Games for Girls.

I've been wondering what in the world my next topic here at RJ would be.

I have been intentionally avoiding the election, which may be to my detriment as a blogger, but I've learned that you can't really change anyone's mind about politics once they've made it up.  I'm happy to give you the run down on my voting thoughts if you comment and tell me that's something you want - if not - then I'll just keep on avoiding that subject all together...  I think we're all a little tired of political rants and ads.

So today, instead, we are talking about video games.  Specifically those online.

My son was asking for a few new battle type games to play that would be appropriate for his age group, so I typed in "games for boys" and tons of sites appeared.  I scrolled through, found one with a wide variety of topics from which to choose, and let him have at.  Soon, of course, his sister arrived on the scene, and asked for a special website with Games for Girls.

The site for boys included battle games, adventure games, war games, puzzle games, educational games, painting games, and all sorts of other cool stuff.

The sites for girls?

Well...  it was tough for me to get past the game found on the majority of the girl game sites called "Kiss me Softly" - where you get "love points" for having your character find the boy character on the cruise ship and kiss him.  More points for a lengthier kiss.  The Girl's Games site also included games about cooking...  and another game about "Making Over" school pictures - change the nerd into the popular girl with just a few clicks!

Of course I was outraged.

I didn't know what to say to my four year old daughter about the subject matter presented, or how disappointed I was.  Next to the cupcake decorating game was a game about losing weight.  More games about body image.  Bratz Kissing Contest... the list goes on.

The message on all of these websites (and I perused MANY)?

A girl's job is to be prettier, kiss better, and be more popular than all the other girls.  Oh, and we threw in one or two puzzle games in case you actually feel the need to exercise your brain...and some cooking games in case you want to further impress your prince by baking him a pie!

I just don't get it.

Girls love adventures.  Where are the quest games?  The mazes?

I get that many girls are interested in fashion and decorating castles.  Include those too, please.  But let's get rid of the nerd to popular school picture.  I could write several entries about that game alone.  And seriously?  The kissing games?  Gag me with a plastic spoon.

It's tough enough for young women out there withOUT games where your value is decided by how long you can hold a kiss with a boy on a cruise ship.

Know some video games that are awesome for girls?  List them in the comment section and tell me why I should check them out. Oh, and if you're interested in my thoughts about the election, post that in the comments section too  :)

So far, we love:

Brave (for Wii)
and Dora The Explorer (for PC)

Why You Should Vote.

It looks like a party.

But it wasn't.

Before the 19th Amendment to the Constitution was ratified in 1920, women couldn't vote. 

It was against the law.

It's something that seems so far removed from us here in 2012, but it's not.  It was less than 100 years ago. 

And at that time, the pervasive thought was that politics in general weren't women's business.  Some thought women weren't informed enough to vote.  Some thought they were too stupid, uneducated, and weak. 

And the fact is, some people still feel that way.

In the late 1800's and early 1900's, during the First Wave of Feminism, women wanted a change.  They were no longer content to sit on the sidelines and have their fates decided for them by the male collective.  They stood up to be counted.  They protested.  They held rallies.  It was a worldwide movement.  And it was hard.

Women were thrown in prison for asking to vote.  They were chained to walls.  They were beaten.  They were fed worm-infested food in prison and when they refused to eat it a tube was thrust down their throats to force-feed them until they vomited.  (Google: Alice Paul)

But it was worth it to them.

It was worth it to be treated equally: to have a say in the fate of their country, the fate of their families, the fates of their friends.  They took a risk and stood up to be counted.

They stood up for you.

There was no way for these First Wave Feminists to know if they would ever live to see the 19th Amendment ratified.  They had no way of knowing if they, themselves, would ever cast a vote.  But they put their hope in the future.  It was worth risking their lives. 

Honestly, I don't care who you vote for.  But you owe it to these women to at least show up at the polls.  Register to vote.  Get educated on the issues (it's insanely easy with the internet at your fingertips).  Cast a vote for the future.  Engage in politics with an educated voice.  You are able to do it because your fore-mothers marched, starved, sang, screamed, rallied, chanted, and endured through thick and thin to prove that you are worthy.

Christian Radio

So I admit that sometimes I listen to Christian radio.

I know that it's relatively obvious that I am a Christian from previous posts - but listening to Christian radio is like a whole other classification of Christian-ness.

I listen to this money management program in the afternoons when I got to pick up my son from school and I listen to some other stuff on occasion when the fancy strikes. I don't believe everything I hear. You've got to be SO discerning. It makes me upset, because I feel like the listener trusts this station to be all truthful and perfect and to not have an agenda - but the politics on the station are out of this world. The news broadcast only covers ultra-conservative issues - bit news is the latest pro-life rally rather than the war in Iraq or the economy or the murder down the street. Not that I like hearing bad news, but I do like hearing - well - news. (I'll probably get stoned for all this...)

Anyway, I can get past all those things, but last night I was trying to listen to music on the station, which is a rare occurrence in the first place and in the second place finding GOOD Christian music is pretty impossible - let alone merely RECENT Christian music...

ANYWAY - I was listening for the music and there was this talk program on (SURPRISE!), and I decided to listen because it was about wives loving their husbands better. I figured this was something worth hearing, so I tuned in as I drove through the icy obstacle course that was the road from my house to my destination.

It started out just fine. It talked about the needs of men vs. the needs of women and while they were somewhat questionable, I could accept them. The program said that men have three main needs: to be a hero, to have sex, and there was another one I can't remember right now. Women have two main needs: to be cherished and to be protected. I think Captivating and Wild at Heart are way better at explaining these things and not being offensive and allowing you to keep your dignity - so I would recommend them - but in spite of that, I decided I would accept these terms of needs, and continue listening to the program.

My problem with the whole thing arose when they started talking about how women should cater to men's needs. And what it meant to need "to be protected".

It went off on the whole "wives submit to your husbands" verse in the Bible, which I respect and understand and even follow - but not exactly like they described in the broadcast.

In the broadcast they talked about how since men need "to be a hero", we should allow them to be that by showing our "weakness" whenever the opportunity arises. I think I've talked in this blog before about my experiences when counseling and lifeguarding at Girl Scout Camp during a few summers in late high school and early college.

I was supervising fourth grade girls and they were playing with mice. Yes - mice from out in the middle of the woods. One of my fellow counselors said "Aren't you guys afraid of mice?" and the girl holding the mouse said, "Not really. We just pretend to when boys are around so they'll think we need them." I thought that spoke volumes about our society.

The funny part of the broadcast was that they followed up saying we needed to "show our weaknesses" and even sometimes concoct weaknesses to make our men feel more manly, by saying that women are too manipulative and we need to stop doing that. Isn't pretending to need help when you don't need it being manipulative?

I am happy to have my husband around when I can't open a jar or when there is a mouse in the house (I'm not afraid of them, but I'm not keen on being the person to deal with them, either), but I'm not going to pretend to be afraid of something I'm not afraid of. I'm afraid of plenty without pretending. Perhaps they only meant in this broadcast that we should be HONEST with our husbands, and maybe I was listening with a biased ear - but I don't think so...

The other thing that upset me was that they talked about women who are single and make something of themselves as being discontent and generally unhappy with this situation.

I am a huge believer in the GIFT of singleness.

On the broadcast they discussed how even though there were women out there who were professionals and supporting themselves, none of these women were happy with their situation.

They also explained that women who were married but were the primary breadwinners were not having their need of "being protected" met sufficiently by their men. This is offensive. Period.

I know several women who are the primary breadwinner in their home. They happen to have, for example, a law degree, while their husband is maybe a teacher, or a garbage collector, or a stay at home dad - and so they bring home the bacon, so to speak - and they have a good relationship in spite of this. I also found it offensive that they implied it was emasculating for the man to not make as much money as his spouse, and so even if we, as women, are capable of making more, we shouldn't do it, because it hurts our husband's manhood. I find this faulty on so many levels.

And this is coming from a stay at home mom.

I can see how a man would feel emasculated, but I don't think it's necessarily because he's hard wired that way - I think it's because society tells him that he needs to be the sole supporter of his family - and him letting his wife do that is wrong.

I know that the Bible talks about this - but I also know that the woman was created to be an equal partner to the man - a helper to him - if she needs to work to help the family and her husband as well, to have the lifestyle that they choose, then I don't see anything wrong with that.

I especially see nothing wrong with a single woman making her way in the world and being content with that. Or a mom who decides to work outside the home. I have friends who have tried the stay at home mom thing and totally hated every second of it. They find they are better parents when they work during the day and get to spend real quality time with their children at night.

Having been on both sides of this coin - I really get that. I stay at home now, but I admit I had more energy to do QUALITY time when I was working. Now it's something I have to really work at. When I was working, it came very naturally, as every second spent with my children was a precious commodity.

I'm not trying to say what's wrong and what's right. I think it's up to each couple what works for them, and it's certainly up to each single woman, what is right for her. I think that programming to help us to be better partners is important, but I don't think saying that a woman who is a professional cannot be fulfilled in her life without a husband who is the primary breadwinner is appropriate or accurate.

They also talked about how feminists have ruined the family and the correct relationship between men and women by saying that women should be able to choose to work outside the home. I'm outraged by this as well, of course. Feminism, with all it's foibles, is another human rights movement in it's own right. Maybe the feminists of the seventies were a little crazy - but they made great strides in opening dialogue about tons of issues that were completely taboo before: rape, domestic violence, menstruation, choices in how to give birth to your children, sexual harassment, and more. Their contribution to our society was and is VERY important. They also paved the way for the third wave of feminism, happening right now, the one where it's about what a woman chooses to be and do, rather than what she HAS to be and do, and I feel like this is a GREAT place to be. A woman can wear something feminine to work and still be respected as an equal in the professional world - that's where we are now - or at least moving steadily toward. During the second wave we had to dress like men and act like them to be treated as worthy of the workplace. Now we can contribute AS women. How amazing this new wave will be for our world!

So maybe I should just stop tuning in to that particular station, since it clashes with who I've become as a person... or maybe I should keep tuning in, but with a discerning ear... either way, just be careful what you read and listen to, and accept ultimately as truth. Everyone has an agenda.

on maturation

America needs to grow up. I mean really.

I just read this news article about Obama and how people are angry with him for going on vacation to Hawaii and playing golf while he was there. God forbid the president-elect should have a hobby. God forbid anyone in the United States should have the gall to play golf during an economic crisis. Obama should obviously be in Harlem playing street ball on a court with chains for nets.

I really don't understand people. Okay, rich people play golf, I get it, but my dad plays golf and he isn't rich. My best friend in high school played golf and he delivered pizzas.

And please, this whole hockey being a blue collar sport thing is insane. Do you have any idea how much the equipment for hockey costs? Talk about an expensive sport!

But EITHER WAY, why are we so judgmental of someone for spending time enjoying themselves? Why, in America, if you are not working are you seen as anti-American? Give it a rest, people!

I grew up in this family where my grandfather literally missed one day of work in forty years at the steel mill and that was because he was snowed in and could not get out of his door to get to the mill. My dad is a workaholic to the max and my brother recently admitted to the same thing. I just came out of a job where I was working fifteen hour days for at least a third of the year and twelve hour days for the rest, not including the time spent at home and on the weekends. There is something essentially wrong with the way Americans view themselves.

We are defined by our work. We are defined by how many hours we spend behind our desks, our computers, swinging a hammer, fixing, molding, creating, and doing that we don't have any other way of identifying ourselves.

I went through a period of pain after quitting my job. I cried several times because I didn't know who I was without "theatre teacher" attached to my title. I was just me, perhaps for the first time in my life, and I freaked out. I tried to do all these things to carve out an identity for myself, but you know, your identity does not have to be about what you do. Not about what you are paid for anyway. There's something to be said for turning your brain on idle for awhile and doing something you enjoy.

I think that the president-elect will be better for having spent some time on the green. Is it an elitist sport - sure, but the man is making a hell of a lot more money than me, and probably doesn't get much chance to golf in Chicago. And no matter what, if I got the chance to hang with my friends and walk a lot, I might take up golfing too. Let's give the guy a break, America. Let's take a little more time for ourselves to have a beer and watch the game, or get outside and hike with our families instead of worrying about how the president-elect spends his thirteen day vacation before starting the hardest job in the modern world.