Wednesday, April 02, 2008

Mommyhood Makes Me a Better Philosopher

I am sitting at my desk grading papers, so it seems a perfect time to write a blog post. It is downright pathetic how much I want to avoid grading papers. Someday I should write a blog post analyzing why faculty are so burdened, plagued, and depressed by the prospect of grading papers.

Today, I want to reflect on something that inspires me, rather than repels me: the way having a child and becoming a parent has opened me up to new people whom before I would've never had anything in common with. Yesterday I was invited to attend a meeting with a variety of people on my campus whom I have never met. Furthermore, very few of them were doing jobs that I knew anything about and so I wasn't sure how to jump start conversation around the table. I can usually find something to talk to strangers about when I need to, but lately, I am so damn tired and drained that it is easier to sit in silence than try.

And then it happened. A really nice woman across from me introduced herself and we immediately launched into talking about my baby. She worked in an office that knows if faculty have new children and so she used that as a way to draw me out and connect. Within minutes we were fast friends, sharing special moments about our children. I found myself truly captivated by her description of how her teenage children have such different attitudes toward driving and the factors in their lives that shaped these attitudes.

Halfway through the conversation I started analyzing how engrossed I was in this conversation--full of questions, eager to hear her answers, and wishing I could see pictures of her grown children. My reaction totally caught me off guard because my pre-mommyhood self would've been struggling to keep interest in this conversation. I realized how fantastically transformed I am now that Maddie is in my life.

Furthermore, I was delighted that I could find a way to connect with new people who had nothing in common with me professionally. It was refreshing. I have always longed to develop an identity outside of my academic world. The questions that haunt me in my work are drawn--I hope--from real lives and real stories. I am not so much interested in purely abstract or technical questions. I have always wanted my work to matter to real people.

The problem is, I always had a difficult time relating to a large segment of the population. I used to blame it on my overly developed analytical abilities and hence my inability to make small talk. But, I am starting to realize that what kept me from connecting with a great deal of people was my child-free status. Having a child certainly transforms your life in ways that you can never anticipate before it happens and it attunes you to other children and parents in ways that you were indifferent to before.

When I see young children in their mothers I am drawn to them. I want to drop everything I am doing and watch them interact, smile and waive at the little people. Who is this person I have become? Well, whoever she is, I like her a lot better and I think she will be a better philosopher for and feminist for it.

Anyone out there with similar experiences?

Friday, March 28, 2008

The Sin of Gluttony

Boy, I am back, eh? I have had a lot on my mind and it seems more time to get it down. My newest fascination is with how much my students are unforgiving to people who eat too much and consequently put on weight. My colleague Kerry noticed the same phenomenon when he was teaching his seminar on the 7 deadly sins. Gluttony, he said, was the only sin that students were unwilling to attribute social forces as partially to blame. If you overindulge, especially in food, then you are weak-willed.
This conversation took place in my Philosophy of Psychiatry class where Dan Blazer, the author we are currently reading, made the observation that we have become a society more likely to attribute social origins to physical problems like obesity, rather than mental illnesses like depression. Blazer offers up a case study of a young woman who has sought treatment for depression and the physician notices she has gained weight. She has put on weight because she visits the hamburger stand across the street from her work daily. The patient attributed her depression to her weight gain and wanted to get a prescription for Prozac because she heard it would help her lose weight. At the end of this case study, Blazer points out that this patient was quite willing to consider the multiple ways in which social forces lead to obesity, but she couldn't see how her depression might be related to work stress.

I read this passage to my students to get their sense. Rather than deal with the observation, two very passionate students launched into an attack on the patient's willingness to attribute her weight gain to the over-marketing of fast food or the cheapness of fast food. "She should know better how to eat well. She is a computer engineer. If she wants to lose weight, she should just eat less."

I asked my students, however, if they believed that her depression was in part the result of work pressures, fear of losing her job, and stress over mortgage payments. They absolutely agreed that those were part of the problem. In fact, almost every student in the class believes that depression has social origins and they are deeply disturbed by a culture that wants to "pop pills" and "get a quick fix," rather than address the real underlying problems. They are Utopian in their thinking--wishing we could improve neighborhoods, provide better jobs, better education, universal health care, less stress in the workplace and schools. Many of them have downright indicted capitalism. I am, for once in my life, confronted with several Marxist students. Who would've guess? I am the one arguing for Prozac all class.

But, when I asked them why they were unwilling to attribute social origins to the obesity epidemic, they couldn't see the connection. Being overweight was a personal failing. Being depressed, however, was a sign that our culture is messed up. Why such a glaring inconsistency?

I have been trying to come up with some sort of helpful explanation for this. Part of it may stem from the fact that by and large my students are well off and have been socialized to be "healthy eaters" and thin. They are less able to make the connection to lower social class and higher rates of obesity. They don't know what it is like to manage a family, while having to work a lot, and therefore not having a whole lot of time to make "healthy food." Furthermore, healthy food is expensive, unless you grow a lot of it yourself. I think Michelle Obama actually has a great stump speech that addresses these stresses of "average families."

The other part of the sin of gluttony seems to be their buckling under to a culture obsessed with thin bodies--especially in the case of women. For the first time, I really saw the connection between anorexia and control. Being thin is not just about being beautiful, it is about having the ability to say "no" to all of the temptations that bombard us daily to eat food that is indulgent.

What do you all make of this?

Thursday, March 27, 2008

Taking the Prof Personally

I was teaching an excerpt from Soren Kierkegaard's Fear and Trembling today in my 19th Century class. In this passage, Kierkegaard masterfully discusses the absurdity of faith. An act of faith is by definition, for Kierkegaard, unintelligible. I love teaching this. But, today I started analyzing something in particular about how my class responded to Kierkegaard (and, frankly, to all the other thinkers we have read this semester). The students stopped me mid-Kierkegaard-rant to ask if he was suggesting that it is better to be a knight of faith? Is it better to be Abraham? Should one aim to be this isolated, unintelligible knight of faith? Their eyes were intent, concerned, eager.

One student threw his hands up and said "this is just insane." I had to step back from their intensity and reflect on what must be occurring when they read these dead, old thinkers from years gone bye. They turn to them as sources of wisdom. They read each of these texts as if the writer is speaking directly to them and telling them how they should act, live, and think.

I don't think this is necessarily the wrong way to read these texts, but I keep trying to point out to my students that not every one of these writers is telling you what to do or what to think. Some of them are just exposing the flawed assumptions of certain institutions, laws, and attempts to ground morality. For example, when I teach Kant's Groundwork, I have to constantly remind the students that Kant is not prescribing what they ought to do. He is not telling them that they are failures if they cannot always act from duty. He is describing what is necessary for a moral philosophy to be truly universally binding. And yet, the students can't help but read the Groundwork as admonishing them for failing to live up to Kant's ideal of the wholly rational, duty-bound subject. Today they were livid that Kierkegaard was (they thought) prescribing a way to being faithful to the divine that would practically make them appear crazy to others.

No matter how many times I tried to redirect them to seeing Kierkegaard as making a specific critique of the Lutheran Church in Denmark and Hegel, they couldn't get away from taking Kierkegaard personally.

When class was over and I headed over to the daycare to see Maddie, I started wondering if I had that kind of power over the students and didn't realize it? That is, if I made pronouncements about what I think is the proper way to act, would my word--as an authority figure--force them to be put into crisis in the same way that these texts do? That is how I see it, by the way. If they didn't see these thinkers as wise or worth listening to, they wouldn't keep asking me with such passion why Kant says X or Kierkegaard says y. They are looking for some guidance from these texts. I am not sure why, but they are.

So, are they looking for some guidance from me as well? Do I have this much power over them? There are probably plenty of professors who have realized they do have this power and abused it long before I managed to see it. And, now that I am fairly convinced that I have reached a point in my career where what I say, what I reveal about myself, what I share of my preferences carries a kind of weight that I didn't realize before that it did, I am sort of nervous.

I am nervous about how easily one could get giddy from this power. I see far to many junior faculty fail to see how much power they actually have over students. In fact, they might even misread student reactions to them. Perhaps when students challenge them, it is not because they don't respect their authority, but rather that they are far too overwhelmed and challenged by what they assume is the wisdom of the prof. They feel indicted at times for not being as wise or being a virtuous as they attribute to the prof.

I dunno. Maybe they are just being asses. But, I can't shake the feeling that they are taking me far too personally.

Wednesday, March 26, 2008

Adopted Family

I am back. I don't know why. Maybe because Spring is in the air and I feel more hopeful and energetic. Maybe because I was nudged to return by others who keep checking my blog to see it stuck on the same old day in February. Whatever the reason, I decided it was time to make an appearance again. Maybe I waited so long that my audience will never return?

In any case, I was wondering if any of you out there have as strong of a need as I do to create their own family? That is, find people in your life that give you the sense of security and love that we hope to get from our biological families and bind yourselves together to get those goodies in a newly forged biological family. I do this. I don't necessarily have an awful "biological" family. I get along well with most of my family. But, I have always lived so far away from my family and I tend to get lonely without friendships that feel like family.

I guess I am thinking a lot about this because I am about to move away from the home I created here. I have colleagues in the department whom I think of as brothers. I have my senior colleagues that I feel like dear aunts and uncles. I have lots of women friends whom I have met that I rely on to get through many days. I share myself with these folks fully and I get so much from having all of them in my life, that I cannot bear to imagine what my life will look like in a few months when I pick up my stakes and move on.

My thoughts turned to adopted families today when I started reflecting on one particular work relationship I have with a professor in Religious studies. I used to think our work relationship could be characterized as the Office Husband/Work Wives dynamic, but I don't think this anymore. I see my need to have him in my life stemming more from a profound need to have a big brother. We had a falling out and we have never talked about it. I was pushed by someone to reflect on why we never talked about it. I don't really have an answer, but I think it is because I just don't want to sort out anymore the complicated emotions that led to that freeze. I have just found myself falling back into a dynamic with him that I had before.

I couldn't help but analyze why I really needed this friendship. After all, I cut him out of my life for a long time. But, the only explanation that I can come up with is that I desperately need a brother. Someone you can tease, joke around with, confess the most embarrassing details about yourself too, count on to be a good uncle and to be there to back me up against bullies. I used to have this with my biological brother, but we moved apart so many years ago. Maybe when I left for college? Maybe when I left for graduate school? Who knows. But, there it is, and so I have adopted a brother to fill this deep need.

So, what I wonder is do any of you have this deep need to adopt family members? If so, where do you think it comes from and, more importantly, why does it seem to manifest in a way that makes up for the loss of an actual relationship? That is, why don't I want to adopt a sister as much as brother? I have dear friends who I love like sisters, but the need to have them in my life seems to fulfill a more general need to have an adopted family. In the case of my adopted brother, it is a very specific and urgent need. Do any of you have this sort of imperative as well?

Monday, February 18, 2008

What if Forgiving Someone only Fuels Their Hatred?

When I don't post for this long, I seriously toy with the idea of "hanging it up." I no longer prioritize this blog and I certainly don't have the desire or time to update it as much as others. But, just when I am ready to say goodbye to blogging forever, it occurs to me that to give this up is to give up a powerful outlet for my more "philosophical" thoughts that I will never publish or work on in any serious way. I went into the philosophy because of my tendency to reflect quite a bit on the meaning of peoples' behavior or the struggle to make sense of difficult choices, but I learned quickly that these sort of musings aren't really appropriate for research and publishing. Nonetheless, I am still occupied by them and if I don't put them somewhere, I feel lonely--like I have something to share but no one to share it with.

So, I continue. Perhaps not at the pace I once did, but . . .

I spent a lot of time thinking about the theme of forgiveness again this past week. My colleague is flirting with the idea of teaching the Senior Seminar on the topic next year and this got me to thinking again about what I find so difficult and problematic about forgiveness.

To elaborate, let me think out loud about a conversation I had with *I* yesterday about our siblings. Both of us seem to be locked into serious sibling rivalries and yet neither of us perceives ourselves to be in competition with our sibling. Perhaps there are subtle ways in which we are or unconscious ways, but in our everyday mode, we don't think about how accomplishing X or getting recognition for Y will once again establish our superiority over our sibling. Nonetheless, both of our siblings respond to us as if we are trying to make them feel bad about themselves by rubbing our own accomplishments in their face.

In fact, we share this common experience of trying to sincerely compliment our siblings only to have them hear it as haughty and patronizing. And, once they hear it this way, then the attack mode goes in full effect and we find ourselves scrambling to defend ourselves against a portrait they have drawn that we in no way find ourselves captured by. We both do what we are trained to do--marshall good arguments, evidence and "facts" to demonstrate why we are not the people they think we are. But, those tools may work in a ideal world of philosophy argumentation (and let's face it they don't really fare that well there either), but they are no defense against perceptions.

The fact is that sometimes people have perceptions about you that no evidence seems to contradict. To put in the language of logical empiricism, there is no falsifiability principle at work in some peoples' perceptions of us and hence we are rather ineffectual in defending ourselves from them. And, being unable to defend yourself against what you take to be horribly unfair and insulting accusations of you is maddening---especially when the skills you have developed totally fail.

It is this kind of painful situation--magnified because it is in the context of familial ties--that calls for another analysis of forgiveness. What is really needed to ever repair a relationship beset by sibling rivalry is forgiveness on both sides. However, here is the quandary: if I choose to forgive my brother am I only fueling his anger? Damn my ego! I no longer care about defending myself or being right. What is to come of it? I just want peace and more particularly access to the parts of him that I love and miss. But, I can find no way in and nothing I have done ever seems to break his perception of me. He is locked into a narrative that he needs--at least from my standpoint--to fuel because it is doing work for him.

Moving away from my particular failed relationship to more general observations, it seems that when we confront people who need to maintain a certain perception of us, it is because to consider the alternative is way too difficult--it would require looking themselves and the need they have for certain narratives. And, I think we have to accept the probability that this will never occur. Given this state of events, what role does forgiveness play? Is forgiveness possible? Or, would forgiving them only fuel their animosity?

Saturday, February 09, 2008

On Treating My Mother With Respect [GUEST POST]

by Metapsychologist

On September 11, 2001, in the late morning, living on Long Island, I tried phoning my family back home in the UK to speak to them and let them know I was fine. For a while all international phone lines were busy, presumably because everyone else who was living in the USA and came from the UK had the same idea. Eventually I got through, and when my mother answered the phone, she was sobbing. I was surprised, and at first a little moved that she was so upset. Then she explained why she was sobbing: she had taken her cat to the vet that day and he was going to be put down to sleep. She said she couldn't speak any more and put down the phone. I shook my head, and took a deep breath.

My mother had loved that cat, in her own way. She would frequently buy it fresh meat or fish to eat and she would look forward to feeding it. But I never saw it sitting on her lap or spending time with her. I remember watching her playing with it: she had some knitting needles, and she would wave them around while it tried to grab them, which made her laugh a lot. I don't think she ever held the cat, although she may have touched it when it was feeding.

Watching her with the cat made me wonder how she nurtured my sister and me when we were young children. It's very hard to imagine her holding or hugging us, and there are no photographs of us in her arms. She says I used to love it when she read me stories, and that's plausible, although I don't remember it. Watching her with her one year old granddaughter was a little appalling; she would suggest putting the baby in another room if she was crying; and when outside in shopping areas, you couldn't leave her with the pram because she would just wander away from it.

When in my twenties I had the opportunity to leave the UK and pursue graduate work in the USA, it wasn't a difficult choice. Although my mother had been a single mother for a few years after her divorce from my father, she remarried as soon as she could. I wasn't close to her, and saw my visits to her more as a duty than a pleasure. I didn't feel there was much else in the UK to keep me there either. When I eventually spent a few years in psychotherapy, I saw more clearly how I had learned to deal with emotional problems by separating myself from other people, and how I had kept that as a coping mechanism.

My sister remained in the UK and sees my mother more frequently than I do, but for shorter periods. A single mother herself, she finds it difficult to cope with her young daughter and our mother at the same time for more than a few hours. She tends to have a stormier relationship with our mother, getting angry and disappointed by her actions, but she is also often warmer and more loving. When I'm with my mother, I try to close myself down emotionally, and focus on solutions to problems and practical issues.

When I was staying at my mother's most recently, I was talking to my sister on the phone. We were talking about why my mother gets so anxious and starts entertaining such ridiculous fears; that afternoon, because my sister hadn't answered the phone, my mother was worrying that she had got into a car accident, and she left message saying "please phone as soon as you get home, it's very important, I need to know you are safe." Often when my mother does this, my sister is just too busy to phone, or she just doesn't want to deal with it. "Why does she do it?" my sister asked me. I answered quickly, "she's mentally ill." "Can she hear you?" my sister asked, concerned. "I don't know," I replied, "maybe." I didn't really care whether my mother could hear me or not.

I've found myself talking about my mother in the third person more and more while in her presence. Because she has hearing problems, gets confused easily, and does not pay much attention, it's easy to slip into this. Sometimes she wants to be part of a conversation, but it is very difficult to include her. That's especially true for me since I intentionally tell her little about my life. For most of my life, she has had only mild interest. For a long time, she didn't really know what subject I was pursuing a PhD in. So I've long felt there wasn't much point telling my mother much about my life. Now I'm at the stage when I sit down for a meal with her and I find I have nothing to say to her; there's nothing I want to share with her.

In the last decade, my mother has become increasingly negative and anxious, and her attitude doesn't respond to reason. She has often said how awful the modern world is, far worse than ever before. I have tried pointing out that she grew up in Belgium when it was occupied by the Nazis, when they were carrying out persecution of the Jews and killing of millions of people in concentration camps, and she is complaining about how much litter there now is on the streets and how badly young women dress these days. It is like arguing with a person who is depressed: no amount of argument will convince them that things are not as bad as they seem. So after a while, I give up, and when she complains about the state of the world, I just say "oh really?" or "I don't think so."

My sister, because she sees our mother more often and maybe because of a different attitude, tends to share more about her life with her. My sister's a single mother, bring up a young child, and life is a struggle sometimes. This gives plenty of fuel for my mother's fire of worry. She drives herself into a frenzy of anxiety sometimes, but of course, she can be of virtually no practical help. Talking to her on the phone this week, I said, as I do most of the time these days, "It's none of your business, she is a grown woman, she can cope on her own, you are not helping her with your worry, focus on helping yourself." It doesn't do much good. Today she said to me, "I am so worried, and no one tells me why I should not worry. Nobody gives me that much courtesy." She's right in a sense; we all know that nothing we say will stop her worrying, so we stop trying to explain much, and just tell her not to worry, or try to change the subject.

In practical terms, I don't think there's much else we can do. It's not very clear why my mother is in the emotional state she is, and there's little to be done to change it, at this stage at least. My concern here is more about a point of principle. It's that it is impossible to respect my mother, at least in the way she wants. There's a lifetime of frustration behind this. Whatever the causes, for much our childhood, she wasn't nurturing, she didn't show much interest, she didn't create a secure attachment. When I read, for example, about Mary Ainsworth's "strange situation" experiments in the 1960s, I think of myself when I was a child as anxious-ambivalent or anxious-avoidant. Of course, I'm an adult now, and she turns to me for help and security. Several years of psychotherapy made me more able to put the past into perspective. Therapists have urged to see my issues with my mother as psychological and emotional, something for me to get past. Doubtless, psychological coping skills, such as taking a deep breath before reacting to her, are very useful.

Nevertheless, I also see an ethical problem. My mother certainly has emotional problems, and doctors have seen fit to put her on a mood stabilizer, indicating a diagnosis of chronic mental illness. But not everything she ever did was a symptom of a mental illness, and her emotional profile is very much part of her permanent personality. As she gets older and more confused, it feels as if the problems become worse, or less mitigated by her positive character traits, but there's a strong continuity between my mother now and how she has been her whole life. There's no simple separation between the healthy part of her and the mentally ill part. I'm not sure there's any separation to be made at all.

When I say "she has these worries because she is mentally ill," this is more a way of dealing with the situation, or putting it to one side, rather than a well-justified explanation. I treat my mother as emotionally disabled because that's what works for me and I don't have any better way of coping. It helps reduce my feelings of frustration and anger. But it also means giving up on the hope of better communication or a more authentic relationship.

I wonder sometimes whether there isn't some other way to conceptualize the past, to understand her life as a mother, and the role that mental illness has played in it. Reflecting on my relationship with my mother makes me acutely aware of the complexities and uncertainties of how we hold people with mental illnesses responsible for their actions, and the difficulties of establishing satisfactory relationships with them. Most people with mentally ill relatives grapple with these issues, yet there's not enough discussion of how they work them through.

Link to previous blog post: Let me tell you about my mother.

Tuesday, February 05, 2008

Super Tuesday Round-up

A lot of interesting bits coming over the transom today from the many listservs to which I belong. First of all there is this endorsement of Barack Obama by Joan Baez in the SFChron:

Leader on a new journey

Editor - I have attempted throughout my life to give a voice to the voiceless, hope to the hopeless, encouragement to the discouraged, and options to the cynical and complacent. From Northern Ireland to Sarajevo to Latin America, I have sung and marched, engaged in civil disobedience, visited war zones, and broken bread with those who had little bread to break.

Through all those years, I chose not to engage in party politics. Though I was asked many times to endorse candidates at every level, I was never comfortable doing so. At this time, however, changing that posture feels like the responsible thing to do. If anyone can navigate the contaminated waters of Washington, lift up the poor, and appeal to the rich to share their wealth, it is Sen. Barack Obama. If anyone can bring light to the darkened corners of this nation and restore our positive influence in world affairs, it is Barack Obama. If anyone can begin the process of healing and bring unity to a country that has been divided for too long, it is Barack Obama. It is time to begin a new journey.

JOAN BAEZ

Menlo Park


I wonder how California will go today. My mom's wing of the SEIU union is endorsing Obama now that Edwards is out. I hear that Berkeley is awash in Obama flyers and posters. But, Sacramento and Berkeley do not represent the whole state and the prediction is CA will go to Hillary. But, who knows?

Also, Nancy Fraser, a well-known feminist philosopher wrote this for Tikkun:

Hillary or Barack?
Two Views of Feminism by Nancy Fraser

I was distressed to read that the President of NY State N.O.W. excoriated Ted Kennedy for "betraying women" by endorsing Barack Obama instead of Hillary Clinton (NYT, 2/1/08). But I was not entirely surprised. That view reflects what has by now become the mainstream self-understanding of American feminism as a political interest group. To the extent that feminists understand themselves in this way, as defending women's policy interests within the existing framework of politics-as-usual, they have found an excellent standard-bearer in Hillary Clinton. But that is not the only way to understand feminism. Not so long ago, many of us saw ourselves as participants in a transformative social movement, which aspired to remake the political landscape. Intent more on changing the rules of the game than on playing it as it lays, we mobilized energies from below to stretch the bounds of what was politically thinkable. Expanding public space and invigorating public debate, our movement projected, not a laundry list of demands, but the inspiriting vision of a non-hierarchical society that nurtured both human connections and individual freedom. Some feminists continue to cleave to that self-understanding. For us, Barack Obama represents a better vehicle for feminist aspirations than Hillary Clinton. The democratizing energies now converging on him promise to create the terrain on which our sort of feminism can once again flourish. Drawing its momentum from activist forces, and inspiring the latter in turn, the Obama compaign offers feminists, and other progressive forces, that rarest of political opportunities: the chance to help build and shape a major realignment of American politics. That is a prospect worthy of the best and the highest in American feminism.

Nancy Fraser
Henry A. and Louise Loeb Professor of Philosophy and Politics
New School for Social Research

So, what do you think we will find out today about the Democratic nominee, if anything?

Secondly, what do you think of the many endorsements for Barack Obama that compare him to JFK?

Friday, February 01, 2008

Working Mom

A friend, who is pregnant and after giving birth will need to return to work quite quickly, asked me to read this piece at Salon today. She also encouraged me to write some about my return to work and how to achieve that mystical balance that countless parenting magazines (aimed primarily at women, I might add) speak about.

Upon finishing up this woman's "Dear Cary" letter, I found myself feeling a bit disconnected from her worldview. It's not that I don't understand or respect where she is coming from--not wanting the role of mother be the primary role by which one identifies oneself--but rather my own views about being a mother and a mother who works outside the home have morphed quite a bit. Not too long ago, right after Maddie was born, I was writing feverishly that I didn't want to lose my identity as a Philosophy professor--as someone engaged with not only the public, but with ideas. Almost everytime I wrote something like that, I would be met with comments that warned me how much I would miss my daughter when I was back and work and how hard it would be to miss out on so many of her daily changes. I think that these kinds of comments might be what fuels the "Dear Cary" letter that this woman writes.

While my ideas about being a working mom or even the "role" or "identity" of mother have changed, they most certainly have not come around to embrace the rather scolding tone of women who warn that going back to work is a travesty or that it results in a disconnection from your child.

To be frank, this has not been my experience in the least. I am gratified to be back at work now and Maddie is really thriving in daycare. We leave for work together and she gets excited when I put her in her car seat. She loves the women who care for her and is starting to play with other babies. I love peeking in on her and seeing her smiling widely and reaching out to touch another little one. Don't get me wrong. The first few days were really hard, especially since she had been with me 24/7. I am also lucky that my daycare is on site and so I can walk over and see her whenever I want. I tend to nurse her on my lunch hours.

The way in which I feel disconnected from this Salon piece lies in the anxiety and anger that the woman writing it exhibits. I was there once. I felt really defensive and in need of staking my ground against a wave of sentiment that having a child and trying to maintain my pre-child identity was impossible. Now that I am doing it--working and mothering--I don't have any time or energy to care one wit about moralistic parents who think I am a bad or soon to be disappointed mom.

[Side-note: in a conversation with Hanno I realized why some women might opt out. The first few days (or longer) of daycare transition can be so difficult that some women might not have the ability to stand it and therefore they leave their job. This was never an option for me.]

I take such delight in my time a work. When I am at work, I am more than a mom. In public, with Maddie, I am practically invisible. Strangers or acquaintances are drawn to her and if they speak to me it is only to learn about her and how I am doing with my little one. I am not, however, resentful of this invisibility. I would rather look at and talk about Maddie too, who can blame them. I am a proud mama and delight in showing her off. But, before returning to work, I tired of having that sort of connection be my only way of relating to others.

When I am at work, I am a more complicated person. But let me first say that I am a mom and I love talking about that in my classes or working it in somehow. I think that being a mom is very important to my identity and that it should be reclaimed and praised. Becoming a mother has made me more interested and attentive to the larger world around me than ever before. Pre-mom I was pretty solipsistic (maybe narcissistic). I care more about politics, the economy, education, the environment, the difficulties of my students . . . you name it . . .with greater passion than ever. The world I live in now is the world Maddie will grow up in. So, I care about that world and the people in it a great deal more than I did.

At work, I am also a silly, whimsical, hyper woman who loves to talk about fashion and catch up on friends' love lives. That part of me doesn't get eclipsed by Maddie's presence. I am also someone who knows a great deal about what she is teaching and therefore students see me as, hopefully, an intellectual engaged in the world and interested in their own intellectual development. I am grateful--so grateful--that I have the space of work to be this person.

Having said that, I am tired and rarely well prepared for my classes. I wing it most of the time. I find it hard to do anything beyond my classes--i.e. write on my blog. When I go home, I know that I have several more hours to be "on," unlike before when I would go home after a day at work and do mindless activities. Sleep is so important to me now that I get bummed out when Za wants to "talk." I use to love that, now I love sleeping.

One of the upsides of having little time and sleep is that I just don't care anymore about being the "perfect" professor and scholar. I know things, I can communicate them, and I don't have to make my lectures or writing impeccable. I look around at my new female colleagues who are equally sleep deprived, but not from being mothers, but from worrying that they have to over prepare to earn the respect of students. I see now that that labor is decidedly not what earns the respect of students (but that is another post).

I guess if there is one thing I want to emphasize in this post about how my worldview differs from the "Dear Cary" letter writers' it is that being a "mom" is never just about being hermetically sealed up with your children. Children open the world to you and get you out in the world more than ever. So, the fact that being a mom has become associated with a kind of shut inness is just plain wrong-headed.

So, let's reclaim "mom" to connote cosmopolitan, worldly, publicly engaged and throw away, once and for all, the outmoded view that moms are nothing more than the emotional and nutritional providers for their children.

To sound trite--every mother is a working mother.

Thursday, January 31, 2008

Is Feminine Writing about Storytelling?

For a few days I have been ruminating a lot on what might be the differences between "masculine" and "feminine" writing. I am choosing to think of this in terms of gender roles rather than strict sex differences, because I know plenty of women who write--in what I will below articulate--as "masculine" voices and vice versa.

This whole "intuition"--because I am a philosopher, I don't do studies--came to me after I finished writing a grant. My male colleague in Psychology--who is masculine in very traditional ways--also wrote a grant for the same reason; we are co-teaching a course and looking for support. Anyway, when I reviewed his grant and compared it to mine, I was struck by how succinct, pared down, and downright terse it was in comparison to mine. I started to panic. That devil--self-doubt--creeped in and sent me into a spiral of fear and loathing. (Isn't amazing how writing for the public can do that so regularly?) I showed my version of the grant to a male colleage (who, tends to write in a more "feminine" mode) and he led me to the kernel of my intuition about gender differences in writing.

The first thing he said about my grant in comparison to my male colleagues' was that it read like I was telling a story. His reaction carried me back to a conversation I had years ago with a former colleague from the French department. We were discussing what kind of writing we liked better: the New Yorker with its long, sprawling stories or the terseness of the Economist. My French colleague preferred the latter because, "I just want the facts."

And in traveling back to this memory, I was jarred to reflect on a more recent conversation with Za, wherein he was gearing himself to complete some paperwork and relishing the idea of making his answers as succinct and terse as possible.

So, I thought about how much the stripped down writing--no run-on sentences, no unnecessary adjectives, no extra stuff--is generally more praised in our culture (Hemingwayesque). I have always resisted this kind of writing. I find it very hard to do well and yet so much of my own discipline hangs on this ability of getting at the core, the nub of the argument, cutting out what is unnecessary and extraneous to meaning.

So, why do I write like a storyteller? I guess I attribute it to my very traditionally feminine nature. I like to communicate--I like relate with my speaker, create a community, forge a relationship. I don't try to master the content--leave some openings--allow for the other to help shape what I want to communicate so that I can be sure that I am not being misunderstood. Granted, the terse style probably has the last goal as its primary aim--to not be misunderstood. But, the very terseness and bareness of this mode of expression is precisely what leaves me totally confused by what the writer means. I want examples; I want to know how to use this concept.

So, I guess my hypothesis about gender differences in writing is that women write long, sprawling stories that aim to communicate (and at times annoy more masculine writers and readers), while men aim for economy and clarity.

What do you think?

Tuesday, January 29, 2008

Let Me Tell You About My Mother [Guest Post]

By Metapsychologist

I see my mother two or three times a year. Every time I come from the US to visit her in Britain, I spend a few days explaining to her how to use her TV and VCR. Now 77, she wants to be able to watch her videos but she gets very confused. To add to her problems, the UK has recently converted to digital TV, which means now she has a new remote control to struggle with. So now there's the TV remote, the VCR remote, and the Digital TV Box remote. The buttons are little and she has difficult pressing the right buttons. When she does press them, she holds them down hard for minute or so. Each time she has more difficulty learning new information, and makes the same mistakes again and again. Telling her to press the buttons gently and quickly doesn't do any good. The remotes are not designed with people like my mother in mind. Instead of words, the little buttons have little symbols on them. I have drawn much larger pictures of the remotes on pieces of paper with words explaining what the different buttons do, but these pictures don't help much. I wrote a list of instructions about how to turn on the TV and the Digital TV Box and select the desired channel, splitting up the procedure into several steps, but that's pretty confusing. I wrote another list of instructions about how to use the VCR, but after practicing for four days, she still gets confused. I doubt she will be able to watch many videos in the coming months. The whole process of explaining how to use the TV and VCR requires a great deal of patience -- generally more than I have. She was never very adept with this sort of technology, but clearly her abilities to remember and follow instructions have become worse. I tell her she needs to turn on the VCR, and she looks at me blankly. Occasionally she succeeds in playing a video, and sometimes she gets so frustrated she says she is just going to give away her video collection. I wonder why it is not possible to buy a TV/VCR combination designed for older people, but then I remember that VHS videos players aren't even for sale any more in the UK. My sister has suggested that my mother get a DVD player, but I tell them there is no way she could ever work out how to use it. Even if we could find a more user-friendly machine, my mother wouldn't be willing to pay for one, and she would get confused by having a totally new piece of technology in the home -- she is confused enough by the ones she has had for several years.

My mother's always had difficulty with technology. According to my father, forty years ago my mother had about one hundred driving lessons, and then the driving instructor gave up, saying that after a hundred lessons, she still didn't know where to put the key to turn on the ignition. She has often had problems with manual dexterity and hand-eye coordination too, yet she was able to use an electric typewriter for many years. She is able to use a telephone without too much trouble. So it's hard to know exactly what the problem is.
My mother has many skills and is able to cope on her own. She has always loved reading, and she often goes to see the latest art movies. She speaks several languages. She is often good at getting other people to help her, and she has some old friends. She had two marriages and two children. She strikes many as being full of emotion, charismatic and caring. One woman she knows recently described her as having a heart of gold.

I see her rather differently: she was rarely attentive to me or my sister when we were growing up, and in many ways has always been mainly concerned with herself. Everyone who has ever lived with her has ended up shouting at her, and on a regular basis. She makes people close to her angry with her, generally by asking what they want, and then completely ignoring what they just said and doing what she wants. Maybe she means well, but she is deeply frustrating.
She's a physically small woman, but she drinks a fair amount of wine, often starting well before lunch and going all day. Occasionally, with the encouragement and nagging of others, she cuts down a little but soon she goes back to her regular amounts. Her alcoholic father died in a psychiatric institution, a fact that she occasionally mentions, possibly with the thought that she may face the same fate. I don't know what psychiatric diagnosis she has, but I do know she takes a mood stabilizer, and has done so for nearly forty years. Her two sisters, both younger, have also had their share of psychiatric problems: one is a non-stop talker for every single minute she is awake, and made a suicide attempt at one point; the other has had significant problems with agoraphobia and depression. Their mother never got a diagnosis, but apparently she was so eccentric that her daughters would never bring their friends back home in case their mother embarrassed them.

Talking about my mother with others, I speculate about possible causes of her cognitive and emotional problems. We can come up with a long list of possible explanations: manic depression, attention deficit, learning disorders, her abusive father, the death of her mother, postpartum depression after the birth of my sister, Asperger's syndrome, alcohol abuse, Korsakoff's syndrome, decades of taking lithium carbonate on top of a steady diet of alcohol, her husbands, loneliness, Alzheimer's, or possibly some kind of brain damage. She's been evaluated by mental health professionals, but they don't invest much time in subtle diagnostic issues; she is stable on her current medication and on the occasions she has stopped taking her lithium, she has become more difficult. She is not motivated to try any other forms of treatment, and it is very hard to imagine any kind of talk therapy being of any possible use. She's not willing to make much effort to reduce her alcohol consumption. She might benefit from some kind of social services or community support, but so far she has turned down all the options available.

My mother is gradually declining in her abilities to think clearly and look after herself well enough to live independently, but she wants to keep living where she is. She keeps herself busy when she can, volunteering at a local charity store, playing cards with other people, seeing old friends very occasionally. She has a granddaughter, but she isn't really very interested in the little girl, and wonders why the girl makes so much noise. Certainly she can't help babysit or in other ways, and when my sister sees my mother with her granddaughter, it looks as if my mother never had anything called maternal instinct. So my mother spends a great deal of time alone, fretting about Princess Diana, little baby Madeline, and the latest human interest stories on the news. When I visit, I do what I can to help her, but there's only a certain amount one can do to help someone who is unwilling or unable to help themselves. As with many people with aging parents, I wonder what the future will bring, and find it hard to be optimistic. At some point, we will probably decide that she isn't able to live on her own, and then we will have to work out what to do next. We are already exploring the options.

So there's little to be done but do what I'm already doing and hope for the best. Without someone to help her, my mother will struggle on her own. She'll get out the instructions and try to work out which remote is which, and what she should do after she puts the video into the machine. Hopefully she will have turned on the TV first. There's nothing more I can do to help, at least until my next visit.

Monday, January 28, 2008

We Need Empathy: Reflections on Roe

I missed the opportunity to blog about Roe's 35th anniversary last week. I just couldn't bring myself to say anything else about the issue of women's reproductive rights in this country. Many other bloggers wrote important pieces reminding us how much the right wing in this country keeps chipping away at Roe. Alternet rounded up many of the best posts. What strikes me as important to always keep in mind as folks line up on one side or another of Roe, is that this issue is about real women facing really difficult choices.

I learned that one of my best students traveled down to join the March for Life in front of the SCOTUS. I shouldn't have been surprised. I knew she was a devoted Catholic. But, I was disappointed nonetheless. I spent the weekend thinking about why I was so disappointed by this news, and it occurred to me that it couldn't really have anything to do specifically with her. After all, I don't know her reasons for taking off from school to join that march. She might have a really important story or good reasons for protesting abortion. Knowing her compassion and kind heart, I am sure that her reasons for protesting are hard to criticize.

So, her participation in this event helped remind me that people I so admire nonetheless reject abortion. And, it is precisely because I know that many of these folks are so genuinely admirable, moral, and caring people that I fully understand why Roe is such a divisive issue. So, the passing of Roe's birthday is not just a cause for celebrating the gains women have made in reproductive health, but it is an opportunity to remember the humanity of those who oppose Roe.

It is all too easy to attack the strawman, and paint all those who oppose Roe and abortion as women-hating folks. There is no doubt that what is troubling about most of the "Pro-life" groups is their total rejection of measures that would decrease the rates of unwanted pregnancies, e.g. supporting access to contraception and comprehensive sex education. Many religious figures leading the "Pro-life" movement advocate overturning Connecticut vs. Griswold, upholding the rights of pharmacists to refuse to fill birth control prescriptions, discrediting a right to privacy, and the rights of hospitals to refuse Plan B to rape victims. All of this is true. But, the many many supporters of the Pro-life movement, like my students aren't marching to deny women resources, help, services and their humanity.

When I put myself in the place of my student--and I don't know her real reasons since I am not going to shout her down or force her into a debate with me--I imagine that part of her passion for overturning Roe comes from a love of children and the gifts they bring. There are surely moments in my life when I think that there is nothing more precious than a baby, nothing so life-transforming in ways that I could've never imagined. But of course, that is wholly from my context, my experience, and my situation. I have to also admit, that if defending abortion was solely about defending a practice to end pregnancies from reckless sexual encounters, I would reject it as well. I worry that so many who protest abortion think that this is what they are protesting--reckless action that leads to the termination of a precious life. Man, who wouldn't oppose abortion if that was the story. But, it's not.

We will never get anywhere with this issue in American politics if we can't find a way to talk to each other--not shout talking points or slogans--about our views. And, when I mean talk to each other, I mean really communicate--bring into existence a community. We need to find a way to see ourselves as connected to each other and sensitive to the difficult life choices we might face. We need to talk from our experience and learn from each other. We need to widen our horizons and recognize that people face things that we can never imagine. We need more empathy.

On a related note, I was just talking to my colleague about judicial philosophies this morning. A student--who is partial to the rigid principled stance of Scalia--was writing a thesis that was in essence a total rejection of the more pragmatic judicial philosophy of Sandra Day O'Connor. I found myself really wondering why it is so attractive to have a rigid, black and white, worldview like Scalia. I mean, I guess if you are Scalia you don't have to think much about the nitty-gritty details of life--the grey, the ambiguity. You can just apply your principles from a distant and high perch. What appeals to me so much about a more pragmatic approach--and I don't really count Sandra Day O'Connor as my model here--is that it reflects the difficult nature of real decisions that we face in our lives. We can be perfectly moral and consistent without relying on such spare, decontextualized moral principles. Until radical conservatives understand that point, we will be unable to have a meaningful dialogue about the messy issues that beset our lives.

Thursday, January 17, 2008

Back to Work--You Tubing in the Classroom

I am officially a working mum. I just completed my first day back to work after Maddie. I experienced some really embarrassing "mommy brain" moments earlier today. First of all, Za gave me my car key and I put it away in my purse and completely forgot the whole exchange. I called him up huffing and puffing--"where is my car key?" He reminded me in detail of when, where and what I was doing when he gave me the key. I insisted he was wrong, until I looked in my purse and with great embarrassment, found sitting there. Then, as I was off to class I asked our Administrative Assistant if I could borrow her keys to open up the cabinet with the computer. I said "I totally forgot to bring my keys into day," to which she responded, "well, how did you get in your office?" Blush. I was totally embarrased by this exchange.

Despite my challenged short-term memory, things got off to a great start. I enjoyed my new students, I am excited about the material, and feel right back in the swing of things We'll see how things last.

On a totally unrelated note, I spent some time surfing You Tube to find fun bits to use in my Kant and the 19th Century class. I found some real gems, which I will link to here.









Does anyone else use You Tube in the classroom? I am specifically interested in folks who might have encouraged students to do assignments that ended up on You Tube.

Tuesday, January 15, 2008

Is Motherhood a Point of Intersection?

SteveG forwarded me the link to this discussion on Democracy Now!: The War and Peace Report between Gloria Steinem and Melissa Harris-Lacewell. I was able to watch 3/4 of the show until Maddie had enough and wanted to do something more fun. But, from what I did catch, I must report that I found myself adrift in a sea of very complicated emotions. I don't know how to say it, but Harris-Lacewell emasculated Gloria Steinem.

She began by telling Steinem how appalled she was by her Op-ed piece and never let up from there. Many times she referred to Steinem's piece as the worst example of what is wrong with 2nd Wave Feminism. [I take it that she is representing 3rd Wave Feminism, a wave that I have never fully comprehended. I guess I don't see us having resolved the major political issues of the 2nd Wave: Equal Pay, Reproductive Rights, Affordable and Quality Daycare, Pornography, Domestic Violence, Affordable Housing, Humane Welfare Policies, Fighting Environmental Racism, Fighting Homophobia. . . If anything, we have seen a real push back on whatever gains were made by the right wing in this country.]

What did make a great deal of sense to me about Harris-Lacewell's position was to point out why intersectionality theory is more powerful for unraveling the complex ways in which race, class and gender are fundamentally intertwined in the United States. Harris-Lacewell made the compelling argument--that so many others have in the past few days against Steinmen--that appropriating the experience of black women--or their positionality--to suggest that sexism is more potent in the United States than racism is appalling. If anything, black women's experiences show how complicated these forces are;they cannot be disentangled. Whenever they are, an Oppression Olympics kind of discussion usually follows. I think she is dead on.

What bothered me, however, was the adversarial nature of the conversation. Call me an overly conflict-phobic whitebread chick, but I didn't see the value in the aggression. Gloria Steinem, however, didn't help her case. She didn't seem to complete a thought; was not capable of defending herself well and generally backed down. But what was accomplished in this discussion? What I couldn't figure out was: is this a discussion about the persistent tensions and obstacles in feminism--why women cannot seem to unite around concrete goals and policies due to the failures to think through more effectively the intersectionality of race, class or gender? Or, was this an argument over why feminists who support Clinton and see her as standing up for all women are wrong? Was this a theoretical discussion? I don't think so.

When I first started blogging about HRC after the Iowa causes, I found myself disappointed in Clinton's loss because now that I had a daughter, I wanted to her to see a woman become president. And, then I go look at Harris-Lacewell's blog and she writes the following:

I am mad because on the night that Barack Obama won the Iowa caucuses, I was in a crummy hotel room in Manchester, N.H. I was there with two dozen college students who came to work the primaries and see American democracy in action. Many of them were propelled to their first political action as a result of Obama’s campaign. I also brought my 5-year-old daughter, Parker, because I wanted her to take part in this historic election. When the Obama family took the stage in Iowa to perform the traditional presidential wave, I could not resist waking Parker from her sleep so that she could watch Barack, Michelle, and their daughters. “Look at the beautiful black girls who might get to live in the White House,” I told her as I held her sleepy head in my hands. Whatever authenticity anxieties the American media conjured last year, Barack’s Iowa triumph was unreservedly a moment of racial pride. Parker spent the rest of the week proudly carrying an Obama rally sign all over New Hampshire. Last night, I had to explain Obama’s loss. She wanted to know if his daughters were as sad as she was.
I read this and I think, man, aren't Harris-Lacewell and I both projecting a lot of hope and dreams onto these candidates--whether HRC or Obama--to make a new day for our daughters? She wants her daughter to grow up with racial pride; I want my daughter to grow up knowing that being a smart, competitive, and ambitious woman should not result in misogynistic attacks. Can Harris-Lacewell and I find a point of intersection in our hopes as mothers for a different world for our daughters. Can we start there? Then, can we talk about what leads us to be drawn to one candidate over another--why we find this choice often difficult because we see so many great options out there? Can we talk about how sometimes certain aspects of our identity tend to rise in importance in relations to others? Context matters. There is no easy decision to make her as feminists. That if we find a partiality toward HRC, we aren't just part of the same ole Middle-Class, White, Eurocentric narrative in this country?

I can't help but wonder if the vitriol that is likely to pit feminist against feminist--lead to charges of white guilt and/or identity politics--is the result not of the personalities and policies of Obama or HRC, but the winner-take-all political system? We are being forced to pick our candidates (and despite what my posts say, I really don't know yet who I will support) and then go on the attack of those who have rallied around another. We are put into a bind where we are feeling guilty if we are drawn--for not wholly rational, pragmatic, or political reasons--to a candidate.

I am finding it hard to continue writing this post because for almost every sentence I construct, I can already anticipate the arguments that will be made against me--even the attacks. So, I will stop and see what others think . . .

Friday, January 11, 2008

It's OK to be a Girl?

Two very different takes on the meta-meaning of Hillary's teary-eyedness worth discussing. First of all, Judith Warner, blogger for NYT, argues that Hillary's melt down and the support it garnered among women is a bad omen for women in general. She writes:


I don’t for a moment begrudge Hillary her victory on Tuesday. But if victory came for the reasons we’ve been led to believe – because women voters ultimately saw in her, exhausted and near defeat, a countenance that mirrored their own – then I hate what that victory says about the state of their lives and the nature of the emotions they carry forward into this race. I hate the thought that women feel beaten down, backed into a corner, overwhelmed and near to breaking point, as Hillary appeared to be in the debate Saturday night. And I hate even more that they’ve got to see a strong, smart and savvy woman cut down to size before they can embrace her as one of their own. (my emphasis)
The overarching point of Warner's post seems to be that "feeling without thinking"--a no no that even the young Hillary Rodham decried--is a horrible basis upon which to vote for a candidate, whether that be HRC or others. I am partially sympathetic to this view, due to my philosophical training. Warner wants to say--I think--that women voting for HRC because they are beaten down by entrenched sexist institutions and attitudes and want to know that she is beaten down too is--well--ressentiment. The worst instincts among women lead to her win; only when she was down in the mud, enfeebled, weakened, and exhausted did she win them over.

I am not sure I like Warner's read of the situation. Since I am clearly someone who was warmed by Hillary's emotionality, I want to disagree that it was my need to see a savvy woman break down that made me a fan. I felt warmth from her. I saw her passion, her kindness and gratefulness in the face of what she took as concern (even if Warner shows us that it wasn't). If I may be so bold, it wasn't just her humanity that warmed me. It was her femininity. The softer, feminine emotions that she displayed made me hopeful that one day it may be OK for women to be able to display a range of emotions--even girlfriend bonding type stuff--and still be respected as competent. I want to say hurrah! It is OK for women to shed the armour, to drop their guard, and just be women. Do we really have to always act like men to be taken seriously. And, even if we are taken seriously, do we have to also be called a bitch on top of it?

I much prefer Mary Schmich's--of wear sunscreen fame-column. (H/T Specialk). I like her no nonsense advice and her take that Hillary needs to be careful not to lose the real message from the rallying support after her emotional display:

May we offer our thoughts?

*Get some sleep. We believe that sleep deprivation -- not political calculation or self-pity or weakness -- caused your mini-melt in New Hampshire on Monday. We can relate. We've all had those days, when the mind or the body crumples from fatigue.

As luck would have it, exhaustion served you well this week. That little crack in your voice apparently opened new vistas to voters. They saw a passionate, compassionate aspect of you often described by people who have met you but too seldom seen by those who know you only on a page or screen.

Even better, the mini-melt stirred a sexist overreaction ("Look! The wimpy girl is crying!") that ignited a counterreaction among women, especially middle-aged and older, who are tired of seeing you mocked for the way you dress, laugh or almost cry.

In general, however, lack of sleep causes errors. You can't afford one now.

*No need to tell us again that in New Hampshire you found your voice. Avoid the temptation to turn a natural moment into a stilted new script. Just use your new, true voice.

Be more conversational in your speeches.

You're never going to be a Baptist preacher, you're never going to be black, and you're never going to be a man, so don't try to impersonate them. When you do, you sound strained. When you sound strained, it makes us tense, or worse.

*Relax. If you could relax a little more, so could we. Have you tried meditation? Deep breathing? How about more exercise?

*Keep pointing out that you have had a wider range of political and policy experience than Barack Obama. Point out inconsistencies in what he says and does. But don't insult him. Never be snide.

Even people who don't support Obama tend to like him. Some of the same ones who rallied to you when they felt you were under sexist siege will rally to him if he's attacked.

*Find new ways to reach younger women.

Women over 45 -- who voted for you in Iowa and New Hampshire -- know that a woman born in 1947 has had to bust through brick walls with her head to achieve public power. Women close to your age have bumped into similar barriers, so they know how extraordinary your success is.

Younger women may understand, kind of. From history class. Or their mother's lectures. But they're unlikely to feel in their gut how amazing your journey has been and how much opportunity the trailblazing of women your age has opened to them. So the public toughness you've cultivated strikes many of them as rigid, bellicose, haughty, old, weird.

Let them see more of you at their age -- the personable college student who fought for civil rights; the law student who worked to protect abused children; the new mother with a job.

Show them that you were once a young woman like them -- one who wanted to change the world.

*More Chelsea in your campaign, less Bill.

*Really, less Bill. Everybody knows he's your husband. Everybody knows he was the president. No further reminder needed. Now you need to prove that you can fly alone.

*Be yourself. You're a wonk. Go for it.

By many reports, you're also down-to-earth and funny. Go for that, too.

*Resist fighting cynicism with cynicism, snark with snark. Among media pundits, snark and cynicism are the paving stones on the road to glory. Not so for politicians.

Your tone was perfect in the recent debate after the moderator asked what you'd say to voters who don't find you likable.

We liked how you answered wryly, but not sarcastically, "Well, that hurts my feelings."

*One final tip: Don't always obey your advisers.

I think Schmich is right to stress that she needs to stop obeying her advisers who apparently tell her to hide her warmth, likability, and humor (see kos). I also like her advice that she find ways to connect with young women voters who aren't as likely to know what a feat her success is.

Thoughts?

Thursday, January 10, 2008

The Problem of Choosing from Personal Experience

Lesboprof alerted me to this powerful and humbling post by AngryBlackBitch which brought me back to reality and reminded me how dangerous it is to get swept up in my own personal wishes and experience. I read Steinem's Op-ed and for better or worse parts of it really resonated with me. Her early rhetorical question--would a woman with Obama's qualifications become a front runner in the Presidential race--stopped me in my tracks. The questions conjured up the image of Carol Moseley-Brown--to me the most eloquent of the Democratic candidates running for the nomination in 2004. Every time she spoke, I agreed with her. She was far more qualified than Obama is now and didn't have a chance. But, as *I* reminded me in the comments to yesterday's post, not everyone is likely to answer a rhetorical question the way the author intends it. It is risky to start off that way, and doing so, Steinem did a poor job making her case. Perhaps, she consciously structured her Op-Ed to fire up women like me. If so, very Karl Rovian.

The second part of her piece that really resonated with me was the following paragraph:


So why is the sex barrier not taken as seriously as the racial one? The reasons are as pervasive as the air we breathe: because sexism is still confused with nature as racism once was; because anything that affects males is seen as more serious than anything that affects “only” the female half of the human race; because children are still raised mostly by women (to put it mildly) so men especially tend to feel they are regressing to childhood when dealing with a powerful woman; because racism stereotyped black men as more “masculine” for so long that some white men find their presence to be masculinity-affirming (as long as there aren’t too many of them); and because there is still no “right” way to be a woman in public power without being considered a you-know-what (my emphasis).
In the past few days I have found myself surprisingly sympathetic to Clinton's candidacy. More than I thought I would. I shared the sentiment that *71* has: we didn't need another political dynasty. But, when she lost in Iowa, I was sincerely bummed. I tried to articulate it here, but I couldn't justify my support for her even when I set down to write it out. Upon greater reflection and thinking of those words bolded above, my support for Clinton comes precisely out of the social location I find myself in. I am a mother and a working woman, in a heavily male dominated field. I aspire to have greater roles of leadership someday, and I don't want to be called cold, calculating, robotic, power-hungry, or a bitch. The very qualities I admire in someone like HRC--very smart, very very articulate, very strategic, and ambitious--are precisely the qualities that so fully turn off others. I must say, however, that I do distinguish between those who reject HRC's political decisions, votes, centrist instincts, and corporate money taking from those who reject her because she is a cold, calculating, power hungry bitch who doesn't want to bake cookies. The former camp are my friends, people I respect, and people who truly challenge my support of Clinton. The latter camp is precisely what keeps redoubling my commitment to her during this primary process.

I am like many women who have had it with this sexist bullshit. I think *I* was dead on in the comments when she clarified what I thought was true in Steinem's piece. It is not that racism is not tolerated. Rather OVERT racism is not tolerated. There is no doubt that lots of structural racism, de facto segregation, and covert racism continues in this country without enough outrage. I was thinking about OVERT sexism and racism. The kinds of sexist comments that pundits make don't raise hackles nearly as much as Don Imus's comments did months ago. So, like many women trying to be ambitious, successful and a good mother, I got sick of the small box that I saw Hillary getting shoved into. Even my own father said--only half joking--that the reason most men his age won't vote for Hillary is because she reminds them of their first wives.

I don't have any ability to save Steinem's Op-Ed from Angry Black Bitch's eloquent rebuttal. I can see why Lesboprof and *I* are disappointed with Steinem. And, I wonder if I have been easily manipulated in this political process--after all--that is the game. I am very wary of stepping into the minefield of trying to figure out what holds us back more: race, class, sexual orientation, gender or ableness. I read Steinem say we shouldn't do it and skipped completely the subtext of the piece, which is indeed an attempt to prioritize feminist (white) issues over race.

I guess at this point, I want to open up this discussion and hear more from others.

Wednesday, January 09, 2008

I'm Thrilled.

I'm thrilled. I can't hide it. The more negative press, the more sexism that creeps in against Clinton, the more I am behind her. Damn it, we need our first female president. (Having said that, I won't be upset if either Obama or Edwards win).
I was away for the past few days so I missed the footage of Hillary's teary-eyed declaration, but caught it on You Tube last night while watching the returns on CNN. I had heard about this from NPR, but in a manner that incensed me. The report was that many linguists were going to be hired to determine if her display of emotionality was in fact real. That was it. It was precisely at that moment that I wiped my hands with the wave of negative reporting and pot shots at Clinton. I would love to see many of those critics try to undergo what she does every day and see how well they weather it. When I saw her on Stephanopolus a few weeks ago, I admired how masterfully she was able to shake off the intense mudslinging with a "what do you expect George." I am not sure I have that kind of thick skin.

She is being tested and in ways that the male candidates aren't, nor will be. See Echidne on her blasting of Maureen Dowd and her analysis of Steinem's claim that sexism isn't taken as seriously as racism in this country. Well, the women voters have had enough of this crap.

Now, back to her "emotionality" that seeped through or how she put it: "I found my own voice." I was sincerely moved. I did not see this as scripted. She let us all in on the weariness she must feel and the passion with which she is pitching this battle. I am clearly not alone in my reaction to this.

I am not an ultra left winger. I have always been a big fan of Bill Clinton and was impressed with Hillary from the first time I heard her speak on my college campus in 1992. She is a woman that I would like to be; she is articulate, smart, and tough.

In the final analysis, this election--for me--is about the Supreme Court. The next President will determine if the SCOTUS will be lost to the Roberts-Alito-Scalia-Thomas camp. I want a President who appoint a SCOTUS justice that will push back on last year's decisions, particularly the chipping away at Roe, the undermining of equal pay for equal work, and the de facto (de jure?) segregation of schools. Would Clinton appoint that kind of justice? Yes. Will she appoint a woman? Yes. So, there it is.

OK. Let's hear it . . . your incredulity with my view, your support, your confusion. It's all good.

UPDATE: And here is the co-chair of Obama's campaign doing everything but accusing HRC of faking her tears. Check out Melissa on this.

Friday, January 04, 2008

Conflicted about Hillary Coming in Third

I was a bit surprised that Obama won in Iowa last night, although I probably shouldn't have. I guess I had become convinced by the MSM that Clinton was the obvious heir apparent. I am not sure how I feel about Obama's win. I like him; I really like him. But, I started getting jazzed about having a woman president now that I have had a daughter (not that the game is over). But, earlier on I made it clear that I was "all in" for Obama on this blog, so what happened to me?

I have to make a confession and one likely to get me lots of flak, but I guess I went all "identity politics." I chose the woman over the man of color as someone who would best represent me and my daughter in the future. I thought about my affiliation to Clinton as supporting a role model for Maddie. Another confession--I guess having read enough about Women's history and their long struggle to get the vote, I wanted a woman to be elected before a man of color. Women have always lined up after men of color when it comes to getting theirs.

There you have it. Two rather embarrassing, but honest confessions.

I am so jaded these days to believe that any politician is really going to bring the kind of change that would make a massive difference. Obama is great, young, vivacious, really turns out the vote (WOW!), but he bankrolled by big dollars and those supporters are gonna want something back. This is the reality of American politics. So, my heart is not really in this anymore. I want a Democrat. I like all the candidates. So, my primary affiliation has been motivated by something much more personal and perhaps petty.

What did the rest of you think?

Thursday, January 03, 2008

Love Her


Nellie McKay is my new favorite artist. I got her newest album, Obligatory Villians for Christmas.

She is hilarious, adorable, and a little trouble maker.

I am sure I am late in discovering her, as I am for all cool things. But, if you haven't yet heard her voice, listen to the preview of her song Mother of Pearl at Amazon here. Or watch this (crappy quality) video below.


Wednesday, January 02, 2008

Heidegger Isn't Helping Anymore.

I wanted my post yesterday to be upbeat since New Years Eve was not so wonderful for us. Za found out that one of his new colleagues died in a freak accident. When he told me, I felt like someone had punched me in the stomach. Maddie was sleeping as he told me the news and we both had an instinct to check in on her. The idea that someone young, thriving and full of life could die, suddenly, was too much to take in. I don't know the details of his colleagues' death, nor do I think it is appropriate to discuss it too much, but I wanted to take the opportunity to write some reflections, in general, about my first encounter with death post-Maddie.

Horror. That is the best word. Death has never been something I deal with well. In fact, this is probably the reason why I gravitated toward the work of Martin Heidegger while I was an undergraduate. The whole concept of Being-towards-death was the only way I could take something that scared the living shit out of me and turn it into something positive and powerful for my life. If I could remember to confront the fact of my death, then, Heidegger argued, I could begin to fully live my life--knowing full well that my life was finite and that it was conditioned by certain facts that I had no control over. Death was the occasion for life in Heidegger's early writings. In fact, death was the one inevitable possibility of our life that gave us the power to escape conformity. Through the confrontation of our death, we could choose a life that was our very own choosing, that capitalized on our best strengths, and gave us real joy.

That was how I read Heidegger. And, that was where my mind was supposed to go when I was reminded that death was the inevitable end of my life. What Heidegger doesn't talk about--at least not that I remember this--was that facing your death, once you are a parent, opens up profound fears about not you, not your life, but the life of your child. Heidegger does argue that death is what reveals (what he calls) the structure of Care--that we are related to a world, to others, and to meaning-making (leaving a legacy). But, he really sees death as about the self. Whereas now, I see death wholly about the others I leave behind. Death fundamentally discloses to me that I am responsible for a child and to leave that child alone in the world is frightening.

Of course, I can prepare for this possibility--wills, life insurance, god parents that will be most like me, etc. But, those actions do not seem to allay a new found fear I have about dying. Neither does Heidegger. I am set adrift again, looking for some solace in the wise writings of minds that came before me to help me reconceptualize what it means that at any moment I could drop dead and leave my daughter.

Since I have no way to think of this without great fear, I turn this problem over to my readers. Point the way for me . . . .