Working Mothers = Fat Kids

Apparently, a study has been conducted and published in the sometimes sexist Herald Sun that mothers who work full time have much fatter kids. The articles goes on to elaborate that mothers who work part-time can better oversee what the child does during day and limits eating and lazing around the television. Funnily, only the term mother is used right throughout the article and my search for one mention of the father failed. Not once was the father mentioned. The article quotes (and this is a serious research):

“When mothers work part-time, there’s obviously something about the way the house is run, and the way parents are looking after their children that is protective,” associate professor Jan Nicholson, principal research fellow at Melbourne’s Murdoch Children’s Research Institute, said.

Ah, yes – how dare mothers concern themselves with something other than running their households and looking after their children? How dare they go out into the work force and earn their living and retain some sort of independence? Why should fathers be involved? After all, this is woman’s work. Another research called (and I can’t believe this) Do Working Mothers Raise Couch Potato Kids? found the same results – full-time working mothers have fatter kids.

Are we living in the 1960s? Why is there no mention of the joint responsibility of the father? How silly of me, he would be the main bread winner of course. What was the purpose of this ‘research’ if it only concentrated on the mothers? This is a very sexist ‘research’ article and shows nor prove nothing. What about all those dads who work part-time? Do they have slimmer kids? This research is extremely one sided and contributes nothing to the field of childhood obesity. What an utter waste of money. It had better not be tax-payer funded. The article, or research, only proved one thing and it is that some people or organisations will do anything to get women back into the kitchen.

Swinging and Herman Rockefeller

If you live in Victoria then you may have heard about the murder sensation of wealthy businessman, Herman Rockefeller. The victim – millionaire, loving husband and father of two – was revealed to have been a secret swinger and police alleged that Rockefeller was consequently murdered due to his secret sexual lifestyle.

Secret in what sense? The media is having a field day particular yesterday’s (08/02/2010) episode of Today Tonight. If you aren’t sure what the program is, you can google it but I’m not going to provide a link to it here (and yes, I’m already ashamed to admit that I watched the sorry excuse for a news program). A segment was dedicated to Rockefeller’s ‘seedy’ and ‘sordid’ swinging lifestyle. A man allege to have received dozens of sexually explicit text messages and videos from interested swingers to his new mobile phone number, alleged to have once been owned by Rockefeller. The ‘reporter’ asked how the man felt about these messages who only stopped short of commenting that these sexual practices were disgusting.

What is the problem? Why is the media so intent of painting Rockefeller, who is still considered a victim here, as a seedy and uncouth citizen? It has already been stressed that he is a wealthy and high flying businessman who is the director of over forty companies, he lives in a leafy and rich suburb and his children are intelligent and are educated at prestigious private schools. If he cheated on his wife, then that’s a different story and I’m sorry she and his family had to find out this way. But all other factors show that he was an excellent person and father and a high achiever. The man liked sex. What of it?

To Wax or not to Wax?

I read a book review last night, “Wetlands” by a German author. Apparently it is incredibly raunchy describing in detail the female bodies and its hidden crevices and pleasure centres. I’m sure it’s a lot better written than my own description. Part of it, however, is a feminist discourse on the female rituals of waxing, plucking, grooming. It’s a fascinating idea – the relationship between women and their bodies.

Aside from the eating disorders and body hang up, the way the body “works” naturally, that is, sweat, pores, hair – if it appears on a female it’s regarded as disgusting. If a well groomed woman stank, or a gorgeous woman had a moustache – she won’t be regarded as all that. Why is it that men can be lax, should they choose, about their grooming rituals while women can’t.

Today ‘s women spend possibly days preparing for a big night. Not including their diet – they’ll fake tan, shave/wax, tint, trim and blow dry their hair, facials and masks, manicure and pedicures, Brazillian waxes, botox, eyelash tinting and perming … the list goes on. Men who appear scruffy are merely frowned upon, or shrugged off by assuming they’re making a fashionable stand or they’re original. If women rocked up in a pretty frock but with unshaved arms and legs, moustache, self blow dried hair and a pimple on her face – she won’t merely be shunned but castigated.

It’s amazing how double standards still exists today – after the 70s stance and women not shaving their legs. Does shaving legs signify a woman’s ultimate femininity?

Feminism Today

It appears that the achievements of the  second wave of feminism that occurred in the sixties and seventies remains rather ambiguous. There are constant reports in papers (well, in particular the papers I read which are the Herald Sun and The Age) about the disparities between the sexes in the home, in social settings, in the workforce, in life.

The question of equality is constantly raised and it is true that equality between the two sexes has not been achieved. Having just read a report in the The Age that reported that women still make a low percentage on boards and their salary is lagging significantly behind men despite doing them same work. There was another report this week commenting that 70% of men and 50% of women thought sex inequality still exist at work. Now that was a rather unpredictable result coming from the men.

It is rather obvious that equality between the sexes has not been achieved. The reasoning behind the salary disparities is concerning and makes no sense. But the fact that we still need feminist bodies and ‘women’ as an epithet in organisations or societies also ironically shows women has not gained equality because there is the need for reinforcement. There are countless discourses exclusively about women but there are few about men.