I've never appreciated Salma Hayek's acting, but props to her for this statement and to Marie Claire for printing it.

On a side note, has anyone noticed how Marie Claire is becoming increasingly positive towards women? It's still an incredibly far cry from a feminist publication, and I take issue with a lot of their beauty articles and fashion spreads, not to mention their nasty habit of pitting different groups of women against each other (last month it was American women vs Frech women). But in the past six months or so, they've had two pro-choice features about abortion bans, a bunch of articles about rape, domestic violence and the plight of poor women in majority world countries. I had an old subscription to the magazine that I decided to renew precisely because of this switch in gears. It's really interseting to see what the "average" woman is reading about these issues in the mainstream press, and you're sure as hell not going to find these kind of articles in Cosmo, etc.

Awesome. I don't know how many times I have heard friends, relatives, and even people I barely know criticize childless women and couples, and it always pisses me off. I adore being a mom and I couldn't imagine my life being as full or enjoyable without my kids - but that's ME! It takes a lot of sacrifice and hard work to be a good parent, and I just don't understand why it's so hard for some people to understand that not everyone is interested in taking on such a difficult and demanding job.

Does anyone understand why people criticize childless couples or women? (I'm childless myself and have fixed it so I'll stay that way, so this fascinates me.) I mean, I can see saying nasty things about people who have children and then don't bother to raise them, or who abuse them, etc. etc.

But where's the harm in simply not having kids? What is there to criticize? It confuses me.

That aside, good for Selma Hayek! Nice to see famous mothers supporting other people's choices, and nice to see the mainstream magazines (one, anyway) actually caring about that.

You’ve got to be beautiful, smart, skinny, tall, rich, successful at your job, married to the right guy — and have genius children

There are two funny things about this remark:

(1) Her fiance is the CEO of a luxury brand company (Balenciaga and Gucci, among others). So he essentially makes his money by making women feel bad about how they look and what they can afford.

(2) She's chosen to marry a man who is a billionaire (by inheritance), tall, smart, successful at his job, and handsome. Yeah, society sure is unfair.

Sounds like a match made in Mammon. Whoops, I mean Heaven.

Can't we just be happy that someone with such a public profile, and with tons of young women wanting to BE them, has said something staunchly feminist in a national magazine? There's a fine line between cynicism and despair. I know... I walk it all the time. And some of these comments have despair written all over them.

I don't think it's fair to call the above comments "desperation." I love Ms Hayek for coming out with a statement like that and Marie Claire for publishing it - it shows education and compassion on her part. But it is REALLY easy for her to sit on her throne and say it. One part of me is going "All right!" and the other is kind of sniveling. Even if she had never decided to have children, she's still fully embodying this culture's idea of perfection and I'm sure she wouldn't get a lot of criticism for it. People would probably say she was trying to preserve her figure and wouldn't blame her for it. I think folks should be allowed to feel a little pissy about it.

Kimmy- My theory to the "why" childless couples/women are criticized is the very basic "damned if you do, damned if you don't." Basically I think we are hyper critical of nearly every option that falls outside a very thin line of "normal". Especially when it comes to "traditional" roles for women. I had my fist child at 20, unmarried. There is a lot of judgment on that end too.

Anyway, cheers to Ms. Hayek for raising the issue.

Even so, owlhouse...

I dunno. I can see the "You're too young to have kids, you need to live your life and mature" argument. I don't necessarily agree, but I can understand it.

But I don't get what the argument against childlessness is, aside from "You should have kids." Which isn't an argument so much as a direct order with no rationale given.

There are two funny things about this remark:

(1) Her fiance is the CEO of a luxury brand company (Balenciaga and Gucci, among others). So he essentially makes his money by making women feel bad about how they look and what they can afford.

(2) She's chosen to marry a man who is a billionaire (by inheritance), tall, smart, successful at his job, and handsome. Yeah, society sure is unfair.

So, are you saying she should not have a fiance who is rich and successful? I think that a woman in her position is probably rarely exposed to people who aren't rich and successful. I also think that it's just as wrong to critize someone for marrying someone with so much money as it is to do the same when they choose to marry someone with too little money. Personally, I'm envious of all those shoes and bags. Shoes and bags for life! Sweet.

I say good for Salma! As an unmarried, childless 30-something, I get sick of being asked by people (often whom I barely know) when I'm going to marry, reproduce, or both.

Hey Kimmy, I hear you. When people hear that I don't want kids (usually b/c they ask me directly, I don't advertise) most are very surprised.

My least favorite accusation is that I'm vain. Because of course there could be no other reason to not want children than to pursue societal beauty standards.

Add: I think anyone who violates a social norm gets some flak. Most people are just surprised and don't realize how rude they come off. The loud critical ones tend to have a small world view, in my experience.

I realize I'm sounding like a broken record, but that's only because I'm confused.

They accuse you of being vain. But why accuse you of anything? Why would they care if you have kids or not?

I'm exactly the sort of person who goes crazy when confronted by other people's irrationality. That's why this bothers me so much. It's irrational that anyone should care whether any given woman has a child or not.

I know! so frustrating, right? You make excellent points, too.

The only thing I can think of is that it violates their own world view, so it must be attacked to protect their understanding of the world. Or maybe, they feel that my lack of participation in motherhood is a judgment on their participation, and is thus an attack on them that needs to be defended.

So, are you saying she should not have a fiance who is rich and successful?

No.

I'm saying that if she's going to complain about how society values women based on shallow, outdated views of femininity, it's hypocritical for her to (a) marry someone whose profession is to make women feel bad about their appearance, and (b) not acknowledge how her own marital decision was impacted by shallow, outdated views of masculinity.

I never said anything about what she "should" do; she can marry Bill Donohue for all I care. I'm just saying she's a hypocrite and not worthy of approval from Jessica and you. No matter how many shoes and handbags she has.

Kimmy - I get the same questions from family, friends, and acquaintannces asking me when I'm going to settle down and start a family. The most recent came from my mother, who asked while trying on gowns for my brother's upcoming wedding, 'don't you want to get married, too?'. I think this is a case of breaking a social norm and people will question that. As a society, we are taught that women will grow up, fall in love, get married, and then raise the next generation, in that order. That is the expectation and when we choose not to do that, to change the order (have a child outside of marriage) or to not complete all the steps (don't marry or marry but don't have children), we get questioned on our decision. I think in time, as more women choose to live outside that rigid social guideline, we will start to see the expectations deminish.

My experience is that as soon as someone finds out I'm married, the first question is "when are you going to have kids?" I find that question to be incredibly invasive and nosy. And then when I tell them "never" I'm either met with a shocked "WHY?" or "you'll change your mind." Like I don't know what I want out of my own life. Maybe (though I highly, highly doubt it), I will change my mind-- but it's no one else's business. Also, the question that my husband gets asked is "do you want kids?" He gets asked IF he wants kids, while everyone assumes that I do.

I think that it's rude and ignorant, and yet it's socially acceptable. And it pisses me off to no end.

Amen, all you sympathizers. Amen, Selma.

I have to justify myself not wanting to have children at least once a week. It baffles me. I always think, "Why would you want me to have children I don't want? Isn't it OBVIOUS that it will be bad for both me and them?" If someone told me they didn't like being around cats, I wouldn't want them to adopt one. I would worry that they'd abuse it or treat it badly or just not give it enough attention. Similarly, I'm not even one of those people who likes children but doesn't want them for themselves - I out and out am not a kid-person.

The worst, though, is when some guy, often younger than me, says, "Oh, you'll change your mind." Thankyou, all-knowing man, for enlightening me on myself.

Just to chime in on childlessness, I think lots of people have children just because everyone does it and it doesn't even occur to them that it could be otherwise, so when they see someone who appears to challenge that preconception, some of them feel threatened. Some are even obviously jealous of the freedom a childfree person enjoys (I know, because I've encountered that kind of person a few times, they are the ones who tell you with obvious glee that "you'll end up all alone", to which I usually reply that many old people who end up alone in nursing homes are dropped there by children and grandchildren who never bother to visit them). I'm pretty lucky because my friends and close relatives are all very open-minded and have always respected my life choices.
Re. Hayek, we shouldn't forget that these kind of statements by high-profile personalities contribute, ever so slightly, to changing mentalities. If that sort of view is held in the media often enough, people's attitudes will start to change too. We shouldn't dismiss that. Besides, it's a welcome departure from the usual "oh, but my greatest achievement lies in my children", coming from women who make gazillions of dollars.

I'm saying that if she's going to complain about how society values women based on shallow, outdated views of femininity, it's hypocritical for her to (a) marry someone whose profession is to make women feel bad about their appearance, and (b) not acknowledge how her own marital decision was impacted by shallow, outdated views of masculinity.

Well, maybe she loves him and is genuinely attracted to "outdated views of masculinity." Just because he fits the "outdated view" by what you know of him physically, there has to be more to him than that.

my interpretation of the "when are you having children" question is the cynical misery-loves-company position. how many times have i heard "i love my kids, BUT, what i wouldn't give for one night off, my old life, freedom, etc etc." even the damn tax preparer couldn't stop saying WHEN you have kids...i couldn't help but think i'll never have more than a fetus. thankfully i had more tact than she did

Begin rant:

I've actually ended a friendship over this argument. I had one of my gay friends (oddly enough) tell me that I'd change my mind and it's inherent that women want children. I got so pissed I bitched him out in the middle of a bar and we haven't spoken since.

Luckily for me I have parents who understand I don't want kids and neither of them bothers me or questions me about it. My mother is always telling me, "You need to want kids" otherwise it's just horrible for everyone involved.

As for why women like me are ostracized, as someone mentioned above it really is a damned if you do and damned if you don't. If you have children and you don't breastfeed you're a horrible mother, if you have children and you breastfeed then you should be confined to your house least some random man or child see a nipple and be scarred for life. If you show them too much affection you'll make them soft (especially in the case of boys), if you show them too little you're cold, put them in daycare well you're just setting them up to be antisocial (go figure), can't afford private schools? Shouldn't have had kids then. BUT, if you don't have kids well then you're a selfish bitch who doesn't know what she wants in life.

I believe these people are operating from a perspective where women don't have choices about whether or not to have kids. A long time ago you got married and if you had sex enough time you got knocked up whether you wanted it or not. Even though birth control has been around in some form or another since women figured out a means to have it, the bottom line was always, "Be fruitful and multiply" which is stated in the bible by god.

We shan't get into the fact that God told this to Adam and Eve, when there were TWO people on Earth and later he told it to Noah AFTER he'd flooded the Earth and killed a lot of people so it was necessary to repopulate.

Me thinks we've done a fine job of repopulating.

It really does boil down to the fact that for centuries society as run by men, has set life to go this way. You grow up, you get a job, you get married, you have kids, you get old, you die, cycle repeats itself.

I think that people fear that if not having kids was a valued option (as stated by society) then women would just stop having them altogether because raising kids is very difficult. It boils down into fear of men losing control over reproduction because, as of right now, they can't do it without women and if more and more women decided they don't want kids, those men who do want kids would find their pool getting smaller and smaller and they'd actually have to engage in competition for suitable mates (i.e. those women who want to have kids).

And while I appreciate Salma talking about women like me, I'd like to see more women in Hollywood who don't want kids to speak out. So far the only one I know who hasn't ever had kids is Angelica Houston, everyone else (cough, Jennifer Aniston, cough) keeps saying they want kids but they're putting it off. She may very well want kids but Salma is still doing what society expects of her to do so it doesn't hold that much water, unlike another actress coming out and saying "I don't want kids ever."

End rant.

Now this is no defense, but I think that because parenting is such a common shared experience, many people are excited to talk to others about it. People love talking about what they know and hearing about others who've had similar experiences. While I believe it to be true that women hear the "when are you having kids?" question more often, my husband definitely gets it too. More often than you would think. There can be a certain amount of vanity or egocentricity in how people think that their experience (and for many this is a traditional marriage with kids) is THE experience to have. They just assume that you must OBVIOUSLY want that experience too. Short-sightedness.

I get so frustrated when I see comments about her husband her money and how that affects her ability to truly comment on women in society. What would make you happy? If she was dating a conventionally unattractive guy that hugged puppies for a living?
If he did and if she wasn't a famous actress her comments probably wouldn't be in a mass publication that would reach women across the country. Let's take our strong feminist messages when we can get them and not try to find ways to tear down the messenger. If everyone here can honestly say they've never bought into at least one of society's "ideals" I would like to meet them. We constantly complain about powerful celebrities who perpetuate all of the horrible ideas about what it means to be woman. Finally we have one saying "you know what, this is bullshit" and we're looking at her husband and using that to make judgements on her.

My least favorite accusation is that I'm vain.

Oh, yeah. I've heard that one before, too. Ugh.

Personally, I think it's perfectly acceptable to not want children for "selfish" and "vain" reasons. Given the number of people who want children for selfish reasons, why shouldn't we be allowed to not want them for selfish reasons? Children are expensive, loud, difficult, and time consuming. I have neither the patience nor the desire to devote decades of my life to raising offspring. My reasons are completely selfish.

What I don't understand is the sense of entitlement that people have in regards to commenting on other people's reproductive choices. If someone decide for or against having children, what business is that of anybody else?

This is something that I talk about all the time with my friends who don't want to follow conventional 'life plans'. I think it's good that Salma has come out and made even a small statement. Even though she has opted for a more conventional way of life (rich husband, idealized beauty, babies), I think her statement shows that she wishes that everyone wasn't held to the same standard. Which is exactly the argument I usually use... I don't want to get married or have children, but lots of my friends want that or already have it. I don't begrudge them in the least - I just want alternatives to that path to seem just as normal and/or logical. I agree with previous posters that "you're damned if you do and damned if you don't" Oh, and I third (or fourth?) the frustration with the vanity argument (which I get all the time). My mother also accuses me of not wanting to get married because I "just always want to be different from everyone else". Sheesh.

mamis62 -
I think you're being pretty unreasonable in your expectations, or else your opinion of what makes someone a feminist is not only unrealistic, but flatly unattainable. We shouldn't acknowledge Hayek's feminist statement because she's married to a rich guy? What do you want her to do, wear sackcloth and ashes? How does one exist free of anything that might smack of hypocrisy? Would any of us qualify, either? Jessica's been called a hypocrite for daring to have a naked torso on her book cover. Does that mean she doesn't deserve to have her feminist writings published? A lot of the commenters here enjoy TV shows or movies (many of which employ sexist depictions of women), shave their legs, and wear makeup. That makes us all hypocrites too, right? Does that mean we have no right to comment here?

Can we please put the "more feminist than thou" bullshit to bed?
No one is the perfect feminist, because no one is perfect. Not even you. Expecting someone to exist in a sexist society without in some way catering to or condoning some form of sexism is like expecting someone to live in the ocean without getting wet.

Ms. Hayek is a recognizable celebrity, and she made a feminist statement in a high-circulation women's magazine. I consider that a pretty damn effective way of getting the message out. Certainly her comment is likely to reach more people than any of the ones on this blog, for example. And I think it's far better to have her saying what she said (and having millions read it) than uttering some sexist drivel about how natural it is for women to stay at home and have babies, or behave like sexbots, or whatever bullshit claim the patriarchy is selling that day (and having millions read that).
Women who might never take a college course on feminism or read a book by a feminist author or visit this blog may read that article, ponder the existence of that particular catch-22, and change their attitudes. In my book, that's a good thing, regardless of who said what, or who they happen to be married to.

mamis62 -
I think you're being pretty unreasonable in your expectations, or else your opinion of what makes someone a feminist is not only unrealistic, but flatly unattainable. We shouldn't acknowledge Hayek's feminist statement because she's married to a rich guy? What do you want her to do, wear sackcloth and ashes? How does one exist free of anything that might smack of hypocrisy? Would any of us qualify, either? Jessica's been called a hypocrite for daring to have a naked torso on her book cover. Does that mean she doesn't deserve to have her feminist writings published? A lot of the commenters here enjoy TV shows or movies (many of which employ sexist depictions of women), shave their legs, and wear makeup. That makes us all hypocrites too, right? Does that mean we have no right to comment here?

Can we please put the "more feminist than thou" bullshit to bed?
No one is the perfect feminist, because no one is perfect. Not even you. Expecting someone to exist in a sexist society without in some way catering to or condoning some form of sexism is like expecting someone to live in the ocean without getting wet.

Ms. Hayek is a recognizable celebrity, and she made a feminist statement in a high-circulation women's magazine. I consider that a pretty damn effective way of getting the message out. Certainly her comment is likely to reach more people than any of the ones on this blog, for example. And I think it's far better to have her saying what she said (and having millions read it) than uttering some sexist drivel about how natural it is for women to stay at home and have babies, or behave like sexbots, or whatever bullshit claim the patriarchy is selling that day (and having millions read that).
Women who might never take a college course on feminism or read a book by a feminist author or visit this blog may read that article, ponder the existence of that particular catch-22, and change their attitudes. In my book, that's a good thing, regardless of who said what, or who they happen to be married to.

Ack, sorry. Bad internets!

Well, maybe she loves him and is genuinely attracted to "outdated views of masculinity."

Fine by me, as long as men who are genuinely attracted to outdated views of femininity don't get criticized.

In case you care, I'm equally critical of Fred Thompson, Newt Gingrich, Keith Olbermann, or any other old guy who starts nailing some hot young woman while claiming he's found his soulmate. I just think women who pick tall rich guys are contributing just as much to the ossification of the patriarchy as men who pick young, thin women.

Just because he fits the "outdated view" by what you know of him physically, there has to be more to him than that.

Why?

Vervain -

I've been thinking about how to reconcile your statement (most of which I agree with) with mine (all of which I agree with). Here's what I've come up with:

Pro-feminist does not equal anti-patriarchy.

If the only message you want to get out is the pro-feminist message: yes, Ms. Hayek did a Good Thing with what she said.

However, if you also want to get out the message that the patriarchical arrangement of society is damaging to men and to women, I don't think she's done that (nor, I suspect, will she ever).

Not that we can honestly speak for either of them but Salma Hayek does have a career and money of her own. She produced her last few movies (including Frida) and she's an executive producer on Ugly Betty, as someone who works in TV let me tell you she gets quite a pretty penny JUST for having her name show up in the credits.

Though I do understand what mamis62 is saying. We have a tradition of typically unattractive men who are wealthy dating/marrying very attractive women and there really is no vice versa of that and that's just shrugged off as the Way It's Supposed to Be. Men need money to attract women while women need looks to attract men and for some it can be unsettling to have Hayek speak on feminist issues when she's doing the very thing the patriarchy set up in the first place.

If this guy hadn't been a billionaire and had been just an average dude it's pretty safe to say she wouldn't be carrying his child, but then that just means that the circumstances for them to meet wouldn't have been there.

mamis62, if you're not allowed to marry a tall, rich guy and still be anti-patriarchy, does that mean that in a perfect world no one would marry tall, rich guys? I don't think that's fair. Tall, rich guys deserve love, too.

Seriously. Downplaying the signifigance of her saying that just because she has a tall and/or rich husband? That's kind of shallow. It's a step up from denigrating her for being pretty, but it's a pretty small step.

Maybe I just don't see things this way, but, OK, her husband is CEO of a luxury company that owns Balenciaga and Gucci. Do I think that it's those companies' jobs to make me feel bad about how I look and what I can afford? That might be part of it, but, I don't know, that explanation just seems too simplistic to me. Just because a Balenciaga bag costs more than what I can afford (cos, uh, I like to eat?), I don't feel bad for not being able to afford one. How a person feels about what she/he can afford can also be attributed to her/his personal feelings and experiences, and it isn't always the company's fault. (And, not to make anyone feel bad, but if you get down on yourself because you can't afford Gucci, then you need a reality check).

Anyway, as for Salma, I admire the fact that she at least acknowledges this issue. I don't see her as being hypocritical for this. Plus, she helped to bring "Ugly Betty" to America. I love her for that.

You don't have to get married. You also don't have to have kids.

I think the idea that everyone has to do it stems from people who did it out of social pressure. Those are the ones that feel like anyone who doesn't is somehow cheating.

I have to echo what some other commenters have said - I'm sick of being asked when I'll have kids. People always act shocked when I say "never" and almost always tell me I'll change my mind. Considering that my husband and I have taken permanent measures to ensure that we don't, I'm pretty sure that's not going to happen.

The real groaner, though, is when they ask me when I'll have kids and I say "never" and they say "well, does your husband want kids?" and I tell them that he doesn't, and their response is usually something like "oh, well that's okay then."

So when it's just me that doesn't want them, I'm a horrible person, but when my husband doesn't want kids either, it's okay. *rolleyes*

I went to another country a couple of years ago and the response I got when I would say that I didn't want children was invariably a shocked expression and the question, "But what will you do when you get older?". It was assumed that the more children you have, the more likely someone will be able to care for you in your old age. Perhaps that is where the obsession with having children came from, only now we believe that we want them because that is our highest calling in life.

I say Bravo! to anyone who can acknowledge that not wanting to have a child is a valid choice.

I just think women who pick tall rich guys are contributing just as much to the ossification of the patriarchy as men who pick young, thin women.

Does it mean that only ugly and poor people should get married? Do you want her to scar her face too? After all, being pretty is "playing into the patriarchy"...

Mamis62:

I can appreciate what you are complaining about if you think that Balenciaga and Gucci hinder feminism. But that discussion is sort of on the side.

On the other hand we have this argument:

"(2) She's chosen to marry a man who is a billionaire (by inheritance), tall, smart, successful at his job, and handsome. Yeah, society sure is unfair."

And this sentiment just sounds totally wrong to me. Sure, society is unfair in that some people are smarter, wealthier and more attractive. But, so what? It doesn't seem to me that feminism calls for eliminating any standards for how we choose our partners. It calls for eliminating those that reinforce the patriarchy. Its true that money has traditionally been a big part of that, but money would be valued in a feminist world as well. It just makes life better. If that was this guy's only redeeming quality, that would be of some concern. But by your own account, this guy meets other quality standards as well. So women should eschew men who are tall, smart, handsome, good at their jobs? That doesn't make any sense. Hayek is working to send the message that women should not need kids or be beautiful (Ugly Betty) to be valued. But if you have particular interests in a mate and you are as successful as Hayek, you're going to get a lot of what you're looking for.

Besides, I don't think replacing stereotypical gender expectations with some dogmatic view of feminism is really relevant. For instance, I'm as childfree-minded as you can get, but I really don't think a mother is a lesser feminist than I am just because having kids is expected of women in our society. According to your worldview, mamis62, I guess all women should stop shaving their legs, not having kids and only marry poor, short and unattractive guys just because it's the opposite of what patriarchy expects.

Every time somebody shoots people we hear about the need for gun control.

Why do drunk drivers (even those with mutliple infractions) not bring out calls for a return to prohibition? Or car control?

People kill other people. It's sad, but it's true. And they've been doing it for as long as people have existed in the same places at the same times.

I have a gun, legally purchased and kept in my home. I live alone, and I live in a less-than-savory neighborhood. It makes me feel better to have it. My father (a retired cop) has trained me with it, so I know how to use it safely. Periodically, I go to the shooting range to brush up. Children are not allowed in my home (the gun's not the only reason my house isn't kid-friendly).

I'm a responsible gun owner who uses it as 90% security blanket. Why should I lose my ability to protect myself (or at least feel like I could, should I need to) just because someone else did something illegal?

Illegal use of an object should not remove the possibility of legal use.

I am 43, single, and childfree. I knew by like age 9 that I didn't want kids and knew in my heart that I would never change my mind. I've always been a little counter-culture and I've never followed the mainstream, so people's comments and questions have never upset me. I just recently met a man my age who is also childfree, an artist, and was raised by a feminist mother! I feel so fortunate...wish us luck!
And I might add, stick to your beliefs no matter what; you know what is best for your spirit!

Heh - this is such a stupid comment for me to make, but my partner works for the CEO husband and he's a really nice, cool guy.

Not that that means anything, as for all anyone out there knows I could be making it up, 'cept I'm not.

And my personal view is that certain people get all twisted-up about women not having children because that means that women aren't some homogeneous group-think entity. We are in fact -gasp- individual people and dang-it if that realization doesn't fuck with the worldview of some cretins something fierce.

Does anyone else find it strange that there is a post for Salma and Quentin Tarentino on the same day? She was in one of his movies.....

roymac-you forgot sticky...children are always to some degree sticky ;)

Let me try this again:

I'm not saying who Salma Hayek, or anybody else, should be "allowed" to marry. I thought I was quite clear on that with my Bill Donohue remark.

IMHO, the entire fashion industry exists to make women feel bad about themselves. Non-white women are underrepresented, heavy-set women (by which I mean any woman with a BMI over 19) are invisible, and women are washed up by the time they're 25. It is the LEAST feminist industry on the planet. It makes Wall Street look like NOW.

Because of this I don't think Salma Hayek is a particularly good spokesperson for feminism.

As for my "tall and rich" remarks, I guess it's just my own issues. I grew up in a household where I was taught (a) women are less shallow than men in picking mates; (b) women judge men based on who they are instead of what they have or what they look like. That has not been my experience...but that's probably a different thread (and probably a different blog). So let me just say: I'm reacting to personal demons more than to Ms. Hayek, and that's obviously my problem, not hers.

I love Salma Hayek who always praised feminism and called herself a feminist, is fiercely intelligent and has great taste in movies.

With the outrageous inequality in the world, women can go for tall, smart, successful, handsome men until men go for old, plain, infertile women (as opposed to young, beautiful, fertile women).

"I just think women who pick tall rich guys are contributing just as much to the ossification of the patriarchy as men who pick young, thin women."

So...should everyone reject the tall rich guys and the young thin women? Or are you OK with men who pick tall, rich guys and women who pick young, thin women?

"Does it mean that only ugly and poor people should get married? Do you want her to scar her face too?"

Imagine if that did happen and someday a lot of straight women and men had self-esteem problems because "I'm too young and thin, all of the short starving artist men want other women instead of me!" or "I'm too tall and rich, all of the mature full-figured women want other men instead of me!" Wouldn't that be roughly as bad as what we have now?

"Every time somebody shoots people we hear about the need for gun control..."

I suspect that you accidentally posted this in the wrong thread (hey, I've made that mistake myself a few times).

I'm a big Salma Hayek fan as well. Comeon... "Frida" "Dogma" "Wild Wild West"

And I know not everyone likes "From Dusk til Dawn" because of the violence, but hey she was the queen vampire!

Uh oh, I'm a young, thin woman dating a tall, attractive man with rich parents. Maybe I'm not actually a feminist.... no, no I think I still am. Damn, close one.

Commentroversy aside, I do respect Salma for this statement. I've never questioned anyone's decision to have children or not because it's incredibly rude and none of my business. And frankly, if you don't want children it's probably best for everyone if you don't have them. I've always wanted children, but that's me and me alone, I will never presume to make such a life altering decision for anyone else. Or try to pressure them into making that decision. Apologies to all of you who have been made uncomfortable by people who are clueless or uncouth enough to question your personal choices on reproduction.

I grew up in a household where I was taught (a) women are less shallow than men in picking mates; (b) women judge men based on who they are instead of what they have or what they look like.

Well, I'd say it's a hell of a generalization as well. I don't think one gender is inherently more shallow than the other. Besides, why presume that someone who has a conventionally attractive spouse (although the definition of "conventionally attractive" can be pretty subjective) necessarily chose them for shallow reasons? Dismissing people on account of their excessive attractiveness strikes me as pretty shallow too.

BTW, "From dusk till dawn" is a Robert Rodriguez movie, not a Tarantino one. (And I'd say it sucked like hell, even though I love my violent movies)

Uh oh, I'm a young, thin woman dating a tall, attractive man with rich parents.

Oh god, don't tell me you shave your legs too! ;o)

Yay Salma! I never had much of an opinion on her but I am very impressed by her comment.

No matter who she married

I remember being 13 and saying I NEVER wanted kids and being told "I'll change my mind". That pissed me off because it made me feel that if I DID change my mind it was no longer my own choice. Makes my blood boil

The feeling that all women should/need to breed pisses me off no end, and damn I wish less people would!

I love kids and I think parenting is a demanding and important role - one that one should not take up just because one's physically capable! Ah!

I could rant for hours...

Dusk Til Dawn was an utter bag of shite, but Salma was absolutely droolworthy in it. I must admit, I feel better about having a bit of a crush on her now that's she's doing something besides just looking yummy. *grin*

As for the childless thing, I'm in that boat too. I remember saying I didn't want kids when I was 6 years old (Other commenters have said 9 and 13--does that make me precocious?) and being told, "you'll change your mind when you get older." Nope, still haven't. I've got better (mostly medical) reasons for it now (beyond "I don't wanna!") but the fact is I've never found children all that appealing. I never liked dolls, I never thought babies were cute, and babysitting made me such a nervous wreck I'd feel tense an hour after I got home. My brother and his wife (who adore kids) are recently pregnant, and my delight at the news is largely relief--I've dodged the grandchild Sword of Damocles! Thank god for siblings. They breed so you don't have to.

I'll also second Fenriswolf's observation--just because you can doesn't mean you should. Too many people seem to have kids just because they feel like that's what they're supposed to do, and never contemplate whether or not they'd actually be any good at it. Sigh.

I never liked dolls, I never thought babies were cute, and babysitting made me such a nervous wreck I'd feel tense an hour after I got home.

Amen, sister. Sounds just like me (from as far as I can remember, I guess it must have been around 6 too).

My dad is the oldest of 6 and only 3 (all of them are married) have kids. I think at some point I must have asked why they didn't have any, because I knew from a very young age that two of my aunts had their "tubes tied" to prevent pregnancy.

My sisters and I all love children, but our aunts have great houses, careers, travel extensively for pleasure, and generally seem to have more fun than our parents. We're all wondering who will bite the bullet and have kids so the rest of us can be awesome aunts but not take the financial, professional, and social blows that having children gives.

Yes, and...

I'm the mother of a 3 year old, and am asked (a lot) "when are you going to have your next child?" (not if)... and my landlady has taken to asking "when are you going to give him a little sister? he needs a litte sister!" EVERY TIME i see her. twitch.

my good and humourous friends explained it to me thusly: an empty uterus is a *sad* uterus. perhaps even a *bad* uterus... hm. My Uterus: Sad, Bad, and Dangerous to Know...(?)

Maybe it's the matriarchy keeping us down?

...and also, i think a lot of people say dumb things (me included) that sound fine in our own heads but turn into Stupid once they leave our mouths.

sorry 'bout that.

"because I knew from a very young age that two of my aunts had their "tubes tied" to prevent pregnancy."

I thought doctors wouldn't perform that operation until a woman had a couple of kids already in case she changed her mind later and wanted to sue him. Any idea? I'd love to get my tubes tied!

I am very pleased to see this thread. I myself have children, always wanted them, and yet I am totally sympathetic to the childfree and the annoyance they feel at being harangued about when are they gonna have kids; I never got that from anyone, because my family all knew it was depending on financial security and the right guy to be their father, but I did get endless "you need to wear makeup/heels/skirts/nicer hair/you're such a pretty girl if you would only pay attention to patriarchal beauty standards like we did" and so forth from my mother and especially my grandmother. So I know what it is like to be harangued by the family for not being "feminine" enough, by whatever standard they are defining femininity.

But frequently I see childfree people's posts on threads on progressive or even feminist boards turn into nasty slime-fests against children or mothers or both. So many people who've decided they don't want children feel like they have to justify it by claiming that they're saving the planet by not overpopulating the earth (because, you know, not having your own kids is MUCH MORE IMPORTANT than, say, working to make sure that women in the Third World can get access to contraception so they can't be endlessly raped and impregnated by the husbands they were sold to when they were 12), or other nastiness. One person even said they wouldn't give their seat to a pregnant woman on the bus because they *morally disapprove* of what she's doing. (Me too. That's why I, who believe that war is morally wrong, spit on veterans with no legs! Oh, wait, no I don't.) While our larger culture is full of these jerks who insist that a woman *must* have children and cannot possibly be a real woman if she doesn't, all the jerkiness I see on the progressive blogosphere seems to come from the other side of it.

It's great to see childfree and child-wanting women being mutually supportive of each other's decisions and recognizing that both the decision to have children and the decision to not have children are valid decisions for women to make and that feminists should support and help women in making those decisions, whichever they choose. This is rare to see on the Internet, for some reason.