Women and the backyard chicken-keeping phenomenon

According to Peggy Orenstein's essay in yesterday's New York Times magazine, The Femivore's Dilemma, women--mostly stay-at-home moms--comprise the majority of folks who have become urban chicken keepers (at least in Berkeley, California, where Orenstein lives). Orenstein observes that the locavore movement has provided an alternative for well-educated women--an alternative, that is, to the standard "break the glass ceiling" or "accept the gilded cage." Here is how she sums up what she calls "femivorism."

Femivorism is grounded in the very principles of self-sufficiency, autonomy and personal fulfillment that drove women into the work force in the first place. Given how conscious (not to say obsessive) everyone has become about the source of their food — who these days can’t wax poetic about compost? — it also confers instant legitimacy. Rather than embodying the limits of one movement, femivores expand those of another: feeding their families clean, flavorful food; reducing their carbon footprints; producing sustainably instead of consuming rampantly.

An interesting perspective--very idealized, I'd say. Maybe Orenstein is correct that this is a "good" option for women who have left paid work, but I am reminded of this earlier post regarding the added burdens that locavorism and the slow food movement have put on many women, including those working outside the home and already burdened by the second shift.

Indeed, at the end of her essay, Orenstein comes around to a similar point, concluding "if a woman is not careful, it seems, chicken wire can coop her up as surely as any gilded cage." Be sure to read the rest of the essay to see how she gets to that conclusion.

Thought Provoking Interview with Former Dominatrix on NPR

On Monday night I listened to this interview on NPR: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=124369913

At first I was just listening to the charming voice of Melissa Febos, and her brand of warm and psychological take on the four years she spent as a professional dominatrix, while she put herself through college, used and then quit using heroin. But then it got me thinking about how much she dared to open up and risk her now-professional career as a creative writing professor. Certainly, I have my own emotionally charged issues with pornography and sex for sale, which are probably grounded in my own insecurities about my body and image thereof. The interview, on the other hand, made me admire Ms. Febos, at the very least for her kudos and for being able to use her experiences and talk about them publicly, even write a memoir about them. Which is altogether problematic for me, because as a feminist, I should take a definite stance against the exploitation of women in any form whatsoever. I suspect there is a difference between the rejection of all forms of prostitution and the acceptance of individuals' extraordinary life stories, but the line, I fear, is a thin one to draw here.

Gender essentialism for a good cause? or at least with some good outcomes for women

This story in today's New York Times, dateline Sofia, Bulgaria, intrigued me--in part because of the gender essentialism angle. Dan Bilefsky writes of the rise of women in Bulgarian politics, thanks at least in part to support from Prime Minister Boiko Borisov. Bilefsky quotes Borisov, who mentions his mother and German Chancellor Angela Merkel as among his role models:

“Women are more diligent than men, and they don’t take long lunches or go to the bar.”

* * *

“Women have stronger characters than men because when they say no they mean no, and they are less corruptible,” he said last summer, inaugurating the women’s wing of his center-right party.

***

“It’s hard to admit, but women are less corruptible than men and are cleaner. ... Because they are more risk averse.”

The story features further speculation about whether women are, in fact, less corruptible and, if so, why that might be. It also provides details of women's rise in Bulgarian and other Balkan states' political arenas and is well worth a read.

Women as the "architects of food security"

I've written about this issue here, and now just heard on NPR that aid agencies distributing food in Haiti have begun trying specifically to get food aid the food into the hands of women because they have found that these recipients tend to ensure that women and children are fed first. Distributing to young men, on the other hand, has "caused problems," perhaps meaning it goes to the black market.

I know this "architects of food security"label and the idea behind it feed into gender essentialism, which makes me uncomfortable. But, maybe there's some truth to it--in which case it would seem worth acting on.

Intriguing report about law mandating women's presence on corporate boards in Norway

Read the story here, and see a related slide show here.

To what extent was Coakley's loss about gender?

That's the question the New York Times takes up here. Following is an excerpt suggesting that Scott Brown's victory in the U.S. Senate race last week wasn't just about health care reform or the tea party phenom:

For decades, women have been unable to gain a solid political toehold in Massachusetts, a state long dominated by male political figures. Five women in Massachusetts’s history — including Ms. Coakley, the attorney general — have been elected to statewide constitutional office, and four have been elected to the House of Representatives.

And here's a quote from Democratic political consultant, Mary Anne Marsh:

Welcome to liberal Massachusetts — we’re not. ... And if you didn’t believe it before, anyone who thinks that Massachusetts is liberal in light of Tuesday’s results need only look at the record and lack of success women have had in Massachusetts politics. That should just put it away for good.

Glad to see this angle on last week's election finally being aired.