Grabapple.net

I got an email from my car dealership the other day; buy four new tires and get a $50 gas card!

Well wuppity-doo. Guess I’ll just drop me a cool several hundred bucks for four new tires for my 7 month old car to get $50 bucks of gas (which is 1.33 fill ups, about). Who is this incentive for? People who have their money together for four new tires probably aren’t hurting for gas money, after all.

It’s a common irony, though. The more money you have, the more you can save. It’s cheaper in the long run to do lots of expensive things; buy good clothes, buy new everything with warranties, put your money in investments, use health-care savings accounts. If you have a lot of startup cash, they all make sense. If you don’t, then you pay full price and you pay more. It’s not just a matter of squeezing your pennies. It’s expensive to be poor. Which just makes leaving poverty a steeper and harder climb than most well-off people think.

The Brookings Institute just released a study documenting this very fact.

In general, lower income families tend to pay more for the exact same consumer product than families with higher incomes. For instance, 4.2 million lower income homeowners that earn less than $30,000 a year pay higher than average prices for their mortgages. About 4.5 million lower income households pay higher than average prices for auto loans. At least 1.6 million lower income adults pay excessive fees for furniture, appliances, and electronics. And, countless more pay high prices for other necessities, such as basic financial services, groceries, and insurance. Together, these extra costs add up to hundreds, sometimes thousands, of dollars unnecessarily spent by lower income families every year.

Other bloggers have called this the “ghetto tax” but it’s not restricted to ghettos. One of the more dispiriting things about living in a not-rich neighborhood of New York was how hard it was to buy necessities. There were not enough grocery stores, and the ones that were there had very little selection and charged higher prices than the nice stores on the Upper West Side. Or you had to ride three long subway stops away and then haul your groceries back on the train, through whatever nasty weather you were stuck with. Little basic things were surprisingly hard to find close by; if you wanted, say, a decent broom, you had to schlep out to Target on the train, pay too much at the local hardware store, or buy a really crappy one at the dollar store on the corner. Without a car or money for a taxi, your choices were always limited. And if you wanted to save at Costco way out in another part of Brooklyn, there were no trains that went there; you had to find a car or pay for a taxi, which might wipe out whatever you saved.

Poor neighborhoods in Texas don’t have it all that much better. The area we live now isn’t even what I would call “poor” but it’s not rich. And it’s a huge retail opportunity, being a very large neighborhood of apartment complexes with hundreds of families. But there is no grocery store closer than 10 miles away, no WalMart or even a drug store. Just one lonely convenience store, that charges more for a gallon of milk and a loaf of bread than any of those places. If you want to save, you have to have money to spend first.

Our neighborhood, by the way, has mostly Hispanic, black and Asian families. The neighborhoods where the stores are are mostly white.

This sort of segregation doesn’t seem to follow any economic logic. After all, black people eat, Asian people buy dishes, Hispanic people buy clothes or toys, just like anyone else. There is money waiting to be made, but for some reason, no one has stepped in to make it. My suspicion is that our neighborhood is the victim of redlining, in which banks and businesses are reluctant to do business in neighborhoods they see as less desirable. It’s technically illegal, but hard to prosecute. It’s also a way of pointing out just how much racism and classism still exists out there; even when there’s money to be made, businesses will choose to ignore non-white and poor customers.

Welcome to Cute n’ Toothy. I’m your host, Nathan. Today’s topic: crawling!

It’s important to stretch before every crawl.

Here you see the basic left knee/right arm cross-crawling configuration.

It’s important that your crawling surface be soft but firm. Remember, a little lint is good for your digestive system. And cat hair, too!

After every crawl, it’s a good idea to take a bath in the sink.

Time to go! Join us next week for our show on Mom’s Computer Keyboard: The Best Tasting Toy Ever! See you then!

If your comments have been delayed a while, it’s because I keep getting odder and odder comment spam, and so my filters keep getting updated and catching the occasional good comment with all the crap. And I can’t manage comments during the workday, so it depends on me getting the baby to sleep and getting to the comments queue to get things straightened out.

Also, about 50% of the email spam for this blog is in Cyrillic. I’m a big hit with Russian spammers, oh yeah.

I haven’t been swimming in years. Braving a bathing suit and finding somewhere to wear it was just too much work. But Matt has been taking Nathan swimming in our apartment complex pool in a little flotation doohicky he found, and the other day he finally persuaded me to hunt up my suit and come along.

I am SO out of shape. I can barely swim all the way around the pool without needing a break. But I had forgotton how cool and silky the pool feels on a hot day, how nice it is to exert yourself without sweating, or in my case, dealing with your trick knees. The smell of suntan lotion, the nice kind of fatigue you get after swimming. And now Nathan in his ring, kicking his legs and grinning when his hands splash in front of him. Looking concerned when his daddy goes underwater. Sitting on my lap on the pool steps and splashing his legs. So much fun. I can’t wait till he’s old enough to really swim on his own, and we can jump off diving boards and do underwater handstands.

I’m waiting for him now, suited up and ready to go, while he takes his afternoon nap. The pool schedule is unpredictable and I don’t know if it’ll be crowded on a Saturday, but I can’t wait anyway.

You get these little pieces of your childhood back when you have kids, little excuses for doing the things you used to love. Swimming for fun not fitness; watching the Muppet Movie; sitting on the floor and playing with toys. Plus, being with kids makes you sort of invisible, and less self-conscious. Kids draw all the attention, so you worry less about what you look like, at least till they turn 12 and become ashamed to be seen with you.

It makes up a little for having no privacy and being at someone else’s beck and call 24/7.

There’s really only one thing I need to post this month.

You LEARNED to CRAWL.

I’ve never seen anyone work as hard at anything as you did at crawling; weeks and weeks of rocking back and forth, pitching over onto your face, going up and down on your tiptoes and around in circles, everything BUT crawling. And finally, on the 8th of July, on the bed with your daddy and me, you put out one wildly swinging arm..and went forward a tiny ways. Then you did it again. And we put you down on the carpet and you did it AGAIN, although it was the tiniest, most tentative crawl imaginable, and you were making worried noises and looking at us in a very concerned way. Asking us, is this ok? This moving on my own business? And we kissed you to let you know that yes, it was.

And then we went and bought some outlet covers and cabinet door dohickeys. But so far you haven’t gotten to that level; you’re still just crawling slowly, and a little doubtfully. You will come looking for us when we’re out of sight, craning around corners to make sure we haven’t run off and left you. You need a lot of reassurance, because this growing up business is scary.

When we were still in Brooklyn, I remember the first time I put you on the floor, on the play mat underneath your little floor-mobile thingy. You couldn’t do anything but smack yourself in the face and cry at that point, but all the same, you seemed to like the new perspective. Such a calm baby, accepting airplane rides and airports and strange people without complaining at just a month old, though you didn’t smile and seemed to live in a little dreamworld of your own.

And now, you are a shameless flirt. You squeal and slap your hands on the floor when you see one of us walk into the room. You come up to us while we watch tv and demand eye contact, and give us drooly grins so we’ll pick you up. You’ve kept your full head of hair and a little patch of the hairy back that you were born with. You love to go to the pool and float in your little baby-ring with Daddy pulling you around while you splash and try to put your face in the poolwater. You love squash and sweet potatoes and apples and peas and green beans. But not peaches or bananas. You eat better than we do, actually, which is something I hope will continue. For you, I’d learn to cook squash, though I’ll never learn to eat it. You can almost hold your bottle yourself, though you’re a little bit interested in the sippy cup. You watch us eat intently, sure that you’re missing out, but when we try to give you a bit of rice or meat, you decide never mind. Not your thing yet.

You like books, even if you still eat them more than you read them. And Muppets. And going to the mall to look at people when your parents get a little stir crazy. We gripe about the early mornings and the lack of free time, but when we’re away from you, we miss you and can’t wait to smell your little baby head and squeeze you and make you laugh. You have a chuckly, giggly sort of laugh; sometimes it’s a mild “heh-heh”, other times it’s an ear-piercing squeal. And every now and then, a real belly-laugh.

Your eyes are changing color; a little hazel or brown or green is creeping into the blue. Right now, your eyes are inbetween, not one thing or another. Just wide open, and seeing everything, and happy to see it.

It is good to have you, and good to be alive, period, and good to be in our own place, with you, making us more of a family. Eight months seems like no time at all.

My mom let me know the other day that 1) she reads my blog (um, hi Mom) and 2) I “ramble a lot.”

Can’t argue with that.

Goodness, there are so many questions raised by this article in the NY Times that I can hardly think where to start.

I’ll tell you my take on it, and if you want to comment or email, tell me yours.

The basic gist of the article is that women are enrolling in college and graduating in larger numbers and with greater honors, overall, than men. And this is raising concerns and interest, which I’ll get to.

Questions not raised or addressed by the article are:

1. If women are slightly more than half the population, is it realistic to strive for a 50-50 balance?
2. Is there something a bit, hmm, suspicious about the fact that when men were the majority not so many years ago, no one but feminists were concerned? Could the sudden surge of women be due to pent-up ambition…mothers and fathers suddenly realizing that their daughters have achievement potential?
3. Why are the men who drop out because they play video games all day/don’t study so prevalent…in what ways has society encouraged this low-achieving mindset? And is it true that they will continue to get higher pay than women anyway once they graduate?

The article does pause to give some credence to the “boys just aren’t good at school, it’s unfairly tilted towards girls!” cry that’s been going around for a few years. Which makes so little sense, it’s mind-boggling. The typical school atmosphere we have now was created by men, to teach other men. Women weren’t even allowed in to places like Harvard, or hell, a lot of middle and high schools, for years after they were founded. So how can we be suddenly blaming a “feminized” system when the system is about as masculine in its origins as it’s possible to be? And when (I have to add) the only reason most teachers are women is that teaching is considered some sort of low-status advanced babysitting by the taxpayers, who therefore don’t want to pay anything for it, so most men shy away?

I think one of the female students they interview pretty much nails it:

“The men don’t seem to hustle as much,” Ms. Smyers said. “I think it’s a male entitlement thing. They think they can sit back and relax and when they graduate, they’ll still get a good job. They seem to think that if they have a firm handshake and speak properly, they’ll be fine.”

The question is, who’s right…the men or the women? Will all this achievement still not result in more women Supreme Court justices, CEOs, and an eventual Presidency? I don’t think the patriarchy is that powerful…I think that if you’ve got enough Ivy League women working their tails off, then some of them are going to find their ways into power, and bring their women proteges along too. And that rocks.

I think the article is really only telling half the story. “Men falling behind” is important, sure. But so is “Women surging ahead.” A Renaissance of female achievement is taking place, but instead of celebration we seem to get a lot more head-shaking and hand-wringing about these poor boys who are apparently so spoiled they will waste their parent’s money at college flunking out and playing video games. Excuse me if I’m less than sympathetic. If that was my son, I’d kick his butt, then make him go to work and pay me back. Just as I’d do with a daughter.

You see, I have a son. We don’t have a lot of money, and probably never will. If he wants to achieve things in his life, we won’t be able to hand him an education…he’ll have to work for it. We’ll help, but if he thinks just being a guy is going to ensure him a good job and a good future, it won’t be an idea he gets from us.

I do feel for kids at college who lack direction, who get depressed, who are finding out that the privileges of being male, of being athletic and social and charming, are not enough to survive on anymore. I feel for them only because they’ve been lied to by their peers and their society, and now that women have started to take off their shackles, the field isn’t so artificially tilted in the boys’ favor anymore. But life is like that, and if you don’t want to just hide out in your room forever, you have to deal with the fact that you will have to work for what you want. Work harder than men did when they had all the privileges to themselves.

I would think, if a young man respected and valued himself, he wouldn’t be permanently damaged by this revelation. I would think that a young man of regular intelligence who’s willing to work could still find his way in a world where women compete with him. Where his achievement was real, not based on placing obstacles in womens’ way. He may not be a king anymore, but he could be an equal citizen. If he thought about it, he might even figure that it’s better to be with women who are equals, and therefore maybe less likely to either bleed him dry or just resent his always expecting them to pick up his underwear.

If he thought about it.

As opposed to non-crazy conservatives, of course.It helps if you imagine the liberal as John Cleese. Found here, via Echidne.

Liberal: The USA has fifty states.

Conservative: No, it doesn’t.

Liberal: Yes, it does. The USA has fifty states.

Conservative: What about Guam? What about that Guam, huh? Or the
Virgin Islands?

Liberal: Those are territories, not states. The USA has fifty states.

Conservative: Oh, so you’re saying those don’t count?

Liberal: Yes.

Conservative: Oh, so the people there don’t count? They’re not good enough, huh? I thought you liberals wanted everybody to be counted.

Liberal: No, I said the territories don’t count as states. The USA has fifty states.

Conservative: You’re really something, you know that? You liberals are always going on about how all of us conservatives are racists, how we don’t care about anybody but people who look like us. But you don’t even want to count the blacks who live in Guam as Americans.

Liberal: First of all, I never said all conservatives are racists.

Conservative: Yes, you did.

Liberal: No, I didn’t.

Conservative: Michael Moore says it.

Liberal: I’ve never heard him say that.

Conservative: Yes, he does! He most definitely does!

Liberal: Look, I don’t know what he says. That’s beside the point. And the people in Guam “count,” whatever that means. I don’t even know who lives in Guam; I don’t know the first thing about Guam. I’m just saying Guam isn’t a state ­ it’s a territory. The USA has fifty states.

Conservative: What about Puerto Rico?

Liberal: What?

Conservative: What about Puerto Rico, huh? You love all those Mexicans coming across the border stealing our jobs ­ you must LOVE Puerto Rico, right?

Liberal: I’ve never been to Puerto Rico.

Conservative: Well, I have, and those kind of people would be pretty offended to hear liberals like you saying they aren’t real Americans!

Liberal: I didn’t say that!

Conservative: You said they didn’t count!

Liberal: I didn’t say that either! No, wait, just wait… (takes deep breath). I only said the USA has fifty states. Puerto Rico isn’t a state ­ it’s a commonwealth.

Conservative: And they don’t speak English!

Liberal: Well, many Puerto Ricans do.

Conservative: How do you know that? I’ve been there ­ you haven’t!

Liberal: All right, OK, fine, whatever. But the USA has fifty states.

Conservative: Well, I say Puerto Rico counts.

Liberal: Fine, but not as a state.

Conservative: Well, that’s YOUR opinion.

Liberal: It’s not my opinion ­ it’s a fact.

Conservative: Says you!

Liberal: No, not just “says me.” It’s a fact. Look it up.

Conservative: I don’t have time.

Liberal: You don’t have time to find out if the USA has fifty states?

Conservative: Listen, you may have time to sit around all day surfing on your liberal websites, downloading Michael Moore, but I’ve got things to do.

Liberal: Like reading about blacks in Guam and Mexicans in Puerto Rico?

Conservative: See, that’s why you guys always lose. I’m trying to have a nice conversation, and you just keep up with the insults!

Liberal: Listen, I didn’t mean to insult you.

Conservative: Oh, yes you did!

Liberal: No, look, I’m sorry, OK? I didn’t mean to insult you. Honestly. It’s just that… well, the USA has fifty states. That’s a fact. And I’m just trying to state a fact, and you’re getting very defensive, and…

Conservative: Oh, so now I’m defensive.

Liberal: Well…

Conservative: You just said you weren’t going to insult me!

Liberal: Look, I’m just trying to say the USA has fifty states!

Conservative: According to YOUR sources!

Liberal: MY sources?! What are you talking about? Look it up!

Conservative: I told you, I don’t have time to spend all day cruising the internet, looking up geography questions! Maybe if you were busier at your job, trying to live the American Dream, you wouldn’t have time for all this hate!

Liberal: I work hard at my job!

Conservative: Then why are you spending all day downloading Michael Moore?

Liberal: I don’t spend all day downloading Michael Moore! I don’t even know what you mean by that! All I’m saying is that the USA has fifty states!

Conservative: Again, according to YOU!

Liberal: Not just me! Here, here’s the World Book Encyclopedia. Look it up ­ it’s fifty states!

Conservative: Oh, sure, the World Book! Yeah, like I’m going to believe the World Book!

Liberal: What?

Conservative: Come on, it’s a liberal rag!

Liberal: (Long, teeth-gnashing pause) Look, just look up “United States of America.” Ten bucks it says, “the USA has fifty states.”

Conservative: Ten bucks, huh?

Liberal: Yeah, ten bucks. (pause) Wait, that’s the “M” volume.

Conservative: I know.

Liberal: You need to look under “U” for “United States.”

Conservative: I’m not looking for “United States.” I’m looking for “Moore, Michael.”

Liberal: What?!

Conservative: And when I find a big glowing article about him, you’re going to owe me ten bucks!

Liberal: Why would I owe you ten bucks?!

Conservative: You bet me ten bucks that the World Book Encyclopedia isn’t liberal.

Liberal: No I didn’t!

Conservative: Yes, you did! You bet me ten bucks that I couldn’t find a liberal article in the World Book. So when I find Michael Moore’s picture, you owe me ten bucks!

Liberal: Oh, my lord…

Conservative: AHA!

Liberal: Listen, you idiot, just because you found Michael Moore’s picture in the World Book doesn’t mean that I owe you ten bucks! It doesn’t mean the World Book is a liberal encyclopedia! And it certainly doesn’t mean the USA doesn’t have fifty states!!

Conservative: Oh, no? Look at this!

Liberal: (pause) “Massachusetts”?

Conservative: Bingo!

Liberal: What the hell does Massachusetts have to do with anything?

Conservative: The COMMONWEALTH of Massachusetts!

Liberal: So?

Conservative: So you said Puerto Rico is a commonwealth!

Liberal: Oh, no…

Conservative: You ADMITTED Puerto Rico was a commonwealth! Admit it, you said it!

Liberal: Oh, man…

Conservative: So if Massachusetts is a commonwealth, and Puerto Rico is a commonwealth, then they BOTH must be states! HA!

Liberal: OK, look…

Conservative: You owe me twenty bucks!

Liberal: What?

Conservative: Come one, pay up! Twenty bucks, let’s go!

Liberal: I don’t owe you twenty bucks!

Conservative: And I’m not even counting Pennsylvania!

Liberal: Pennsylvania?

Conservative: That’s a commonwealth, too!

Liberal: It’s a commonwealth, but…

Conservative: And Washington!

Liberal: All right, look, I lived in Seattle ­ Washington is NOT a commonwealth!

Conservative: Seattle’s not even a state ­ it’s a city!

Liberal: Yes, it’s a city, in Washington State! Washington’s a state!

Conservative: I’m talking about Washington D.C.

Liberal: What?

Conservative: Washington D.C. It’s a city.

Liberal: I know what it is!

Conservative: Well, you liberals are always going on about “Statehood for Washington!” Which, you admit, is already a state!

Liberal: Washington D.C. is not a state!

Conservative: Washington State is!

Liberal: You just said Washington D.C.!

Conservative: And you said it should be a state!

Liberal: I never said that! I mean, it should be… but I never…look…

Conservative: Should Washington be a state?

Liberal: Well…

Conservative: Simple question.

Liberal: Washington State?

Conservative: Yes or No?

Liberal: Washington State or Washington D.C.?

Conservative: Right.

(Long pause)

Conservative: He snorts cocaine.

(Long, painful pause)

Liberal: (slowly) This is Washington D.C. you’re talking about.

Conservative: Yeah. The mayor snorts cocaine.

Liberal: Actually, he’s no longer the mayor…

Conservative: I don’t think a state should have a governor who’s used drugs.

Liberal: He’s not the governor; Washington’s not a…

Conservative: Except maybe California.

Liberal: OK, OK, stop for a moment…

Conservative: I mean, that was a long time ago…

Liberal: Listen, listen…

Conservative: I don’t see Michael Moore making any movies about cocaine in Washington State, do you?

Liberal: Please, STOP!

(pause)

Liberal: Look, I’m just trying to make a simple point here…

Conservative: What about…

Liberal: STOP!!!

(long pause)

Liberal: I’m just trying to make a SIMPLE point here. It’s not a big deal ­ it’s just a fact. The USA has fifty states. That’s all! Yes, Puerto Rico is a commonwealth, but it isn’t counted among the fifty states. Yes, Massachusetts and Pennsylvania are commonwealths too. So are Virginia and, I think, Kentucky. I don’t know about Kentucky for sure, and you know what ­ it doesn’t matter! They’re considered
states, OK? They’re states. Washington D.C. isn’t one, even though I wish it was. Guam isn’t one. There are only fifty. Fifty states. Fifty stars on the flag ­ fifty states. That’s all. Fifty.

(long pause)

Conservative: Rush is so right about you people.

Liberal: Huh?

Conservative: Rush. He gets it. You people are the worst.

Liberal: I don’t…

Conservative: Here I am, trying to have an honest political discussion, and all you can do is bring up this liberal claptrap! You call people like Rush racists, but you don’t want to count Mexicans as Americans. You insult the Governor of California every chance you get. You get all your information from encyclopedias and Michael
Moore. You want free cocaine in Washington, and you want Seattle to become a commonwealth, and you won’t pay me my fifty dollars even after I proved that blacks run Guam! And then, worst of all, you insult our flag and our troops!!! You disgust me!

Liberal: Good-bye.

Conservative: See, there you liberals go again! Sneaking off to download porn from Kentucky! I’m not forgetting you owe me 100 dollars!

(pause)

Conservative: That’s it, cut and run!

(long pause)

Conservative: Why do you hate America?

Still digesting Hrdy’s book; I’ll have to re-read it in a little while, I can already tell, and maybe follow her bibliography to find other books on these topics. I love that feeling, when as a reader, you’ve stumbled on a whole new territory of ideas and knowledge that you can explore.

As this is a particularly childbirth-obsessed blog, it’s no wonder that I’ve been thinking about what led me to want a child in the first place. Of course there are the normal, acceptable, responses you can give when people ask you why you want a child. “We have so much love to share,” “We want to experience wonder again by introducing a new person to the world,” even “Our parents were driving us crazy for grandchildren.” And these things are all truthful, as far as they go, but I don’t think they really scratch the surface of the deep, driving need a lot of women, myself included, felt to reproduce. It was a bit like puberty, in that sometimes it was hard to think of anything else.

The 30-something gal being tortured by her biological clock is an old joke, and an annoying stereotype; but like all stereotypes, it has a grain of truth.

That’s why I feel a bit crabby with people, women or men, who say to us, if we really wanted equality, well damn, we’d just stop reproducing! We have birth control now, yes? Why not go for the gusto and forget the gestating? Leave that to the poor schlubby women who lack ambition. Sort of the Faye Dunaway in Network model of female aspiration.

I guess the closest analogy I can draw to the wrongness of this is to say, what if you told a gay person, Stay in the closet to get ahead? Don’t find a partner? Even get married to a person of the opposite sex, if that’s what it takes? If you really cared about success, you could deny everything you are for it.

Both of these arguments are fatalistic and ultimately, cruel. It is in my nature–and many or most women’s natures–to want to have children; it’s a need and a desire that goes down to the bone. This is not a flaw in my character, this is a valid part of being a species that needs to reproduce. This is part of who I am.

How I deal with that need, just as how a gay person chooses to express who they are, is up to me. And that is where considerations of money, environmental impact, career, relationships, and physical willingness all come in.

But I’m tired of having that need trivialized. It is not a trivial thing, to parent another human being. It is not a trivial thing to give of your body and your resources to create the future in the most direct way. It is not a silly or a foolish thing to want to use this power that women are given to create life. Nor is it silly, or foolish, or wrong to demand that society give us the space and resources we need to bring up children who are healthy, educated, productive, and cared for. The women I know do not have children to have an excuse to stop working. They have children because they need to have them as much as they need to work. Given the chance, they will thrive at both. Forced to choose, most of them will do whatever it takes to care for their child, as they should. If being the child-bearing gender is what has kept women from equality, then it is specious to ask them to become equal by becoming sterile. What women do when they bear children (and what both parents do when they raise them) is necessary and good work. It is work without pay that, done well, benefits everyone in the society by creating a productive, useful, educated, creative citizen.

More importantly, it is work that society needs done. Someone must have the children, must raise them and care for them. New doctors and scientists and engineers and artists have to come from somewhere.

Perhaps if all of us educated Western women took the Faye Dunaway approach, as Linda Hirshman advocates, letting the poorer or less ambitious women of the world do the world’s procreating, it would result in a market correction. We’d climb the corporate ladders free of the hindrances of procreation, as free as a man can be. I’m a feminist, and I understand the appeal of this scenario; sacrificing your reproductive desires for La Revolution. Beating the men at their own game. Seizing the power we’ve been denied so long.

But I’m having trouble putting my heart into a revolution that requires me to stop being who I am. It’s not that I’m complacent about the costs of having children, about the choices that are taken away, about being put in a weaker position. But I am not as interested in beating the patriarchy at its own game as I am in changing the rules of the game altogether. If I become like a man, why would the system ever change to let women be women again? It’s not that I want less, it’s that I want more. I want change, at a fundamental level. And some part of me feels that achieving that change will not come from denying myself, but in demanding acceptance of myself, and of women, as women, not as honorary men.

Hirshman thinks that’s too utopian. She may be right. But the marriages she describes are not like the one I have, and she is a generation ahead of me, among men who thought equality was fine so long as it didn’t require them to change anything. And my husband, and other men I know, aren’t like that. I don’t know if there are enough of us out there to be able to go for the higher goal, but I haven’t given up hope yet.

Little girls who rock out: AWESOME.

The fun of riding in red wagons, according to Nathan: somewhat overrated.

Newest Carnival of Feminists: also AWESOME.

Tucker Carlson: still a tool. (and I don’t need a link to prove it).