No, I am not an incubator.
Tonight I was browsing around childfree and came across a post ranting about a line from this series of articles. The offending line, from the "Befriend Your Body" section, read, "A women's body is a biological masterpiece; women can menstruate, ovulate and create life." Essentially, the author is apparently arguing that women should have self-worth because they are capable of producing children.
The people at childfree already did a pretty good job of ripping this notion apart, but I felt inspired to rant about it a bit as well.
The notion that women are special because they can bear children reminds me of a sermon I heard a number of years ago--I think it must have been on a Mother's Day Sunday. The pastor's basic argument was that marriage and motherhood are the best and most noble and honorable callings a woman can possibly have. The main evidence he used to back up this argument was essentially the same as in that article above--women's bodies were designed by God to create children, to protect and nourish them while they develop, to give birth to them, to nurture them, and so on. I don't remember all the exact details, but I do remember that the sermon made me livid.
First of all: if a woman's reproductive capabilities make her special and worthwhile, then what about women who are infertile--who actually want to have children but can't because of medical reasons? Are they automatically doomed to a less-than-noble calling because they're physically incapable of having children? Oh dear, your parts don't work right--sucks to be you!
Second, a woman's reproductive organs are only one part of her body. An important part, yes, but not the Be All, End All of her existence. I have a uterus and ovaries, and as far as I know, they're in perfect working order. Yay for me. But I also have a brain. And my brain has done a heck of a lot more for me than my reproductive organs have. I use my brain every day (well, okay--most days). My uterus and ovaries, on the other hand, don't do a darn thing for me other than make me miserable for six days every month. Yep, they're a real masterpiece, all right. Personally, I would prefer that my worth and value and contribution to society be judged based on what I do with my brain, not on the fact that I'm physically capable of producing a creature that, for a frighteningly long time, does nothing but scream and poop.
Third, we have a massive double standard alert. Women aren't the only ones with reproductive organs, y'know--last time I checked, it takes both a man and a woman to make a baby. So how come no one ever preaches sermons about how men's worth is defined by their dangly bits? That's not to say that I've never heard a Father's Day sermon about the importance of men raising their children right, but I've never heard it claimed that a man's Most Important and Worthy Calling is to be a sperm-donor.
This is a beef I've had with the Christian community as a whole for a long time--the double standard when it comes to marriage and kids. Men are expected to get good jobs and provide for the family, while women are expected to pine away after men until they find The Right One (I've seen more than one Bible study book for women on being patient and faithful and pure until God leads you to your future husband, etc, etc), get married, start popping out kids, and stay home with the kiddies once they arrive. Who was it that ever decided that every Christian girl must enshrine marriage and children as the ultimate goals to be attained?
Back to the double standard--take the "MRS degree," for example. (Yes, please do take it. I never want to hear it again.) If I had a dollar for every time I heard that ridiculous phrase while I was at Cedarville, I'd probably have enough cash to fund my Starbucks obsession for a year. (Okay, more like a couple of months. But I'm getting off-topic.) My question is, why is there no "MR degree"? Obviously, for every girl who gets engaged while at a Christian college, there's a guy getting engaged, too. Why does everyone make a big fuss about a girl meeting her fiancé at a Christian school, but not the other way around?
Now, I do realize that I'm generalizing with this whole "the Christian community thinks all Christian girls should be good little stay-at-home wives and mothers!" issue. I don't want to tar everyone with the same brush. And obviously, despite the headdesk-worthy obsession with MRS degrees and finding your SOUL MATE!!1 while you're at school, there's no law or decree in the Christian community that women can't get jobs or work outside the home--if that were the case, I suppose Christian colleges wouldn't even award degrees to women. And yes, it's entirely possible that I'm hugely overreacting because I'm super!sensitive to this issue. But still, I've definitely gotten the general impression that marriage and kids are supposed to be a Way Bigger Deal for Christian women than they are for Christian men.
For another example--as I already blathered about a bit in my LJ earlier, the other day I watched this year's Cedarville graduation online. Near the end of the ceremony they gave special awards to the students who had maintained perfect 4.0 GPAs throughout their entire college career. They announced the students' names, majors, extracurricular activities and ministries, all the wonderful things they'd ever done, etc. And for one of the female students receiving the award--I can't remember exactly how they put it, but it went along the lines of "Probably her biggest achievement this year was that she got married!"
...Right. Screw having a 4.0 every single semester of your college career, being involved in a ton of ministries and activities, and so on...getting married is TEH BEST ACCOMPLISHMENT EVAR. And would they have mentioned her marriage if she had been a guy? Maybe, maybe not...but I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't, or at least, if they didn't put such a big emphasis on it.
For the record, I'm actually not against marriage or being a stay-at-home-mom. (To quote the amazing and wonderful Sara Sidle of CSI: "I'm not anti-wedding, I'm just anti-stupid.") Yes, marriage and motherhood are good and noble and worthy callings. I think that if a woman really and truly wants to get married and have babies and stay at home with them, then by all means, she should get married and have all the babies she wants. And that's great for her. But women who decide not to have children, particularly women who decide to pursue careers instead of motherhood, are equally entitled to their choices. And they should not be labeled as having chosen a supposedly less worthy path. Because brains > uteruses.
The people at childfree already did a pretty good job of ripping this notion apart, but I felt inspired to rant about it a bit as well.
The notion that women are special because they can bear children reminds me of a sermon I heard a number of years ago--I think it must have been on a Mother's Day Sunday. The pastor's basic argument was that marriage and motherhood are the best and most noble and honorable callings a woman can possibly have. The main evidence he used to back up this argument was essentially the same as in that article above--women's bodies were designed by God to create children, to protect and nourish them while they develop, to give birth to them, to nurture them, and so on. I don't remember all the exact details, but I do remember that the sermon made me livid.
First of all: if a woman's reproductive capabilities make her special and worthwhile, then what about women who are infertile--who actually want to have children but can't because of medical reasons? Are they automatically doomed to a less-than-noble calling because they're physically incapable of having children? Oh dear, your parts don't work right--sucks to be you!
Second, a woman's reproductive organs are only one part of her body. An important part, yes, but not the Be All, End All of her existence. I have a uterus and ovaries, and as far as I know, they're in perfect working order. Yay for me. But I also have a brain. And my brain has done a heck of a lot more for me than my reproductive organs have. I use my brain every day (well, okay--most days). My uterus and ovaries, on the other hand, don't do a darn thing for me other than make me miserable for six days every month. Yep, they're a real masterpiece, all right. Personally, I would prefer that my worth and value and contribution to society be judged based on what I do with my brain, not on the fact that I'm physically capable of producing a creature that, for a frighteningly long time, does nothing but scream and poop.
Third, we have a massive double standard alert. Women aren't the only ones with reproductive organs, y'know--last time I checked, it takes both a man and a woman to make a baby. So how come no one ever preaches sermons about how men's worth is defined by their dangly bits? That's not to say that I've never heard a Father's Day sermon about the importance of men raising their children right, but I've never heard it claimed that a man's Most Important and Worthy Calling is to be a sperm-donor.
This is a beef I've had with the Christian community as a whole for a long time--the double standard when it comes to marriage and kids. Men are expected to get good jobs and provide for the family, while women are expected to pine away after men until they find The Right One (I've seen more than one Bible study book for women on being patient and faithful and pure until God leads you to your future husband, etc, etc), get married, start popping out kids, and stay home with the kiddies once they arrive. Who was it that ever decided that every Christian girl must enshrine marriage and children as the ultimate goals to be attained?
Back to the double standard--take the "MRS degree," for example. (Yes, please do take it. I never want to hear it again.) If I had a dollar for every time I heard that ridiculous phrase while I was at Cedarville, I'd probably have enough cash to fund my Starbucks obsession for a year. (Okay, more like a couple of months. But I'm getting off-topic.) My question is, why is there no "MR degree"? Obviously, for every girl who gets engaged while at a Christian college, there's a guy getting engaged, too. Why does everyone make a big fuss about a girl meeting her fiancé at a Christian school, but not the other way around?
Now, I do realize that I'm generalizing with this whole "the Christian community thinks all Christian girls should be good little stay-at-home wives and mothers!" issue. I don't want to tar everyone with the same brush. And obviously, despite the headdesk-worthy obsession with MRS degrees and finding your SOUL MATE!!1 while you're at school, there's no law or decree in the Christian community that women can't get jobs or work outside the home--if that were the case, I suppose Christian colleges wouldn't even award degrees to women. And yes, it's entirely possible that I'm hugely overreacting because I'm super!sensitive to this issue. But still, I've definitely gotten the general impression that marriage and kids are supposed to be a Way Bigger Deal for Christian women than they are for Christian men.
For another example--as I already blathered about a bit in my LJ earlier, the other day I watched this year's Cedarville graduation online. Near the end of the ceremony they gave special awards to the students who had maintained perfect 4.0 GPAs throughout their entire college career. They announced the students' names, majors, extracurricular activities and ministries, all the wonderful things they'd ever done, etc. And for one of the female students receiving the award--I can't remember exactly how they put it, but it went along the lines of "Probably her biggest achievement this year was that she got married!"
...Right. Screw having a 4.0 every single semester of your college career, being involved in a ton of ministries and activities, and so on...getting married is TEH BEST ACCOMPLISHMENT EVAR. And would they have mentioned her marriage if she had been a guy? Maybe, maybe not...but I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't, or at least, if they didn't put such a big emphasis on it.
For the record, I'm actually not against marriage or being a stay-at-home-mom. (To quote the amazing and wonderful Sara Sidle of CSI: "I'm not anti-wedding, I'm just anti-stupid.") Yes, marriage and motherhood are good and noble and worthy callings. I think that if a woman really and truly wants to get married and have babies and stay at home with them, then by all means, she should get married and have all the babies she wants. And that's great for her. But women who decide not to have children, particularly women who decide to pursue careers instead of motherhood, are equally entitled to their choices. And they should not be labeled as having chosen a supposedly less worthy path. Because brains > uteruses.