You're kidding, right?

All those books published in 2009, all those many many books, and you at Publisher's Weekly produce a top ten list comprised entirely of male authors. I'm not even touching the equally bothersome point that they're also white. Seriously? Seriously? Let's just be logical: fifty percent of the population is female. Dude, in case you're as bad at math as you are at reading, that's half. If you can't give up five, then three, or two, or even one. You're telling me that no woman wrote a book you consider a top tier read? Seriously???

As an English Literature major, I'm familiar with the traditionally white male domination of the literary canon. But I like to think that we're moving past that, that we're realizing that good literature comes in many forms, and that only through the wide and eclectic breadth of authors can it fully touch the wide and eclectic world population. PWs list represents a rebuttal to the promise of a new book-view.

I have a son and I have a daughter, and I am a writer. I would like to tell them both that the world is fair, that if they choose to follow in my footsteps the doors will be open on both sides, the paths equally rocky and trying. And I will tell them that, because having that hope is sometimes what it takes to keep moving forward, word by word and page by page. But in the end, I realize that in more ways than I know, life is not fair. Thanks, PW. I secretly hope that the angel watching over you is a big black woman, and that she's as pissed as I am.

Are you pissed too? Then check out She Writes. They're calling for action, and although the "day" is nearly over, don't let that stop you. Buy a book by a woman--I just bought Beth Moore's Breaking Free to help me build my faith, but I've also got Dead Until Dark by Charlaine Harris on my bedside table. Hey, woman have a lot of different sides, you know. Post something on your blog, or Facebook, or your front door. Take a stand for women writers, and for the little women who are following in our footsteps.

DLT Day 6 (Not that I'm counting)

Seriously? Four o'clock? In the morning? In the f***ing morning? Again?

When you can do two loads of laundry, a sinkful of dishes, answer your email, drink two cups of coffee, and make a series of patchwork felt houses for the kids all before seven o'clock, you deserve to write a token post for NaBloPoMo.

You also deserve to skip exercising, cleaning the bathrooms, scrubbing the showers, sweeping the kitchen, and folding washed laundry. Deserve to, but don't. Yes, well, that whole Socialist spiel had some nasty repercussions on my conscience.

Gimme, gimme; Share, share

Had a discussion with a Republican the other day, a very good friend whose intelligence and thoughtfulness I hold in very high regard. We talked about the election in rational, respectful terms that only endeared her more to me. Through the course of the conversation, we talked about how we'd both been hit hard by the house market, and how we wouldn't likely get anything from the current bailout since we'd been smart enough to not default on our loans or rack up exorbitant credit card debt, and how (somewhat) unfair it seemed that we wouldn't get anything for being responsible, while other people who hadn't been so responsible will likely get a bail-out.

I made the suggestion, in the course of the conversation, that our future president (YEAH!) is practically a Socialist. This made her blanch, of course, as it makes most people, but I give an inner whoop.

See, if I had to commit to a party, it'd be Socialist. I don't commit, mostly because I decide each issue on its merits and don't want to ever be tied to a party line. But I also don't commit because of the negative stigma associated with Socialism. Which, to be clear, is not Communism. But just the same, I'm feeling that my blog is now being pinpointed by government search engines. Hope they can also appreciate my grumbling re: Daylight Losing Time and cute anecdotes about the boy and girl.

I'm not sure what we all have against Socialism. Why shouldn't we share what we have? Isn't that how we teach our children: don't take things from other people, always bring enough for everyone, if you have two things and your friend has none then you should give one thing to them, etc. But at some point, it seems to shift: maximize your earning potential, be the top of the class, make lots of money and buy yourself what you deserve.

Had another conversation with same friend today. We were discussing cars with another friend. I mentioned that one of the reasons why we chose our car was because it was less expensive than an SUV (yeah, as if it wasn't already obvious that I'd be one of those moms with a mini-van). We compared our recent car purchases; her SUV came in $12,000 more than my car. She pointed out that I didn't get the high-end accessories and gadgets that she did. I pointed out that it was just a car. Yes, she said, but I intend to keep mine for a long time, so I got the top of the line.

And this seemed so indicative of me of the distaste for Socialism. Because the truth still stands: the car runs the same, leather interior or back-up camera or not. But most Americans don't see it. They see that they deserve these things, that they've earned these things, that they want these things, and that, if they can access the money or credit for them, they should have them. Because they can. Because other people cannot. It's part of what we use to define ourselves against other people.

It's not that I don't have nice things, or desire nice things. But at the end of the day, when I see an adult value that clashes with the way I'd raise a child, I feel compelled to question it. If we value it in our children, if we strive for it in the future generation, isn't it just as important for us now? And wouldn't it be so much easier, instead of trying to change the future through children that we ultimately cannot control, for us to change ourselves in the present?

Oh, right. But the things are all so bright and shiny and lovely. Maybe we're more children at heart than we realize.