sexuality

Just a quick one this morning–had to share this article by Alissa Quart, appearing in tomorrow’s NYTimes Magazine, called “When Girls Will Be Boys.”

GUEST BLOGGER: Elline Lipkin PhD was recently a Postdoctoral Scholar at the Beatrice M. Bain Center for Research on Gender at UC Berkeley. Her first book, The Errant Thread, was published by Kore Press. She recently moved to Los Angeles and is in search of feminist community. I met Elline this summer at an NWSA conference and then again at Cody’s Bookstore in Berkeley, where we discovered we had a dear dear connection in common. If you are in LA and are connected to feministy activity at large, you should contact her because she is AMAZING! Here’s Elline! -GWP

Gottlieb and the Single Girl

For the past few days it’s been impossible to ignore the vitriol electrifying the e-waves over Lori Gottlieb’s article in the March issue of The Atlantic Monthly. Entitled “Marry Him! The Case for Settling for Mr. Good Enough” Gottlieb argues that a woman shouldn’t hold out for marriage based on a Big Romantic Connection, but instead should settle for Mr. Not So Bad, primarily so that she has a partner in the trenches, as she puts it, of homemaking and child-rearing. Instead of thinking of a partner as a soul mate or someone with whom to embark on a passionate adventure, she suggests, imagine him as a partner in a “small, mundane, and often boring nonprofit,” which is another way she characterizes running a household together. She gives more insight about her position in an Atlantic interview, this recent NPR piece, and on The Today Show.

Her evidence is anecdotal, her stress level as a new single mother sounds high, and her impatience with her friends’ complaints about husbands who don’t pull equal weight with parenting is worn out. There is much to take issue with in her argument, (as others who have done real research into these issues have), based as it is on her seemingly middle-class and often privileged friends. In my view, one of her serious missteps (and where she incurred the most wrath) is her first assumption that all women want to get married, as she writes, “To the outside world, of course, we call ourselves feminists and insist… that we’re independent and self-sufficient… but in reality, we aren’t fish who can do without a bicycle, we’re women who want a traditional family.” The piece continues on in its belief that a woman is always better off with the financial and physical help of a husband (never mind walking sperm bank on tap!), no matter how bland, boring, or eventually bald she might find him. Gottlieb even says that since one of her married friends’ chief complaints is that they never see their spouses, likeability shouldn’t really even be an issue. In today’s issue of the LA Times, columnist Meghan Daum takes Gottlieb roundly to task over her assumption that all women want children.

Yet, (and this is the tricky part), I think Gottlieb has a point. What troubles me is how her poorly chosen rhetoric is allowing her argument to be twisted into anti-feminist backlash and sounds suspiciously close to a regressive longing for the all-holy strictures of the nuclear family. As a woman of the same age, I see Gottlieb’s argument borne out of a pragmatism which doesn’t disavow romance as much as it asks women to drop the Hollywood-ending scales from their eyes. As a self-proclaimed quirkyalone whose motto was always “Never settle!” as well as a recent newlywed I think the Atlantic deliberately framed her message as one that only inflames the stereotype of single-woman-as-desperate and then lights it on fire.

Retitled something far more pragmatic such as “Your Priorities Will Change as You Get Older” her article wouldn’t have incited the blogosphere, yet could have carried across what I see as her essential message. Don’t count out that shy five-foot-six guy with a heart of gold hanging out in the corner at a party when you always said you would only date men who are at least five ten seems to be one way to sum up her core advice. Think about the qualities that make for a great life partner on all fronts, including the unromantic day to day, and don’t confuse superficial romance novel notions about passion with character and qualities that will last for the long run. She references the “motherly advice” we’ve all heard and disdained now coming back to haunt her — think about “the bigger picture” a potential spouse represents rather than his short-term libidinous appeal. Gottlieb admits that it’s a fine line between “settling” and “compromising” and that every woman has to determine where this wavers, and surprisingly, at the article’s end confesses that she will probably never will settle, although she wishes she had. In all of this, I think she is absolutely right.

Last year I wrote in Salon about my own travails in the dating world, and I know how hard it is to meet someone with whom you can simply carry on a decent conversation for an hour, never mind a lifetime. I had spent far too long in a long-distance relationship that went nowhere (except gathering frequent flier miles) and I had sworn I’d never do that again. At age 38, when I first met my now-spouse, who lived a short plane ride away, I remember saying, “I’m too old and too picky to count out someone who seems this good.” If I had been ten years younger, or for that matter even five, would I have made the effort? Probably not. I see Gottlieb as coming from a place the dating-weary often reach: a far shore of loneliness when you think meeting someone of substance is just never going to happen. That her values have changed as she entered her fourth decade, altered with the birth of her son, and sobered up to the reality that the dating pool shrinks substantially the farther one goes into one’s thirties, doesn’t seem so wrong.

Yet a moment I think Gottlieb misses the mark is when she assumes men don’t suffer from the choices they’ve made, only women do. As I wrote in Salon, I was amazed at how many men regretted not marrying younger and awoke to wanting children later in life, only to realize it probably wasn’t going to happen for them. For many men it wasn’t biology that would limit them, but a ticking social clock that counted them out past a certain age as well. What seems sad is that Gottlieb can only celebrate for a scant moment the choices she had the privilege to make, namely to have a child on her own, despite its hardships. Her hindsight (and lack of sleep it sounds like) is what drives her rear view mirror exhortation to younger women to avoid her path and take on a partner, not just any old partner, but one seen through the tempered vision maturity brings.

You can contact Elline at elline.lipkin@yahoo.com

I may late to this one, but just had to share this awesome takedown, complete with (surprise!) facts, of that awful backlash porn last month in The Atlantic called “Marry Him!”, via Bella DePaulo recently at HuffPo. Writes Bella:

Gottlieb buys into just about all of the myths about singles that I debunk in my book, Singled Out. She believes, for example, that singles are interested in just one thing – getting married. She warns that even if they have great jobs, their jobs won’t love them back. She thinks that if single women wait too long, the available men will all be “damaged goods.” Most of all, she seems to believe that single people are miserable and lonely, and that the cure for what ails them is to get married.

Science demurs. A study in which thousands of people have been followed for 18 years (and counting) shows that people who get married enjoy, at best, a brief and tiny bubble of happiness around the time of the wedding (a honeymoon effect); then they go back to being as happy or as unhappy as they were when they were single. Moreover, only those who marry and stay married experience the early blip in happiness; those who marry and then divorce are already becoming less happy, not more so, as the day of the wedding draws near. (See Chapter 2 of Singled Out.)

The words “lonely” or “alone” occur a dozen times in “Marry Him.” Gottlieb seems to be channeling Bridget Jones’s fear of ending up “dying alone and found three weeks later half-eaten by an Alsatian,” only without the humor. I’ve studied the scientific research on loneliness in later life (Chapter 11 of Singled Out). It shows that no group is LESS likely to be lonely in their senior years than women who have always been single. Gottlieb also believes that mothers who settle, regret that they did, and then divorce, will still be better off financially than if they had never married. The science does not support that, either.

So there.

(Thanks as ever CCF for the heads up.)

GUEST BLOGGER: Jacqueline Hudak, M.Ed., Ph.D. is a feminist family therapist who has been working with individuals, couples and families for over twenty years. On a more personal note, Jacqueline is the mother of Lauren, 16, and Vincent, 12 and together with her partner Sarah, they live in Atlantic Highlands NJ. When not thinking about relationships, Jacqueline is a devoted student of yoga, which, as she has said, teaches her to go forward with an open heart, and see the world in different ways. She’s a popular teacher, speaker, and family therapy supervisor, and has lectured widely on a variety of topics that impact family life. Jacqueline is an Adjunct Faculty at Drexel University’s Programs in Couple and Family Therapy and is currently at work on two books: a memoir, and a compilation of stories from her years in practice. She is also a “graduate” of my Making It Pop: Translating Your Ideas for Trade seminar, and I’m SO EXCITED to read her books, and to share this guest post from her here! Here’s Jacqueline. -GWP

Intimate Justice at Bluestockings NYC!

Intimate justice – doesn’t the sound of it just make you want some?

It was a beautiful scene on the evening of February 13th: a venerable old feminist bookstore, chock full of folks to celebrate the publication of Making Love Playing Power: Men, Women and the Rewards of Intimate Justice by my pal, Ken Dolan-DelVecchio. What an amazing book!

I was admittedly thrilled, but nervous, when upon our arrival at Bluestockings Ken asked me to introduce him. Given my heartfelt respect for this man and the work that we share, I of course, said ‘yes.’ I knew I could find the words, because in my mind, well, perhaps mostly in my heart, I knew how ready we are for a book like this, and how urgently it is needed.

This is because those of us who transgress the lines between doing ‘therapy’ and social justice work try to open our clients and families to new ways of seeing their lives. In my clinical work, I pursue the questions that might help someone see possibility where previously there was none. In this book, Ken provides a clear map of how gender, race, class and sexual orientation influence power in a relationship – and how the imbalance of power is at the root of most conflict. This dynamic is generally not talked about – even by supposed ‘experts’. Ken helps focus our understandings of how we are taught to be male or female, and what cost that exacts from relationships with those we love. This book enacts the revolutionary ideas that men are fully capable of deep intimacy and connection, and women, of empowerment and self-love.

With so many self help books on the market, it is so refreshing to find one that has a chapter entitled “What Patriarchy Teaches Men.” AND it is written by a man. I can only begin to imagine the ways in which sharing this book will enhance my clinical work with couples and families. The dominant psychology of our culture teaches us to look inside the person or relationship for “the problem.” Yet “the problem” is so often outside of the relationship – and the tricky thing is, we don’t talk about it. As a culture, we don’t acknowledge the ways in which the presence or absence of racism, poverty, gender privilege, or heterosexism (to name a few) shape and give meaning to our lives. Instead, we couch the struggles in pseudo-diagnostic terms: “communication problems”, “anger management,” “codependency.” We thus never get to talk about or take action against the structures that support these hierarchies of privilege and oppression within which all families live.

As the mother of an almost teenage boy, I am also deeply concerned about the ways in which he is taught by our culture to be a man. Can he stay the big-hearted, emotional and tender person I have known for 12 years? Must he become indoctrinated into the traditional world of masculinity? I know all of the rhetoric about how men have changed, but has the culture of masculinity? (that’s a whole other blog!) I see the extreme self reliance, the inability to ask for help or be viewed as dependent, in many “younger” men in my practice. I know Ken shares that concern for his son and share that in his dedication: “For your generation, may you know love more than domination and truth more than fear.”

Making Love Playing Power: Men, Women and the Rewards of Intimate Justice is the relationship guide we have been waiting for. Thank you, Ken, for opening so many possibilities to couples and families. Your clarity, dedication and tenderness shine through!

You can reach Jacqueline at jack4fta@comcast.net.

This just came my way — though the deadline for submissions is March 1, so if you’re interested, better hop to (or ask for an extension):

* Thinking of joining a nunnery?
* Feeling asexual and just want to cuddle?
* Swinging and loving it?

We want to see/hear/read your stories! Audio stories are great, too. CDs may accompany the anthology.

SEND YOUR CREATIONS TO THE FORTHCOMING ANTHOLOGY:

“Desire: A Girl’s Guide to Dreaming – Queer Women of Color Writing Critically on the Erotic” (working title)

We invite people to share their experiences and thoughts on sex, lust, love, relationship, desire, the erotic, being stone, being poly. How do you envision, enact, do sex? And not. This anthology is about opening up language, story, healing.

Is it okay to ask your queer of color fam to cuddle, without it being sexual? What does it mean to touch and connect with people without wanting sex, without it being sexual? What is erotic? How is it lived by queer women of color? If people are looking for liberation in their bodies, in their shared connection with people, what does that look like? What does queer sex feel like, taste like, dream like? What if you could dream your way out of survivor, into thriving, into living and creating intentional relationships that heal, rather than sting, love and push through all the bifurcations of our lived lives. How do you touch your way out of colonization, how do touching and connection become a way of resisting colonization and objectification, and healing from rape, assault, sexual abuse, physical abuse? What language is used? What words are created? When we are in desire, the articulation of the possible, how do we free ourselves, how are we already free where we see traps? Where are you, finally, free? In desire, are you free?

A sense of humor is a must in all relationships; we seek levity and gravity, fun, light energy that is also deep, connected, and profound. Funny stories, essays, and work with a twist all welcome. Send beautiful words, art, funny anecdotes, poetry, images, stills of performances to desireanthology@yahoo.com. The deadline for sending work is 1 March 2008. If you desire a land address for mailing work, contact us at the above e-mail address.

We look forward to hearing from you,
Pak Soo Na and Sherisse Alvarez

Great post from Ann at feministing, citing a big new report from Legal Momentum (“Sex, Lies, and Stereotypes”), which reports on how abstinence-only education is especially harmful to young women and girls.

Yesterday may have been Super Tuesday, but a week from tomorrow is Hallmark Thursday. And there’s some really interesting stuff out there right now on the love front.

Are you a twentysomething woman having trouble finding a twentysomething adult guy? Clearly, you’re not alone. Kay Hymowitz takes a look at “The Child-Man” in The Dallas Morning News, offering a nice roundup on how the average mid-twentysomething guy “lingers – happily – in a new hybrid state of semi-hormonal adolescence and responsible self-reliance,” leaving younger women who are already adults wanting.

Over at the WSJ, Sue Shellenbarger asks where’s the love and reports on college students who eschew romance. College life has become so competitive, and students so focused on careers, that many aren’t looking for spouses anymore, she says. Replacing college as the top marital hunting ground is the office. Which circles back to Helaine Olen’s new book, Office Mate: The Employee Handbook for Finding–and Managing–Romance on the Job–a timely title if ever there was one.

Still, even at the office, it’s just plain hard to find that match, as John Tierney reports in the New York Times. Tierney notes that while online matchmakers compete for customers using algorithms in the search for love, the battle has intrigued academic researchers who study the mating game.

And finally, for the latest on the sociology of hooking up, Kathleen A. Bogle, an assistant professor of sociology and criminal justice at LaSalle University, analyzes college sexual activity in a book called – guess what – Hooking Up: Sex, Dating, and Relationships on Campus.

Have at it folks!

(And thank you, CCF, for the summaries and links.)

Check out this fresh take on those who are male, single and not your stereotype in the Canadian Press.

In sum, the article argues, a lot of attention gets paid to single women, who can cheer themselves with chick flicks, self-help books and shows like “Sex and the City,” which aim to empower female consumers to think of singledom as independence or self-reliance. But while single women have seemingly banded together to change their image in the popular culture, there’s been no such battle cry for men, who have a whole different set of stereotypes to fight: They’re confirmed bachelors, James Bond-style playboys, cranky old men or gay.

Ok, I get the point. But somehow this just isn’t resonating for me. Thoughts?

Hey–check out the vibrant conversation going on in comments over at feministing around Courtney’s Thursday post (“Must We Fear Adolescent Sexuality?”), which links back to fresh research mentioned in sociologist Virginia Rutter’s review of Juno here on GWP. (Thanks, C, for posting!)

Frank F. Furstenberg, Professor of Sociology at the University of Pennsylvania and Senior Fellow at the Council on Contemporary Families, has just released a briefing paper intended to stimulate discussion among researchers and clinicians in advance of the Council’s 11th annual conference, April 25-26, University of Illinois at Chicago–where I’ll definitely be! Join me?

Here’s the jist, via AScribe Newswire:

Teen Pregnancy and Poverty: 30-Year-Study Confirms That Living in Economically-Depressed Neighborhoods, Not Teen Motherhood, Perpetuates Poverty

— In fairy tales, there are two possible outcomes for a young girl. In the Disney version, the handsome prince rescues her, then marries her, and everyone lives happily ever after. In the dark version, the heroine makes a dreadful mistake that leads to disaster. For the past 15 years, political pundits have been telling us a dark fairy tale about American teens, blaming America’s high poverty rates on the actions of teenage girls who have babies out of wedlock. This assumption guided the welfare reform act of 1996, which promised to write America a happy ending by getting teens to stop having babies, get married, and thus end poverty.

But a new longitudinal study by Frank Furstenberg (University of Pennsylvania) shows that fairy tales have no place in the realm of policy-making. His data reveal that teen childbearing is NOT the reason that many Americans have been trapped in poverty over the past three decades….Furstenberg reports that

– teen motherhood tends to occur among people ALREADY trapped in poverty

– postponing motherhood does not make much of a difference to people’s chances of escaping poverty.

– impoverished girls who bear children as teens do almost as well educationally and economically — or as poorly — as the girls who postpone childbearing.

Preventing and reducing teen pregnancy is a valuable social goal, says CCF Fellow Furstenberg. In fact the United States had a dramatic decline in teen pregnancies–and abortions–from 1991 to 2005. But, using observations from his Baltimore study, and supplementing it with current reports from demographers, economists, and demographers, sociologist Frank Furstenberg reminds us that the phrase, “it’s the economy, stupid” is not yet out of date. For details and policy recommendations, check out Furstenberg’s full briefing report at www.contemporaryfamilies.org.