alexis in the city

What’s the deal with DOMA?

massachusetts filed a lawsuit wednesday against the federal government that calls into question the constitutionality of the defense of marriage act (DOMA).

i’ve tackled this subject before as i believe the federal government should leave itself out of the marriage thing altogether. in my version of an ideal world, there would be two different rules governing marriage - the legal side of things which would allow for equal treatment of all people (what we would now consider civil unions), and the religious side of things which would allow for what we now term “marriage.” however, this is not the way things are, nor do i think we’re heading in that direction so what should be done given the way things are now?

continue reading »

i am more than an “s”

i hate that i’m a mrs. i don’t hate being married but i hate that who i am can be reduced to one tiny letter on the front of an envelope. let’s face it: “s” is the only thing differentiating me from ryan when we get things addressed to “mr and mrs ryan waggoner.”

i’m sure i’m over-reacting and i’m sure it shouldn’t bother me, but it does. a lot. it’s one more way that we conform to the constructs of a pre-feminist, patriarchial society without even realizing it. and - while i’d like to say my anger is directed toward the injustices revealed by this contruct and then subsequently enforced upon all women - (although that is the cause of some of my emotion), this is rooted in a far baser reaction: i am perturbed on a personal level.

let’s set aside the fact that i feel waaaaay too young for anyone to call me “mrs.” or the fact that i kept my original name. if we must do the mr. and mrs. thing and we must use only one last name, is it REALLY too much to ask to include MY name in there? i mean, i would be happy with a simple “mr and mrs ryan and alexis waggoner.” (see that - i don’t even care if ryan’s name is listed first. that much. although i think it should be alphabetical … but whatever.)

i know most people don’t even THINK about these kinds of things, so i don’t take it personally when i get something addressed to me as an “s.” i’m not frustrated with the person that sent it, i’m frustrated with the length of time it takes our habits and constructs as a society to be deconstructed and reconstructed differently and more effectively.

a pro-gay marriage stance on the federal government’s involvement

some of you may have seen this huffington post article i posted on facebook. basically, gay rights groups are upset that the supreme court last week overturned a gay marriage case at the federal level. the couple was challenging 1996’s defense of marriage act which “prevents couples in states that recognize same-sex unions from securing Social Security spousal benefits, filing joint taxes and other federal rights of marriage.” part of the frustration is that obama has pledged to try to repeal this act, and many see the ruling as inconsistent with this promise.

i am a gay marriage supporter. i am staunchly (STAUNCHLY) opposed to DOMA. i want equal rights for all people. and i support the supreme court’s decision last week. here’s why:

continue reading »

the “feminine wound” is a disservice to feminism

a couple months ago, my sister gave me a book called “dance of the dissident daughter” by sue monk kidd. this post is by no means meant to be a review of the entire book, since i could only get through about half of it. it was horribly written (especially considering kidd is a writer), it drew some ridiculous parallels and came to some groundless conclusions. all of this would be ok considering it was written as a memoir, but kidd was also making the case for her transformation from traditional, evangelical wife to what i would describe as hippy-dippy, dance naked under the moon (seriously she does this), find feminist meaning in EVERYTHING (and i mean everything - from a woman crying on the front porch to a tree in a forest), borderline pantheism. i’m going to need a little bit more than “i learned to trust the divine within” to be able to swallow that transition!

continue reading »

so if we’re not 1950’s housewives, where does that leave us?

i’ve been tackling the ideas put forth in a chapter of a book called “the excellent wife” - mainly that it is a woman’s role - and an issue of black and white - to stay home and tend to the kids and the house. i went into (great) depth on the refutation of these ideas in three separate posts here, here and here.

so to wrap it up, i go back to the issue at hand:  i don’t think there’s a reason, biblical or otherwise, that the weight of all the responsibilities of the home should fall to the woman if it’s not something she enjoys or feels strongly like she should do.

i’m not naive enough to think that we never have to do anything we don’t enjoy. but if you really hate, say, cooking (as i do), and your husband likes it, why not let that role fall to him? or if you can’t stand doing dishes (and who doesn’t?) why not find a mutually beneficial compromise with your spouse? to make a sweeping generalization that anything in the domain of the home falls to the woman refuses to acknowledge that each marriage has its own way of working, its own dynamic.

to venture into anecdotal territory, i mentioned that my mom didn’t work after my sister and i were born, and i appreciate her for this. she did, however, have a career as a school teacher before we were born. the fact that she worked hard to pursue something she enjoyed influenced how she raised us and how i viewed my role in the world, and as a potential wife in a potential marriage. she was self-sufficient and on her own for a while and this sense of individuality and accomplishment - who she was before she was a mom - did a lot for the importance i placed on MY individuality, as a kid AND as an adult. this, to me, was worth its weight in gold, much like her presence during our childhood.

continue reading »