Home Basic Skills Test

When my kids school did the Basic Skills test I thought, why not do one for home? To make sure that my girls know how to wash their hair, sweep the floor, put on their socks and shoes, use the telephone, wash the dishes, make a sandwich - those kind of personal grooming and basic household tasks.

So, I made our own chart, and, this week, (after talking about it for ages) we did it. I carried around a clipboard and tested the kids as they cleaned their teeth, tidied up their room, sprayed and wiped etc. It was fun. They could all do most things pretty well. Some could do with practise in household cleaning, and the one with the most hair has the most trouble taking care of it, and someone is still a bit wary of the phone, but we plan to test again in a few weeks, so they have time to practise.

So, now I know if I ask one of them to sweep the floor or to tie their own ponytail, they can do it themselves. I figure it would be remiss of me to not make sure they have these basic skills. And I need to remind myself to stop doing so much for them. Especially as we are about to start the school year, and I shouldn't have to clean up after three kids, and get them all ready for school every day. Which reminds me, we should practice packing their school bags.

And no, I don't expect a website where parents can compare their household's scores!

Nine - the musical

I love musicals.

This holidays I have watched the filmed versions of West Side Story, Carousel, An American in Paris, Viva Las Vegas, Bye Bye Birdie and South Pacific. I consider knowledge of musicals to be part of our cultural heritage. Then I saw the new musical Nine.

Nine is an MTV homage to 60s Italian cinema. It is a musical version of Fellini's 8 1/2, directed by the guy who directed the musical Chicago. While I understand it is exciting to cross genres to make a new form, I have a few 'issues'.

Yes, I understand Fellini's films were about awakening sexuality, and about male fantasy and recollections. But surely, haven't we moved beyond filming musical versions of male fantasy yet??

Now I should add the context in which I watched this film. I have three daughters. As I have said previously, I've had trouble finding a dance school for them that treats girls with respect, that doesn't present primary school girls as sexually knowing and available. I've found a school I like, but the class they want to join this year is the class that had girls aged 8 dancing to Britney Spear's Circus (I'm like a fire-cracker, I like it hot!) and the xmas song was Santa Baby, surely one of the worst xmas songs ever. All the teachers of other classes showed more imagination, more knowledge of various musical forms and possibilities than the teacher who taught this class. Her class danced also to some other songs in the top 40 that would be on music video shows, which we don't watch in our home. So, I'm steering my girls into other classes.

Now, my problem with Nine is, why would these actresses, in order to showcase their singing and dancing on film, want to play such sexualised roles? Penelope Cruz does a dance like a poledancer. Marion Cotillard does a dance as a stripper in a men's club (and while I understand it was a metaphor for her feeling used, can't we find another metaphor?). Fergie does a dance about sex, straddling a chair. Kate Hudson and her piece were not integral to the story at all - it was an American for the sake of it. Nicole - well, she's just her, and if you don't like her, then she detracts from the film, even if her character tells Guido she won't be his muse and he doesn't really see her. For a film that is meant to be about loving women, the women seem to have no respect for themselves. They want Guido. Guido is a creative genius, stuck for ideas, and is irresponsible in his relationships. Daniel Day Lewis added some gravitas to an otherwise light film (it is a musical), and his voice as an Italian man is beautiful - I'm a fan - but the film doesn't seem to know what it wants to be. Is the audience for Fellini also the audience for musicals? Probably not (except perhaps me.) And the film does my pet hate in literature (and film) - it is about itself.

So, these top actresses are dancing in the exact style that I want my daughters to avoid. And the film was made by an openly gay director. In my view Ann-Margret doing a striptease style song and dance in Viva Las Vegas is stupid. Sure, dance. Sure, have fun. But no, don't dance to sell yourself to men. Having 8 year olds dancing to Circus or Santa Baby like they know what is about is stupid, and, possibly, a form of exploitation. When the top actresses of our day do they same thing, what hope do we have?

Magazines for girls

I was a little concerned recently when a friend told me her daughter, who is in Yr 6, wanted to spend her money on Dolly magazine. Apparently the girls in her year all read it, and share it around at lunchtime. These girls are 11 years old.

My friend, being the smart feminist that she is, subscribed to an alternate mag for her daughter, and told her to spend her money on other things. Here is the address for the mag, produced in the US.

http://www.newmoon.com/magazine/

Something similar, although, I think, better, was being produced in Australia, but is, unfortunately, currently not in production. Have a look here.

http://www.frankteam.com.au/frankmag/

As I've said before, Womens Forum Australia, in association with Melinda Tankard Reist, has produced Faking It, a research paper which can be used as a resource for girls to critique the mainstream magazines.

We need to teach girls about the messages they are being taught in these mainstreams mags, and keep providing good alternatives, which, sadly, are hard to finance when you aren't pushing merchandise and selling advertising, because these are part of what the alternative mags critique.

Ann Orloff - online lecture re care and gender

This is a lecture by Ann Orloff that was given at the UNSW last year. She is working on a new book called Farewell to Maternalism - her field of study is social policy, care work and gender, and she gives a brief history of care and gender in terms of the work/life balance: http://www.abc.net.au/tv/fora/stories/2009/10/21/2720407.htm#

Whilst I'm interested that this topic is studied at high levels, I'm disappointed she doesn't really have any solutions. The most interesting part for me is comparisons between countries- we can measure and compare workplace participation, women at levels of govt and on boards, longevity and rates of infant mortality, maternal depression, access to day care etc. Surely, as Michael Moore says in Sicko (which I watched this week - about the US health system - which is appalling), can't we just adopt the best practice - see what works best elsewhere and then copy their policies? Are there any consequences to the seemingly best practice policies of Scandinavian countries and France etc, eg, that women are not employed in jobs that require fulltime workers? If anyone knows of studies in this, or have any first hand experience, or even word of mouth, I'd be interested to hear.

The Feminist Year Ahead

Sometimes The Guardian is pulp, but sometimes they run pieces like this, and I love them for it. Itemising the movies, books, art exhibitions and events coming to the UK in 2010. Feminism is alive and well.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2010/jan/08/the-feminist-year-ahead

Also, news from Mamapalooza in New York - they have found a premises in which to house The Museum of Motherhood. They just need to raise the funds. More info here.

http://www.museumofmotherhood.org/Home.html

What is happening in Australia in 2010??

Getting the groups together

My friend Joan and I were discussing how great it would be if we got the womens' groups together to have a public discussion, and to share information about what they do.

As I've said before, it took me a long time to find the groups where women are active for change. I emailed Judith Stadtman Tucker of the Mothers Movement Online, a US, group, and asked her if she know of any similar groups in Australia. She directed me to The Mothers of Intervention, which existed as a web-based group, and was led by Liz Conor in Melbourne. I joined the group, and from them found out about other groups. The Mothers of Intervention doesn't exist anymore. The site was badly damaged and Liz is concentrating on other things. But it did connect a few mums who are interested in being active, and through the group I found out about The Association For Research on Mothering.

I also joined The Women's Electoral Lobby, which is probably the strongest of the feminist groups in Australia.

Joan and I were saying how it would be good to learn more about Women's Forum Australia (an independent women’s think-tank focusing on research, education and public policy to bring about positive changes for women), and any other national women's groups. Sometimes it is hard to wade through all the online information to find out what the stance is on certain issues, eg, abortion, or if the group is funded by, for example, a Christian church.

It would also be good to connect these groups with the ones that exist to lobby by issue, for example,

The Parents Jury (food and physical activity for children)

Australian Breastfeeding Association (support breastfeeding, and the right to breastfeed in public)

Maternal Coalition (lobby for birthing rights and maternity services)

Young Media (interested in how the media impacts on the development of children)

Kids Free 2B Kids (concerned about the increasing sexualisation of kids in the media, advertising, and clothing industries. Founded in February 2007 by Melbourne mother of two, Julie Gale).

There must be other groups as well.

It would be great if representatives from these groups met at a public forum, like the Sydney Writers Festival, or at a baby expo, or an event which is already established and already has an audience. Perhaps Insight could do a program. I'd certainly attend a public forum to see what groups lobby for which issues, how they operate, what their principles and policies are, how they can work together, and how mums can be involved.

Smile! Gotcha!

I've recently realised I've probably swum too far against the stream in this regard. I don't take photos of my kids. Why?

Lots of reasons really. I don't have a camera. My hands have usually been busy actually dealing with the kids rather than documenting them. When my second child was a toddler I remember hanging a camera around my neck for her daycare xmas party, and when I went to bend down to her the camera hit her on the forehead. That marked the end of my child photography for some time. The kids are older now and my hands are more free. But I haven't been clicking away.

The main reason is my objection to the fact kids are photographed so much these days. It bothers me more than it should. I see parents and carers photographing and videoing their kids everywhere; at the Art Gallery, on the swings at the park, getting vaccinated (I kid you not), doing any ordinary thing. Kids are treated like little stars who are exposed to the paparazzi that is their parents.

What does it mean? It means the kids are constantly interrupted to pose for the camera. It means that instead of interacting, or sharing the experience, or just letting kids play, parents are objectifying their kids.

At a kids' concert I was sitting near a small family. The mother had her toddler on her knee and her preschooler beside her. She took a photo of the preschooler, showed it to the toddler and said 'There's your sister'. Um, no, you sister is right beside you. She exists in real life. She doesn't have more value because she is on a screen.

I've seen a parent clicking away at her child on the slide saying 'smile' while her toddler is hurt behind her.

When my five year old recently graduated from preschool the parents were taking photos of her group of friends as if they were models - telling them to pose like this or that, and the session lasted a good five minutes. For heaven's sake, they are five! What will they expect at their child's wedding, or graduation from university?

We want our kids to aspire to careers beyond being on Big Bother, but we treat them as if being on a screen (tv, computer, camera, camera/phone or a digital photo frame) means that they are important. They are stars. Frankly I haven't noticed child stars, princesses, heiresses and child celebrities having a very good success rates as adults. I don't understand why we would emulate the poor life experience of being a child celebrity. And I can't think of any child stars, heiresses or princesses that I'd like to be in charge of my aged care.

But now I've realised I haven't taken any photos of the kids for so long (their father takes the photos), and there have been important events that haven't been documented, I think perhaps it is time to take camera in hand, on occasion, and capture some important moments. Or ordinary moments. But I plan to do it discreetly, and without the posing.

The 80s

Yesterday we went to the 80s exhibition at the Powerhouse Museum- something for the mums and dads. I was surprised at how much paraphenalia from the alternate scene was part of the exhibition.

It reminded me that I was right in the thick of what was happening then.

I saw Michael Jackson at Parramatta Showground. I saw Killing Joke at some venue at the Cross that isn't there anymore. The Damned at the Trade Union Club. Bowie at the Showground. Springsteen at the Entertainment Centre - I paid a scalper $100 and it was worth every cent. I went to the NYE Rat party at Luna Park. I went to the Sleaze Ball, just by chance (was living at Paddo, went out for milk in the morning, ran into someone I knew, went off somewhere, then somewhere else, and ended up at the Sleaze Ball). I scarred my hand outside French's on Oxford Street, where turning on the tap in the bathroom meant washing your shoes - there was no pipe under the basin. I saw Billy Bragg as the date of a journo for On The Street (his flatmate was Tim Freedman). I went to the Kardomah Cafe, The Manzil Room, the Evening Star, The Hopetoun, The Phoenican Club, saw X at the Strawberry Hills Hotel, hung out at the Evening Star and The Civic when I had blue hair, dropped into the Bourbon and Beefsteak for breakfast, heard jazz at Soup Plus, the Harbourside Brasserie and the Basement. I saw drag shows at Stranded. I walked from my house in Surry Hills to the Taxi Club one day, in my dressing gown, because I went to get the mail from the mailbox and the front door slammed shut and I needed to get the keys from my flatmate who worked there. I saw James Brown and Nick Cave and Screaming Jay Hawkins.

Man, I was cool.

And I remember what I wore to everything!

I hung out with punks and goths, and avoided skinheads. I lived in sharehouses for most of the decade. We always had enough money for a night out, even when we were on the dole. And every night out ended up at a sharehouse, which was where we met to watch The Young Ones, drink beer and eat pizza. Sharehouses were open houses.

I regularly went to the theatre too.

In the 90s I saw Prince, Iggy Pop, Marianne Faithfull.

Now, I wouldn't pay $100 to attend a concert or go to a play. Especially anything outdoors. I don't like crowds. I don't drink. My back hurts if I sit for more than about half an hour. Or stand. Or walk for hours on end. I like to be in bed by midnight. I'm probably the only woman in Australia between fifteen and fifty who didn't see Pink in concert. I couldn't be bothered.

So is it a bit sad that I don't have my finger on the pulse like I used to? Or is it just the way things should be? I think it would be a bit sad if I was still into the scene I used to be into. I've outgrown it. If you still live like that at forty, you've got a problem. Now I'm happy to see who is playing at the Festival of Sydney, listen to them on youtube and, if I like them, I'll buy the CD. Enjoy the music in a controlled environment. Mine.

I am happy to support local artists. We see the amateur productions of musicals, and I'm keen to support local artists, musicans and writers. Locally.

No, I'm happy to stay at home. I just need to make more of a scene at my house, where we can talk about art, film, philosophy, literature and life, listen to music, and drink lots of tea, or even make our own artworks - I have in mind something like a Swiss finishing school or a French Salon. We can look after the kids. And perhaps remind each other how cool we used to be. The kids would never agree. Even Nick Cave's kid thinks he is uncool, so what hope do we have?

School holiday expectations

I've noticed something about these holidays - no playdates with families from school.

Now, I don't know if that is because all the local families are on holidays elsewhere - if everybody is meant to be in a holiday house somewhere with family or other friends - but the lack of local playdates is a bit spooky.

Does it mean that local families only hang out with us during term time and the shorter school holidays because it is convenient? Does it mean that those families don't really like us enough to spend time with us over the special season of xmas and New Year? Are we supposed to have friends or family who are higher priority at this time of year. Because, frankly, we don't. Sure, we spent xmas day with family, but that's about it. And while I'm aware I'm not in any inner circles of mum friends, I do actually know a lot of local families and ask people over often. Perhaps I should be forming my own inner circle?

It kind of takes some time and practice to learn to be just by ourselves and how to be a family together, without too many distractions. And we've been doing just that. Kids playing outside. Using the activities they received for xmas. The whole family playing board games or watching a movie together. I've been cleaning up a bit. Cooking with the kids. Eating meals with my partner and all that.

It seems a bit crazy that we see everyone and do everything for the first three weeks of December then BAM. Silence. The tumbleweed goes drifting through our social lives. My 5 year old keeps asking for playdates, and I keep telling her that it is family time - other kids are with their families, and we should let them enjoy their time together without trying to impose ourselves. And I feel a bit as if I fail the family-time test if I'm asking for playdates. Like we've cracked first and couldn't make it through the marathon of boardgames and family activities. But what if the other local families are doing the same thing? What if we all think we should be alone with our families, when we'd really rather be socialising, like we usually do? What if we have all had a long look at our families, and now we need to see some other people?

And it has been raining nearly every day so far, so not a lot of opportunities for going out. What on earth is everyone else DOING?

Perhaps we'll be back to our normal social lives now that most of the dads are going back to work.

I am glad that their father has spent this time with us. He doesn't often feel the full force of three kids playing inside for days on end. One thing we've started is, when we sit together at the table for meals (and we sit at the table together for all meals - usually it is just me and the kids), instead of their father and I being at opposite ends of the table (kind of a policing device), we are sitting together so we can chat more easily. And we're a united front. So much nicer than trying to converse across a table of babbling kids while we're trying to enforce table manners. That's something we'll be keeping. That and playing board games.

Youngest starting school - what to do??

My youngest child is starting school in 2010. I've spent almost ten years as a stay at home mum, so I've been thinking a lot about what I'm going to do.

I'm not going to be doing a paid job. It just wouldn't be worth it for our family, in a lot of ways (financial, food, stress, the children's activities), so that's off the list.

But there are lots of other things on the list. So many that I made a chart and asked each member of the family to mark a tick or cross alongside each suggestion, with interesting results.

All agreed that I should concentrate on being a better housekeeper, with the inclusion of mending and making clothes. I feel like I have ten years of cleaning up to do, and it isn't going to be done in a week alone. I'm not surprised that this one was unaminous. I've been saying for years that I'll clean up the house properly when the youngest starts school.

All agreed I should do an art class once a week when the kids are at school. I haven't done an art class since I was pregnant with the child who is now five. This is what the old man who lives next door says I should be doing - he likes my artwork.

All are happy for me to exercise, which for me means swimming, dancing or going to the gym. They know the importance of being healthy, although the kids have some reservations about the possibility of me performing at their dance concert!

And all agreed they want me to help out at school - that is really important for them. Perhaps helping out at sport, and going to the special assemblies etc. Maybe helping with reading, but I'm not sure about being in the classroom - I have an aversion to that!. But I'll definitely keep going to the P&C meetings.

They all support my future efforts to write for money.

They think it is important that I help out my aging parents - their health and mobility are deteriorating and I'm thinking next year might be the one they move into a nursing home, which means cleaning out the house nine of us lived in, my parents for more than fifty years.

They want us to do more entertaining as a family, ie, hosting Sunday lunches or afternoon teas, which is work for me, but very enjoyable, and I like bringing people together.

The kids also want more excursions. Sadly, when my 7 year old was in the public speaking competition the topic was the zoo - she went once when she was two. My older daughter had to write in a journal each Monday, saying what she did on the weekend - one time she said she went to the laundromat. At the end of the year she had to write a poem on a place of significant she had been to. Other pupils in the class wrote about Uluru or Perisher or the Gold Coast - she wrote about Olympic Park pool. She had been there twice. We have a stay at home policy for a few reasons. My partner likes to stay home. Catching the train to work on weekdays is enough outing for him. I don't like to drive unfamiliar places and I hate motorways, so we stay close to home. And I figure if the kids are happy at the local park and pool, or in the backyard, then they wouldn't be more happy playing somewhere further away. If you're happy, you're happy, right? Also, I think children don't need to have done everything and been everywhere before they are ten. Perhaps I'm deliberately swimming against the tide, and I've swum too far, so it is time for more outings.

They don't mind that I plan to do a fundraiser for Women for Women International, which means making craft items, and organising other people to help.

No-one in the family wants me to continue being on the executive for the local community centre. It is a voluntary position and has taken up a lot of time, phone calls, emails and I've had to bring the children with me to the centre at times. They don't like it. Too intrusive. I'm committed to remain in my position until October 2010, so there is nothing I can do about it now, but promise them I won't be on the executive next year.

None of the kids want me to go to New York for the conference. I can understand. My partner supports me going if I give a paper. Instead I can plan to give a paper at the ones in Australia, which make the kids sad enough.

The younger kids basically object to anything that takes me away from them, or takes me to the computer. They don't want me to run the community bookgroups, because it means going to meetings and writing on the computer. They want me to be with them, and pay attention to them. Fair enough. I'm trying to do as much preparation as possible during these school holidays, so I'm ready as the months roll by. I'm hoping to put all my work into a blog, and see what happens.

The other prospect I was looking at was doing an MA in English, part time, externally, which I know I could manage. But I'm doubting I could manage it with all the other commitments. Perhaps I could start mid year or in 2011. I have friends who suggest I should just jump in - start out as I mean to carry on, or fill up the time to avoid the possibility of being pulled into other things, but at the moment I can see stress, and yelling at children, and me being overcommitted, so I'd better hold off. When I first suggested this to my family they were horrified. My nine year old said 'Mum, can you just cook, clean and make sure our clothes don't have holes?' She later suggested I should try having some fun. I know where she stands. She's a sensible girl.

I plan to keep blogging. I have lots of pieces in draft form that I park here, waiting for me to have time to develop and post them. The family gave mixed support, but I'll carry on.

I do realise that I don't have to do anything really, beyond basic cooking and cleaning and driving them around. Perhaps catch up on some reading. As my mother says, my first job is to look after myself and my family. But I like having projects, being involved with the community and testing myself. I feel like there is a lot to catch up on.

I'm glad I've asked them what they want of me. I need to keep it in mind as I take on tasks. Now I just need to remind them what I expect of them. Perhaps another chart?

The courage to give up a dream

Most parents teach their children to dream, and to dream big. 'You can be anything you want to be'. I notice the trend in children's clothing with the slogans of Princess or Popstar. The message is, from so many movies and songs and other sources, anybody can be a star.

This is something I've been thinking about a lot lately, because the truth is that not everybody can be a star. In fact, most people who aspire to great heights, be they creative or sporting or academic, or in any career, will have their hopes dashed. Most people live ordinary lives. Most people who dream big at some point give up those dreams to live a normal life, a life of stability and responsibility. Does that make for happiness? I'd say that it depends on how graciously you can give up your dream.

One of the ways of being happy is to want what you already have. Dreamers don't do that - they want more, or something else, which is kind of insulting the people around them, who are content to be doing what they're doing and being ordinary. One of the ways to be happy is to be where you are, to be present. Dreamers don't do that either - they are somewhere else.

Now I should say here that I've just read the works of Salinger, who talks a lot about spirituality and how to be happy. Of course, we know, in his own life he shunned fame, and I admire him for that. A theme of his work is how the little incidental observed moment of innocence can motivate a person to keep on going, to feel humbled and able to continue. (And it is the clever, the intellectual and the high achievers who see the injustices and the inconsistencies and that life/art etc could be so much better. Those insights don't make for happiness.) It is the same kind of message mothers often talk about, or are told, that although it is difficult it all seems worthwhile when you see your child sleeping or when your child gives you a kiss etc. I'm not sure how realistic this is, or if it is just pat sentimentality and what is expected of mothers.

Then I happened upon these messages from the GROW group - a support group for people with mental health issues. Reading their brochure they have a few sayings that could be helpful.

'The Overall Key to Mental Health and Happiness: Settle for disorder in lesser things for the sake of order in greater things; and therefore be content to be discontent in many things.'

And another: 'I can be ordinary. I can do whatever ordinary good people do, and avoid whatever ordinary good people avoid. My special abilities will develop in harmony only if my foremost aim is to be a good ordinary human being.'

I'm thinking about this in the context of seeing people who I knew had creative ambitions, as I did. I trained as an actor, I knew writers, artists, musicians. Of all the people I spent time with, perhaps one has made it big, a few have had fleeting success. Some can periodically earn money from their talent. The people who succeeded weren't the more talented, or more determined, or in any way more deserving. They were just luckier. For others, they found personal happiness and didn't need their dream anymore. Still others took a practical route of a stable job and responsibilities. Some never give on their dream, to their detriment.

And I'm thinking about it in the context of mothers, who may have their own aspirations and desires that they can't pursue due to the demands of raising children, and I might add, the endless menial tasks involved in caring for children and running a household. If you do that work with a 'why me?' attitude, I'm afraid you're sunk. If you do it graciously, believing that it is OK to live a little life, an ordinary life filled with ordinary moments, there is a kind of greatness in that.

Now, I know there is a lot more to say. That we want to give our children hope. That we want them to be happy. And that we want to be happy ourselves. And while I'm no Martha Stewart, and certainly don't want to raise my housework to an artform, I do want everyone, not just mothers, but men and children and everyone, to see the honour and the value in all the little menial tasks that make up our ordinary lives. And that it takes courage to give up a dream to do these ordinary things.

Naomi Wolf on Carrie Bradshaw

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/dec/22/carrie-bradshaw-icons-of-decade

Naomi Wolf writes in the Guardian that Carrie Bradshaw is a feminist icon who did ' as much to shift the culture around certain women's issues as real-life feminist groundbreakers'.

I'm not so sure.

Yes, it was radical that a series be based around four female friends rather than a couple.

Carrie had a column writing about herself - what would now most likely be a blog - not the higher level of art in our culture. She wrote about her relationships in New York - I can't recall her interest in any greater social or political issues. Writing about oneself means you do no research. Your world is very small. Strangely, there was never any mention of the people around her getting upset that they were used in her column. We know that this is what happens in real life. People who writers write about feel betrayed when their lives are made public (Helen Garner and, Lionel Shriver spring to mind.) There are issues there.

Also, there was no way Carrie could afford to live in NY and wear what she does from her earnings writing a weekly column. She didn't seem to have any other options for earning money. A menial job would have been beneath her. She had no qualifications. At least her friends had professions and some job security. She couldn't afford to buy her apartment because she had spent all her money on shoes, remember? And she couldn't cook for herself at all. She ended up with a wealthy man who looked after her - otherwise she would be on a pension in her old age. Not a very accomplished person. She could dress, write, quip, be a friend and a lover. That's about it.

Wolf says Carrie was a writer in NY in the tradition of F Scott Fitzgerald or JD Salinger or Philip Roth. Certainly, her writing is not on that level. I would argue she is the inheritor of Dorothy Parker's and Mae West's legacy - women I much admire. Their work is in a different category though, from those named by Wolf.

'Carrie, for better or worse, was our first pop-culture philosopher', Wolf says. That's a big call. I'm not so sure.

Wolf says of Samantha 'when Samantha first says frankly that she likes to have sex without emotion, to "fuck like a man", it was bitingly fresh for women to speak these aphorisms out loud, in public, and in fabulous heels.'

Women were 'fucking like men' ie, having casual sex for the sake of it with no expectations, before her. Again, see Mae West. In my twenties and thirties I knew plenty of women who engaged in casual sex without expectations. Women would accept an offer, or initiate the offer, and enjoy the deed and then go back to their office/thesis/studio and get to work without another thought. And that's all well and good, especially when you value your independence end freedom, and aren't looking to be in a relationship. You can do it discreetly. It is nobody's else's business. But it does raise other issues. It means you never know if a person is really interested in you, or if the man in question is simply accepting the opportunities presented to him, (and fair enough). It also means that you clock up the partners - three one night stands a year for ten years equals thirty partners. Women are still discreet about proclaiming a number of partners. Most women would still think thirty over a lifetime is something to be judged harshly.

It is nobody's business who or how many partners you have sex with - that's why we have the title Ms. As I said in my letter to the Herald re Susan Boyle being called a virgin, it is a little more complicated. 'Would a man be called a virgin? Does being a virgin suggest she can't sing? Or shouldn't be on TV? If she was the opposite, what word would you use? Until recently, it was expected that unmarried women be virgins. It was respected. Is it now shameful? If someone isn't a virgin and isn't married, does that suggest that person knows real love and is cherished, or could it mean they have been abused or disappointed?'
http://www.smh.com.au/national/letters/churchs-condom-stand-based-on-religion-not-science-20090420-acmm.html

And Wolf says, 'Did not thousands of young women eager to explore their sexuality, but scared of being labeled sluts by their peers, breathe a sigh of relief or even liberation watching Samantha down another tequila, unrepentantly ogle the sex god at the end of the bar, and get richer and more beautiful with age, with no STDs or furies pursuing her?'

Ok, there area few problems here. Someone, somewhere is getting hurt. If sex were not serious, we would let children do it. Sex is serious. Sure, it can be fun, but while people have other emotions and investments mixed up in it - the expectation of monogamy in marriage, for instance, and while it can transfer serious diseases, then there is the need for some caution and responsibility. I once had a very liberal flatmate. The morning after she brought home a man whose footsteps I did not recognise we talked. She said she didn't have sex with him - she passed out. From what I heard, he had sex with her. Not behaviour which is safe, responsible or fun.

The statement is unrealistic in another way. Samantha is aging. Will we still celebrate her at the bar ogling men when she is 80? Do her friends really celebrate her behaviour? Or do they love her in spite of it?

Now we see women and girls presenting themselves as overtly sexual, even though they may not be having sex. They may not even be having fun. They think it is empowering. It could be that embracing raunch culture is simply demeaning.

If we find men talking about women as sexual objects to be demeaning, then it isn't behaviour we want women to copy. Don't we want both genders to be treated with respect?

So, whilst I can appreciate the characterisations of Carrie and Samantha, and I enjoy the show, I certainly don't want my daughters to grow up to be like them. They're pretty shallow. Wolf didn't mention her expectations for her own daughter.

I've been nominated for Australia Day award

To my surprise, I've been nominated for our local council Australia Day award. This award is to honour outstanding personal achievement and service to the community.

The librarian who I work with on the community bookgroups nominated me. I don't know if she mentioned any other voluntary work I do (my work at the community centre takes up much more time and energy; being involved in school P&C and uniform shop, being on the preschool committee, are not difficult). It is nice to be acknowledged. And I must say I love running the bookgroups - I'm being useful and using my degree.

There will be a brunch on the day and I invite four guests - my parents have said they'll come. Should be good.

ARM Conference New York in May - I wanna go!

Representing Motherhood:

Mothers in the Arts, Literature, Media and Popular Culture

May 20-22, 2010, Nola Studios, New York City

We welcome submissions from scholars, students, activists, artists, community agencies, service providers, journalists, mothers and others who work or research in this area. Cross-cultural, historical, and comparative work is encouraged. We encourage a variety of types of submissions including academic papers from all disciplines, workshops, creative submissions, performances, storytelling, visual arts, and other alternative formats.

Topics can include (but are not limited to):

Representing the Maternal in Film, Video, Art, Music, and Theater; Theorizing Motherhood and Representation; Race, Representation and Motherhood; Maternal Ambivalence in visual culture; Countering Media Discourses on Motherhood; Maternal Loss, Depression, and Domestic Violence; Performing Feminist Mothering in Practice and Expression; Mother Writer: Writing Motherhood; Creating Outlaw Children; Imaging LGBT Mothers and Maternity; “Late bloomers”: Post-Maternal Mother Artists; Representing Motherhood on the Internet; The Politics of Motherhood and Spirituality in Music and Visual Culture; Motherhood, Art, and Creativity; Healing and Creativity; The Performance of the Maternal or Performing Motherhood; Mothering and Disability: Producing New Paradigms of Normal; Motherhood in the News: Mothers as Newsmaker; Documenting Motherhood: Maternal Documentaries; Mothers, Motherhood and Photography; Behind the Camera: Mothers as Filmmakers, Directors, Producers; Mother Musicians across Musical Genres: Rock, Rap, Folk, Blues, Jazz, Country Narratives of Creative Mothers: Moms who “Rock,” Expressing: Imaging Breastfeeding Mothers, Mommy Bloggers: Re-Writing Motherhood, etc.; Dealing with (Post-partum) Depression by Making Creative Work; Pregnant moms; Celebrity mothers; How images of fathers impact motherhood representation; News media coverage of foster moms; Moms in politics; teen mothers in film or television; advertising as aimed at pregnant/new Moms; Mothers as consumers; Mothering and the representation of Class

CONFIRMED KEYNOTE SPEAKERS:

Meredith Michaels, author of The Mommy Myth

DEADLINE FOR ABSTRACT SUBMISSIONS

*Please email 250 word presentation abstract (including title) and 50 word bio

to arm@yorku.ca by January 5, 2010


Lets see if I can submit an abstract and organise a fundraiser so I can go! Wish me luck!

Some things change. Some are normalised.

I've noticed lately that some things do, indeed, change.

I'm quite shocked when a see that a person's skin is sunburned. As a child it was a regular part of life.

I'm surprised now when I see someone smoking. My children are quite shocked. They hardly ever see smokers. I mostly hang out with other parents, and they don't smoke.

For me to do something naughty these days means I put something in the garbage when it could be composted or recycled. Or I eat food from McDonalds when the kids aren't around. Or pop a piece of Fair Trade Organic Dark Chocolate into my mouth. The other night I drank TWO glasses of champagne. TWO!. That takes the alcohol consumption for the year up to maybe seven units, including the glass at our last P&C. That's way more than previous years. Wild times indeed!

And this is from a person whose average weekend at the age of twenty involved alcohol, smoking, sunbaking and lots of other activities I wouldn't want my children engaging in. We had no boundaries. It just wasn't cool amongst my peergroup to rein each other in. It wasn't cool to care. Most of us came through it OK. Some didn't. I'm very glad no-one was taking photos to post on the internet.

The other thing I've noticed is that the mood altering substances are now mainstream. Why bother paying for illegal drugs when you could go on antidepressants and drink Red Bull? So much easier. Accessible. Cheaper. No need to hang out with criminals. But that means you need to move a little farther away from normal to engage in the taboo and be a real rebel.

Letter in Sydney's Child

I have a letter in Sydney's Child this month.

In 'Too Many Toys?' Rachel Paisley wonders if buying too many toys for her child will spoil him. The main consideration we think about in our household was not mentioned; the environmental impact. Everything we buy is made, packaged and transported using the earth's resources and will probably end up in landfill. The long term consequences are just as important as whether or not a child is 'spoilt'.

Now I just have to try to live by what I said!

Tearing up and weeping in public - what's that about?

Since becoming a mum, this is what makes me cry, or at least makes me tear up, and I have to take control of myself.

I'm not covering the normal things that people usually cry over - the death of a close friend, having a fight with your boyfriend etc. The crying I'm talking about is new to me since becoming a mother. I should add that I'm not normally a crier. I don't cry when I see the children sleeping peacefully or when I get hurt. I don't care if people say bad things about me. I don't consider myself the most sensitive of souls, so all this is puzzling to me.

- certain songs, even songs I don't particularly like. I know I cry when I hear Tenterfield Saddler - it is a great song - I wish I wrote it. But at the kids' dance concert, I was tearing up while reading the list of songs the kids were about to dance to. What's that about?

- live performances. Even the kids' shows at the mall. I've been known to blubber when hearing adults singing in character costumes. Is it because I know they probably spent their whole lives studying singing, dance and Shakespeare? Is it because I know how much work goes into putting on any performance? Is it because I miss performing? I don't know. I hope it isn't because I spent most of my adult life pursuing adult interests and here I am at the lame show, but I don't think so - I cried at the Play School Concert and at Hi-5 (the originals, who could sing) as well.

- seeing the kids at school doing sport or playing games. The sports carnival. The swimming carnival. Not necessarily my kids, just any kids.

- school assemblies where kids perform or even when sing the National Anthem, and I'm not particularly patriotic. Ok, that Anzac dance was pretty powerful - seeing kids as soldiers, nurses, welcoming home the soldiers etc to the sound of Oxygene (a strong Gallipoli trigger there - I bawled through that film the second time I saw it when I was about 14 - so I've got one precedent there) and 'I Was only 19' - I dare anyone not to cry through that!

- Sharing great movies with the kids. I cried while watching 'Singing in the Rain' with the kids, aware that it has been familiar to me for so long, but is new to them. A first, that I think is relevant. And it is just so great. And don't even mention 'It's a Wonderful Life'.

- explaining to my kids major movements in history and what's going on in the world, eg, the history of feminism, the story of how Africans were taken to America as slaves, the history of unions, child labour, the shame that is the Indigenous problem, third world poverty, how our consumption impacts on people in poor countries, climate change and the big issues of the day. Any story that involves a child being hurt. Even dramatisations that illustrate these issues. I think I cry about these things because I want them to inherit a world that doesn't have these problems, and that has progressed further along the path to equality, integrity, sustainability, and wellbeing for all.

Perhaps it is because for the longest time I never expected to have kids. I was never very maternal - my independence and freedom were of foremost importance. I never even considering having children until I was 28. I hope it isn't because I subconsciously want to be somewhere else. Perhaps I'm happy that kids get so many opportunities and that I love seeing them doing the things that I loved as a kid. I don't know.

My friend who is a yoga teacher says that when you have a child your heart chakra opens. Like that quote about how having a child means that your heart is walking around, exposed and vulnerable.

So, I'm wondering. Should I explore this further to find out what my sub-conscious is doing? Or do I just accept that this is what I do and try not to feel silly about it.

Mothers who leave

Mothers who leave their children. This is still a taboo in our society. Certainly it is more acceptable for a man to leave his family than for a woman.

There is controversy about this in the US at the moment due to this story by the writer, Rahna Reiko Rizzuto.
http://www.salon.com/life/feature/2011/02/28/leaving_my_children

Remember in The Hours the character played by Julianne Moore who left her husband and child? I read a reviewer say twice that she left because she liked to read books. That comment made me angry about the reviewer’s lack of understanding.

I've lived in a lot of share houses and three of my flat mates, at different times, have been mothers who left their children. One left to pursue music, and two to pursue visual arts. Neither had much contact with their kids. They'd all put a lot of distance between them. They basically drew a line under the mothering part of their lives and started again. All were on the dole. One was in love with another man, but wasn't with him. She did eventually, and after some dramas, end up with him.

At the time it made me ask if a creative life is really so incompatible with mothering? (The answer is probably yes.)

We all hear mothers say they have days when they feel like leaving, but they don't leave. It seems fathers can leave without too much disruption (or at least the mothers try to make it seem that way), but for a mother to leave is tantamount to willingly causing your children psychological stress that is irreparable.

Also, I've noticed that when fathers leave a single mother is expected to keep all the balls in the air: keep a clean house, pay the bills, and give the children every opportunity in life, all on her own. When a mother leaves, however, a single father receives sympathy, offers of help, and is applauded for putting food on the table regularly, but isn't expected to keep a clean house and remember what day is sports day.

I’ve thought about this over the last eleven years. The most vocal people I’ve found on the topic are grown children of mothers who have left. I’ve known women who haven’t had children themselves, and talk, with great sadness and some confusion, about their own mother leaving. One told me her mother left the day her father came back from the war. Especially in situations where the mother left, repartnered, and went on to have another family, the leaving is personal.

Do you know any families in which the mother has left? What has become of the mother? Has she kept in contact with the family? How did everyone react? Have the kids coped? What is the story when a mother leaves her family?

Is it possible to know how you will feel as a mother before you do it? Yes, we give up something of ourselves, but for some people, it is too much. We rarely hear from the mothers. We rarely hear their side of the story. Surely leaving your kids isn't a step taken lightly?

What about when it isn't so simple as meeting another man or just wanting to have fun? For some mothers, isn't it a matter of survival? I’m not taking about mothers who have drug addictions or real mental health issues. I’m talking about normal, healthy mums who leave their children.

I understand a mother leaving her kids, but I don't understand leaving one family to start another. Is the new situation really so different from the old?

Perhaps some mums keep thinking that they'll get used to motherhood, but they never do. Maybe they feel that they're faking it, and their kids are better off without them. Maybe we have too narrow an acceptance of what a mother is and if you feel you don't fit the image, then you're not doing it right. Maybe we're too judgemental and have too many pressures on mums. I've not spoken to any mum who has left her family since I've become one (and I don't really remember asking the women I knew years ago). I'm just interested in finding out what mums are thinking when they leave, and what happens then.

Something's gotta give

There is a story in the Good Weekend by David Sedaris (I admit, I'm a fan) about him being in Australia and seeing a Kookaburra. Of course, it is about more than that, but anyway, his hostess talks about the idea of our lives having four burners like a stove top, and if you want to be successful (meaning at work), you need to let one or two of the other burners, labelled Family, Friends, Health, go out. They talk about what aspects of their lives are neglected, or consciously dropped, in order to be successful.

In the context of the current public discussion about mothers and work, this is timely. I'm referring to Alexandra Shulman, the editor of UK Vogue, who says that as an employer she believes the legislation is too much in favour of mothers, and not enough for the employer. She is also a mother (has one child, went back to work when he was 12 weeks, has a live-in nanny). She wants full time employees to work full time, and understands the consequences in the office when women take extended maternity leave, stay home with sick children, pop off to the school play or leave early to pick up the kids from school.

The controversial article is here.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1226157/Vogue-editor-Alexandra-Shulman-asks-boss-hire-woman.html

We know how the conversation usually goes. If you want women in the workplace, we need to account for care responsibilities. Some women say they are happy to step down from their careers and work at a less satisfying job after having children - ambition fades as being with children is more important. Child-free adults say that having children is a lifestyle choice - why should they pay for other people to have kids? It is a personal and private matter - each family works out their own solutions. Then parents say that their children will be paying taxes for the child-free people's aged care and looking after them when they are old. Some say we need work flexibility for everyone, because we could all have care responsibilities - disabled siblings or aged parents. Some say it is a feminist issue - we were promised we could HAVE IT ALL and the feminists lied. Some say we need to change social policies and expectations - that this is the unfinished work of the women's movement. And so it goes.

I say we need women in all kinds of positions of power. That is in government, in business, and that we need to hear from the stay-at-home mums as well. I say, lets look at what the most socially progressive countries in the world do (um, that would be Scandinavian countries, and a few other European countries), and if that is working well, in terms of representation and the wellbeing of men, women and children, then lets do that. Lets look after everyone. Let the women have real power, do the work they are good at, and still, as a society, look after the children, and involve men in the workplace and in their own lives that includes being with family, with friends, and their health (and I mean all kinds of health - physical, emotional, spiritual, mental). When we apply the old feminist measure of asking would this conversation be applied to men, we see how far we have to go. The fact I just said 'let women have real power' makes me shudder. We should be way beyond that sentence. We still live in a patriarchy, and change is happening way too slowly.

So, back to the stove top. Does the same apply if you want success at Family? At Health? At Friendships? Perhaps we could look at work being turned down a little so that all burners can stay aglow. Because really, if you spend seventy hours a week at work, the only relationship you have is with your boss and workmates. And this is true for everyone, not just mothers.

Buy Nothing Day - Nov 27/28

November 27/28 is International Buy Nothing Day. Protest by not shopping on this day.

Here is the link to Adbusters, the culturejammers who started Buy Nothing Day. Worth a look.

http://www.adbusters.org/