Movies and women’s work

September 5th, 2010

Yes, I know I said I wasn’t going to post, but …

In honor of Labor Day, Salon has a great slideshow of 10 movies “that really understand work.” It’s a great list, but where are the women? Granted, first place goes to Ellen Ripley of “Alien,” but come on; it’s also the only science fiction film on the list, and the role of Ripley was originally written for a man. What about women who are office temps, hotel maids, waitresses, factory workers, stay-at-home mothers, sex workers, soldiers, day care providers, nurses?

What movies would you say get work right, and show women doing it?

Yesterday’s column

April 5th, 2010

… is generating some very interesting discussion in the comments section. The mother of a boy with trichotillomania wrote in to ask if my answer would have been the same for a man. Obviously, my general principle — that caring for your health overrides the ritual aspects of etiquette — would be, but the tactics might be very different. The conversation also goes into some of the godawful comments that people with disabilities or unusual appearances are subjected to by strangers. As commenter Ridley put it, “[H]oly hell people just don’t know how to talk to the disabled. My limbs don’t work great, but my feelings and vanity are still functional. I wish people would just remember we’re still people and mind their manners.”

I’d recommend checking it out — and I’d love to hear your ideas.

Ineffective techniques

April 2nd, 2010

I love how whenever Milo chases a squirrel up a tree (and he’s not allowed to chase squirrels unless there is a tree, fence, or pole they can get to) he runs around the base of the tree, barking and barking as though that is going to make the squirrel come back down.

It’s like those guys who will yell at you on the street, “Hey, baby, wanna take a ride in my car?” and when you ignore them, shout, “Bitch, you ain’t that fine anyway!”

The squirrels never fall for it. Neither do the women.

Today’s letters

March 7th, 2010

The letters in today’s Globe magazine were an interesting lot. As you might imagine, plenty of them chose to take on “The Ms. Myth,” an article about how most women continue to take their husbands’ last names. The first one got at the thing that most bothered me about the article — the idea that if you take your husband’s last name, you are automatically a “Mrs.” Not so. I’m a “Ms.,” and have been through three last names.

There’s the usual “Last time I checked, my maiden name came from my father, grandfather, great-grandfather, etc., so forgive me if I can’t see how keeping it and not taking my husband’s name is some feminist act” response, as well. This used to make sense to me, until some writer pointed out that this idea presumes that women don’t actually have last names, we are given them by men. No. All three of the last names I have been known by felt like me, and a good part of the reason that I took my first and second husbands’ last names was because I was ready for a change in identity, a new last name to mark a new phase in my life.

My birth name, incidentally, was “Lent.” The same issue that featured “The Ms. Myth” on the cover also featured an article on Lent that was highlighted on the cover as “Lent is for Everyone” or something like that. (Sorry, I don’t have a hard copy and can’t read the tiny cover script online.) As you can imagine, that amused me no end — the reason I took my first husband’s last name, Pearce, is some evidence that Lent is not for everyone.

And it didn’t have to do with any feeling that I ought to take my husband’s last name, or certainly any feeling against my parents or my father of blessed memory. It was Robin Lent I was tired of: tired of being a child, tired of my socially alienated self, ready to grow up and enter a new phase of my life. Which is why, when I got divorced, the notion of returning to my birth name wasn’t even an option. I was Robin Pearce. It didn’t matter where I “got” the name: it was mine. I don’t feel as though my clothing is any less my own because I don’t spin the wool, weave the fabric, and sew it myself — it’s mine because I wear it, and it expresses who I am. So too with my last names.

It felt so much like me that I hesitated a bit before taking “Abrahams” when Mr. Improbable and I married. But I did, because, again, it seemed that a major life transition was underway: not only was I getting married after a long time of being single, but I was getting my doctorate and already planning to convert to Judaism. I liked the idea of us both having the same last name; it made us seem more of a team somehow. And I wanted a Jewish last name to go with my new identity as a Jew. (Although, if he’d been named “Lipschitz,” I might have reconsidered. And I do go to a Reform temple so liberal that our current president’s last name is “McIntosh.”)

Lent, Pearce, Abrahams — different names, all mine, all denoting different phases of my life. I wonder if changing one’s name were more common in this culture, if it weren’t bound up with marriage traditions, but something that people could simply do or not do as they see fit, with no feminist/patriarchal/family baggage around it, who would? And when?

When in your life would you have changed your name, and what to, and why?

(There were also some letters about my February 7 response to the woman who was overcome with emotion — not repulsion, as the headline said, I didn’t write that — about her granddaughter’s amputated leg. More on that later, because I’ve already gone on much longer than I planned to with this name business!)

Spot the difference!

October 1st, 2009

From Sociological Images comes this gem, an early 1900s chart describing the two paths a woman’s life can take, one leading to shame and ostracism, one to love and honor:
goodbad

Now, you’ll notice that the ages line up here at first — 13, 20, 26 — but then the “good” woman winds up at age 60, while the “bad” one winds up at age 40. Perhaps they mean to suggest that she dies young, but I prefer to imagine, instead, that after all that study, obedience, virtue, devotion, and caretaking, the woman on the right treated herself to one HELL of an offstage midlife crisis before settling down to grandmotherhood! I hope she had a good time, and is whispering some scandalous stories in her granddaughter’s ear.

For anyone who is interested in the path of Miss Conduct’s life:

At 13: Bad literature (I much preferred Stephen King and those Hitchcock anthologies to the Newberry Award winners the librarians were always pushing on me)

At 20: Flirting and coquetry (well behind my peers on that one, actually, as a result of always having my nose stuck in a mystery novel in my teens)

At 26: Fast life & dissipation

At 32: Fast life & dissertation

At 40: Advice columnist.