The 50-50 Split?

In 1970 Alix Kates Shulman wrote an essay titled “A Marriage Agreement” and instantly became one of the voices of the burgeoning Women’s Liberation Movement. She was ten years into her second marriage when she came up with a set of rules that she and her husband agreed upon to make their relationship more equitable.  At the time the idea of sharing housekeeping and child rearing on a 50-50 basis “was so outrageous that the piece appeared in many magazines including New York, Ms., Redbook and Life, which gave it a six-page spread, and was attacked by Norman Mailer, S.I. Hayakawa, and Russell Baker, among others.” (p.163, Alix Kates Shulman, Women on Divorce .)

In the essay, Shulman wrote that “Before we made our agreement I had never been able to find the time to [write]. Over the past two years I’ve written three children’s books, a biography and a novel and edited a collection of writings. Without our agreement I would never have been able to do this.”

Ironically (or inevitably?), Shulman’s marriage ended after 25 years. Was it the 50-50 split that did it? There are those who would have us believe that Shulman’s feminist principles are what doomed her marriage. After all, before the feminist movement, women were happy unselfishly giving up their lives to take care of home and family. Weren’t they?

These days it is a given that women have the right to pursue their interests–as long as it doesn’t interfere with their responsibilities at home. This is what conservatives and traditionalists (read: “anti-feminists”) would have us believe. And yet most women, even if they don’t identify as feminists, know that they’re not being treated fairly. Why shouldn’t their husbands and boyfriends shoulder as much of the chores as they do? Why should women be the only ones who are blamed if the house isn’t a home and the children aren’t well-adjusted?

Even among couples who attempt to share the responsibilities of marriage equally, the housekeeping and child rearing rests more on the woman’s shoulders than it does on the man’s, even though both are out earning a living. Many young women have expressed their anger with Second Wave feminists’ assurances that a woman can have it all.  They’d be glad, they profess, to be back in the home full-time, if only to relieve the pressure of having to work and take care of the home and children anyway. Lisa Belkin called this the “Opt-Out Revolution” in a 2003 New York Times article of the same name. Apparently, young women who were groomed for careers are opting out to stay home with their children.

It’s not clear how much of a phenomenon this is. But what is clear is that something has got to give. These young mothers will find their opportunities limited when and if they return to the workforce. Their Social Security benefits will be less than their husbands’ because they didn’t work as much over their life spans. And that’s not even taking into account the talents that go unused when women eschew careers for home-making.

[Let me say here that there is nothing wrong with being a homemaker--unless the homemaker in question wants more out of life. If her partner really loves her, he (or she) should make it possible for her to explore all her options. No woman should have to take on more than her share of the household and familial duties.]

Shulman writes today:

“["A Marriage Contract's"] limited success is hardly surprising, given the economic, social, and psychological arrangements that continue to impede equality, in marriage and out…Probably not until the polity is more child- and woman-friendly, not until men and women are equally valued – economically and otherwise – not until free or low-cost quality childcare is universally available, will the ideal of equality in marriage be other than radical.” (Shulman’s complete remarks here.)

I put this video on Facebook, but then decided that I wanted to comment on it more than I could in that venue. Watch it first and see what you think.

Before I watched this video, I was uncomfortable with the idea of the face veil (the niqab). But the woman who wears the niqab in this video is extremely articulate and persuaded me that there can be good reasons for covering the face, even if that is not a choice I would make.

I was also persuaded by the uncovered woman’s explanation for why she doesn’t cover. And that sums up my dilemma. I am a Muslim woman who has not made up her mind about covering. I have worn the headscarf  (the hijab) on many occasions, but haven’t made a total commitment to it. I’ve worn it to run errands, to visit my Muslim friends and go to Muslim celebrations, when I pray and to go to the masjid (mosque). But I don’t wear it to work or whenever I answer the door. And I don’t know if I would have enough courage to wear it on an airplane!

It’s a little late to be telling you, but today is National Wear Red Day. Established by the American Heart Association’s Go Red For Women campaign, its aim is to alert women to the very real possibility of their own heart disease. Many women ignore risk factors and behaviors that lead to heart disease because they think of it as a man’s disease. But the truth is, heart disease is the number one reason for death among women. Yep, number one.

My mother struggled with heart disease for over twenty years before my father developed any heart trouble–and he was 71 at the time. Her quality of life was severely hampered by her heart problems: she had two angioplasties, a quadruple bypass,  one stroke, poor circulation which made it hard for her to walk and thousands of dollars in medical bills, including $600/month in prescription medicines. Not to mention the threat of death that lurked around the corner at all times. That’s not a good way to live.

So even if you don’t think that you’ll die of a heart attack, think again. The statistics say that your chances are good. But even if you don’t—and who’s going to quibble about reasons when the time comes?—do you really want to compromise your health the way my mother did? She had all the risk factors: she was significantly overweight, diabetic, had high cholesterol and smoked for most of her adult life. (When she went in for her quadruple bypass and was asked when she quit smoking, she said, “Today.”)

I myself only recently quit smoking and I’m overweight. So far, knock on wood, I haven’t developed heart disease–that I know of. I haven’t had my cholesterol checked in years and really have no idea what shape my arteries are in. I eat reasonably healthfully, but not perfectly, I have a sedentary lifestyle and rarely exercise. As I write these words, I’m uncomfortably aware that I might be following in my mother’s footsteps and not even know it.

Because, unlike my mother, most people don’t experience symptoms before having a heart attack or stroke. Heart disease is one of those conditions that kills without warning. It is up to you to reduce your risk factors by watching your cholesterol levels and your weight, quitting smoking, increasing your activity level and cultivating healthy eating habits. It is also a good idea to know your cholesterol and fasting blood sugar levels. Then take the Go Red Heart Checkup to assess your risk of developing heart disease.

What is post-feminism and are we experiencing it? One of my favorite blogs, Finally, A Feminist 101 Blog, discusses post-feminism thoroughly in its FAQs. The article on Post-Feminism, by tekanji, explains in part:

“According to Wikipedia post-feminism began in the early 1980’s, though the origins, according to Hawkensworth, seem to be from as early as the 1970’s, when journalists and academics began proclaiming that feminism is dead. The basic idea behind the movement is that feminism has achieved its goals and now it is time to distance ourselves from the movement…

No matter what form it may take, however, it is clear that the movement arose out of a backlash against feminism. This backlash is often ascribed to the specialization and splintering of feminism, which is seen by many post-feminists as one of the root causes for feminism’s decline. Regardless of which frame is put on it, though, this backlash carries one primary notion: post-feminism’s rise signals a world ‘in which feminism has been transcended, occluded, overcome’ (Hawkensworth).”

I suppose whether or not we’re in a post-feminist world depends on who you ask. Second Wave feminists like me, while acknowledging that the tenor of feminism has changed, are hardly likely to pronounce feminism is dead. This is partly because of the way Second Wavers saw the problems of women in our patriarchal society. Some people think that feminism has served its purpose because so many advancements fought for by Second Wave feminists have been achieved.

Riz Khan speaks with author and activist Eve Ensler.