Yesterday, while musing over several subjects of monumental importance, I decided that was I done with bras for all but the most elegant occasions. Yes, at the over-ripe age of 44 10/12, I've decided to let the girls roam free. They've earned it and so have I.
This decison was not an easy one; the girls and I were trained from an early age that "nice" women caged their breasts on all public occasions, in order to keep them from breaking lose and ravaging innocent bystanders. Even now, in the supposed enlightened age, a woman without obvious bra support is noticed and whispered about.
But here's the bald, bra-less truth: 99.9% of all bras are torture devices. There, I said it. I don't care if the Playtex people hunt me down and superglue their product to me. Even if a bra is custom fit and made from baby seal fur, it is uncomfortable. A woman is always aware that it is on her body and for some of us, even the most expensive bra leaves shoulder marks and chafes us under the bosom.
I've been bra-bound since the fourth grade, when I skipped right past training bras and was in posession of a full-fledged 'rack'. By sixth grade, my brassieres were larger than some of my classmates' entire bodies. At the age of 19, I talked a plastic surgeon at Tripler Army Medical Center into cutting a generous portion of them off. That worked for a while; I was normal sized and perky and I could wear a tank top without it disappearing just under the girls. It worked, that is, until my traitorous children encouraged them to grow again.
Now, I'm just tired of the whole mess; shopping for bras, laundering bras, cursing bras. Although I'm neither as compact or perky as I was 25 years ago, they aren't hanging to my knees, and I will show my gratitude by setting them free. Now if I can just train my nipples not to respond to the freezer section at Kroger, I'll be a happy woman.
Thursday, September 29, 2011
Saturday, September 17, 2011
Radical Feminism
Emma Goldman in 1917 wrote that economic equality would erase all the problems that exist between men and women. A woman who is not dependent upon a man for her economic well being has more freedom. The problem is that women, with very few exceptions are economically dependent upon men. Dismissing the woman who chooses to be a stay-at-home wife and mother, women are still dependent upon men for money. Most women in the workforce receive a salary that is established by the men who are in charge. Women, on the whole, make substantially less money for doing substantially identical work as their male counterparts.
While the ability to earn a living is now considered a basic right of women, the ability to demand equal pay for equal work is not. Until salaries are blind (that is, based wholely on either the job description or on the quality of of work and experience), women cannot claim to be equal. It strikes me as a pity that many women seem to be so concerened that they be allowed to hold the same jobs as men, such as firefighters, and fail to ask themselves why they want to do such a strenuous or difficult job and not be equally compensated.
Another aspect of the feminist/economic problem is that many women feel they no longer have a choice of whether or not to work outside the home. The feminist movement was supposed to give women a choice, but now it is expected that a successful women will not only be a wife and mother, but also a wage earner. If she does not work, she is lazy or a traitor to her gender. Betty Friedan discussed a woman in the 1950's who had a nervous breakdown because she was unable to breastfeed. Today, women are breaking under the strain of trying to "have it all". It is a hard question to answer; do I serve my family better by improving our economic status or by raising my own children. And when do I serve myself at all?
Nothing will be solved until both genders accept that there should not be defined roles for anyone, male or female. When wage-earners are evaluated solely on their ability, when homemakers (male or female) are accepted as contributing members of society, and when a person'w worth is not based solely on their paycheck, then women can consider that they have achieved that elusive equality.
2002 dawn
While the ability to earn a living is now considered a basic right of women, the ability to demand equal pay for equal work is not. Until salaries are blind (that is, based wholely on either the job description or on the quality of of work and experience), women cannot claim to be equal. It strikes me as a pity that many women seem to be so concerened that they be allowed to hold the same jobs as men, such as firefighters, and fail to ask themselves why they want to do such a strenuous or difficult job and not be equally compensated.
Another aspect of the feminist/economic problem is that many women feel they no longer have a choice of whether or not to work outside the home. The feminist movement was supposed to give women a choice, but now it is expected that a successful women will not only be a wife and mother, but also a wage earner. If she does not work, she is lazy or a traitor to her gender. Betty Friedan discussed a woman in the 1950's who had a nervous breakdown because she was unable to breastfeed. Today, women are breaking under the strain of trying to "have it all". It is a hard question to answer; do I serve my family better by improving our economic status or by raising my own children. And when do I serve myself at all?
Nothing will be solved until both genders accept that there should not be defined roles for anyone, male or female. When wage-earners are evaluated solely on their ability, when homemakers (male or female) are accepted as contributing members of society, and when a person'w worth is not based solely on their paycheck, then women can consider that they have achieved that elusive equality.
2002 dawn
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)