Tavi Gevinson is My Hero

Do I need to say more? Maybe, especially if you don't know who she is.

Tavi Gevinson. She was a fashion blogger at the age of 11. I first read about her in this article from Bitch magazine, published in the Old issue in 2010 (scroll about 2/3 of the way down to find Tavi mentioned; when you see a picture of a 13-year-old girl showing off her clothes, that's her). Apparently a lot of people thought her blog was too smart/clever to actually be written by a 13-year-old; others simply thought she was unimportant because of her age. I kind of missed out on the haters, since I didn't know about her until later.

Now, however, 16-year-old Tavi is doing really well (she was doing well before, of course, there just seem to be fewer haters now). She has started an online magazine for girls, Rookie, and she has a book out, Rookie Yearbook One, which I haven't read but looks totally awesome even though I'm well out of middle and high school. She was recently a BUST magazine cover girl (looking both very adult and very much like Michelle Williams, right?). She has given her own TED talk.

What made me decide to write about her today? Well, thanks to Jezebel, I discovered that she recently appeared on Jimmy Fallon's show, and her interview is totally cute, especially the part where she and Jimmy practice their "bitchface." (I wanted to get the video on this page, but couldn't figure it out since it's not on YouTube, so do yourself a favor and click that link so you can watch it. Absolutely worth the 4 minutes.)

Basically, at 16 years old, Tavi Gevinson is doing plenty of the things I am still just dreaming of at 24. She has started a magazine. She studies and advocates feminism. She is very comfortable with herself and with her life, and aims to make others (especially girls) feel the same about themselves. She fights against the media's narrow representation of women and girls.

I'm so happy she is getting lots of attention for doing such great things, and I think everyone should know who she is.

She. Is. My. Hero.

Since I couldn't get the Jimmy Fallon interview video, I will leave you with her TED talk.

Legitimate Rape vs... What?

I woke up yesterday to an e-mail informing me that Congressman Todd Akin (a Congressman I had not heard of until today) was on TV this weekend talking about abortion. When asked about exceptions for rape and incest, he said:

"It seems to me, first of all, from what I understand from doctors, [pregnancy from rape is] really rare. If it's a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down."

Thanks, Todd Akin! I was really afraid that rape could sometimes result in pregnancy, but now I realize that if I am legitimately raped, my body will wave a magic wand and make that unwanted fertilized egg poof! disappear.

Phrases like "legitimate rape" are so dangerous because they imply that there is another kind of rape: the illegitimate kind. I'm not sure what Akin thinks would classify as illegitimate rape, but I have a few guesses: a rape that occurred when a woman said yes to "hooking up" but then changed her mind; a rape that occurred when a woman drank too much and wasn't capable of making decisions; a rape that occurred when a woman went out to a bar in a tight or revealing outfit; a rape that was committed by someone the woman used to have sex with. Guess what Todd Akin? These situations are all rape. A sexual activity forced on someone who doesn't want it, whether through violence, coercion, drugs, etc., is rape. This is why we worked so hard to get the FBI to change their definition of rape, to get rid of the phrase "forcible rape." It just doesn't make sense (a sentiment echoed by President Obama).

Phrases like "legitimate rape" are dangerous because not only do they imply other kinds of rape, but they put doubt and blame on the victim's shoulders. It's just another way of bringing up questions like "Were you asking for it?" "What were you wearing?" "But you went to his apartment, right?" And now with Todd Akin saying that he understands this all from doctors (I'd like to know which doctors!), he could really have believing that their pregnant daughter can't have been raped, because otherwise her body would have performed the magical expulsion of the rape-egg. He's completely ignoring science and biology, and he's doing it in a dangerous way that could have real, terrible consequences for women.

Survivors of rape have so much shit to deal with; let's not add Todd Akin's idiotic understanding of the female body or the shame and blame he would impose on it.

Terms of Endearment (Not the Movie!)

I randomly found myself in a conversation on Facebook today about how to speak respectfully to women. The thread started with a man asking for advice on how to advise his sons, but naturally it digressed from there. The part I became interested in was how to refer to a woman in different situations. Of course, people's feelings on this differ, and depend on how, where and probably even when someone was raised. So first, my personal opinion:

1. I don't like to be called "ma'am" by my peers. To me, "ma'am" should be used in professional situations, with people you don't know well, or when deferring to an authority.

Once, a friend of mine (who is my age) called me "ma'am," and I laughed because I assumed he was making a joke about my being bossy (which I am) and was saying "ma'am" to make fun of me. But then he pointed out that he had been taught to refer to all women and girls as "ma'am," which to me sounds ridiculous. Others in the Facebook conversation said that they teach their children to call people "ma'am" by calling them "ma'am." Thoughts?

2. I don't like to be referred to as "sweetie," "pumpkin," "baby," or any other traditionally feminine term of endearment by anyone I don't know well. Anyone. I. Don't. Know. Well. Men or women, old or young. I realize that many women don't mind being called these things by other women, but I do. It feels diminutive and it just gives me a little shudder.

When I started talking to and then dating my boyfriend, I was really bothered by the amount of times he called me "cutie," "sweetie," etc. I told him so and, while he didn't understand it at all, he tried to respect my feelings and stop using those terms. Eventually, after dating for a while, I began to get more comfortable with him using terms like that, and came to actually enjoy one or two of them. But that's someone that I have an intimate relationship with. There's just about no one else who can call me these things and get away with it. My dad can, sometimes, depending on my mood. My Uncle John, who may be the coolest man I know, has always referred to me, my sisters, my cousin (his daughter) as "my baby" (Like, "Hey, my baby, good to see you!"). Somehow he pulls this off, and he just sounds cool and super sweet, and it's never bothered me. I don't know anyone else that I would feel the same way about.

3. I don't think it's appropriate for a customer, male or female, to refer to a waitress with a term like "sweetie". To me, it comes across as either diminutive, or like you're behaving as if you know this stranger really well. It also just makes me cringe because the server is working. I don't want to be called "sweetie" at work; why should she? I think it's totally appropriate to refer to the server as "ma'am" (though I admit I don't usually do this, I've been trying to think how I usually refer to female servers and I think I tend to avoid it and just say "yes" and "please" without any terms attached).

Anyway, I'm not stating my opinion because I think it's the best one; I'm just trying to start a conversation. I've been told that I'm way too strict on this. I just don't see "cutie" or "sweetie" as terms that mean anything except "little girl" unless they are coming from someone with whom I have a long-term relationship (whether familial or other). But some people, like my boyfriend, say "sweetie" to truly mean "You are a sweet person." So I just want to get your opinions: how do you feel about terms of endearment for women? When are they ok and when are they not? Which ones personally bother you?

Birth Control Users: You MIGHT Be a Terrorist

I know I'm a little late to the party but I have to comment on this anyway. Last week, I saw plenty of tweets and headlines mentioning Rep. Mike Kelly and his comparison of birth control coverage to attacks on the US such as Pearl Harbor and 9/11, but I just now actually watched the video of his speech.

So, as of August 1, the Affordable Care Act will provide free birth control coverage to women who have health insurance. And, according to Mike Kelly, August 1, 2012 should take its place in history alongside Dec. 7, 1941 and September 11, 2001 as an attack on this country. "I want you to remember August 1, 2012: The attack on our religious freedom."

Come on!! I mean seriously, even if you are so against the idea of birth control, birth control coverage as a part of health insurance, or even the idea of women having sex in general, isn't this comparison just a tad extreme?

Let's break it down, shall we?

Dec. 7, 1941: Japan manages a sneak attack on a US Fleet stationed at Pearl Harbor in Hawaii.
Results: 8 battleships damaged, 4 sunk; 188 US aircraft destroyed; 1,282 Americans wounded; 2,402 Americans killed.

September 11, 2001: multiple buildings damaged or collapsed, including the two towers of the World Trade Center; citizens from over 90 countries were killed in the attack; 2,977 people were killed.

August 1, 2012: 47 million women gained access to expanded healthcare coverage; women gained coverage for preventative services such as check-ups, screenings, STI testing and counseling; of course, contraceptive coverage without co-pays; 0 battleships damaged; citizens from 0 foreign countries killed; 0 Americans killed.

I don't care how you feel about contraception, this is a ridiculous and offensive comparison. Taking care of America's women and their health is not the same as a surprise attack resulting in thousands of deaths. Who are the terrorists in this situation? Women asking for coverage? Doctors supportive of coverage? President Obama? Probably, from the standpoint of the Republican party, all of the above.

Birth control coverage does not equal an attack on religious freedom. What do the Republicans think of my right to healthcare? They don't. How does my receiving birth control coverage from my health care provider affect Rep. Kelly's religious freedom? My birth control pack isn't blocking his entry into his church. My healthcare provider isn't sending bomb threats to his church. I'm taking a pill, I'm not getting pregnant, and as far as I can tell, the lives affected by this are mine, my boyfriend's and my mother's (because she helps me pay for it).

Birth control coverage does not equal a terrorist attack. To Representative Kelly: Everyone in the United States was affected in some way by Pearl Harbor. It led to our entry into a war. It killed our friends and families, and even those with no direct ties to people killed, it caused fear and uncertainty, and the war affected everyone. Everyone in the US was affected in some way by 9/11. We were all terrified, we were all unsure, and, again, it led to a war. It led to taxpayers' money funding a war they didn't all agree with.

Women gaining birth control coverage does not affect Americans in these same ways. No one is dead because of it. Everyone will save money by helping women receive preventative (and cheaper) care instead of (more expensive) treatment for problems that went ignored because women couldn't afford to see the doctor.

If Representative Mike Kelly had more respect for both women and American history, he might think twice before making this kind of offensive statement. Instead, he is interested in playing with (and attempting to manipulate) the emotions of Americans, using horrific events in America's past to push an anti-Obama, anti-woman agenda.


See also: Rachel Maddow's commentary on this ridiculousness.

Big Girls Don't Cry, They Get...Angry!

Recently, Jessica Valenti wrote a piece for The Nation, "The Upside of Ugly." The article is about a young girl (14 I believe) who had plastic surgery to alter her ears (which stuck out), her nose and chin. Valenti discusses America's obsession with beauty and looking good, and she discusses the idea of "self-esteem" as a "cure-all for girls." Though she never really defines it, she seems to equate self-esteem with feeling good and proud of the way one looks; she doesn't really talk about being proud of your work ethic, intelligence, etc., something that some commenters noticed and were bothered by. But her point is clear: the problem is not just that our culture expects us to be beautiful, it's that "we never seem to question the idea that feeling beautiful is a worthy goal in the first place." And then she gets to the real point of her article:

Girls don't need more self-esteem or feel-good mantras about loving themselves—what they need is a serious dose of righteous anger. But instead of teaching young women to recognize and utilize their very justifiable rage, we tell them to smile and love themselves.

In the comments section, one person's notes stuck out specifically to me. He (I think this commenter was a man) wrote: "Yeah that's all we need is a bunch of fists walking around this 'fucked-up country.'...There might be a third way: authentic, optimistic femininity that acknowledges the role women have always had in raising the standard of a culture without spitting in its face."

What? Because women are "naturally" nurturing and sweet, we should expect them to rise above that base and male emotion of anger?! Really?

I don't understand why people are so bothered by the idea of women being angry. And, news flash, we are angry, folks. We may not all write about it and force it on our Facebook friends, like I do, but we are angry. We may not always acknowledge it to ourselves, and we may not all be angry about "big" things such as public policy or media representation, but women are constantly angry with the way the world treats them. Some women are angry when their husbands assume that they are going to watch the kids over the weekend while they go play golf with their guy friends. Some women are angry when their bosses treat them differently than their male colleagues. Some women are angry when a strange man whistles or catcalls at them on the street.

I'm angry. I'm angry that so many of this country's politicians want to cut funding for women's organizations like Planned Parenthood. I'm angry that, despite his best efforts to ignore what he's been taught, my boyfriend still sometimes thinks that I just have too many emotions. I'm angry when someone (male or female) asks me when my boyfriend and I are going to get married, but never ask me when I'm going to start that magazine I've talked about, or when I'm going to start submitting pieces to magazines. I'm angry when someone says, "Just wait until you're pregnant..." because they assume I will someday have children. I'm angry when I hear about men who think it's ok to "paternalistically" kiss employees on the top of the head. I'm angry when women get blamed for being raped.

And there's nothing wrong with anger. Anger led women to fight for the right to vote. Anger led women like Gloria Steinem to put their voices out into the world and let everyone know that women are people and do expected to be treated accordingly. Anger led me to start writing about and fighting against the personhood amendment in Mississippi, and we defeated it.

So I think Jessica Valenti got it exactly right. We need a little anger.

50 Shades of Misconception

This post was originally titled "50 Shades of Wrong" but I decided to change it because I didn't want someone who only saw the title to think that I was saying BDSM is wrong, erotica is wrong, or that reading this book makes one wrong. I really just want to convey that the book is problematic and does not depict an accurate BDSM relationship, while it does depict (in my opinion) a romanticized manipulative and emotionally abusive relationship.

Yes, I did it. I read Fifty Shades of Grey. And before I talk about the problems, I admit, as erotica, it's pretty hot. The sex is clearly fantasy sex: Christian has no refractory period, ever, he can just get it up and have sex twice in an hour, ten times a day if necessary; Ana, who has not only never had sex, but has never had any sexual contact resulting in an orgasm before meeting Christian, manages to have mind-blowing, multiple orgasm sex the night she loses her virginity; and Ana, again, who has done pretty much nothing with boys other than making out, manages to give Christian, an older, sexually experienced man, a perfect blow job on her first try. I call bullshit on all of the above. But it's erotica, so we'll let it go, and we'll all enjoy the fantasy.

The problem comes with, well, everything else in the book. Now, I have to say, I know very little about the BDSM community. I know very little about kinks, fetishes, etc.; most of my knowledge comes whatever questions pop up on Dan Savage's Savage Love podcast and column. And yet, even I know that most people with kinks, fetishes, etc., don't have those desires as a result of abuse. Yet we are clearly supposed to see Christian's Dominant desires as a problem to be fixed, something he needs to work through and move past. And I just don't believe that this is the case for most kinky people. Most kinky people simply need to find other kinky people who share their desires, who are compatible with them in the bedroom, who respect and understand what they want and need from a partner.

What's more disturbing to me is the aspect of control that Christian wants to exert over Ana in every aspect of her life, whenever she's around. Now, after a quick Wikipedia search for "dominance and submission", I see that this does happen in these relationships sometimes; part of the fun/arousal seems to derive from playing out the dominant/submissive roles outside of the bedroom as well as in it. And since we know Christian has had several d/s relationships in the past, this is something that he seems to be used to. So it's not wrong or a problem for him to want it; the problem is the fact that Ana does not want it. But because Christian is so drawn to her, and she to him, they just can't let go of each other, even with all these compatibility issues staring them in the face.

AAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!! I'm so sick of novels romanticizing this kind of destructive, controlling relationship. Christian talks about his immediate need and overwhelming desire to protect Ana. He's constantly reminding her that she needs to eat, that she shouldn't get drink, that she should take care of her body. He glares at her when he sees she's not eating enough. He is jealous of all the other men in her life, men who are just friends. And, because he's super, ridiculously wealthy (fantasy, remember, fantasy) he basically stalks her. And she's not really that bothered by it. She wrestles with the idea occasionally, wondering how he found her or how creepy it is, but she ultimately lands on the side of, "But he's so hot and he must follow me because he wants me and awww how great!" Even later in the book, when he's admitted that he is willing to try for more of a romantic relationship (as opposed to just a sexual, dom/sub relationship), he still exerts this control. She goes to visit her mother for a few days, and she tells him that she is going because she can't think clearly around him, because she needs to think through and make decisions about their relationship on her own. And yet he still shows up, having found out which hotel she and her mother and drinking in one night. And she's turned on. This is fucked up. He is stalking her. It's not romantic. It's not sexy when she discovers he followed her because he sends an e-mail asking how many drinks she's gonna have. It's none of his business how many drinks she is having.

The most upsetting part, to me, is the end. Ana has spent the whole book trying to decide if she can agree to be Christian's submissive, and she finally says she needs to see what "punishment" really is. She has let Christian start dominating her in some ways, but she says she needs to see what the worst can be. Now, as far as the BDSM community goes, I think Christian does everything right. Read this description, a letter written to Dan Savage for his column, by a reader of the book:

In the last chapters, she asks him to go ahead and do his worst. He says he doesn't need to do those things with her. He says he doesn't think she'll like it. She assures him she wants to see what it's like. He checks in with her carefully. He reminds her about her safeword. Then he canes her, unties her, and offers her aftercare.

Response? "You're fucked up," she tells him. "You need to sort your shit out." Then she walks out. The End.

She doesn't use the safe word. She takes a beating that she's not enjoying. And then she decides to leave him, that she can't be with him. So even though I don't think she can be angry at him about what happened (he gave her all the outs a responsible BDSMer is supposed to) at this point, I was just like, "Great! She recognized that they're incompatible, and that she needs to get away, clear her head and move on. She's not into kink, she's not into pain for pleasure, and she needs to be with someone else (and so does Christian)." However, the book ends like this:
"The pain is indescribable...Grief. This is grief...the physical pain from the bite of a belt is nothing, nothing compared to this devastation."

This sounds to me like a woman coming out of an abusive relationship. This is a woman who has been manipulated (and Christian definitely manipulated her, interrupting her conversations to have sex with her, using "sex as a weapon" [direct quote], etc.), controlled, and now she would rather take agree to a sexualized beating (from which he, but not she, derives sexual pleasure) from this man rather than be without him.

If this trilogy's intention, if the author's intention, were to either explore the BDSM world in a responsible, accurate way, or to explore an abusive relationship, which happens to involve dominance and submission, then this might be off to an interesting start. But from what I hear, this series has a happy ending in which Christian and Ana somehow manage to be together. I'm curious to find out how the author makes that work, so if anyone has a copy of the other two books (so I don't have to add to all the money these books are making), let me know.

So even though I appreciate the hot sex scenes, and I appreciate that the book's popularity may be leading many more women to try more adventurous things in the bedroom, I think I have to agree with this picture I saw today, via Twitter.

Frustration Alert! Childless Women are STILL People!

I was going to write a different post today, one I'll probably get into in the next couple of days, but doing a quick google search (trying to find childless women in pop culture), I came across this terrible article, "Why bosses are right to distrust women who don't want children," by Carol Sarler. Now the article I discovered is from 2009, but it's clear from scrolling through her more recent headlines that she often writes about men and women in very stereotypical, masculine vs. feminine terms. And sometimes I think I should just ignore the people who truly believe in old-fashioned gender roles. But reading this article was so insulting to me, a blow straight to the gut, that I had to comment.

She opens with discussing how she respects a woman's right to choose "all things at all times," she still finds women who don't want children to be "weird." Fine. That's her right, and many, many (most?) people in our society would agree with her. But then she says that "recent studies" (she provides no links, or study names, or methodology) find that childless women (specifically those childless by choice), are distrusted in the workplace, seen as cold, and less likely to get promoted. OK for one thing, she's just wrong. While most women still make less than men in equal jobs, the wage gap between childless women and men is much smaller than that between mothers and men; childless women make more money than mothers.

"Mothers are 44 percent less likely to be hired than women without children, and they are paid $11,000 less, according to a study from Cornell University," says an ABC news article (which I found in one quick Google search). Why? Probably because women with children will be seen as splitting their time and attention, whereas women without children will be presumed to be more focused on the job. The assumption is, of course, bad for both: women without children are assumed to have no fulfilling life outside of work, and women with children are seen to be unable to prioritize or manage time. (Now, sure, women with children do have a whole lot of juggling to do--why don't we work on affordable daycare? Or let's battle assumptions that women (and not men) should do most of the staying home with sick kids, taking kids to doctors, and chaperoning field trips!)

So, we know that the woman who wrote this article is wrong in her facts, and just needs justification for why she "distrusts" women without children. Let's read on.

She says that many bosses see women without children as lacking "an essential humanity"... well fuck you. Oops, was that inhumane of me to say? OK. I don't want to have children. I also am not a huge fan of animals. Truth be told, I love kittens and puppies (though I've developed an allergy since going to college and now can't be around them much without careful attention and lots of hand washing, so it's usually easiest to avoid them all together), but I get really annoyed with them once they grow up. I find them very cute and cuddly, but once they don't fit in my palm anymore, they just aren't as fun. (See? I really shouldn't have children; I might hate them once they start walking!) But I don't believe this makes me inhumane. I'm sarcastic, and I have been told that I often say things in a tone that makes me come across as mean when I think I'm making a joke. But I'm also a good listener and I'm caring to the people that I love. It takes me a long time to really become close friends with someone, but once I do, you can tell me anything, I will tell you anything, and I'll do my best to be there when needed. I'm not the best friend anyone ever had, but I'm not the worst. I'm a human, with emotions and flaws, whether or not I have children.

She goes on to say:

"Nobody wishes to see a female soldier in combat with a six-week-old infant in one arm and a rifle in the other. Or a high-flier working 20-hour days while still breast-feeding. Or the mother of a small brood taking on any job of such erratic hours that she cannot promise them when or even if she'll be home. But most jobs aren't like that - and most children don't stay babies for long."

So, because I work in a job with pretty flexible hours, that is not intensely demanding most days of the year, I should have children? I love my job's flexible hours for these reasons:

1. I mean, who doesn't love flexible hours? 

2. Most times of the year, I can work my schedule around things like going to the gym, having a lunch with a friend or my boyfriend, going out of town, etc. As long we aren't busy or under deadline, as long as I know someone else will be at the office to grab the phone, my schedule doesn't have to be the same every day. 

3. Most of my job is done on my computer; so if one day, I'm getting afternoon sleepiness or just sick of being in the same place, I can say, "Hey, I'm going to finish this up at home; I need a break." I don't do this often at all, but I know it's an option if I truly need it. Yes, it's a privilege, and one I don't want to give up if I don't have to. 

So, yeah, my schedule (more so than many, at least) would allow for children. I mean, let's be honest, nobody really has all the time they need to raise children; but I probably do have more than the average woman. That does not mean, however, that I should feel obligated to have children. And I don't. 

This was, to me, the most insulting part of the article:

"It's not the mothers, for a start, who are going to turn up late and hungover after a night on the razz; they'll have been up, dressed and alert for hours, having cooked a family breakfast and delivered their children to school. On time."

Again, I will use myself as an example. Right now, I'm not a 100% full-time employee (yes, this attributes some to the flexible hours I was discussing, but not completely; just the other day, my boss told me he was going to run some errands, then finish working on the book at home; everyone in my office does this sometimes), so I don't work a full day every day. Usually I work about three "full-time" days a week and two "half-time" days. Yet, I still wake up about 7:00 every morning. Now, I know that many mothers out there wake up earlier than that, and I'm certainly not trying to compete or say I am awake just as long as they are. But I am pointing out that I am a person who gets up every morning, makes some sort of breakfast (sometimes it involves cooking, sometimes it involves pouring cereal into a bowl), makes coffee, gets on the computer to check e-mail and see what lies ahead of me for the day's work, exercises (some days), and more. My parents, when I was younger, did NOT get up to "cook a family breakfast" or to be "alert for hours." My sisters and I were constantly late to school and my mother late to work. I'm not saying this makes my mother a bad mother (she's pretty fucking awesome, actually); I'm just saying that some mothers sleep late, and some non-mothers don't. It's a personality thing, not an automatic "because I'm a parent" thing. And we all know that, even for mothers who are fantastic at time management and don't usually show up to work late, bosses tend to see mothers (at least before hiring them) as more likely to be late or miss days from work due to children. 

I, also, have only shown up to work hungover once or twice. I was not late, my work performance was not affected; I simply was a little bit miserable those days (a fact of which my co-workers were unaware). And are we really saying that no mothers ever show up to work hungover? I seriously doubt it.

She also writes,

"It's not the mothers, usually, who run the office bitch-fest.

They're not there to compete for the attentions of the male executives; they're there to get out of the house; they're there because they genuinely enjoy some adult company; and they're there because they have mouths to feed other than their own and shoes to buy for someone else's feet."

Screenshot from her article

Her general assumptions about women are so insulting. Women as office gossipers. Women as working for the purpose of finding a man. Women as making money in order to buy frivolous items (you know, because all women have/want Carrie Bradshaw-esque shoe collections and obsessions). 

I work because I have to. I enjoy my job, and I know that I want to continue working in publishing, though eventually at a feminist-geared publication/publishing house, but come on, at the end of the day, we all work because we have to get paid. If I didn't have to work, if I just had money raining down on me at all times, I would still "work"; I would read and write and blog and share new information with people and try to change a little (or a lot) of our society's misguided ideas, but no, I wouldn't choose a 9 to 5 office job in order to do that. And most of us wouldn't. I "genuinely enjoy some adult company," but I don't need my job to do that. I do need my job because I "have mouths to feed;" mine and my boyfriend's. (He contributes too, don't worry, but since we live together we depend on each other financially; I'm screwed if he doesn't come up with rent, and vice versa.) 

I just find this writer's superior attitude to be so condescending (and there's so much more that I haven't touched on). Mothers can do no wrong. Women without children are weird, unnatural, immature and irresponsible. She assumes that all parents are good parents and good workers, and that all non-parents are youthful partiers who care very little about their jobs. Really, the way she talks about non-mothers, you would think she's talking about "The Plastics" from Mean Girls. And maybe she is. 

But believe me, Carol Sarler, there are plenty of women out there who choose not to have children for their entire lives. They remain childless into their 40s, 50s, 60s, and on. And their lives can still be fulfilling, and meaningful, and responsibly led. I'm pretty sure Gloria Steinem would say she has had a fulfilling, meaningful life (one that is still going strong). Eudora Welty did pretty well. 

And, Carol, until you start telling me that you distrust men who are childless by choice, I just can't buy anything you write.