More Commentary on Anne-Marie Slaughter's Lament and What About a Woman President?

First published June 28, 2012 at http://www.hercircleezine.com/2012/06/28/more-commentary-on-anne-marie-slaughters-lament-and-what-about-a-woman-president/

The hot button issue of the day is Anne-Marie Slaughter’s article in THE ATLANTIC entitled “Women Still Can’t Have It All.” From the NEW YORK TIMES to two different NPR programs (On Point and the Diane Rehm Show), to countless blog posts, comments on the articles and radio shows online, what Slaughter wrote is being discussed. I believe this was her point, despite the criticism she’s taken personally as fall-out from her article. The article addresses mommy guilt along with women’s identity after childbearing, two topics INCONTEXT covered over the past few weeks.

Slaughter claims we need to change our culture and society where women, work and family are concerned. The author states this kind of change would not only benefit women, but also men and children. I hope to contribute to the national discussion on “having it all.” Some of what I write may seem combative, and my last point might seem downright ugly or anti-woman. I don’t take issue with Slaughter’s experience or her article so much as hope to expand it, and widen the experiences represented in the challenge all families, women, children and men face. I want to ask difficult questions, not to plant seeds of doubt, but rather to expand the discourse.

For a great majority of women, myself included, Slaughter’s stance that women feel compelled to be there for their own children is accurate. Whether this is partly biological and partly socio-cultural, it exists and is palpable for many women who must make sacrifices and difficult choices. When Slaughter writes about “having it all,” she means a high-powered career and also a family, for whom she is available as needed. This idea of “having it all” is a women’s issue, on the one hand, because women invented it. It is not the issue of men, as men have never “had it all.” They are either successful in high profile and/or high power positions and largely absent from their families, or even if available at times, they do not perform the greatest portion of household tasks or childrearing duties in addition to their high-powered paying job. Certainly, in today’s world, where women represent almost half the households in the country as main breadwinners or contribute at least half of a family’s total income, and men who stay home are as marginalized as women who do not work outside the home, the issue has expanded to include men, who have taken up the other half of the banner along with women. On the other hand, more men do want to be active, involved parents, and thus have spoken up about wanting and needing more flexibility in the workplace themselves.

In our global, capitalist, twenty-four hour, technological world, I don’t think work/life balance and the flexibility a family requires are even remote possibilities. The news cycle, business, politics, foreign policy, and caregiving never sleep. For some positions, ultimately those in power, one simply cannot be available for family and also be in charge. (More on this later.)

Slaughter admits her own privilege in her article, and knows that her situation is very different from the majority of the population wherein her work has had greater flexibility than most people can afford or find with employers—men or women. There are also plenty of women who don’t have the option of leaving a post after two years when their junior high school children struggle with school. I refer to our women in uniform, specifically. When a military mom is deployed, she can Skype her child who might live with grandma or an aunt, yet she definitely has no choice to leave her post and rush home to fix the homework problem. Women who are single heads of household who work three jobs to meet the rent also do not have the option to quit their jobs to be available for algebra assignments. And, no amount of change in the corporate or governmental structure is likely to change this for men or women in particular positions.

We’re horrified by women who choose careers over full-time motherhood. I wrote about Rahna Reiko Rizzuto (inContext, July 21, 2011) who left her children for work. Another example of such a woman is Dorothea Lange, who (along with her husband) essentially abandoned her children to the 1930s equivalent of foster care when her dream photography job came along. What interests me most about Ms. Lange is that her husband chose to accompany her as her assistant. Their own children, the Lange offspring, do not harbor negative feelings toward their father for leaving, yet they do blame their mother and question her motives. Technically speaking, it was her job, and their father might have easily remained home as the primary caregiver, a role that I know was virtually unheard of at the time. And yet, it is Ms. Lange who suffered the criticism, not her husband.

So, while Lange and Rizzuto are two examples of women who do not share Ms. Slaughter’s and my propensity toward being as present as possible for our children, even at the sacrifice of our strongly desired careers, as I stated earlier, I believe most women find themselves equally pulled toward parenting no matter how much they value their work. If we focus on women in positions of power, which Slaughter and other women of her ilk say may be the answer to the conundrum, let’s take the presidency as an example. Our president must be infinitely available to handle all major national and international crises, no matter what is going on at home. While he might, on occasion, read over an essay or assist with word problems, I do not believe President Obama allows these concerns to enter his mind when he’s in the situation room at the White House. If we believe Ms. Slaughter, then we have to wonder whether we want a woman as president, or at least a woman who has children still at home. We can’t elect a woman who will decide the job is too much as her teenagers begin high school or junior high. She can’t really quit after a two-year stint, either.

This discussion is important because as we continue to wonder about a woman as president in the United States, we need to explore what it is we ask of women, what we will accept from women and even from men. Presidents are “family” men historically. We like to think of our presidents as at least a little “like us” and understanding of the challenges families face. We recognize that some women will choose to forego public service careers to be more present mothers than such career choices might allow. When we find women like Lange or Rizzuto, we need to avoid rushing to judgment and vilify them. What is wrong with a woman choosing her career goals over her role as mother? “Plenty!” is the answer I hear from women and men. Yet, we never, ever question a man doing this very same thing. In fact, we commend him for his sacrifice.

As a voting public, we must decide what it is we ask of women, at all job positions and all levels of income. We need to re-examine what we desire in a presidential candidate, male or female. Whether you agree with her politics or not, Sarah Palin faced sharp criticism and questioning as a female vice presidential candidate with a very young child on the campaign trail. She also faced severe criticism for embracing policies about abstinence as sex education, when her own daughter obviously did not choose abstinence. Pundits were quick to ask whether Ms. Palin should have been home a bit more than in a governmental office so as to have prevented such circumstances.

If I take a moment to propose a male candidate with a young baby and pregnant teen daughter, I have to say that I can’t imagine the media wondering about his ability to lead or his dedication to his family. In that instance, it would be the daughter who was blamed for “marring” her father’s candidacy, and the mother would be questioned about her mothering skills. Overall, these issues would never come to bear on the male candidate’s ability to do his job.

I don’t have an answer to this difficult, challenging and volatile question of how we both honor women’s desires to be present when needed by their families and also in positions of power and prestige with rewarding careers. I applaud Slaughter for opening the floor for discussion of an issue so many women only whisper to one another about, and for speaking from the heart about her personal struggles with being drawn to work that requires so much from her, and which also asks too much of her when she feels that parenting is the primary task at which she must excel at a particular moment of her life and career. This issue is one that men, women and families definitely need to address, at all ends of the socio-economic spectrum. The challenge is to keep Slaughter’s comments from promoting a dismissal of women as contenders in powerful positions.

"Georgie's Big Break" by Monica Drake - Review and Reflection

First published June 14, 2012 at http://www.hercircleezine.com/2012/06/14/georgies-big-break-by-monica-drake/

Last week, I tackled “mommy guilt,” and this week, we’ll look at female identity after childbirth through the lens of the short story, GEORGIE’S BIG BREAK, by Monica Drake. The story has been made into a short film, for which I could not find a release date. The original short story was published in 2009 in THE SUN magazine, the full text of which you can read here.

Georgie is a new mother on maternity leave from a college faculty position. She reads about the local upcoming literary expedition, knows her department chair serves on the board of the festival, and thinks that it would not only be a day out for her, a day to be “Georgie,” versus “Georgie the mom,” but also a chance for her to score points that might help her gain tenure when she goes back to teaching. She volunteers to help, hoping her contribution will be noticed.

What ensues is maddening for the injustice Georgie suffers, hilarious for how ridiculous we know it’s going to be and poignant as we possibly recognize ourselves in what we read. We can “laugh now” as we look back at our newly-minted mother selves, yet at the time, we were likely holding back tears of humiliation as well as a dose of healthy rage. Georgie is assigned “Mr. Clifford,” who she assumes is a particular author. [Interestingly, Drake is unkind to the adolescent girl Georgie hires to assist her on this (seemingly) simple day trip. The girl from the neighborhood is described in less-than-admirable terms.] While Georgie is excited to attend the literary event, she can’t stand the thought of leaving her young baby in the care of another, so she determines that the sitter will accompany her and Elana to the festival. Yes, I know, anyone who tried to do this with her own child will cringe as she reads this. The anxiety we feel leading up to and during this kind of outing is palpable, even when only in text and not our own immediate experience.

Of course, there’s the standard “comedy routine” of the cliché, but also all-too-true, things like Elana spitting up on Georgie after they leave the house, so that she cannot change her shirt. There’s the baby who will not be comforted by anyone but mom, (of course) so that the presence of the sitter is almost laughable. There is the running into an old lover, who was once her professor, and his much-younger, current girlfriend. Yes, all cringe-inducing, and so typical that we’re not sure whether to call it cliché or be maddened by how true the “cliché” really is.

Spoiler Alert: Georgie meets “Mr. Clifford” who is none other than, (you might have guessed if you have kids yourself…more on this “assumption of knowledge” later), Clifford the Big Red Dog. He’s a guest of the children’s literature portion of the festival.

Then, the ultimate insult comes when the department head, who Georgie hoped she’d impress with her presence, is the person who set Georgie up with the Clifford the Dog gig. Georgie is affronted, her mind whirls wondering why motherhood has suddenly steered her in the direction of cartoon characters in the eyes of her boss. As readers, we’re just as appalled that giving birth has somehow suddenly made a woman with a PhD in literature an honorary and instantaneous expert in (and avid fan of) children’s literature. On the one hand, it’s a compliment that someone might think that the act of birthing conveys wisdom in areas outside of birth itself. On the other hand, just because a woman has given birth, does not mean she is or wants to be an expert in children’s literature. No man returning to a faculty position in a literature department at any college was likely assigned a children’s book costumed character at his first literary expedition after the birth of his child!

As Georgie’s mind attempts to process everything that has just happened to her in the fifteen minutes that have passed since she arrived at the venue, her body whirls around quickly to escape the department head in an effort to find space to think. She trips and falls to the floor. A famous actor and his entourage were right where Georgie spun around to walk away, and while he attempts to reach out a hand to help her up, she feels her body lifted from behind. Clifford has come to the rescue. “He” stands Georgie up, dusts her off and takes charge of the diaper bag as well as Elana, who stops crying as soon as she’s removed from the sitter’s arms. Georgie then decides she knows who the person is inside the giant red costume. She knows it must be a mother. We end the story with Georgie wondering whether “Clifford” has “her” own master’s degree, is an aspiring writer herself, and has dreams beyond being assigned to a red, furry costume as a volunteer at a literary festival. Drake ends the story bringing us back to consider women’s identity, especially after childbirth when she says that Georgie feels as though Clifford is “how we dress a mom” and that the costume represents what we all see, yet that the role of mother hides “another person deep inside.”

While not every woman necessarily feels a reluctance to leave her newborn, many women do feel this way after giving birth. Maybe it is biology, and our hormones strongly bond us because at one point before society developed, our species could not survive with an apathetic mother. Because of this likelihood of attachment to our babies, women struggle with identity after giving birth. Even if we are fortunate enough to not have to worry about the financial aspect of childcare and can choose to remain home with our babies, we still feel “lost” where our former selves are concerned. If we return to work, we’d be horrified if no one asked about our child, yet we don’t want to be solely seen as “new mother” in the eyes of our colleagues. As usual, the patriarchal (as I will refer to it for lack of a better term, actually) rule is that motherhood and work are separate realms. There is no easy way (really) in most jobs to allow for simultaneous work and mothering. And, while I know there are those “working mother” magazine articles that try to make us all feel bad because they show singular women and their unique jobs and circumstances where a seemingly seamless meshing of both worlds occurs, those are not the norm, or the reality, for the majority of families. What I always shout at those articles (in my mind, since I’m always reading them in a doctor’s office waiting room) is this: “But what about her assistant? Does her assistant get to bring her baby to the office? Does the assistant get to leave for every appointment, recital and school event?” I bet she doesn’t. So, those articles that show how “one woman combines motherhood and a career” are just that, howONE, SINGLE WOMAN can do that. For the majority, it’s just not possible.

Not only that, most of us don’t want to combine mothering and work. It’s exhausting if you’ve tried it. And, no man has ever had to do such a thing, either! There is no male CEO who has an in-office nanny. He gets to leave for work and be Mr. CEO, only. So, not only are those “having it all” articles a falsehood for the general population, but they are also not necessarily what anyone wants. I’ve taken my children to work—lucky me, right? Just read about Georgie and see how “seamless” it is outside of a magazine article!

PHOTO CREDIT: SOPHIE LEBLANC

My own metaphor for motherhood is not a person in a costume, but rather the famous depiction of motherhood offered in the matroyshka or Russian nesting doll. There are multiple selves in a woman. Especially when one is a new mother. There is the young self, who still wants to sleep in on the weekends and have tea and toast in bed while reading until she decides to toss on shorts and hiking boots to take a spontaneous hike. There is the little girl who is not sure how she exactly got this baby in place of a doll, who could be put down anywhere with never a complaint. There is the woman who is a sister, daughter, cousin, friend, spouse, bus driver or account executive. Now that we’ve gotten rid of the mommy guilt from last week, it’s now time to embrace all of the “selves” in our own nesting doll of roles, and not demand that we let any one role overpower the others. That’s a tall order, and yes, I’ll get back to you once I’ve managed to balance all those roles in my own life.

"Mommy Guilt"

First published June 7, 2012 at http://www.hercircleezine.com/2012/06/07/incontext-considers-mommy-guilt/

In a recent issue of MARTHA STEWART MAGAZINE, Alana Chernila wrote about “mommy guilt.” Chernila shared a story about running for public office and the toll it exacted on her family. An outing in a park ended with Chernila’s daughter, Sadie, disgruntled when she was not allowed to accompany a friend on a last-minute invitation for a canoeing session. In the car, Sadie declared, “I hate elections!” Chernila said her daughter’s words “hit me deep in my gut.”

Later that night, Chernila tried to make it up to Sadie by making homemade breakfast pastries, so that she could greet her children with delicious treats in the morning. Chernila’s “mommy guilt” was assuaged as her children reacted as she hoped, “marveling at the breakfast their mama had made for them.” So, mom attempts to make a difference and be a living example of an engaged citizen, and must feel badly because she has to deny her child a single canoe outing. As a result, she stays up later than the rest of the family, and gets up earlier than everyone else in the morning, so she can bake her way back into her children’s hearts.

What is this “mommy guilt” thing anyway? Why do women feel badly for having lives beyond that of their role as mothers? I ask myself these questions all the time. I wonder what it is in our society that makes moms feel guilty when we have to say “no,” or we can’t say “yes.” In my own life, I consider that my son will undergo surgery in a few weeks. There is no question that I will be at the hospital, and will accompany him every step of the way. My husband will not be there with us. Partly this is because his line of work doesn’t provide personal or sick days, and a back injury required him to use his vacation to heal earlier this year. Yet, my husband feels no “guilt.” He knows I’m capable of handling the situation with aplomb. In fact, I’ve done it a few times in our children’s lives. However, I know that if I was working as the main breadwinner, I don’t know that I’d be able to work if my child was having surgery. I would judge myself and demand my presence. My own mind admonishes, “What kind of mother doesn’t take off work when her child needs surgery?” No one, including me, judges my husband for not being there. He’s the dad. He’s out earning the money that pays the insurance premiums that help subsidize the operation and all the attendant costs and fees. Even when a mother is in that role, she is still supposed to be at the bedside.

It is this double demand of women, by women (of ourselves), that is what is known as “mommy guilt.” Why should Chernila feel so terrible for having a campaign event super-cede the whims of her daughter? Why should she stay up into the night and rise early to try to “fix” what was never really broken? Why did she feel it in her “gut” when her child lashed out in a selfish, childish manner when she couldn’t have her way? Why do women punish themselves for being human beings, even when we’re attempting to be positive role models through the actions and activities that might take us away from our families? It is only by answering these questions for ourselves, and catching ourselves before we allow guilt to settle into our hearts and stomachs that we might rid ourselves of this guilt.

Women are deemed selfish when we put our needs or desires before those of our families, especially our children. Whether it is an operation where both parents are not present, or an election and a campaign that takes a woman away from home, we need to stop feeling guilty and start realizing we are not and cannot be everything for everyone in our families all the time. That is the unhealthy role model and the bahaivior we should feel guilty perpetuating. When a father is on the campaign trail, no one questions his absence. Mom, back home, when the couple’s children declare that they “hate elections,” merely extols the virtues of the campaigning father. She tells the children how proud they should be of their dad, how they should be “extra good” so that it is easier on the father when he calls home. They should realize he is serving their community and see him as a role model of citizenship. They should see him as a man of conviction, who identifies things that need changing, and goes about putting himself in a position to make change. For his part, while the campaigning dad might want to be there for the Brownie Girl Scout ceremony or the spelling bee, he doesn’t ever express that as “daddy guilt.” And, when my husband can’t be at the hospital for our son’s surgery, he doesn’t feel guilty, either. Rather, he feels like he is doing something that is supportive, in fact, by working! The only way we can rid ourselves (and the world) of mommy guilt is to stop reprimanding ourselves for being autonomous humans once our children leave our physical bodies. We need to value what it is we do and who we are in the world. This might help us rear daughters who will not suffer mommy guilt themselves!

Do Inquiring Female and Male Minds Want to Know?

First published May 31, 2012 at http://www.hercircleezine.com/2012/05/31/do-inquiring-female-and-male-minds-want-to-know/

In the book WHAT’S YOUR DANGEROUS IDEA? (Edited by John Brockman, Harper Perennial, 2007) Steven Pinker’s contribution, “Groups of People May Differ Genetically in Their Average Talents and Temperaments,” references the infamous quote by former Harvard president, Larry Summers, wherein he suggested that men and women differ in the ways in which their brains function, and that this might contribute to the lack of equal representation of women in science and engineering. Pinker qualifies this by openly acknowledging that there are anomalies and exceptions, of course, to any generalization. The overarching point Summers wanted to make was to examine whether such differences exist, and what to do about them, not whether they proved anything else, such as whether women should be encouraged to enter fields like math and science. The comment was not about individual men or women. It was an intellectual inquiry. Whether one finds it appalling or not, the answer to such a question is interesting in its own right. I want to unequivocally state that a generality is not applicable individually. Whether such a generality MIGHT be true for any population (a race, ethnicity, or gender), at the individual level, it is entirely insignificant.

Unlike Pinker, I do not think this is a dangerous idea or question, in and of itself. What I want to think about in this forum is whether in searching for equality we really seek sameness, even if that is biologically and/or biochemically impossible (see article about Summers’s comments and the biological differences between genders here). Why is it “dangerous” that the minds of men and women might be different, generally speaking? This does not apply at an individual level, and so dashing women from mathematics or science programs makes no sense.

There are women like Lynn Margulis, who are perfectly suited to science, and who have proposed ground-breaking theory of which the impact would be no less controversial and/or significant than natural selection as Darwin proposed. (Margulis posits, and I’m over-simplifying, that “we,” as we think of ourselves as humans, are actually evolved to serve as hosts to bacteria. Thus, her idea might diminish the significance of evolution if all animals—including humans, of course—are walking (swimming, flying, etc.) habitats for bacteria. There are many women throughout history and today who are performing research who are exceptions to Summers’s generalized suggestion, and I only mention Margulis herein because I’m familiar with her work (and find it infinitely fascinating to consider).

Is it really “dangerous” (even if it is politically incorrect for a university president who is so often in the public sphere at such a renowned institution of higher learning) to consider that, generally speaking, men and women are different? I regularly joke about this with women friends. We commiserate lightheartedly about how much more capable we are at multi-tasking than are our husbands. We joke about their befuddlement when we sit at dinner and have the following type of exchange:

Wife: “TOMORROW JOSH HAS A DENTIST APPOINTMENT AT TWO-THIRTY, SO I’M LEAVING WORK EARLY TO TAKE HIM TO THAT. KIM HAS A DRAMA CLUB MEETING AFTER SCHOOL, AND WILL NEED TO BE PICKED UP AT FIVE. I’LL STOP AT THE STORE TO PICK UP WHAT WE NEED TO MAKE DINNER, INSTEAD OF YOU DOING THAT, SINCE I’LL BE NEAR XYZ GROCERY STORE AND YOU WON’T HAVE TIME TO STOP IF YOU’RE PICKING UP KIM.”

Husband, with confused countenance, asks, “WHAT?”

Wife: “UGH, I JUST NEED YOU TO PICK KIM UP AT FIVE.”

Husband: “I THOUGHT WE NEEDED BROCCOLI FOR DINNER? YOU ASKED ME YESTERDAY TO STOP AT ABC GROCERY STORE.”

Wife (sighs): “I’M GETTING THE BROCCOLI BECAUSE IF YOU GET KIM YOU WON’T HAVE TIME.”

Husband (trying to be helpful): “I CAN GET KIM AND THEN GET THE BROCCOLI.”

Exasperated Wife: “IT MAKES NO SENSE FOR YOU TO GO BACK ACROSS TOWN AT RUSH HOUR. I’M GOING TO BE NEAR XYZ GROCERY STORE AFTER JOSH’S DENTAL APPOINTMENT, SO I WILL LEAVE THERE AT THREE-THIRTY AND GET THE BROCCOLI AND THEN COME HOME.”

Husband: “WHY ARE YOU ALWAYS CHANGING THINGS?”

Wife: “WILL YOU JUST PICK UP KIM OR NOT?”
(The wife knows that the school is not near the grocery store, that her husband will leave work and just barely make the pick up at five o’clock without the extra stop. She also knows that because their son’s appointment is earlier, that she can easily stop at another grocery store to get what they need, which will allow them to all arrive home about the same time. She’s trying to save steps, save time, and meet the needs of the entire family with all of this jostling.)

Now, I offer the above scenario with the utmost respect for my husband. It’s not like he’s a simpleton. He is a carpenter and thus skilled in many ways. He builds acoustic guitars. His mind is more than capable of anticipating upcoming steps in complex ways, including building steps! (Do you have any idea how complex stairs really are to build? Do you ever even think of them, other than to assume their placement underfoot?) My husband figures out mechanical things, and enjoys doing so, which, I believe, is my point, Pinker’s idea, and Summers’s suggestion. It’s not like I couldn’t, or am not capable of figuring out why the switch on the stove burner is not working and what part is required to fix it. I’m certainly able to do that. The difference is that I don’t care to think about those things. Conversely, my husband could plan a birthday party, make travel arrangements and navigate the rat’s nest that is modern health insurance policy fine print. The difference there is that he’d rather fix the stove, and I’d rather doALL of the other tasks versus fix the stove. (For the record, again proving that generalities do not apply to individuals, we have friends for whom this is exactly the opposite: she grouts the tub and he does all the baking!)

Getting back to my conversation with my friend about our exasperation over husbands and their abilities versus our own, I offer up a wholly unscientific hypothesis about why men can’t change gears when it comes to picking up broccoli and kids after school. (Please take this with tongue planted firmly in cheek—I’m not a biologist or anthropologist!) I posit this: evolution has not caught up with modern culture and society. Men’s brains are focused on one thing. This is why they aren’t freaked out when they go back to work after having babies, possibly, as well. They were the hunters, and so had to sit still, quiet and focus. They had to be patient and not flitter about. They had to leave their young children to do this, too. Women, on the other hand, were the gatherers. We carried one child on a hip while we watched out for predators. We might have also watched the toddlers of our fellow women while collecting berries, roots, and mushrooms. While watching kids, being aware of predators and letting the babe on our hip nurse, we differentiated between the poisonous Panther and the delicious Blusher fungi. Bringing our discussion of Lynn Margulis full circle here, we perpetuated generations so that we might be the best habitats for bacteria!

Finally, what if we were all the same? Neither of us (speaking of my husband and myself) would be motivated specifically toward any kind of task, per se. We’d be apathetic about each, and not really take pride in our prowess nor harbor the same respect for one another’s greater abilities. Thus, in our own family, we celebrate rather than bemoan our differing skills, even if when amongst women friends, I share my exasperation over his inability to handle changes as I coordinate the revolving door of our family’s schedule, activities, appointments, and lists. For us in particular, and to refute the ability of a study claiming differences in male and female brains as having any individual applicability, my husband would prefer to be the “homemaker” and not leave the house five days a week for work. I’d prefer to work full-time and leave the laundry and housecleaning to him entirely—an arrangement we’re working toward as I anticipate my master’s program this fall.

"Stern Men" Book Review and Reflection

First published May 24, 2012 at http://www.hercircleezine.com/2012/05/24/stern-men-by-elizabeth-gilbert/

STERN MEN

Elizabeth Gilbert is most famous for her memoir writing, especially EAT, PRAY, LOVE. However, she began writing fiction, and STERN MEN (Houghton Mifflin, 2000) was her first novel. I drag this off my book shelf to re-read every few years because not only is the female protagonist, Ruth Thomas, exactly the smart, unconventional and determined character described on the book jacket, but also a woman with whom I feel some kinship.

There are so many books, articles and kitchen-table or restaurant booth conversations about how painful first sexual encounters are and how women never truly enjoy sex. It is refreshing to find a book wherein a woman not only likes sex, she loves it, even the first time. When I found Gilbert’s book so many years ago, I wanted to read it because it was set in New England and the main character was a described as an intrepid woman. The book jacket described it as a tale about a woman who wanted to work lobster boats. Having read Linda Greenlaw’s, THE HUNGRY OCEAN, the year before Stern Men was published, I thought a fictionalized account would be interesting.

STERN MEN is set on two small islands off the coast of Maine where the backdrop is more a classic star-crossed lovers tale the likes of which we’ve been reading for four hundred years in various incarnations of Shakespeare’s ROMEO AND JULIET. There are the standard characters, too, from stories like IT’S A WONDERFUL LIFE, in the form of the ornery, wealthy, old man (Mr. Ellis) who tries to control the islands like the Henry Potter character of Bedford Falls in Capra’s film. These somewhat cliché personalities, coupled with the cliché lobsterman personas might make one believe this story has been told far too many times, and a new setting isn’t enough to keep one’s attention.

That would all be true except for the refreshing character of Ruth Thomas. The way Gilbert writes the love scene between Owney Wishnell (our stand-in for Romeo) and Ruth is unique. We experience it through the mind of Ruth, who is honest and pragmatic, even in such a situation as first-time sex. I smile every time I read the scene. I love how Gilbert allows Ruth to want Owney, and not at all fear sex itself. Their first sex is not a fumbling, bumbling, painful ordeal. Rather, it is exactly what first sex should be: the flowering (versus de-flowering) of a woman in her body as a sexual being. Ruth and Owney explore one another without inhibition of any kind. And, as if the presence of a sex-positive, woman-positive story wasn’t enough, by the end of the book, Ruth has found a way to balance love, motherhood, marriage and work and has brought together a community once divided.

When I was young, I wrote a poem about this topic. I’ve lost it in many moves and changing computers over the years. It was about not “losing” anything but rather gaining new knowledge about myself when I first had sex. Women need stories that encourage and support healthy sexuality, and strong female personalities. STERN MEN is just such a tale.

"Underwire" by Jennifer Hayden - Interview About Women in Comix

First published May 17, 2012 at http://www.hercircleezine.com/2012/05/17/underwire-by-jennifer-hayden/

In the foreword to UNDERWIRE (Top Shelf, 2011), Jennifer Hayden tells us that she’s writing for women. She’s not only writing for women, since all the glossy magazines in the checkout line claim that, but she could be said to be writing for the everyday woman, the mom and wife. Most moms and wives are more aware of the glossies at the checkout than of what they might find at the local comic book store. Most adult women think comics are fodder for boys, of all ages. This is not true. (Comics these days are quite cerebral; one even won a Pulitzer!) The one area of comics totally under-appreciated is that of the adult woman.

There are plenty of coming-of-age stories from which to choose. A lot of these are just as good reading for adults. However, there are not so many comics or graphic novels written by and for “women of a certain age” range. With UNDERWIRE, Hayden reminds her reader, whomever that may be, that moms are people, too. They are imperfect, loving, individual people with dreams and hopes for themselves, their families and the world. That said, UNDERWIRE isn’t just Erma Bombeck with some pictures. Sure, there’s the sassy attitude. However, the book isn’t just about making light of loads of laundry or driving the kids to practice or class. Hayden presents us with slices of life, and some are poignant as well as hilarious.

Check out UNDERWIRE in its entirety through your local comic book store, order online directly from the publisher and get a taste of what the book is about at ACT-I-VATE. Jennifer Hayden’s new book The Story of My Tits is due out soon. See a preview at the publisher’s website.

Where women in comix are concerned, Jennifer and I were able to connect via e-mail and share thoughts on motherhood and art, creativity, work and women in the field. The Q&A below is an excerpt from our communications:

Kate: How has being a mother had an impact on your career, overall?

Jennifer Hayden: It’s funny. I always thought motherhood would be the end of my creativity. I thought I’d have no “self” after I became a mother, and certainly no concentration. But in fact, I think I became an artist AFTER I had kids. In this profound way, kids make you see yourself clearly—the good, the bad, and the ugly. They connect you at last with the world. And, they force you to tell the truth. You can bullshit everybody else, but you can’t bullshit your kids.

As far as my “career” goes, my kids were just at the right stage for me to have a little freedom and a little more of a work window by the time there was interest in my comix. So, motherhood didn’t hold me back from going to comic conventions and readings and getting to know people in the business, which was very important.

Kate: Do you think being a mom may be what drew you back to comix as a form of writing versus just prose?

Jennifer Hayden: No. Breast cancer did that. Breast cancer knocked the crap out of me, and I stopped wasting time with art forms that didn’t work for me. Art was this very “high” thing to me—painting, novels, poetry. None of it got down and dirty enough for me. I discovered graphic novels while recuperating from breast cancer in 2004, and realized that here, I could go back to where I started in childhood (when I read a lot of comix), and get really basic. I could be non-linear, foul-mouthed, highfalutin’, lowfalutin’, comic, tragic, and never have to worry about being consistent. For me, comix were the artistic equivalent of sitting babbling with a friend around a kitchen table while the kids scream around you and you ignore them (okay, so maybe in THIS way being a mom brought me to comix). I think I always felt that life was this soup, and comix allowed me to fully express this.

Kate: With regard to memoir in comix/graphic novels, is there a difference for family members since they are drawn versus how a prose memoir might describe a person? If you think there is a difference, what is it?

Jennifer Hayden: In some ways, because they are only cartoon-drawn, it takes a lot of the sting out of it. The character is clearly really not them, and it’s clear that you’re just fooling around. Hopefully you’re not being mean, drawing them with a big butt or something. I draw myself with a big carrot nose, and hopefully I depict myself more unflatteringly than everyone else around me. To me, that’s just good manners in autobiographical comix.

The interesting thing to me about drawing a memoir is that it can give you a chance to let other characters refute what your character is saying in the story. I’ve drawn some difficult memories about my mother in my upcoming book. Just using prose, I would have had trouble conveying what a pain in the ass I was being at the time, how I was helping to make things difficult. Drawing it, I can make it clear on my mother’s face just what she thinks of me and what a little creep I’m being. I was so relieved to discover this as I was working. But most importantly, the drawings make the relationships between characters crystal clear. And that, more than anything, is what I’m reaching for. Mind you, I haven’t shown any of this to my mother or the rest of my family and I’m pretty sure there will be hell to pay if they don’t get it.

Kate: What does your family have to say about your work?

Jennifer Hayden: My extended family hasn’t seen the longer memoir I’m doing, and they will kill me. Cement shoes, the whole thing. But right now I just have to get it down on paper. Then I’ll go over it all with them and they can take notes and there’ll be a quiz afterwards. And then they can kill me. My nuclear family is getting less amused about being the subject of my work. My husband wishes I’d never started this, though I’ve always handled his character with extreme delicacy. My son is barely aware of my work, and my daughter sometimes likes being a star in a comic. Really, they treat it as this thing that has nothing to do with them—proud of my success, giving me my space, allowing me to talk about it in front of them (while they try not to listen.)

Kate: The publisher with which you work is known for producing comix/graphic novels outside the industry standard of super hero stories. Has that caused their acceptance and promotion of your work to be the same as they might do for men writing/drawing for them? I’m curious whether you think comix publishers in general treat women author/artists differently than men.

Jennifer Hayden: My publisher did not treat me any differently than they treat their men author/artists, and I have to say I was touched by the quiet way they supported my book’s “femininity.” I thought Chris Ross’s book design was very sensitive to that, and I know Top Shelf researched the women’s market for me as they did their publicity. They supported my promotional efforts tremendously. Yet, they never called me a “women’s author” or in any way kept me separate. This is how I feel about my comix, that I’m both male and female, and that’s how they treated me. I absolutely love Top Shelf.

Kate: Do you hear from men about your work?

Jennifer Hayden: Absolutely! Men have been unbelievably supportive about my work. UNDERWIRE would never have happened without my mentor, Emmy-award-winning comix artist Dean Haspiel, who inspired me to create it for ACT-I-VATE, and Chris Staros, my publisher, who has been so patient and gentlemanly about giving me my creative space. So many men have come up to me at shows, buying my book, and not necessarily for their wives. I have humbly found out that we’re not so different, men and women, especially as parents. Especially as we stumble into middle age. And for those of us who make comix, it seems to me that all we want is another good comic to read, and we don’t care who made it.

"Womanthology: Heroic" Book Review and Reflection

first published may 10, 2012 at http://www.hercircleezine.com/2012/05/10/womanthology-heroic/

When I first started thinking about doing a series of reviews and articles about women in comics, (comix) and graphic novels, I did an internet search and learned aboutWomanthology: Heroic before it went to press. I finally got my hands on the book itself. The volume is over-sized and hefty. The book was put together in just months. An initial inquiry about writer/artist interest in the anthology was sent out May 17, 2011. The book was printed in December 2011. With the overwhelming interest, the group working together to publish what they thought would be a small volume put out a call for financial support. A small print run would be $25,000 and the team had just a month to raise funds. They raised that money nineteen hours after putting the request up on the internet. If anyone questions whether women “should be” considered where comix and graphic novels are concerned, an understated response might be, “Hell, yeah!” Apparently, women are interested in writing and drawing for comics, they’re interested in supporting projects for women in this area and they’re definitely reading comics, as well!

While I picked up the book to add to my collection of comix and graphic novels, and expected to find at the very least a few inspiring stories and some great artwork, I was not prepared for everything WOMANTHOLOGY: HEROIC is. The book itself is impressive, as I described above. However, what I found on the pages inside blew me away! The book is not just an anthology. It isn’t just a collection of stories in comic/graphic format. It includes submissions from young girls and teens and also a section where women who broke into the illustration field are honored. It features information about each contributor in sidebars throughout the text. There are for tips aspiring cartoonists, writers, and artists of every stripe: young, old and in-between, who want to draw or write or both. There is inspiration for anyone seeking any kind of creative life. In fact, whatever your dream, the words of wisdom provided may be applied to your pursuit of a personal goal of any kind.

The stories in WOMANTHOLOGY: HEROIC all center around the theme “heroic” from the title. The artists and writers were challenged to interpret heroism in their own way. There is everything here from the traditional super-hero genre to stories that turn it on its head to treatments that hint at everyday heroism in individual lives. Not all the artists or writers were already involved in the comix format, and many found their first publication credits in this book. Some submitted comix based on work they’ve been doing without recognition for some time, and others got a first taste of the writing/drawing life with WOMANTHOLOGY: HEROIC. Some stories focus on futuristic tales, while others honor women of the past. Women and girls of all ages contributed to the pages, the youngest being listed as ten and the oldest as seventy. With the variety of styles and stories, there is something for everyone in this book. There are so many examples of strong girls and women throughout, and of the infinite ways in which a story may be told through the combination of words and pictures.

If you buy WOMANTHOLOGY: HEROIC and still thirst for more of this kind of thing, no worries! IDW plans to publish a series of woman-conceived comics with “space” as the theme and as writers and artists broadly interpret it. Look for it at your local comic book shop!