Old Maid Is a Children's Game

When I was a girl we used to play this card game called "Old Maid." You win the game by always being able to make a pair of matching cards on your turn until you have no more cards in your hand. You lose by being the only player with a card left; the one unmatched card.

As a young girl it was just a game. I never really thought about the message of the game. The implication: don't be left unmatched.

However, that changed as I grew older. It's almost impossible in this society not to get the message. We are geared to believe everyone must be married or in a relationship. Furthermore, you must have kids. It's the predominant message. Movies, ads, magazines, news stories, religion, politic and families all send out that message; "pair up and have kids."

Whether by choice or by circumstance those of us not in relationship and who are child free find we are that card. Sometimes it feels like "we're" losing. Well at least to me. I don't feel like I'm losing at life, just at some sort of game I don't remember agreeing to play.

Recently I had to go home for a family event. Finally someone asks me point blank, "Are you going to be an Old Maid?" Really? I mean I always suspected that was the whispering behind my back. I guess on one hand I'm kind of relieved it was said out loud but why does it matter? I know my marital status. It's obvious in a sea of kids, grandkids and spouses when I walk into a family function with none of those. If there's a change, I'll tell you.

Within that same week, had family member take issue with something I posted on Facebook. Now usually when that happens it has something to do with politics. I'm much more progressive then a swath of my family. Yet, this time the offending post was over a bit of humor involving a PR prank and a "devil baby."

I realize I can sometimes have a dark sense of humor. Maybe working at a haunted house a few Octobers didn't help any. However, I don't think the video was offensive enough to be told it was "horrible and if I had children I would understand just how horrible."

So here's where my blog becomes more rant than rational. I mean look, ok, I don't have children. I get it. I know there are things I will never truly comprehend or understand in this world. I mean it's kind of like when I was a virgin. Up until I actually had sex, I didn't really get all the sex jokes.

However, I don't have to be told that. I don't spend my time telling you don't understand my life! I mean being single and divorced with grown kids is not like not having been married nor having kids. But hey, since shoving it my face maybe I should shove back So here I go.

When you are child free, yeah, you have a lot of time on your hands. And when you are child free and single, you have even more freedom. But being single also comes with responsibilities. If there's laundry to get done. Who does it? You. House needs cleaned, who does it? You. Bills? You're the only bread winner. Lawn needs mowed. Yep you...Or you hire someone to do it. You hear a bump the night? There's no one to go send out to investigate but yourself. You get sick and need Nyquil who has to go to the pharmacy? You.

Or how about my personal favorite, the car needs to be left at the shop? How do you get to work? Have a friend drive you? Take a cab? Catch a bus? Try and work from the mechanics shop? Or do you have to take a PTO day? Of course if you don't stay at the shop, you'll have to figure out a way back to it when the car is fixed. See why it's such a fun one?

As you grow older you realize you had best prepare to make arrangements in your golden years. Without kids, you can't rely on the fact anyone will be there to call or check on you at least once a week, let alone help you around the house. Better make plans for a retirement community or at least make good friends in the neighborhood.

As you grow older you realize you had best prepare to make arrangements in your golden years. Without kids, you can't rely on the fact anyone will be there to call or check on you at least once a week, let alone help you around the house. Better make plans for a retirement community or at least make good friends in the neighborhood. Now, of course I understand even if you have children, you may not rely on them for helping out in the winter days of life, but if you don't have kids it's definitely not an option.

Yet, that's just the boring mundane stuff.  Let's talk about the more social aspect of life. For example, let's say you a have social function at work. Talking about work, it's great. Talking about travel, well that's not to bad either. However, sooner or later, and usually it's sooner, the talk always drifts back to children or grand children. You have neither so you have limited choices. You can sit politely, nod your head and smile while the conversation goes long past the point where you have any reference or any ability to contribute,  talk about somebody else's kids or mention your pets.

Oh! But there you go! (Just in case you didn't know already.) Pets, they're not the same. Really? In my case, I'm a college educated woman past the age of thirty. While I may call my cats my "furbabies" I don't need to be told they are not the same as having children. I know that. If there was a building on fire and I have the choice to save a human child or my cat I know what choice to make.(Just to be clear, I’d save the child.)

Yet, if I my cat dies tomorrow, unless I have a really understanding boss I wouldn't be able to take the day off. I mean think about that. Here is a creature who has lived with me almost twenty years. He has given me unconditional love. He has been there when I wake up in the morning and when I go to bed at night. He has seen me sick and well. Sometimes he's the reason I've gotten out of bed. He's made me laugh. Yet, "he's just a cat" and if he dies tomorrow why I would be making "such a fuss."

Now, luckily I do have an understanding boss.

What about the holidays? Well holidays are a family affair which leads us back to the beginning of this blog. Family. When you are single and child free you start to stick out at family affairs, especially when your martial status is a topic of discussion.Plus, if you thought listening to co-workers talk about children and child rearing was awkward, well it can be practically an Olympic event with family. Yes, you can love your nieces and nephews. You can talk about them and share stories about them. However, it's only to a point. 

Let me be clear, this isn't a rant against children. I like kids and they seem to like me. I'm an Aunt by birth and by chosen family. Nor is this a rant against marriage. I'm a romantic at heart.

Being single and child free is not always easy, but it isn’t a deficiency. We are not losers to be criticized or pitied. And while we may not understand what it is like to live your lives, I can guarantee that you don’t know what it is like to live ours. Like you, we are people making it through life the best way we know how. Like you, we are people living our lives. Maybe one day we won't be single. Maybe we will have kids. Maybe we won't. However, if that changes, I'm sure it will be obvious to those around us. In the mean time,  can we play a different game; maybe Go Fish?

Speak Up for Your Own Good

This week I saw several threads on Facebook that made me think about something that I've studied as a historian and as a gender studies scholar for many years now: speaking out when stereotypes and biases play out in public.

Perhaps you’ve heard the saying “speak truth to power” (created by American Quakers in 1955 actually) that urges folks to speak up with the idea that you’ll change the world through your words.  Or maybe you’ve been told that you need to “preach unto the world” (drawn from the Bible, Mark 16:15) what you know to save said world or the souls in it.

Both of these reasons for speaking out are built around the idea that doing so will help others.  Sometimes the help is small — you are helping one immediate person by speaking out and taking a public stand.  Sometimes the help is great — your words are a strike in the “cultural war” or for civil rights or for truth and this will change the world.  All sounds very familiar, huh?

Let’s get back to the FB threads that inspired me.  In these threads various “friends” of mine expressed horror or shock at behavior they witnessed and then spoke out or tried to take action.  It was about 50/50 whether or not they got any positive results but in almost every case the author of the thread also expressed that she/he was sick and tired of these situations arising.  At one point in the thread either the author or a commenter on the status update mentioned that they simply had stopped speaking out or were thinking about it.  They weren't quite apathetic but it felt to me like they might well be on their way.

That made me sad but not because they were abandoning the above two reasons I mentioned for why we might speak out but because it felt to me like the individual who wanted to or had given up was potentially doing harm to her/himself by increasing the possibility that they might develop apathy, a condition that can leak into other aspects of your life.

The problem with the two incentives to speak out are that they make the motive external to the person taking action and they raise the expectation that through words they can change another person or the world around them.  It is not wrong to have these goals but if they are your only reason for speaking out you are going to get sick and tired of doing so after a relatively short time.

Why?  We can’t make any other person change. Heck, even parents who raise a kid from day one often are left amazed at how a child turns out.  Each of us, while a product of our environment (nurture) and our biology (nature) is unique; no two people experience the world in the exact same way.  Now expand this reality to a small group of individuals, then a neighborhood, then a city, then a region, then a nation, then the world.  Each step becomes more complicated and takes longer to effect change.

Don’t get me wrong, change does happen, one need be only a casual scholar of history to see the changes that have happened.  Human rights, inequalities, political and economic power, changes in these areas have expanded and contracted and expanded again over the course of human history.

Deep changes though take time, a lot more time than it seems that most modern people are willing to embrace.  Think of how long it took to get women the right to vote in elections in most countries or how long it took for anti-slavery movements to affect the law and enforcement of it.  Stereotypes, biases, and prejudices are even more entrenched than the laws.  Here is just one study about how we all know stereotypes.

I live in a country where folks express deep disappointment after only half a term of any president because we are raised to want things to change NOW.  That is not how change happens even on a legal level and certainly not with stereotypes that might be a product of centuries of not millennia.  When you have changing the world or another person as your only or main motive for speaking out when what you see or hear conflicts with your sense of morals or ethics, you are setting yourself up for failure and increasing the likelihood of burnt out and giving up on speaking out at all except perhaps to an audience that all ready agrees with you.

That, too, is very tempting.  If you only speak out among those who agree, you don’t have to worry about not feeling like you are accomplishing something or fear that you might have someone speak out against what you are saying.  The problem with this is that then you really are not speaking out so much as bonding with a group you are all ready part of.

I want to suggest that we try changing our motivation for speaking out in public against actions and words we believe are offensive and belittling to other human beings.  Speak out for yourself.  Not when someone offends you personally, though I think we all need to have enough power to do that, but speak out when you hear or see something to remind yourself of your morals and ethics.  Remember those stereotypes are in your head, you know them, the good and the bad, and 99% false and the slightly true, they are all there and they can impact your decisions.  By speaking out you remind yourself that there are other ways for human beings to behave and that human beings have worth as humans.

Speak out for your own well-being, speak out to support your own morals and ethics, speak out to fight the stereotypes lurking in the background, speak out to fight off apathy, and then speak out just in case you might just move the world one tiny step closer to empowering all of humanity.  I hope this made sense to you all.

See you next Friday and go have a piece of good chocolate this weekend!

Do bras prevent sagging? And who cares?

Cerise writes:  Continuing my theme from last week:  you should be free to go without a bra, even if you have very large breasts.  (Like my 46DD’s.)

Oh, God, aren’t you uncomfortable you might ask?  Only when I feel obligated to wear a bra.  My breasts are happy breathing, jiggling, and just hanging out, thankyouverymuch.  It doesn’t hurt when they bounce, I promise.  When I have to wear a bra, they are not happy, and neither am I.

            Oh, I have tried all sorts of bras, fitted by professionals at all different sorts of stores.  I have spent over $100 on a bra.  I have tried altering bras to make them fit better.  Even if they fit perfectly, I still find them terribly uncomfortable.  Maybe because I have something called fibromyalgia, which causes me pain in my sternum, ribs, and shoulders.  Yeah, pretty much all the places that a bra presses on my body.  I used to attend a fibromyalgia support group and every single woman there said “Oh, my God, wearing a bra is so painful!”  (Uh, why do we do it, then?)  But even if I didn’t have this condition, I don’t think I should feel obligated to wear a bra. 

What if my breasts get droopy?  This is the question my mom asks, and it makes her crazy that I go out of the house without a bra.  So what?  She claims I will soon be able to tuck my tits into my belt, and then I won’t have to worry about a bra.  Well, then, our disagreement will be resolved, won’t it?  Actually, I am not terribly concerned about the threat of sagginess.  If they sag so much that it bothers me, I will then decide if I am willing to hoist them up with a painful bra.  Or I will just live with it. 

In fact, dear reader, bra salespeople may be scamming you.  Bras may not, in fact, keep your breasts from drooping.  They may even make it worse.  Gasp!  No, really.  To summarize the study, there seems to be more sagging in the bra-ed breasts than in the braless ones.  The theory put forward to explain the lack of sagginess in braless women is that their muscles adapt to supporting their breasts and the muscles of bra-ed women atrophy from lack of use.  If this sounds crazy, talk to someone who was a nurse in the 1950’s.  (Like my Grandmother.)  Women back then wore serious girdles all the time.  Some even slept in them.  When they went into the hospital for surgery or childbirth, they often had terrible back pain because, for the first time in years, they weren’t wearing their girdles.  Their back muscles had atrophied from lack of practice at supporting their own torsos!  It seems possible to me that the same thing could happen to chest muscles.  Use it or lose it, baby!  Okay, I admit this study only included French women and only went up to age 35.  Maybe my bralessness will come back to bite me when I am 80.  (But will I care?)

Believe it or not, not all cultures expect middle-aged women to have tits like a Barbie doll.  Why should we want to have teenager breasts when we are well beyond being a teenager?  Isn’t there something a bit odd about an 80 year old woman whose breasts are the same shape on top as on bottom, with no hint of drooping whatsoever?  I suppose that having perkier boobs makes you look younger.  But at some point, wouldn’t it just make you look ridiculous?  Sort of like a 75 year old woman in a neon mini-dress?  Who says that a mature woman with children should want to look like a skinny fifteen year old, instead of like the beautiful, experienced woman she is? 

Not all cultures admire perky, youthful breasts.  Some prefer a certain softness, even sagginess, because it shows maturity and implies a level of sexual experience that is seen as very, very sexy.  Surely you have seen the pictures of bare-breasted women in National Geographic?  There they are, braless and topless, totally unconcerned.  The men are not turning into ravening beasts, raping and humping like mad, by the sight of the breasts.  Nor do they seem disturbed or disgusted by the older or sagging breasts.  And the women are not embarrassed by their breasts, whether they are perky or saggy.  The breasts are just there.  Sort of like noses.  Just sticking out.  And it is no big deal. 

If anything, hiking your breasts up with a bra makes them stick out more.  It draws attention to them, makes them more obvious.  If that’s what you want, go for it.  But don’t try to tell me that a bra is more modest than no bra.  Bra wearing is a cultural construct that bra sellers have somehow made mainstream.  It is not a universal perception that bras hide your breasts and make them less conspicuous.  In her lovely cookbook/memoire, Bitter Almonds, Maria Grammatico recounts that the convent school girls were not allowed to wear bras because the nuns thought it was shameless to make your breasts stick out unnaturally, as a bra would certainly do.  I observed a similar attitude toward bras being unnatural and flashy when I was growing up in Tahlequah, Oklahoma, where the Native American population is around 30%.  My point is that bras are not inherently more modest than bralessness, it is merely our culture (with the help of underwear advertisements) that has decided it is so. 

           

            Oh, dear.  I had planned to discuss breast feeding in public today.  But it seems I have ranted on long enough.  Okay, breast feeding will have to wait for another day.  If you have any stories or comments on public nursing, feel free to leave them here and I will look a them before I write my next post. 

Other sources claiming that bras do not prevent sagging breasts:

http://www.webmd.com/fitness-exercise/features/sports-bras

Three studies, summarized in English, with citations: http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=15913.0

Conjuring Up Old Sterotypes - The Prosy Rose

**WARNING: SPOILERS FOR THE MOVIE "The Conjuring"

Earlier I wrote how I am a fan of movies. I particularly enjoy horror films.  More specifically I enjoy certain types of horror films. I'm not a fan of those "torture porn" movies; the ones where the point is to find more elaborate ways to kill someone (typically sexually secure women). No, what I enjoy are creepy atmospheric horror films. I enjoy movies that make you turn on all the lights, close the closet doors and double check all your locks when you get home.

So I was particularly excited when I saw the previews for The Conjuring. The director, James Wan, directed both  Saw and Insidious. While I have declined to see the former, I found the latter to be just what I like in a horror film.

Once again James Wan was using his directing talents in the horror genre. This time though the film would be based on a true story from the files of real "ghost hunters." I have had a passing interest in "parapsychology" since I was in grade school. I have read the adventures of ghosts hunters like Hans Holzer as well about the real life Ed and Lorraine Warren who are portrayed in the film.

So I was curious to see how Hollywood would depict one of their cases. I knew the Warrens were devout Catholics. I knew they considered themselves expert demonologists and there would most likely be a heavy Judeo-Christian message to the film. Still, the trailers and the review had me excited and I was prepared to ignore any evangelizing. It looked to be a good old fashioned creepy scare full of bumps, thumps, and apparitions.


Using that set of criteria, The Conjuring did not fail. It was creepy. It was scary. I jumped and gasped several times. I even put my hand over my eyes and watched between my fingers a few times. It was wonderful and it proved that Hollywood could still do horror without rivers of fake blood, layers of latex, and the depictions of every way conceivable to dismember the human body.

However, the biggest gasp the movie drew from me was not in response to a dark cellar, a confrontation with an unseen force or even from a door slam. The biggest gasp came from a few casual lines of dialogue in the scene where the Warrens were explaining the source for the haunting: a Salem witch.

Really? Really! Seriously? Yes, according to the movie the source for all evil was a woman named Bathsheba who escaped the Salem Witch trials and was later found sacrificing her seven month old son to Satan. When discovered she hung herself and cursed all who would live on her land. Later the move doubles down and says that sacrificing children is what "witches" do.

OK, let back this up for a moment. First, recall that this movie was “based on a true story.” While this doesn't mean non-fiction, it is worth noting that among the accused in Salem there was no one named Bathsheba. 

In fact after getting home and doing some research it seems that the "witch" referenced is mostly likely Bathsheba Sherman.  Bathsheba was originally born Bathsheba Thayer in 1812 (a little hard to be a Salem Witch when she was born 120 years later). She married Judson Sherman in 1844 and then gave birth to their son in 1859. Bathsheba did not kill her son, nor did Bathsheba hang herself. She died an old woman of seventy-three. 

An infant did die in her care. The mortal wound was determined to have been caused by a large sewing needle somehow impaled at the base of the child's skull. There was insufficient evidence to find Bathsheba guilty of wrong doing, although this sad story seems to be the genesis of the stories regarding Bathsheba being a "witch." While the law did not find her guilty, the court of public opinion did. According to many reports she lived the rest of her life as a recluse under the weight of suspicion and rumor.

But what this means is that Bathsheba had no link to Salem. Why, then, did the movie include a tie in to Salem? In trying to be sensational, the movie perpetuated a myth and exploited of one of our nation’s great tragedies.

I thought we had come a long way since 1692. I mean after all, the very jurors of the Salem Witch Trials wrote a "Declaration of Regret" in 1697 wherein they expressed their remorse, acknowledging their "... errors in acting on such evidence to the condemning of any person; and do hereby declare, that we justly fear that we were sadly deluded and mistaken..." 

In 1711 the Massachusetts legislature granted amnesty and exonerated all but six of the accused. In 1957 the state of Massachusetts formally apologized for the events and exonerated Ann Pudeator. Finally in 2001 the final five accused were exonerated.

In short, it has been clearly demonstrated that the Salem Witch trials were not a tool for hunting out dark demonic child killing witches in our colonial midst. No, they were a travesty of horrible justice resulting from power struggles, congregational strife and personal jealousies. Before it was over, nineteen people were convicted of being witches and hung to death. One man who would not enter a plea to the accusations was pressed to death, and as many as up to thirteen died in prison including an infant!

The point is, having this movie which purports to be  "Based on a True Story" throw out a "Salem Witch" who never existed as the source for the haunting and malicious acts persecutes the innocent dead! The men and woman of Salem who were wrongly persecuted are themselves beyond harassment now; but some were only recently exonerated and their names and reputations should be treated with respect. When these men and women are once again branded as boogeymen and used for cheap thrills and lazy narrative, the persecuted are denied the last possible good they can do on this earth: to serve as a warning about the dangers of unfounded accusations and injustice resulting from religious hysteria and persecution.

And let’s not forget that this movie indicates that sacrificing their children to Satan is just something witches do. This attempts to reinforce a disgusting stereotype. Ok, I understand the trope of a "witch." I do. I understand the idea of the "wicked witch" has been around probably since the first campfire.

However, that's just it: "Wicked" witches not all witches.

There are many pagans in this country and some identify as witches. Read up on Wicca; these witches are not worshiping Satan and are certainly not sacrificing children!  

Was it too much for this movie, if it wanted to play with the witch trope, to add just an adjective or two? You know, "evil," "wicked," "dark," "Satanic" or even "rumored" in front of that "witch" word. Nope, once again this movie had to use a broad stereotype paint brush and go with just "witches." All witches must equal the demonic evil kind.

Bathsheba Sherman is a tragic character with no ties to Salem. Why manipulate her history other than to capitalize on the trope and to perpetuate the idea that maybe there really was something 'evil' about the accused in Salem.

Look, I'm not a fan of using the witch stereotype, but I get it. Big bad witches have been around for as long as there have been fairy princess in distress. However, there is no reason to continue to exploit the real tragedy and injustice that was the Salem Witch trials or to portray all witches as demonic child killers. There just isn't.

For me, conjuring up stereotypes and perpetuating injustice were the scariest parts of the movie.

                                                             ***

(special thanks to amazing editor TB)

Another Author Reflects on: Fifty Shades & Lean In

As an author I am always asking myself what my responsibility to my audience is.  Recently two literary phenomena -- the Lean In proposal and the success of the Fifty Shades trilogy -- caught my attention in Vanessa Garcia's article in the online news and blog website called the Huffington Post.  In several ways I was in agreement with Garcia, and yet something really annoyed about her essay, almost as annoyed as I was with the four books, their popularity, and the discussions of these books I see at least weekly.  Let me see if I can get that out there for you all to think about and respond to, please.

General criticisms of E.L. James's trilogy look at the story’s poorly edited and weakly constructed nature, a fanfiction that became popular enough to justify tweeting and publication by Vintage Books.  Who is to blame for the less-than-sterling prose and predictable, often frustrating plot?  At the foundation the author is claiming responsibility because she "created" the story; however, if readers had not flocked to the story online, she might not have continued it and very likely would not have re-crafted it for mainstream publication.  However, as an author I can tell you that the errors that plague these books fall very heavily onto the shoulders of the editors and proofreaders at Vintage Books, too.  An author can get easily lost in her own creation, so having a second, third, even fourth pair of eyes and an engaged mind is very important for us: that is a role that agents and editors should be playing.

Further complaints about the trilogy look at the relationship between the two main characters. These complaints come from a range of people: feminists angry at the submissive model of Anastasia; anti-sex folks annoyed at what they call vulgar passages; kinky folks both thrilled and terrified that it will attract others to BDSM.  If you are a kinky person and have these worries, Peter Tupper's book to the left (the icon on the left) may help you understand what is going on in this series.  The Fifty Shades trilogy has been called anything from "romantic," to "eye-opening," to "trash," and even "dangerous" for the readers. However, these fears and praises seem to buy into a few stereotypes that are simply not correct though a recent study suggests that the relationships shown in the book are undoubtedly abusive.

First, there is this very odd but very common belief that if you read a book and enjoy it, that must mean you will try to behave and think exactly like the characters in the book. The same concern exists for the Lean In book from Sheryl Sandberg, if you look at some of the criticisms her non-fiction book has received. Several critics have suggested that if women follow her advice it will set women as a group back by decades in the workforce.

Let's be honest: Authors have no magical power to control their readers.  Hell, if we did, we wouldn't be making only 5-10% royalties, and we wouldn't have to work our tails off marketing our own books. Not to mention the fact that our world would be incredibly unstable as the new book of the week shifted all of its readers' behaviors and attitudes. The reality is that just because you read a book, it does not mean it will change your life. As an author I can say that I hope what I write gets my reader to think, but given some of the emails I've gotten over the years I have to say that what someone gets out of my work may have very little to do with what I had in mind or the actual words I used. Sometimes my readers' reactions are a bit disconcerting for me when they fall in love with the baddie or walk away with a message different from the one I was trying to convey.  The reader's life and beliefs, heck, even what he smoked today or what she drank last night, can change how they understand any book, fiction or non-fiction.

What about if you enjoy the book?  Surely someone who enjoys a book will put those ideas into action, right?  Really?  Do I even have to address this one?  How many of you out there have self-help books just lying about your place that you've read, felt really connected with you, and then, well, you just never got around to it?  Yup, that's right.  Most readers will never take that next step for even the most general of self-help books, so what makes anyone think they are actually going to put a fictional scenario into practice for more than a few dates or scenes?  For all of the kink groups that have seen an up-tick in attendance, how many of them will see those same newcomers in a year, or two, or a decade from now?  You can't even keep folks who found kink by themselves in your clubs for more than a few years at most before there is burnout or just plain disgust with all the politicking.

There will be a minority of people who do try out the ideas in these four books. In the case of Sandberg's ideas, they might work for some women, and they might not for others, but the fact is that anyone who works at any type of job and those of us who stay home are constantly negotiating our position in the world, in our families, and in our own minds.  If Lean In sounds like something that might help you, give it a try; just don't expect your coworker to try it, too.  In the Fifty Shades trilogy the issue is perhaps a bit more risky.  Poorly-understood and -described sex might be copied and prove damaging to those trying things out.  If you are going to write about sex, I'm a big believer in figuring out what works and writing it realistically.  On the other hand, readers should be adult enough to do enough research or go slowly enough that they minimize risk, but we also know we live in a lawsuit-crazy society where folks sue companies over hot coffee that was surprisingly hot.  Authors vary in how much responsibility they want to take for such depictions.

The other area of potential harm that many critics cite is the relationship models shown in the books.  In short, these critics claim that all four books promote a sexist view; they encourage women (mostly) and men to continue to live in a way that is harmful to women (and somewhat to men).  I don't think any of the five authors on Butt-Kicking Women Write About It are cool with sexism, but this worry, which I've seen expressed about all four of these books, is really very burdened by its own sexism.  Let me try to explain what I mean.

Just as you really can't believe that everyone who reads and enjoys a book will do what the book says, neither can you believe that readers must identify only with a character of the same sex, race, or any other category they might fall into.  Over the generations enough little girls have grown up to reject the "boys as active, girls as support systems" model from literature to create political and social movements as well as private lives that demonstrated that those models were more a matter of nurture than of nature. Little boys, too, did not always buy into the role models they were given in books or anywhere else, and those men then supported the changes in the laws, and society as well, that have increased rights for people who did not look like them.  While it may seem more reasonable that one would identify with a character or author of the same sex, that implies that humans beings always behave in a reasonable and predictable fashion.  As a historian I can tell you that such generalities are never universals.  To be more specific to these four books, when the Fifty Shades series was getting the first media attention, I recall several reports in which male readers who were interviewed explicitly identified with Anastasia and not Christian at all. This finding would not surprise anyone who recalls the studies of Nancy Friday and other sex researchers before and after her.  Of course, there were some people interviewed who said they didn't identify with either character, too, but who cares about those folks, right?

So if the problem can't really be about the reader identifying with one particular character or situation and then putting that identification into action, what is the real problem these criticisms are trying to get at?

The problem these critics are trying to express in greater or lesser degrees all deal with the idea that women should be or are submissive.  This rubs me wrong in two main ways, not because I wouldn't have a problem with this idea (I do) or that it hasn't been used repeatedly to control women (it has and is) but that there are innate problems with some of the interpretations of this idea.

The first is that submission is weakness, that it is an extreme loss of power, and that lacking equality is an incredibly horrific condition for anyone to exist in.  While I cannot personally grok the appeal of sexual (or other types of) submission, I am not foolish enough to think that I have never and will never have to submit to another human being.  We submit to other human beings all the time. Why is submission a good thing in one situation but a bad thing in another?  For some it is a matter of force versus consent.  For others it is a matter of nature versus nurture.  The issue of submission is very complex, and few criticisms of James or Sandberg spend the time necessary to really grapple with it.  Just saying that it's wrong to show women as submissive is shortchanging the realities of human life. Just saying that it makes you uncomfortable and therefore it must be wrong, period, seems like a last-ditch attack from a grade schooler.

The second problem that I see with the criticism of these books is one of overinterpreting what the author is saying.  This happens increasingly all the time online and even in discussions held among friends.  The problem is that unless an author states clearly and every time that she (or he) is only talking about a very specific person or small group, the readers (fans and critics alike) often assume she (or he) is talking about everyone.  This assumption somehow attempts to make the author responsible both for the words she wrote and the ones she didn't write.  Sometimes authors are indeed putting forth such general ideas that they are pushing a sexist or racist or whatever -ist agenda that you can imagine.  When they do that, you can rightly critique that view.  But often it isn't a matter of what the author writes (or doesn't), but what the reader feels or thinks, that is the cause of this "it applies to every (fill in the category)."  As an author I need to take responsibility for what I write; as a reader you need to take responsibility for any interpretations that go beyond my words.

If these four books really did say, “every woman needs to be submissive,” I would feel that some criticisms of them are justified, simply because this idea is just a flat-out lie.  I don’t think they do say this; please, someone out there, if I’m incorrect in my understanding of them, prove this to me.

But even if these books did say that every woman should be/must be submissive, they wouldn’t be saying anything new, nor would they be promoting the only message out there for women and men to read.  That's a cultural problem, one that goes beyond the individual author into the history of our world and the way we raise children and reward each other for our behaviors and attitudes.

The Fifty Shades trilogy and Lean In are just the latest books to cause a furor about sex and gender roles.  The books don't, and can't, create sexism, any more than they can magically cure it.  Instead of getting angry with the authors, look to yourself and ask yourself if you are willing to admit that you, too, are buying into the stereotypes. Then ask if you are willing to do something about it, such as buying other books and spread the word, or even writing and publishing your own.  I do want to thank Garcia for her article that created my desire to write this week, because she has taken that step, even if I don't agree with everything she wrote, by making it personal and  not applying her response to every woman out there.

See you next Friday and go have a piece of good chocolate this weekend!