Awesome Women: Molly Wood

I love Molly Wood. As an Executive Editor with CNet, I've been watching/listening to her on Buzz out Loud and my CNet TiVoCast for years. And she just rocks. Not only is she a woman who knows and loves all kinds of tech and gadgetry, but she's a woman who is very pretty but a) on TV (well, okay, the internets, but still) because of her brains, not her looks and b) not insanely TV perfect airbrushed like some tech shows and podcasts use to lure in the guy nerds. Also, she seems to strike a good mom-work balance. She tweets about her kid a lot, but not too much and not horrible tone-deaf parent stuff and she very publicly went through pregnancy, maternity leave and return to work. So, yay Molly Wood.

Campbell Brown Rules

I don't pay much attention to the relatively interchangeable pretty people who read the "news" on the 24 hour channels, but lately Campbell Brown has been rocking my world. First, she called out the real Palin-related sexism (that she was being shielded like a fragile flower from the big, mean media) amid all the wolf-crying from the right. Now she proves she's objectively calling it like she sees it by putting her foot down about the ridiculous storm that has sprung up around Palin's very expensive wardrobe. Both Feministing and Broadsheet has some interesting dissection of the wardrobe and Brown's point.

As usual, I tend to agree with Rebecca Traister of Broadsheet

I didn't think it was sexist when it broke as a mini-story (see also: Edwards' haircut, Kerry's botox, McCain's 15 houses) but the four-day fetishization is pushing me to: Move along, folks, the lady bought too many expensive clothes. Nothing to see here. And can't help but feel that the gawking would be less intense and prolonged if it were about a man's wardrobe.

I was really surprised (and annoyed/bored) at the fact that this was a big story for days. I mean, seriously? I understand it's highly symbolic of the gross hypocrisy of Republican pandering to "Joe Six Pack" while all the while supporting legislation that hurts the average American on taxes, public services and health care. But, seriously, that's what they are literally doing - so we don't need to harp on the symbol. How about actually harping on the facts? How about the fact that misogynistic rage dripped out of McCain's mouth as he snarls "health of the woman" in the last debate? How about the fact that McCain dismisses a tax package that benefits the vast majority of working Americans as "socialism"?

Then again, the so-called comedy stylings of the candidates got at least as much press, so I guess you can't expect much when you have to fill 24 hours a day.

Women Matter: Getting Regular Women Engaged in Politics

Last week, I lamented that Palin Fever seemed to have exposed a real disconnect between feminism (or more generally, all people working on behalf of women in politics) and the "woman on the Street." The fact that hordes of women were flocking to throw their support and adulation behind a woman who has no track record of actually helping their situation in meaningful ways first horrified me, then made me sad that somehow our message had gotten lost to these women, even alienated them.

But hooray for Smith College! The current issue of the Alumnae Quarterly is focused on politics and the campaign and featured Women Matter, a site founded by Smith alum Nancy W. Bauer specifically to engage women in the political process by discussing the links and impact of policy on what they call Life Issues. It's a non-partisan site that seeks to clearly lay out the issues and explain the various possible remedies. Each Life Issues section also ends with concrete action a woman can take - from the simple act of registering to vote, to how you can get informed of your local and national representatives' positions, to contacting those representatives to tell them where you stand.

I think this is just fabulous. After all, I can understand how someone not brought up or educated in an environment of political participation or activism would fall prey to the cynical view that your votes doesn't even matter or that the only ways to engage are through specific interest groups. With these simple, personal, concrete steps, I think any woman can get involved and start to build confidence in their voice and that it carries weight in the process.

Unfortunately, I really hadn't heard of them before this. I'm hoping this is my own ignorance, since I really think this is an organization that ought to be a reference for everyone from the TV Talking Heads to high school Civics teachers and, of course, individual women.

Rachel Maddow: Keeping me Sane since 2008

So, I have had a kind of crush on Rachel Maddow since Feministing clued me in early last month. But nothing could prepare me for the overwhelming rush of love and happiness she brought on, when I sat down with my TiVo last night, after my day of great Palin-induced feminist/existential angst. Just being able to turn on the TV and see an example of a smart, funny woman in this prime time boys club chair restored my faith in the progress women have made... as well as the progress men have made in adapting and honestly embracing a new reality instead of fighting it or pandering to it. And, let's face it, Rachel Maddow is more than TV-level attractive, she's just plain hot, and she would probably have to stick to radio if that weren't the case, but no one is judging her competence based on her "sexy librarian" look or telling her she has to "put on a skirt" to be successful.

So, please, read Rebecca Trainster's profile, then Watch The Rachel Maddow Show and rejoice.

No, The Political is Personal

Over my work-related period of radio silence, a LOT has happened. Well, really one thing - Sarah Palin. My initial reaction was to laugh out loud - the tone deaf choice of an unknown, un-vetted, completely unqualified women just to un-subtly lure those crazy old leftie ladies who were still grumbling about Obama winning over Hilary? Literally, could McCain's campaign go anymore horribly off track?
But her immediate and aggressive acceptance among right-wingers started to shake my convictions that this was the last nail in the coffin. It was a bait-and-switch! She's not really there as a Hilary replacement (though she is certainly bouyed by the energy and conversation created by Hilary), she's there to energize the base, to allow Republicans to actually like their ticket. And worse yet, she's their Obama. Just as Obama brought many previous non-voters from ubran and working class backgrounds into the fold, Palin is the kind of candidate who appeals to the Red State "little guys" who have been seriously sidelined since the loss of Huckabee. I cringed, I got worried, but it's all still politics and the game can change at any minute. And, let's remember, as much as the outcome is deadly serious, this part is still just a game.
Then two articles I read today brought up a far deeper sense of dread. In the Washington Post's piece on the way that Palin has become the new fluffy celebrity, this campaign's Paris Hilton, a woman on the street is quoted as putting forth the mind-exploding idea that

"She exemplifies what a genuine feminist is," said Elizabeth Hauris, who owns a company that manufactures cloth diapers. "She's pro-life, pro-family, nurses her son, carries him in a sling, which epitomizes the idea of close attachment."

Actually, that's nearly exactly the opposite, honey. Feminism is supposed to be about women NOT being strapped to their babies (literally or figuratively) and I'd venture that if there are only two things all feminists agree on, one of them is that we necessarily must be pro-choice.

This kind of co-opting of this campaign's legitimate suge of feminism was annoying when it came from talking heads and GOP aparatchik, but it's absolutely terrifying when it comes from the ground up. Rebecca Traister, as always, have an insightful and balanced take on this new zombie feminism.

In this strange new pro-woman tableau, feminism -- a word that is being used all over the country with regard to Palin's potential power -- means voting for someone who would limit reproductive control, access to healthcare and funding for places like Covenant House Alaska, an organization that helps unwed teen mothers. It means cheering someone who allowed women to be charged for their rape kits while she was mayor of Wasilla, who supports the teaching of creationism alongside evolution, who has inquired locally about the possibility of using her position to ban children's books from the public library, who does not support the teaching of sex education.

She goes on to say "But if we inadvertently paved the way for this, then the Democratic Party mixed the concrete, painted lanes on the road, put up streetlights and called it an interstate. The role of the left in this travesty is almost too painful to contemplate just yet." But, the thing is we have to contemplate it NOW.

We need to take a hard look at why these women feel alienated by real feminism (or the strange, fractured version that trickles down to them through the media) and why they are starving for validation of their more traditional choices. While we've all been fighting at the far edges, pushing our rights further and further towards equal, the Right swooped in an co-opted the middle ground. Smart Women Everywhere are already debating whether ironic cupcake baking is good or bad, but most women are still struggling through the real life choices of work and motherhood and how far expectations and mores have changed in just a single generation. We've left these women behind, we haven't done the best service by them because we barely even see them and they barely even see us. Their idea of "feminism" has been so distorted by everything from FOX News to Saved By The Ball and the Pussycat Dolls that it's no wonder so many young women, who are actively reaping the benefits of feminism, don't even know it and outright reject that label.

This is not to say the front line should fall back, it is vitally important that we keep pushing forward. But we have to shore up the rear, too. We have to ensure that women who choose to take on more traditional roles for themselves feel included and can see how much we are already helping them with work and pay issues, health care and family leave issues, and other day-to-day concerns. And it's possible - after all, don't we all know women who are in just that position? Women who did choose to scale back or leave work all together when they first had children, but who are no less feminism because it and already enjoy the validation of their choices by the friend family and peers?
We have to make sure that we don't lump all career moms into one big basket of scorn and pity in an effort to avoid taking steps backward. It's going to mean a lot of work - teasing out the signs from the signified, putting out messages for everyone along the path, and still knowing when to fight hard against the Palins of the world who want to force us into a state of choicelessness - but it's clearly time to start digging in before feminism becomes any more diluted and convoluted.

Stupid Men & Hot Women: TV

(I recently got push-polled in a good way. I regularly read feministing and they conducted a reader poll. A majority of the questions were about the new Community blogs area, an idea that many sites are now doing to capture the power of user-generated content. I had pretty much ignored this new development, but ended up adding the Community RSS feed to my Reader after the poll. I've been rewarded with at least one really interesting post per day [though, that is out of dozens of kind of 'meh' ones] and that's how I came across this post on a totally other blog. So, now to the meat)

First, it's true, all awesome women I know and love dream of being crotchety old ladies who don't have to conform to any expectations. I hope to do this myself, though sans cats.

And I definitely agree that TV tends to portray competent and responsible women as nags and killjoys, but I've spoken to a lot of men who feel stung by the "King of Queens" paradigm as well. After all, there are only a few kinds of men on sit-coms - shlubby dufuses and hapless pitiable man-whores tend to be the majority. Even the supposed everyman heros, like Ross on Friends or Ted on How I Met Your Mother are pretty annoying and lame. While I guess there may be some lazy idiots sitting around wondering when that hot babe of a wife they are entitled to is going to show up, most smart men I know are just as offended by the gender stereotypes as we are.

Makes you wonder who, exactly, they make these shows for anyway?

The Simplest Explanation

Late last week, I heard a followup to an earlier story, commenting on the big flap caused when a reporter revealed a trend among teenagers, namely that forgoing condoms during sex is considered a step on the commitment ladder. Adults were appalled and outraged and let NPR know. Meanwhile, the reporter said she had not expected such a sharp reaction. Now, part of me says "Come on, get real teenagers + sex = angry, angry parents and you must know that" but the other part of me can see exactly where she is coming from. I was reminded of this story again today by Feministing (includes link to original story), which offered up an odd, half-hearted explanation/endorsement "I do think this is one of those work arounds to heteronormativity."

I think both Feministing and the angry parents are missing the simple point that the NPR reporter probably got (thus her surprise). These teenagers are simply modeling adult behavior. After all, how many serious adult couples do you know that use condoms? Hormonal birth control or a vasectomy are far more effective, so the condom's only role at that point is disease prevention. And, one of the hopes in a committed, long-term relationship is that there is no outside sexual activity, so no new infections.

Don't you remember when you were a swoony teenager and thought you were with The One? Or, really, think about college. Many couples were engaged before or just after graduation, so the idea that you had found your life partner seemed even more realistic. While we can all look back now and realize that each of these relationships was just a temporary step along our road of growth and development, they didn't feel that way at the time. In fact, having been through few or no serious break-ups, don't you recall having a much stronger faith in the permanence of those early couplings?

Of course, I would warn any 15 year old I know against this plan because I know from experience that there's a high probability this relationship will end and/or someone will be unfaithful along the way. Also, teenagers have much less access to alternative forms of birth control and are fairly unlikely to be getting a full STD test battery at the start of each new relationship. But I think if we take the simple step of looking at it from their perspective, it becomes a much more manageable situation.

Another Opportunity to Think Deeply about Marriage

It seems that these days, trashing the wedding industrial complex has become the focus of most marriage-related debates. And, let's be honest, especially when it's Sarah Haskins or your best friend stuck with a hideous bridesmaid dress, that's fairly enjoyable. But this does seem to have shifted the public conversation more toward "Giant white dress and 500 guests or simple suit and only close family?" and away from bigger issues of the lingering patriarchal vestiges, what we should learn from the 50% divorce rate, or whether "till death do us part" even makes sense as our life expectancies close in on 100.

So it was nice to see that the joy of legalized gay marriage in California has opened the door for some serious thinking. Stuff @ Night's Jeannie Greely takes a funny-serious look at the ambivalence around winning a set of rights that also comes with such a huge, conventional cultural weight (I can't help but note that her vision of a giant lady commune was pretty much my dream through most of my early 20's). Meanwhile, Coutney A. Martin has a piece tackling her own feminist ambivalence about this new embrace of marriage.

They both echo thoughts I've had, myself. I'm ambivalent (at best) about the institution of marriage and often felt a big tug of war between the logistical and concrete reality that marriage is more than a symbol - it is 1000+ rights handed to you with a nice bow on top - and the abstract concept that maybe we shouldn't be pushing everyone toward marriage, but reevaluating the whole thing and then getting everyone equally to there... whatever "there" ended up being. I'd say both women express these ideas much more eloquently that I ever could, so stop reading me and click through!

When Should a Woman's Right to Choose Be Overruled?

Most people in the US and other Western countries with similar laws and mores equate Reproductive Rights and Freedom with access to contraception and abortion. But though the right to choose when NOT to have a baby is an important plank in the platform, and the one that most needs vociferous and vigorous defending, it's equally important to defend a woman's right to choose when TO have a baby. And that covers everything from equitable labor laws allowing women the freedom to have children without being "punished" to forced abortion and state-imposed limits on number of children. But is the time drawing near that we all have to consider limiting the "allowed" number of children per couple the lesser of two evils? While the UN Population Day report certainly doesn't go that far, it does remind us that the current and upcoming crises of scarce/expensive resources such as oil, water and grain are compounded by overpopulation. And I think it makes sense to begin to consider how this would affect the progressive stance on the issue before our backs are against the wall.

Fortunately, the UN report is very level-headed and calls for women in poorer countries to be given greater access to information and contraception so they can choose to have smaller families if they want to. Considering that the birth rate has dropped in Western countries as women were given access to eduction and work opportunities, and given more access to family planning services, the issue may work to correct itself. And, even if more stringent steps become necessary in the future, the foundation of an educated and empowered female population is crucial for those rules to be effective and humane.

I'm actually both cracking myself up and feeling kind of sick, thinking about a "child credit market" a la the emerging carbon credit markets that are part of emissions cap & trade system. God, how scary would it be to be selling your right to bear a child.. and what a crazy new sphere it would open up for economists!

CVS Has to Start Enforcing its Policies with Employees

I was infuriated, but not surprised, to read a blog post on feministing describing a CVS employee stepping waaay out of bounds and trying to refuse to sell a pregnancy test to a teenage girl. As much as I love CVS, they have been a bit lax and hypocritical on the family planning front for years. Around the time Emergency Contraception (aka Plan B) first became available OTC, CVS gained a great deal of good press by pledging to ensure availability and prompt dispensing of EC. This was and still is a big deal because many stores, such as WalMart, have opted to allow their pharmacists to refuse this legal medication to women on the basis of their personal moral stance against birth control. Other pharmacies are avoiding the issue entirely by simply not stocking the pill.

Just weeks later, a CVS pharmacist in Coventry, RI refused to fill an EC prescription and there was no real fallout for CVS, nor did they take action beyond issuing a lame apology. To know that know the minimum wage cashiers are being allowed to run roughshod on their customers' rights is just disgusting.

No more Rape or Racists?

Oh, good, I'm glad we got rid of rape and that there aren't any more racists in America. I mean, that must be why we don't get to use those ugly words anymore, right?

I Kissed a Girl Redux

I heard Katie Perry's "I Kissed a Girl" for the first time today. When the DJ announced it was the next song, I wondered if it would be a remake of the song by the same title by Jill Sobule from my younger days. Well, the words were different, but it was exactly the same song. It was the exact same ethos of experimentation with the safe mention of a boyfriend so no one has to worry that this is a *gasp* lesbian song. I'm a little sad that mainstream pop songs haven't moved toward a more explicit acceptance of homosexuality as perfectly normal, but it could have been worse - it could have reflected the Girls Gone Wild kind of experimentation which occurs only for the sake of turning guys on.

It was an interesting coincidence (for me at least, maybe I'm the last kid on the block to hear this song) coming in the same week when a study was released that shows women's sexuality to be more fluid than men's. In other words, most women can be just as easily turned on by women as men, because it's the context not the person that is the trigger.

So, maybe the reason the song remains the same over this past decade is that the pendulum of mainstream attitudes toward women's sexuality has finally reached a happy medium resting point. Art just preceded the science to prove it.

Yes, Sweetie is a Medium Deal

I've been mulling the whole "sweetie" incident over the past few days and I've come to the conclusion it's kind of a big deal. Not a feeding frenzy Big Deal or a campaign-derailing Big Deal, but a good teaching moment. I think Broadsheet nailed it:

Someone could call a professional woman "sweetie" and mean it in an avuncular, affectionate, non-harming way -- the way Barack Obama no doubt meant to deploy it. But just because a word is not meant as an offense, does not mean that it isn't diminishing, paternalistic and disrespectful.

I have no doubt that Obama will do good things for working families and the working poor (who are disproportionately women), and this in no way diminishes that. Policies and ideology are more important, in terms of choosing a candidate, than personal quirks and imperfections. But, just like I correct anyone who says, "That's gay," in my presence, the point should be made that perpetuating even unconscious sexism ought to be avoided.

Grr Grr Grr, Another PR Guy Trying to Co-opt Feminism

As sick as I am of all the clearly biased anti-Hilary media coverage that wrote her off over and over, even as she won and won big (and now cheers with glee at her "downfall"), I am more upset at some PR guy writing an editorial that uses feminism as just another pawn in the political game.

The argument is not a new one - that if you are a feminist you must vote for Clinton. However, it's usually coming earnestly from the moths of our aunts and mothers, who lived through an age where feminism was defined as "The personal is political." Here, it's being cynically employed by a PR guy, and more strongly attacking Obama supporters than I have seen much of anywhere else.

There are a lot of arguments that support both sides of this issue. And I think that, for this older generation of feminists, the current election sits squarely in the center of their experience watching an entire generation subvert, co-opt (and also positively transform) what it means to be a feminist and how one expresses it. To them, not voting for Hilary is just as bad as saying The Pussycat Dolls are feminist icons.

In my opinion, these women are right and also very wrong. Viewed solely through the lens of the single cause of women's equality, they are dead on. Women today often do take the great advancements made by our foremothers for granted (isn't that part of the goal?) but here's one goal that has yet to be attained, so we should all work together to get there. However, that ignores both the wider historical and social forces at play in this election and the more detailed nuances of the specific players in the race.

Intelligent voters can't ignore the Clinton legacy - both positive and negative, or the fact that Obama is also a historical candidate from a minority group. Our standing in the world is greatly diminished, we are fighting losing wars on two fronts, we are at an ideological crossroads and in an economic downturn. It's up to each individual to weigh these factors, along with their personal ideals, and take advantage of their right to vote (thanks, Universal Suffrage!) to make their own choices. It's not up to some man to tell all women how to think and how to act, and invoke feminism while he's at it.