Sexism and E-Voting

Two completely unrelated topics to discuss, here— I just couldn't stand to let either one go by.

First off is a video of Brooke Hogan— a woman whose new reality show gives fresh meaning to the phrase "celebrity by proxy"— as she disses the entire female sex by explaining why women should, apparently, not be presidents.

"I’m so moody all the time, I know I couldn’t be able to run a country, ’cause I’d be crying one day and yelling at people the next day," says bubble-headed Brooke, and it's disturbing to see the thoughts of chauvinistic middle-aged men come straight out of the mouth of a curvy blonde.

I'm wondering: how come female stereotypes always come into play during election season, and never male ones? You never see women discussing politics by saying, "Oh, that John McCain, he could never be president. He's a man, and men are all testosterone-driven boars who can't keep it in their pants. I don't want my next president to be some sex-crazed Neanderthal."

Brooke, perhaps you ought to speak for yourself next time, and remember that most women are not, mercifully, anything like you.

Second to bat is this article, shot my way by my friend Claire. It talks about electronic voting machines and the havoc they've been causing in Ohio. I just don't get why we keep using these machines. It's been proven that they can be hacked into (quite easily, in fact) and that they are responsible for the loss of hundreds, if not thousands, of votes. In a crucial, narrow-margin state like Ohio, we can't afford this crap any longer.

I say, let's return to optically-scanned paper ballots. Didn't they always get the job done before?

John McCain: Sell By Nov. 08

John McCain's recent visit to my hometown has really stirred in me a sort of incredulity, a complete and utter refusal to believe that this man is actually running a fairly legitimate campaign for the presidency.

Okay, so I got the appeal of McCain eight years ago, the first time he ran. Back then, McCain really was a maverick, disagreeing with his party on important issues and refusing to follow the Republican's Toe-The-Party-Line policy. But several things have changed since 2000, my friends.

First: John McCain is pretty much W's lap dog, or at least leading up to, during, and following the invasion of Iraq.* I don't want a man who is that closely associated with the top Republican thinkers (I use the term loosely) to be running my country,

Second: He was old then, but now he's TOO OLD. I mean, the man is 71. Isn't the country looking for change right now? How would electing the oldest white guy in the history of American presidents exactly send that "change" message?

And of course, in closing: if the workers of my hometown didn't like him, then why would anyone else?



*This reminds me of something else I want to discuss: how is it that now that a majority of Americans are against the war, our citizens only express anger and never apologies for their own callous behaviors? Um, guys, 80% of you were standing stupidly behind the president while I was attending peace marches back at the start of the war. How about some of you idiots fess up and, instead of saying "We were duped!" consider the phrase, "We didn't bother to think for ourselves!" Take some responsibility, yo!

...but this is a discussion for a later date.

Impeachment!

Dennis Kucinich just submitted the Articles of Impeachment against President Bush. How exactly is this not newsworthy enough to be covered? I haven't seen anything about it anywhere, in any major news outlet whatsoever.

Okay, I'm so totally not one of those people who believe in a media conspiracy, one way or another. I'm actually a member of the media-- I'm a journalist, and I know that I never slant or leave out anything because of my political beliefs. Neither do other journalists I know; it's just something we don't do, mostly because we think of ourselves as professionals who must stay neutral and fair. We may snort or roll our eyes while writing a story or driving to an interview, but our coverage is honest and equal. My minor in American Politics at Vassar was basically a minor in Media Politics, because most of my classes focused on that particular aspect. And I know enough now that I usually assert the absence of a bias, liberal or conservative, in the media.

But right now, for the first time, I'm a little skeptical.

Sure, Kucinich is a leftist, and is often mocked for his short stature and his radical politics. But he did just officially submit these articles, and they are going to be brought before Congress. That's a big deal, whether or not you take Kucinich seriously.

When those same articles were brought against Bill Clinton, it was all the media could talk about. Why aren't they reporting this stuff now? The charges against Clinton involved lying about sex; the charges against Bush involve lying about war, propaganda, and tyranny. Which one is more serious, d'you think?

Check out this video, which shows Mr. Kucinich presenting the articles to the House. Please note what rude asshats the Representatives are all being at the beginning of the video, as they seem to initially refuse to come to order. I suppose I'm speaking specifically of the Republican contingent, which seems to persist in speaking (more accurately, yelling) out of turn like the hooligans they, for the most part, always are.

Preach it, sista!

My boss, Martha, sent me this excellent Washington Post piece about the mysogyny that has emerged, both in society and in politics, as a reaction against the Clinton campaign. It summarizes a lot of the reasons I've been a Clinton supporter, even though I'm the most rabidly liberal young person you've ever met.

See, Obama and Clinton's positions on the issues are pretty similar, and in many cases they're virtually identical. So what's the difference between them? For me, it's the actual effect each candidate would have on my life if they became president; from a political standpoint, either candidate would be a victory for the left, but a win for Clinton would mean a big step forward for women in the workplace.

I'm tired of being told I can't do certain things because I'm a woman, especially in the field of journalism. There are lots of feisty female reporters, but at every paper I've ever worked on, the lead reporter is ALWAYS a man-- even if he's not even very good. At both of my past internships, there was one male intern working with me, and he always got to do the political reporting and learn the ropes of page layout, while I was sent off to do the human interest pieces. While doing word-on-the-street pieces for the Weekly Beat in Poughkeepsie, NY, I was sexually harrassed, catcalled, and stalked. In fact, I even had a complete stranger come up to me during an interview and tell me to "get back in the kitchen."

Like the author of the above article, I won't miss a lot of things about this campaign season once it's done. I won't miss the "Hillary Nutcracker, a device in which a pantsuit-clad Clinton doll opens her legs to reveal stainless-steel thighs that, well, bust nuts." I also won't miss hearing Clinton referred to by both the extreme right and the desperate left using various offensive, anti-woman epithets, like "bitch" (as in the infamous question posed to McCain), "whore" (which was said by liberal radio personality Randi Rhodes), and "she-devil" (courtesy of MSNBC's Chris Matthews).

Imagine if anyone else had called Obama a name that referenced his blackness. Imagine if a TV commentator had used a racial slur to describe him, or if a doll had been made of Obama that caricatured him. Wouldn't people be clamoring for blood? Then why is it that we're allowed to insult women for daring to believe they are capable of holding the highest office in the land?

If Obama wins the nomination, then I'll vote for him, because he's a better choice than John McCain. But I wish I could just keep casting my vote for Clinton-- because she is the "candidate of change" in my life, and in the lives of lots of women.

Republicans Hate Abortion? Say it Ain't So.

I found it fairly intriguing that today, when I skimmed the news headlines on Yahoo, I found an article about the Republican party's hardline approach to abortion rights. Um, is that really news anymore?

I think there are three grave misperceptions that the public holds in general that have driven the anti-abortion frenzy:

1. Life begins at conception.

This is stupid. Like all animals, life for humans begins at birth. On my next birthday, I will not say, "Today I am 25 years and 9 months old!" I will say, "Today I am 25 years old!" because that's how long I've been alive.

It is a scientific fact that many pregnancies terminate themselves naturally; in fact, 31% of all conceptions end in miscarriages. If life begins at conception, then shouldn't we force women to keep track of all their vaginal juices and discharges, so we can check them for unimplanted fertilized eggs? I mean, if a fertilized egg is a person, then we'd need to have a funeral any time an egg was naturally aborted, right

I don't care to analyze my cooch juices. So let's drop this silly hysteria and think logically. Did you really become a person when your dad and mom did the mattress mambo? No.

2. Abortion and family planning/contraception/sex ed are in the same camp. If I oppose one, I must oppose the other.

This is so silly I can't even think where to begin. If you oppose abortion, why wouldn't you support more sex ed in the schools, more condom distribution, and better access to family planning services? If you don't want people to have abortions, then you need to keep them from needing those abortions in the first place.

I liked what a friend of mine wrote the other day: "telling people they shouldn't have sex unless they're willing to get pregnant is like telling people not to drive unless they're willing to die in a car accident." Too true. If you don't want people to have abortions, then help them to not conceive babies. Not all of us believe that God wants us to be frigid and sexless, so don't make assumptions. I believe that repressing your sexuality because of something that someone told you is WRONG, and I think my God, the loving and caring and understanding God I know, wouldn't mind my thinking so. He'd also want us to do it safely, so let's open up access to contraception!

3. Everyone wants a baby at some point in his or her life.

This drives me nuts. Almost every post on every anti-choice message board or discussion brings this up somehow, and it's stupid stupid STUPID. I've seen things like, "Why abort a baby? Babies are so cute!!!1!!" and "If you have an abortion now, won't you feel bad when you have a kid later and you think about the baby you didn't have?!!!1!!!" and "Just give the baby to someone else, because lots of people love babies and want to have one!!!!11!!" I've paraphrased those, of course. In their original form, they were barely legible, and clearly written by fourteen-year-olds who failed the state reading exams last year.

Not everyone wants to procreate. Not everyone has that drive. Not everyone will have a baby sometime in their life. Some people are perfectly happy their whole lives without children. Not every baby put up for adoption gets a happy ending. In fact, there are far too many children in foster care and in homes already— shouldn't we take care of them before we bring more into the world?

In conclusion, abortion is not only a right, it is a necessity.

Dissenting opinions are welcomed, but ONLY if they 1) operate on a logical basis (no appeals to cute baby pictures or often-abused Bible quotes...I've read the Bible straight through about eight times, and I guarantee you are misusing that quote), 2) are not rude or insulting, and 3) make use of proper grammar, spelling, and syntax (a few mistakes here and there are fine, but try to keep it coherent). Any comment that violates these rules will be eliminated, because I can't stand it when people misspell "pragnansy".

In Memoriam

I just wanted to take a moment to remember Stephanie Tubbs Jones, the Ohio Congresswoman who died after suffering an aneurysm on Wednesday evening. She was 58.

Congresswoman Tubbs Jones was an active and vocal member of the House, and co-sponsored legislation to help working families, students, and women. A strong opponent of the war, Tubbs Jones was one of only 11 members in the House sane enough to vote against invading Iraq. She was the chair of the Ethics committee, and served on the powerful Ways and Means committee, as well.

Out of respect for her memory, I'll be saving my angry rant post about John McCain for tomorrow. Today, let's remember Rep. Tubbs Jones, and all the good work she did for Cleveland, and for our country.

Rest in peace, ma'am.

Getting Pretty Icy In Hell These Days

Wait, wait, wait— Paris Hilton said something intelligent and politically savvy?!

Well, Newsweek says so, and I think they may be right. Plus, I love the idea of painting the White House pink. Maybe I would add some glitter, too.

Read My Lips: No Stupid Promises

So recently, John McCain became confused about his identity. Thinking that he was in fact former president George H. Bush, he promised no new taxes if he became president, then promptly said "never mind."

How is this a mistake that more than one candidate has made in the past twenty years? How hard is it to realize that circumstances can change and new taxes might be necessary? If I were running for president, I think I'd be savvy enough to know that sometimes taxes are necessary; they are, after all, how the government can continue to function, and to pay for all those little things we all love so much, like schools and roads and wars.

There is no excuse for dumb campaign promises-- unless, of course, you're a dumb candidate.

Phone Calls. I Hate Them.

So volunteering for Obama today was no piece of cake, seeing as they made me work the phone banks. I'm used to working the Vassar phone-a-thon for the Annual Fund, where we ask the alumni for money once a year. In that case, I don't care what you do once you pick up the phone, as long as you're civil about it. Give money or don't-- whatever.

But calling people in support of a political campaign is very different, and much more frustrating. Look, I'm not trying to get you to change your views at all; I just need to know if you've decided who you're voting for, because either way, then we can leave you alone. If you haven't decided, I just need to know what issues are important to you, so we can get an idea of what undecided voters are thinking about. I'm not going to make any attempt to change your mind or to get you to give me money. Stop acting like I'm barging in on you, because I'm not. I'm asking you a simple, civil question, and I will not take more than twenty seconds of your precious time, if you just friggin' cooperate with me.

Of the four people who actually answered their phones, one was voting for "whoever the Democrat is," and then proceeded to ask, "Wait, there's only one, right?" One person was undecided, but when I asked her what kinds of issues were important to her, she said, "Oh, I don't know. There are so many," and gave a flaky sort of laugh. And then the other two people refused to tell me, which pissed me off, because as I previously mentioned, I'm not trying to get you to do anything. If you tell me you support John McCain, that's fine. You're an idiot, but that's fine. Go out and vote and make your voice heard. But if you do tell me that you're voting for John McCain, then that allows me to put you on a list of people not to call, so that the Obama campaign will never bother you again. If you get snippy and tell me that your vote is "private," well, fine, but that means you're not definitively in either camp, so we won't be putting you out of our sights just yet.

The funniest part is, one of the women who was so snippy to me lives right down the block from my parents' house. I pass her house everyday when I go running. In fact, I have a pretty good idea of what she looks like. And it's going to be mighty tempting to say, "Thanks for being so nice to me on the phone," the next time I run past.

Go Ahead. Ask, and tell!

Congress is finally considering overturning Don't Ask, Don't Tell-- a move that I think would be good for the nation and good for the military. I mean, I'm sure right now the military isn't a very fun place for openly gay people (well, I can't imagine it's a particularly fun place for anyone, but you know what I'm getting at), and it won't be a welcoming environment for gays for a long time. But I think allowing gays to be open about themselves might, albeit slowly, help break down some barriers in the military, and maybe help some officers to face their prejudices and understand their feelings a little bit more fully.

Imagine that you're a young guy in the Army, maybe 18 or 19 years old. Say you have a commanding officer, a man you look up to and respect, who is incredibly masculine and strong. You've never had suspicions that he might be gay, and because of Don't Ask, Don't Tell, you've never questioned your image of his sexuality before. Because you don't know a lot of openly gay men, you're slightly unnerved by the idea of them; you assume that gay men are prissy, high-voiced fellows who are easily identifiable, and therefore your commanding officer could never been one of them. But if we take away DADT, and your commanding officer feels comfortable enough to confide in you that he's gay, your image of gayness might change. Instead of being afraid of gay people, you might grow to respect them, to understand how they can look or act just like anyone else.

I think DADT keeps people from understanding one another, which isn't helpful in a military environment where people are already under so much stress. I hope that, after DADT repealed, our men and women in uniform can welcome everyone into their ranks, regardless of sexuality. After all, it would make the Army stronger if we could recruit more diverse types of people, and it would also make the recruiting pool larger-- which is something the Army has desperately tried to do, what with all the wars we seem to be fighting these days.

Czech Your Facts, McCain

Wait, really? John McCain just referred to current events in the country of "Czechoslovakia" (which hasn't existed since 1993) for the second time in two days. Seriously?

To me, this gaffe is different that the one George Bush made about social security ("They want the federal government controlling Social Security like it's some kind of federal program") in 2000. That mistake just proved that Dubya is an idiot, but McCain is a pretty intelligent man, so that's not where this accident came from. In my opinion, it just reiterates how friggin' old he is. He keeps trying to bill himself as being just as willing to usher in change as Obama is, but his mindset is stuck in the past. He may as well have said "the USSR" instead of Russia, or "Siam" instead of Thailand. The man is clearly still lost in the Cold War-- and since he's in his seventies, isn't that to be expected? My elderly grandmother still uses the word "colored" to describe black people and doesn't realize that computers can come with color screens now. Thus, I wouldn't want my grandmother to be president. So why should I want John McCain?

I'm Never Moving to South Dakota

My good friend Claire (whom y'all may have seen commenting on this blog) shot this horrifying article along to me describing South Dakota's vicious, misinformed abortion law. The law states that doctors must instruct women for whom they are about to perform abortions that "the abortion will terminate the life of a whole, separate, unique, living human being," and that the woman, apparently whether or not she knows it or wants it, has "an existing relationship with that unborn human being." They're also required to "inform" women about certain questionable "facts," such as the idea that abortion leads to increased depression and suicide (despite, of course, actual medical and scientific evidence, which in reality suggests that depression is more concretely linked to having unwanted children).

What irritates me here is not only the fact that doctors are being forced to say things to their patients that they may not actually believe-- I'm even more alarmed by the patronizing approach to women's health, by the idea that women need to be lectured and indoctrinated because they're incapable of working the abortion question out by themselves. Um, I don't think most women waltz gaily into abortion clinics without having thought about their decision quite seriously. Abortion isn't fun, and I think women who have abortions have usually weighed the pros and cons before finding themselves at the clinic.

And of course, my favorite part of the article is this: the law only applies to one clinic, because (and I am not making this up) there is only one abortion clinic in all of South Dakota.

This is why I need to get out of the Midwest, people.

Not that my endorsement means much, but...

I wanted to take a moment to urge you to have a look at Gary Peters, who is running for Congress in Michigan's 9th district. He's a supporter of gay rights (so I'm told) and a he's a war veteran-- plus he got his doctorate degree at the same place my dad did, Wayne State University (albeit my dad's degree was in Biology and Mr. Peters' was in law, but whatever).

My friend Leora is currently his campaign's finance director, and I like her a whole lot, so when she told me she'd found a great candidate, I was intrigued. I checked him out myself, and he seems pretty cool. Michiganders, take note!

Movie Sexism?

I actually read this article, "Sexism and the City," last week in the print edition of Newsweek, but I've been thinking about it a lot this week for some reason, and so I thought I'd put it up here for all to see.

The author raises an interesting question: why has the movie version of "Sex and the City" been so positively embraced by women but so viciously attacked by men? I mean, I'm not gonna defend the series as some sort of women's liberation, as I think it tended to place clothes and shoes too centrally in the female characters' lives (I mean, I don't combat misery by buying three new pairs of Manalos, and I bet most of my female friends don't, either). But I've also always admired the way the show took all the complex issues that women face today and dealt with them honestly and unflinchingly. I also liked that each of the women on "Sex and the City" started out with a different female stereotype for a personality (Samantha was "the slut," Charlotte was "the princess," Miranda was "the career girl" and Carrie was "the girl-next-door") and then, throughout the series, confronted, fragmented, and recreated themselves to reflect a more nuanced, complete picture of femininity. I will never be like Carrie Bradshaw, but I found myself sympathizing with her, even though I'll never be that rich or that successful. Sometimes, Carrie would come up against the restrictions and prohibitions of society, and I would become frustrated along with her, frustrated that America can offer so many wardrobe choices but so few life choices.

And I think the writer of the above article has it right when she insists that it's a little disturbing that so many men are ready to trash a movie they've never even seen. Why is it that the highest-grossing film with women in the principle roles should be so desperately abused by so many men?

It also probably doesn't help that I've been reading The Feminine Mystique this week, and learning all about what men in the 50s wanted their women to be like. At the heart of 50s gender roles was an unshakable dichotomy in female roles: women were supposed to either be frigid career bitches or doe-eyed, child-bride, stay-at-home mothers and wives, and any depiction of a woman as straddling these two stereotypes, as incorporating aspects of both the homemaker and the breadwinner into her life, was considered disgusting. Isn't that kind of what might be going on here? Some men like to think of women as belonging in categories: hot chick, high-powered executive, PTA mom, brainiac, cheerleader. When the lines between these roles blur-- when women are allowed to be human, and varied, and to possess all sorts of contradictory qualities that render them uncategorized and individual, men get a little antsy. And maybe it's not because they want to oppress or marginalize women-- maybe it's just because they don't understand women, and putting them into categories makes them easier to deal with, easier to comprehend. I don't know. But the article raises some interesting points, and I think it's definitely worth reading.

That's all! :)

Oh baby!

This reminds me of my hometown so much, it's not even funny.

Also, it is the single best argument for educating kids about (and providing) birth control in schools that I've seen in years.

Massive Debt? No Thanks, I'll Pass.

Our current financial crisis highlights a very important fact about our country: Americans are stupid when it comes to money.

I really enjoyed this article, which points out that all those idiots who thought mortgages didn't have to be paid back are now having children, and probably are teaching them to be just as immature and harebrained about their spending habits. So let's get some financial education programs going, eh? Maybe it would help if people truly grasped the way credit and debt work, instead of borrowing and spending more recklessly than teenage girls with mom's stolen plastic.

I can't understand how people can think like this, how they can be so silly. When you borrow money, you owe someone something. I hate that. I hate feeling beholden to anyone-- it makes me nervous, and what's more, it makes me feel guilty, so that every time I buy some ice cream or a new dress I think to myself, "I shouldn't be doing this. I should be paying back what I owe." Owing money isn't a pleasant feeling when it's only $20 of debt; imagine how awful it must be to owe thousands, even tens or hundreds of thousands! And people are willingly, even eagerly, entering into this type of situation? No thanks, not for me.