Baby Mama Drama

Tick tock, tick tock, tick tock. What’s that sound? Tina Fey’s biological clock?

The movie Baby Mama introduced us to Kate Holbrook, the Vice President of Development for a mock-Whole Foods. She claims that while other women were having babies, she was getting promotions.

Until she turned 37 and felt like “every baby was staring at her” and thus she wanted a baby. Interesting reasoning. Except she has a t-shaped uterus and according to her doctor, a one in a million chance of having a baby. Enter Sigourney Weaver’s surrogate mother agency, and Amy Poehler’s uterus. Hilarity ensues, each woman grows in some way, and a new name for the 2008 top 10 list of baby names is created.

Since it is a fairly new movie, I won’t give away any spoilers, I’ll just ask, why is it called a “biological” clock? The name implies that it is every woman’s biology is to be a mother, but what about the women with t-shaped uteruses? Or some other physical issue resulting in the inability to get pregnant? If they feel the urge to be a mother, is it biological despite their incorrect biology? Or is it sociological? My sociological clock is telling me it’s baby time?



A funny thing happened last year. I got married. But even funnier, the act of wearing an ivory-and-champagne-gold dress and repeating after my priest meant it was OK for people to ask that dreaded question. “So when are you going to have kids?” What? When am I going to become the baby-making machine that my uterus expects of me? It would have been wrong to do so before the ivory dress, but somehow this ceremonial act makes it OK? I haven’t grown up at all. I’m not any more financially ready (in fact, less so … even semi-DIY weddings cost money).

I was not the only person I know who got married last year. My oldest brother married one of my best friends (2007 was a banner year for my mother) and a friend from high school also got married. I saw both this past weekend. The sister-in-law has baby fever. The friend said she wants to like herself more before she has kids. Where’s the biology in that? They both have uteruses (I assume). They are both around the same age. They have both been married roughly the same amount of time. But perhaps their sociological clocks are timed differently.

We all know people who couldn’t get pregnant fast enough (when they wanted to … I’m sure we also know many who did when they didn’t want to) and those who couldn’t get their tubes tied or something sniped fast enough. Have their biological clock malfunctioned? I have a female friend who practically shutters at the sound of a child’s voice. Is there something wrong with her biology? Or will she magically be like Kate Holbrook, and after becoming the VP of something, suddenly find every baby staring at her? As if it is so easy to just suddenly have that special, mystical, maternal instinct? Does that really happen?

(...to the full post)

Forgetting Judd Apatow

Why is Judd Apatow so obsessed with demonstrating the profound idea that average joes deserve love? First, we met the loveable virgin Andy in 40-Year-Old Virgin. Then it was slacker stoner Ben in Knocked Up. Then Evan and Seth in Superbad. And finally some dude in Forgetting Sarah Marshal. At this point, I feel like I’ve heard the story enough; do I really want to shell out the $10 for a movie ticket? Each storyline includes some confused average guy that ends up finding some gorgeous, smart, sexy, wonderful woman to fall in love with him and show him the way. And the world rejoices because normal people deserve love, too.

Oh wait – normal, straight white males deserve love. Love with gorgeous straight white women. And once they find this love, it’s as if they found their way. As if these women somehow saved them and helped them become functioning, adult men.



I appreciate Apatow’s rose-colored view of women; they are all smart, beautiful, perfect, gorgeous, together, pretty and able to look past physical normalcy. Did I mention beautiful? Sure, there were flawed female supporting characters, but they didn’t get nearly as much screen time as the many normal-because-of-their-flaws men.

In Apatow’s world, the men are allowed to be flawed, and by flawed I mean average and normal. They say stupid things. They play with action figures. They smoke pot. They wander around town carrying beer in empty detergent bottles in hopes of getting in to the cool party with the cool girls. They are able to act like “guys” until the perfect woman comes along and shows them how to be grown-ups.

At first, I thought it was nice that Apatow portrayed women in such a flattering light, especially compared to the normalcy of his male characters. These women were smart, confident and could see beyond their partner’s shortcomings and accept their men for who they are. They had successful careers as small business owners or entertainment news reporters (and I understand this Sarah Marshall character is a movie star?), whereas their guys were salesmen or unemployed.

But then I started to feel inadequate. Men in Apatow’s world are able to be insecure, dopey, lacking goals, etc. But not the women. They were perfect. If they were normal, who would be the strong figure to save Apatow’s men?

Perhaps Apatow too will grow tired of this same storyline, and turn the tables and write movies where normal guys fall in love with normal girls. Wouldn’t that be crazy? Or where gay people exist outside of the blunt end of jokes that reveal troubling and unresolved aspects of a character’s insecurity.

What gives me even more pause isn’t just these perfect-women-and-their-flawed-men, but the fact that I have not come across a single column or criticism pointing out this weird gender bias. Maybe I haven’t been looking hard enough, or maybe we all secretly wish we lived in a world with perfect women. But either way, I’m starting to feel like I don’t measure up. Whereas if I were a guy, I would.

(...to the full post)

The Pregnant Man

On April 3, the Oprah show featured Thomas, The Pregnant Man. Thomas and his wife of five years, Nancy, are expecting a baby girl. Thomas was born Tracy, a female, and during his 20s went through certain physical procedures and treatments to become a legal male. If Oprah is featuring a transgender individual on her show, what does this mean for pop culture?

Honestly, my first reaction to seeing The Pregnant Man was “finally, science is on our side!” Meaning, sweet, now my husband can carry our future babies, and not me. Yes, this is just my own wishful thinking clouding logical thought. Based on the response of the audience on the Oprah show, a lot of women were doing some wishful thinking too.

Once Oprah explained how it was possible for a man to be pregnant (by being born a biological female), she introduced Thomas. Oprah discussed Thomas’s past, why he decided to become a man, and how, exactly, he became a man.

Oprah got into a few issues of gender. One issue that was briefly brought up is the difference between gender and sexuality. When Thomas was a teenager (and still living as Tracy), she dated males. Eventually Tracy began dating females, and then realized that when she woke up in the morning, she felt like a man. So she decided to physical become a man, because that’s who she felt she really was.

Oprah asked Thomas why he didn’t just live his life as a lesbian, and stay a woman and date other women. He politely pointed out that this is a gender issue, and not just a sexuality issue. It’s not just that he wanted to make it more convenient to date women by making his outward appearance masculine, but he was a man in a biological woman’s body. I think this is something that many non-transgender individuals don’t always understand. And it makes me wonder – are there any female to male transsexuals that are attracted to men? Next topic for Oprah?

Another interesting moment came when Oprah talking to Thomas and Nancy’s neighbors, a 40-something married couple. They knew the couple was expecting, they just figured it was Nancy who was pregnant, and were surprised when they found out it was Thomas. The male neighbor explained that he couldn’t quite get his mind around it at first – it was a “sexually dyslexic moment” for him. Interesting way to put it. I think he meant well, but unfortunately comparing someone’s sexuality (and ultimately in this case, gender identity) to a learning disability didn’t seem quite as enlightened as Oprah made it seem. Perhaps he meant he (the neighbor) felt sexually dyslexic, but perhaps a better word could have been used.

In the end, Oprah asked Thomas and Nancy if she thought the world was ready for them – ready for a pregnant man, who also happened to be a former biological female now male. On the one hand, Thomas and Nancy were just like any other couple – preparing for a new baby, eager to raise it in a loving household, and just trying to live a normal life. But on the other hand, is the world (or at least, the US) ready for them? A country where large pockets want to legally ban gay marriage – even though Thomas is legally a man and thus their marriage is legal, there are certainly some individuals that would object to their marriage, or even Thomas being a legal male. Or consider that in the US, some states have banned gay adoption. Technically, Nancy and Thomas are not a gay couple, and they’re not adopting, but certainly the attitudes shown in the US regarding gays and lesbians, especially their right to marry, adopt and raise children, serve in the military, and many other things, can shine a little light on what kinds of attitudes might be displayed against them.

However, as they pointed out, Thomas and Nancy went on the Oprah show (and shared their story with People magazine), because they wanted to tell their story, from their view, and not be exploited. And, as Oprah pointed out, there were very courageous to do so. I only hope that the love and support they have for each other, and from their families and friends can far outshine any negative backlash they receive from others.

And who knows how many other Pregnant Men there will be in the future.

(...to the full post)

Secret life of a soccer mom

TLC has a new show, The Secret Life of Soccer Moms, that “celebrates stay at home mothers” by giving them a chance to leave their families for a week to live the dream careers that they gave up to be a stay at home mom. The pilot episode featured a would-have-been fashion designer who was able to spend a week working for a designer, creating three dresses that were shown in a small fashion show. In the end, the designer offered the mom a full-time job, which she accepted, even though that means getting outside care for their kids. Yay, episode ends and women rejoice. Right?

Upon perusal of the TLC website, I came across the message board for the show. Whoa, stay-at-home-mom backlash! The majority of the posts proclaimed the show to be a horrible encouragement of ripping apart the [wonderful nuclear] family and branded this mother as utterly selfish for choosing her dreams over her children. Accusations flew – including that their hired sitters/day care workers will probably beat their children, and that there’s something wrong with this woman for not finding total fulfillment through raising her children. And yes, someone even blamed the feminist movement for all the world’s problems today. OK, maybe just violence in schools. Yes, that’s the feminist movement’s fault.

Uh, what?

Why doesn’t anyone ever point out that fathers also “abandon” their children when they work full-time outside of the home? Just because the female births the babies does not automatically mean they are the only ones who are capable of raising them. Perhaps it is a generational thing, but when I look at my married/coupled friends (mid-to-late 20s), in over half of them the woman makes more money. Will we ever stop automatically assuming that the woman is in the better position to be the primary care giver? Because at this rate, when my friends start making babies, from a financial perspective, if anyone’s going to stay at home, it should be the fathers.

Moving on … why am I even surprised that the feminist movement still gets blamed for personal shortcomings? The feminist movement gave women choices – to focus on their career, motherhood, both, or neither. But at the end of the day, it’s all about choice. Yet reading this message board, it sounds like women have the freedom of choice – but something’s wrong with the women that don’t choose to be stay-at-home mothers, because that’s the most rewarding thing a woman can do. What would these women say to a woman who chooses to never have children? That she’s ignoring her natural instincts? That there’s clearly something biologically wrong with her?

Oddly enough, only one person on the message board pointed out that these women (as in the women on the show, no finger pointing to the other women on the message board) were privileged to even have the choice to be a stay at home mom, and suggested TLC instead do a show helping out mothers who have to work outside the home. But, other women came right out and said that regardless of your financial situation, mothers shouldn’t work outside the home. If you can’t afford one income, be creative! Find a paying job you can do at home. As if it were that easy.

Newsflash: some families can’t afford to live on one income. Some mothers have no husbands to help them out. Work-from-home jobs are hard to come by, and unless you luckily have a combination of degree and on-the-job experience, most work-from-home jobs won’t support a family.

But believe it or not, some women don’t feel complete satisfaction when focusing 100 percent of their energy on raising children. But this isn’t a feminist issue. This is an issue for all people, regardless of gender. We all should have the freedom to figure out what makes us happy, and pursue those dreams, regardless. Millions of children go to day care or have baby-sitters during their youth while their mothers work, and believe it or not, they turn out fine. I happen to know many, personally. Some women who can afford to stay at home choose not to because they see the benefits in pursuing their own dreams – not only for their personal enrichment, but to set a good example for their children. Don’t you think a child would turn out much better if the child had happy, fulfilled parents, even if there parents were away at work half the day, than a stay at home parent who was unfulfilled, sad and possibly ultimately resentful? I think well-rounded, happy parents are much more beneficial than having someone you share DNA hovering over you 24/7 just because someone thinks that’s their “natural” role.

(...to the full post)