In how many different ways is this wrong?
Apr. 29th, 2003 12:54 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
lapsedmodernistSo I am about to check my hotmail today, all geared up to write an unhappy email to someone from Ebay who was supposed to send me my rare season 1 Buffy wall clock a while ago, but no ticking Buffy over here yet, when among the MSN news-at-a-glance headings (which I usually do my damndest to ignore because they make me seizure on account of a) not really being news, but rather some psychotic offtakes on "human interest" stories in non-narrative genres like "photo essays" and the bane of my existence, "interactive polls" with their insipid normative non-logic, b) providing such jarring juxtapositions of "news" as "Civilians Killed In Airstrikes" and "Joan Rivers' Cat Vomits Hairball on Red Carpet" or c) just falling into the "what the fuck?" category) I see what you are about to see below, which falls into and transcends both a) and c) categories.
Here are just a few reasons why single moms make great mates:
1. You can feed the dog, take out the trash and pay your taxes, all while making the world's best brownies.
2. You can understand babbling.
3. You chase away bad dreams.
4. You don't have time to touch the remote.
5. You coddle and humor when necessary, especially on sick days.
6. Once you've had to change dirty diapers, dealing with your boyfriend's messy socks is no sweat.
7. You know when to say "no."
8. You've learned how to share the last breakfast bar.
9. You know which games are worth playing.
10. The compassion and consideration you've learned as a mom will help your relationship survive in a world where relationships end all the time.
11. You're a skilled negotiator.
12. Dirt is not such a big deal anymore.
13. You can slay dragons and tackle the Boogie Man.
14. You pick your battles.
15. You tolerate cartoons on Saturday mornings.
Interested in dating a single mom in your area? Don't wait. Find her today!
Oh my god. How can I even start counting the ways in which this is fucked up? First of all, the marketing of "single mothers" as a dating category. I suppose that is a part of the new resurgence of right-wing Christian family values (I also just watched the new episode of 7th Heaven where Lucy discovers the joys of married sex and gets all preachy on all those hoes who have unmarried sex), where those sinful single moms need to be reintegrated into a nuclear family unit. Second of all, the creepy way this list of "advantages" infantalizes men in relationships, "mother"-izes women in relationships, and then smugly reifies this gender relations discourse. Third of all, look at the stereotypes it perpetuates: men are dirty, watch cartoons, create a mess, have poor personal hygiene and control the TV; women are patient, nurturing, caring, in perpetial cleaning mode, and DON'T HAVE TIME TO WATCH TV. This is all completely male-catered, of course, as in creating a scenario where these stereotypical male proclivities are indulged by the stereotypical female tolerance for male inconsideration and immaturity. Keep in mind, I'm not saying men are inconsiderate and immature and women are Suzy-homemaker victims--THIS "ARTICLE" IS. Fourthly, it creepily conflates certain terms and categories used in child rearing with the ones used in sexual dynamics--like "knowing when to say no" and "knowing which games are worth playing." Fifth, although the subtext is obviously targeted towards men realizing what a catch these women are, the phrasing and the form of address presents the material in such a way as to make single moms realize their own value, vis-a-vis heteronormative categories of the 50s, which entails presumptions offensive both to men (they need to be convinced that a single mom can be a desirable mate through a promise of, basically, lifestyle bribes) and to women (single moms need their value articulated for them, their value consisting of the fact that they CAN land a man, because, in dealing with children, they have learned the skills of being unselfish and self-sacrificing, and that IS appealing to men, and that's how they can compete with those pesky non-mother women who are, by default, ball-busting bitches who will make the men pick up their dirty socks). I could go on, but this made me so mad, I just want to scream at my computer screen. I hate it when the mainstream discourse has gotten so reactionary that my critique has to revert to some second-wave feminist crap. I mean, do you need more proof that we are in the un-50s?
Here are just a few reasons why single moms make great mates:
1. You can feed the dog, take out the trash and pay your taxes, all while making the world's best brownies.
2. You can understand babbling.
3. You chase away bad dreams.
4. You don't have time to touch the remote.
5. You coddle and humor when necessary, especially on sick days.
6. Once you've had to change dirty diapers, dealing with your boyfriend's messy socks is no sweat.
7. You know when to say "no."
8. You've learned how to share the last breakfast bar.
9. You know which games are worth playing.
10. The compassion and consideration you've learned as a mom will help your relationship survive in a world where relationships end all the time.
11. You're a skilled negotiator.
12. Dirt is not such a big deal anymore.
13. You can slay dragons and tackle the Boogie Man.
14. You pick your battles.
15. You tolerate cartoons on Saturday mornings.
Interested in dating a single mom in your area? Don't wait. Find her today!
Oh my god. How can I even start counting the ways in which this is fucked up? First of all, the marketing of "single mothers" as a dating category. I suppose that is a part of the new resurgence of right-wing Christian family values (I also just watched the new episode of 7th Heaven where Lucy discovers the joys of married sex and gets all preachy on all those hoes who have unmarried sex), where those sinful single moms need to be reintegrated into a nuclear family unit. Second of all, the creepy way this list of "advantages" infantalizes men in relationships, "mother"-izes women in relationships, and then smugly reifies this gender relations discourse. Third of all, look at the stereotypes it perpetuates: men are dirty, watch cartoons, create a mess, have poor personal hygiene and control the TV; women are patient, nurturing, caring, in perpetial cleaning mode, and DON'T HAVE TIME TO WATCH TV. This is all completely male-catered, of course, as in creating a scenario where these stereotypical male proclivities are indulged by the stereotypical female tolerance for male inconsideration and immaturity. Keep in mind, I'm not saying men are inconsiderate and immature and women are Suzy-homemaker victims--THIS "ARTICLE" IS. Fourthly, it creepily conflates certain terms and categories used in child rearing with the ones used in sexual dynamics--like "knowing when to say no" and "knowing which games are worth playing." Fifth, although the subtext is obviously targeted towards men realizing what a catch these women are, the phrasing and the form of address presents the material in such a way as to make single moms realize their own value, vis-a-vis heteronormative categories of the 50s, which entails presumptions offensive both to men (they need to be convinced that a single mom can be a desirable mate through a promise of, basically, lifestyle bribes) and to women (single moms need their value articulated for them, their value consisting of the fact that they CAN land a man, because, in dealing with children, they have learned the skills of being unselfish and self-sacrificing, and that IS appealing to men, and that's how they can compete with those pesky non-mother women who are, by default, ball-busting bitches who will make the men pick up their dirty socks). I could go on, but this made me so mad, I just want to scream at my computer screen. I hate it when the mainstream discourse has gotten so reactionary that my critique has to revert to some second-wave feminist crap. I mean, do you need more proof that we are in the un-50s?
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2003-04-28 10:53 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-04-29 05:00 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-04-29 08:59 am (UTC)P.S. I forwarded this post to my sister, who's a lawyer and single mother
no subject
Date: 2003-04-29 09:20 am (UTC)as my roommate pointed out last night, why the hell are feminists so up in arms about porn, when this type of shit is much more scary and insidious?
no subject
Date: 2003-04-29 09:21 am (UTC)Re:
Date: 2003-04-29 11:47 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-04-29 03:40 pm (UTC)zizek is a weird one. he is so on point some of the time, but the problem with him, just when you think he is really getting to something he starts wanking about some movie for 27 pages. he is astute and at times even brilliant, but often lacks followthrough, resulting in a kind of intellectual sloppiness. he is really good for understanding lacan in terms of pop culture (even though it's written the other way around), but once you get lacan like that it's hard to feel compelled to actually try to understand lacan through his own texts (mostly because they are largely incomprehensible, but still)...zizek can be paradoxical like that in what he can do for you...what was his demeanor like in class?
Re:
Date: 2003-04-30 07:03 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-04-29 09:48 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-04-29 11:48 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-05-14 11:04 pm (UTC)