. The opposition two both is their place as near social REQUIREMENTS in society. Yes, there is nothing wrong with wanting to raise children, have a healthy, happy marriage, and live your life in that manner. There is ALSO nothing wrong with never wanting children, living independently as a single woman (or man), and disowning the social history of marriage. Of course everyone has to eat, Ms. Schlafly, but that does not mean women HAVE TO make all their food for their family, or have a family of their own. I grew up around conservatism, Ms. Schlafly, and I have seen first hand the problems it can cause. I am not hereby endorsing "liberalism" as the way out, but let us not forget that the feminists women has made HUGE strides for the equality of women and continues to defend the inalienable rights of all. Also, your legal moralism is not an uncommon stance, but it is not the stance of the United States government, nor has it ever been, and we cannot force people to stay in marriages they do not want to. As a child of divorced parents, I am OVERJOYED my parents got a divorce. They could hardly stand talking to each other in my household without yelling at the top of their lungs or remaining on separate floors for the entire time they were home together. There was no physical abuse, addiction, or extreme conflict other than the fact that they did not LOVE or even LIKE each other anymore. Should they have pushed through 6 more years of my brother, sister, and I going through high school, and "toughed it out"? By my estimations, Ms. Schlafly, they seem a lot happier now then they ever did during my late childhood and adolescent years. 


Ms. Venker, I do not think your criticism views the whole picture. Yes, I think you are right to say that marriages are not viewed with the undying certainty that they once were. I think there are many reasons for this other than a decline in moral values. If I may be so bold, can we not chalk this up to realism? You are right to point out the high divorce rates and even to call for divorce reform (although I believe your approach is extremely limiting and constrained), but it is wrong to accuse younger generations of not realizing the lifelong commitment marriage entails. We just understand that things change, people grow apart, and sometimes love is lost. It sucks, but at least we are facing it head on instead of acting like it never happened and are not encouraging our young women to stay in marriages they are dissatisfied with. As a philosopher currently studying topics of sexuality, and also legal issues like marriage, should we not question the universal nature of the legal contract of marriage? I think we should. It is the only contract that does not change its form for different circumstances, and that, I believe, is absurd. Furthermore, feminism did not teach women that all men are idiots, it taught them that all women are not subservient to men or meant to be their co-dependent, as the lovely Biblical creation story would show. 


I think we can chalk up a point for that pesky liberalism here. Those crazy feminists liberals seem more like realists and compassionate human beings than Ms. Schlafly and Ms. Venker. There is an understanding that women MAY want to become mothers and marry (and only, for the conservative right, if it is in the oppposite order that I listed), but that sort of social hierarchy is rooted in oppression, and while it may not be so today, it does no good to call for the  "glorious" values of the 1950s and much, much before, and not let women live socially acceptable lives free from marriage and motherhood. It is about choice, and, although that is a word the conservative right does not like to hear since they immediately chalk it up to abortion, that is a fact. 

Clarification

The blogs all posted on one or close conjoining days were posted in quick succession because it was when I had time to post them. I wrote them all on MS Word at various times.

-BC

A Brief Reflection on Bro Culture

From my general experiences there are two types of bro culture: Negative and Positive

Negative Bro Culture:

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1997489,00.html

The heavy-drinking, women-are-objects bro culture. It glorifies traditional masculinity and if you do not fit into that, you are a "pussy" (a term that already speaks volumes of the misogyny). The TIME article references a craze known as "Icing", in which Bros force other Bros to down Smirnoff Ice, a drink often associated with femininity and not being able to handle the (excessive) heavy drinking of Bros. It is a de-masculinating "game", and further sets to prove that if you are not a Bro you are a "pussy". Clearly nothing good can come from this sort of Bro Culture. The community created is one where you can never let your guard down and always have to be hypermasculine, hypersexual, hyperintoxicated, and flat out stupid.

Positive Bro Culture:

If negative bro culture got anything right, it was the sense of community. Bros always defend other Bros, no matter what. There has been an offshoot of the negative bro culture that focuses on the tight-knit community aspect of relationships and not the hypermasculine features. Bros (which, in this culture, can be both female and male) are there for support on all issues and provide a good social group to spend time with and develop relationships. Certain things, like sports, videogames, and rock music, are heavily tied to all Bro Culture, but in Positive Bro Culture, they do not serve as hyper-competitive devices, but are used for social interaction. Phrases like "Bros for Life" emphasizes this, and a strong support group is valuable to any human flourishing.

If we can reshape the public's image of bro towards the positive image, the negative bro image will diminish. Heavy partying and misogyny are only consistent with frat-boy negative bro culture, and no thinking person should support this. It breeds violence and hatred of women, and those things are not conducive to a productive society.

Sometimes these two groups are conflated. We have the positive bros getting mixed in with the negative bros, and finding the tight-knit community worth the excessive partying. This is why we must draw the line. We must encourage tight-knit communities that do not engage in excessive alcohol consumption and misogyny. If we let our young people become engulfed in negative bro culture (as often happens), we have to fight a much harder battle. Stopping negative bro culture at its source, impressionable male youth, will go a long way in fighting misogyny. 

Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Julia Sweeney: The Women of the New Atheism Movement

The New Atheist Movement is often accused of being entirely older Caucasian men and lacking any real diversity. (This is often based on looking only at prominent atheists such as Richard Dawkins, Bertrand Russell, Daniel Dennett, etc.) However, this criticism has come up lacking with the efforts of two prominent women in the movement: Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Julia Sweeney

 

Ayaan Hirsi Ali was born in Somalia into a Muslim family. Her father opposed the practice of genital mutilation, but while he was away her devout grandmother had the "procedure" enacted on her. In her early schooling, she was introduced to a religion teacher that encouraged her all-girls school to adopt a more steadfast version of Islam. Ali practiced this for a while, but became aware of the male-dominated society she lived in. When she was forced to marry her distance cousin who, as she put it, "made her body go cold", she fled to Holland where she able to gain political asylum. Working her way from the ground up, she went to school and became educated, eventually leaving her Islamic faith behind for Atheism. She served in the Dutch Parliament and now runs her foundation, the AHA Foundation, which protects those who are critical of Islam and promotes the open exchange of ideas. She has been an activist against the practices of genital mutilation and women's oppression in fundamentalist Islamic countries and around the world.

Julia Sweeney is a comedian who is famous for her series Letting Go of God, in which she takes any compliant listener through the journey of her evolution from faith to lack-thereof. She brings a lighter side to the often philosophy/science driven discussion of belief and presents her life story in a fun, comedic way. She has been apart of large Atheist meet-ups, including those with the famous Four Horsemen of Atheism (Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris) and has made huge strides in appealing to reason and emotion in atheism.

While I think it is important to recognize these two women for their work in the often male-dominated New Atheist Movement, it is just as disheartening that they have to be recognized as the Women of the New Atheist Movement. It truly shows how male-dominant our culture is, even in academia or intellectual discussion. Both Ayaan and Julia have made fantastic contributions to the New Atheist Movement, and as a huge fan of both their work, I hope it levels the playing field so I do not feel compelled to talk about the 2 Women of Atheism and make the gender-divide apparent. It is sad that they are truly different in the New Atheism Movement because they are women, and hopefully the community will embrace more women and become a truly equal movement. 

Dolce and Gabbana; Edgy or Exploitative?

http://stuffqueerpeopleneedtoknow.wordpress.com/2010/01/13/dg-queers-advertising-yet-again/
(please refer to the link for two video ads by D&G)

Is this ad a double edged sword?

Dolce & Gabbana (D&G), as well as the majority of the high fashion world, prides itself on its edgy appeal. Here we have an ad with what appears to be one (or four men, I cannot honestly tell) man in a lavishly designed suit kissing the hand of himself (or another man). We could interpret this ad as not explicitly homosexual for two reasons:
1. The man is kissing his own hand.
2. Kissing a hand is a sign of respect, regardless of sex.

However, if we do interpret the ad to have some homoerotic ideas, or at least the allusion of homosexuality, I am at once joyous and offended. On the surface, it would seem a good thing that D&G is not ignoring the existence of homosexuality and, in fact, bringing it to the forefront of the conversation. At the same time, we must wonder if they are exploiting homosexuals and homosexuality by being unaware of their stature and the view of the general public.

Maybe it is just because I grew up in the Midwest, but Dolce & Gabbana is considered a luxury that need not be had or, more harshly, as a "queer-loving fashion faux pas of an organization" (direct quote from a family member). In any case, it is considered too edgy for its own good. When it is paired with homosexuality, it makes homosexuality seem too edgy for its own good and further deepens the oft-accepted practice of bigotry against homosexuals.

Now I must concede a few points: this ad probably did not run in the Midwest. However, the Super Bowl ad on the provided link ran everywhere. I can understand it as a slap-in-the-face to bigotry by D&G, and while that is commendable, the bite back of the conservative right affects people's lives. We only need to look at the  Prop 8 vote in California for a pertinent example, wherein the right to marriage was taken away from same sex couples. We only need to look at the majority of America, whose states deny that right in an overwhelming majority. My worry is that the D&G ads push homosexuality further to the edge. While I like to see the LGBT being represented in ads, this ad is only self-serving (I guess as most ads are) and not socially conscience. 

Why Nuns are better than Priests (or at least this nun)

After reporting the story of a St. Louis-area Bishop who disparaged atheists at my alma mater, I was offered the opportunity to speak at the Ethical Society of St. Louis. Since it was a big opportunity for me, I immediately created a Facebook event and invited all of my friends, as any tech-savvy kid would do these days. In my excited state, I may have forgotten that I have quite a few bigoted friends from my Catholic high school days who hate atheism and atheists. So the epic debate ensued, via Facebook, and one part in particular struck a chord.

Among those virtually protesting my event were 3 boys preparing for religious life. One is a current Seminarian, another is studying to become a Jesuit, and the third is discerning his "call" to the priesthood. All three of them were rather quick to show the love of Jesus by bashing myself and my message. If they had read the description on the event page, they would have found that I have no plans to bash their religion (Catholicism in all cases), but to open the door for interfaith dialogue between the religious and the non-religious. In their haste, they made insensitive and inaccurate comments and have (for the most part) ceased their arguments.

Amidst all this disorder and chaos, another person interested in the religious life stepped forward and offered the message of compassion that Jesus of Nazareth brought. She called for an open exchange of ideas and to show a loving attitude towards all. In the truest sense, she brought wisdom and acceptance to her fellow religious life friends and admitted she planned to attend the event to find just the same things she brought to the wall post.

Now it is obviously an overstatement to say nuns are better than priests. But this (future) nun sure showed more understanding then her male counterparts. Maybe the Catholic Church should remember that the most revered among them do not always have to be men.