I’ve been thinking all week about that recent New York Times article by Shira Boss, titled “Wedded to Work, and in Dire Need of a Wife.” Does anyone remember an article by Judy Syfers in the premier issue of Ms. magazine, called “Why I Want a Wife?” Yes, well, that was back in 1971. Things haven’t changed that much. Except maybe our consciousness about it all.

Syfers’ article was a bit of a satire. But Jessica over at feministing has an excellent, and serious, point about the meaning of “wife” when she writes,

Now, I know the [Times] article is trying to make a point, but framing support for a spouse’s job and chores at home as “wifely” duties is not exactly the best way to hold men (remember them?) accountable for their role in the domestic sphere.

We need some new lingo. I tried to get past the old formulas in an article I wrote for July’s Psychology Today called “Two People, One Breadwinner.” After interviewing couples who could afford to have one parent staying at home with their kids while the other worked, and talking to a slew of couples counselors and psychologists for that piece, here’s what I surmised:

Breadwinner wives—still often expected by their mates to act as social director, housekeeper, and meal planner—resent stay-at-home husbands who are lax about household upkeep. Househusbands (for lack of a better term) adjusting to their new domestic roles often resent wives who tell them what to do. Primary earners of either sex can feel trapped by work, resentful that they didn’t have the choice to stay home. And primary earners can also feel let down by partners who, once professionally ambitious, now relish their domestic identities to an alienating degree.

Bottom line: regardless of who is at home and who works, tensions and resentments around the breadwinner / domestic caretaker dynamic are hardly gender specific. Of course, in the majority of American couples, both partners earn. Most of us are still trying to figure that out. But as Jessica points out, and regardless of whether couples are living off of one income or two, getting past the equation of “wife” with “domestic maid” would be an excellent place to start.

…for my jazzy new logo. I’m so excited! Do ya’ll like?!

This year’s Book Festival in Edinburgh seems to be inspiring a number of “dead feminism” articles in the UK press. There’s one in The Herald (Thirty Years on from the Glory Days of Feminism: How Have We Changed?) and not one but two in The Scotsman (“Feminism is Dead for Most Women Today, Says Its High Priestess” and “We Gave Men a Hard Time”). I don’t know about you, but that photo attached to the Festival’s logo up there sure don’t scream “postfeminism” to me….

Memoirs by movement veterans Lynne Segal (currently professor of psychology and gender studies at Birkbeck University, London) and writer Michele Roberts along with comments from writer Fay Weldon seem to be sparking the not-so-novel headline. Says Roberts in The Scotsman,

“There isn’t a public feminism supporting women in the way there was, because feminism has become discredited as a sour-faced, curmudgeonly set of ideas. Young women don’t want to be associated with it. I don’t think the culture as a whole represents the strength and beauty of female friendships and how those relationships save you from going mad. Women are portrayed as sitting around giggling together in wine bars. I’m not saying that that’s what young women are like, but that’s what the culture is describing: you’re allowed to have female comrades but only if you’re discussing stilettos.”

These women have excellent points, but the emphasis of these articles is just so, well, predictable. Over and over, the death of feminism seems a juicier story than stories about its life. But don’t people get tired reading the same ole story? Don’t journalists get tired of writing them? For vibrant signs of life among our sisters across the sea and other tales yet to tell, of course, see The F-Word and the women’s page of The Guardian.

One more on men this morning, cuz I just can’t resist. Charles McGrath of the New York Times speculates on what Scott Rudin and Disney are going to do with the movie version of The Dangerous Book for Boys, which they’ve bought the rights to. Writes McGrath,

A report in Variety suggested that the plot of the movie is likely to involve fathers who struggle to balance their instinctive need to protect and their offspring’s craving for adventure, even though the evidence mostly suggests that these days it is the sons who are risk averse, unwilling to unplug themselves from their iPods, and the parents who are eager for their offspring to go outside and have some old-fashioned fun.

Anyone got other ideas for Disney and Rudin? Who should star? And while we’re on the subject of sneak peaks, of course, don’t forget to preorder your copy of the Daring Book for Girls, which, in an amazing act of daring speed on the part of our ladies of MotherTalk, comes out October 30!

(Thanks to Marco for the heads up on the boy movie.)

In the wake of all that semi-silly media interpretation of a new scientific study of how masculinity in male faces is perceived, I recently learned about a resource with what sounds like a little more (forgive me) balls: Shira Tarrant’s forthcoming anthology, Men Speak Out: Views on Gender, Sex, and Power. An interview with Shira is currently up over at The Feminist Pulse (a blog connected to Girlistic magazine). Shira is an assistant professor at CSU Long Beach. Looking forward to reading the book when it comes out. And for the goods on the science behind the man face study, check out the post by my savvy friends over at Broadsheet.

Speaking of feminist man books, I’m sorry I missed Jackson Katz, author of The Macho Paradox, who I heard was maybe going to call in on The Lisa Birnbach show last Friday when we were on. If you’re out there reading this Jackson, keep on keepin on! I’m all for the “no man left behind” school of feminism. Can someone get Jackson and all those guys in Shira’s anthology a “Feminists Dig Me” t-shirt please?

Taking a break from a piece I’m working on to pour through vacation pics (thanks for sending, Dad!). I can’t believe I was in Wyoming only a week ago! This is me in Teton National Park, right before I went for a swim. Hey, if ever you’re looking for a great B&B in Teton Valley, check out the Wilson Creekside Inn. The proprietess serves up some mean John Wayne eggs.

This morning I was a guest on the final airing of The Lisa Birnbach Show, along with Gloria Feldt, Courtney Martin, and, by phone, Gloria Steinem. I was honored to be flanked by the Glorias and Courtney, and our intergenerational conversation about feminism was a great practice run of the panel we’re putting together and taking on the road. I accidentally said “damn” (as in “Women become more radical with age, but I also know lots of damn radical young women”) on the air and then immediately wondered if you are allowed to say “damn” on the radio.

Though we all looked hot in our celebratory pink feather boas, it was a sad sad day, as GreenStone Media, the show’s short-lived parent company, is closing down. Lisa (pictured above) is a witty, wise, charismatic talk radio host who makes you feel like you’re chatting in her living room. She’s had some incredible guests, mainstream and radical activisty alike, and she has great shoes. The idea and existence of GreenStone — talk radio for women — held such promise. I know Lisa will land on her feet, and wherever she goes will be damn lucky to have her. Oops. There I go again.

Goodbye, GreenStone. Thank you for having me, and thank you, most of all, for trying. We’ll miss you like crazy.

That patterny background was just really starting to get to me. Thanks to stuff I learned at BlogHer last month, I’m streamlining a bit, too. Hope folks like the new digs?! Construction is still underway, so feedback is most welcome!

I can’t decide if I want to go see Nick Salamone’s new play, Hillary Agonistes, or not. Interesting comment in Patrick Healy’s piece about it in the NYTimes: “[T]he iconography of Mrs. Clinton, like the woman herself, seems to have been around forever.” In truth, I think the iconography was around before the woman herself.

All eyes may be focused on Hill these days, but meanwhile, the number of women in political leadership seems to have once again leveled off, according to research findings cited in an article in yesterday’s Wall Street Journal:

[A]lthough women hold a quarter of all seats in state legislatures, “we’ve hit a plateau,” says Debbie Walsh, director of the Center for American Women and Politics, a public-policy institute at New Jersey’s Rutgers University.

The bottom line: While women will cast about 53% of the votes in November 2008, based on the past two presidential elections, their share of elective offices seems to have leveled off at about one in six at the federal level, and one in four in the state capitals.

The reason for the slowdown, according to the article? Simple. Women remain less likely to run for public office than men:

They first need to be recruited and assured of their qualifications, research shows. “Women tend to run because they’re concerned about an issue; they don’t wake up thinking they want to be governor the way men do,” says Jeanne Shaheen, a former three-term governor of New Hampshire who is now the director of Harvard University’s Institute of Politics.

Regardless of what we think of Hillary Clinton, it’s time to tackle the confidence gap, ladies, and take a page from Hill’s book. But wait – does this mean the external obstacles are all cleared up? Inquiring minds want to know.

(Thanks to Marco for the heads up.)

So I’ve just started reading
Sperm Counts: Overcome by Man’s Most Precious Fluid by feminist sociologist (and lesbian mother of two) Lisa Jean Moore and I tell ya, someone over at NYU Press had a wee bit of fun writing her flap copy. “Moore offers a penetrating exploration…” “Sperm Counts examines the many places sperm rears its head.” And of course, the subtitle. But my favorite is the fact that there is a drawing of a squiggly little sperm positioned at a slightly different spot on every single page and if you flip through the book real fast, the sperm seems to swim. Try it. It’s fun.

On the serious side, this looks like an incredibly well-researched and captivating read. Moore looks at children’s birds-and-bees books, forensic transcripts, porn, and sperm bank brochures to offer this biography qua cultural history of modern-day sperm. Check out Thomas Rogers’ seminal interview with Moore over on Salon. I’ve got a suggestion for the sequel: Egg Matters. More to come. Ok ok, I’ll stop while I’m ahead.