Saturday, January 13, 2007
Week 7 Blog Topic
First, please note that your comment on this blog post is not due until Tuesday at noon. I've been swamped this week catching up after being sick and completely forgot to post a topic! This week we're covering similar ground as previous weeks, though in the context of the federal and state government. So, instead of commenting on the readings, your blog assignment for this week is to blog on another blog! The only requirement is that the blog you choose must be related to this class (e.g., it could be a blog about pay gap, sex discrimination, female political candidates, female elected officials, occupational segregation, feminism, etc.). Comment on the other blog (you may choose to use your name, a pseudonym, or comment as "anonymous" if permitted) and then copy and paste your comment into THIS blog. Please be sure to include the URL and name for the other blog so anyone who is interested can check out the blog you found (it will also help to put your comment in context). How do you find another blog? They're everywhere! The easiest way though is to do a blog search on Google. Please let me know if you have any questions and have a great weekend.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
23 comments:
https://www2.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=27549167&postID=7718501430399044094
I would just like to question where the idea of abortion came from? Who decided one day that they didn't want the baby conceived inside her? I would also like to ask, what is it about this issue that leads us to such heated debates? Part of me believes that we talk to hear our heads rattle. Another part of me thinks that we just have to voice our opinions because we can. There comes a point when the phrase "if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all" comes into play.
Both sides of this argument make (arguably) rational points, so why do we continue to harp on this issue?? It seems logical to me that, the Supreme Court decided the issue; a reasonable decision has been made that is split down the middle of both views. Those who believe in abortion get the freedom to make that decision, but those who are against it have the restrictions placed on how far along the mother can be to obtain an abortion. Are there really even people out there, who have had or desire an abortion, that desire a change in the laws? Or are the people that are getting so angry over the issue just those radical crazies who are never satisfied with anything the government does?
To skip around and make my opinion thoroughly confusing to those reading it, I would like to address the quote that begins the initial blog post.
We women know when it is or is not the right time to bring a child into the world...We act out of compassion when we wait to have a child until the time when we can give it the kind of life every child deserves. We act out of love when we consider what we would be taking away from the child or children we already have if we brought another child into our family now...We women know the truth: That given certain circumstances, abortion is the most morally responsible and loving choice we can make."
I believe this is a complete load of crap! I happen to come from the side that is completely against the idea of abortions. While I understand that thought processes that went into this comment, I must say that those same thought processes are wrong. Yes, a woman’s intuition is a marvelous thing. Yes, anyone, not just a mother, can see that there may be inopportune times to give birth. But, why should abortion be the only option to solve that problem. Put the child up for adoption. I know the comment that is to come next by my opponents; orphanages are overcrowded… blah blah blah. But wouldn’t giving the child the chance to have a life at all better than a life that may not be as ideal as could be imagined?? I could continue this rant for hours, but I think you get my point; abortion is wrong, women should not be given the choice to take potential life away from their child.
http://shipof-fools.livejournal.com/
The Gender Barrier 2007
We all know that women face occupational segregation, but I would like to address a specific segregation today, sports. Personally, I am and always have been engrossed in sports. If relaxation was ever needed, then I would either flip on ESPN or head to the nearest game. But two events recently brought this idea of women being segregated in sports to the limelight.
The first is a story I saw on ESPN about a very hefty girl that is trying to become the very first woman to play in the NFL. When I say that this girl was a good football player, it is not in the “well she was good for a ‘girl’” type of good I mean. I mean, this girl could push about anyone she wanted all over a football field. After watching her compete in a high school game and then discuss her aspirations, it dawned on me. She will never compete professionally in football. In fact, she will probably never play for a NCAA division I team. Believe me, her absence from the NFL or NCAA is not going to be because she does not have the ability, it is because she does not have a penis. It is as simple as that. When you take a step back and look at it, it is amazing that in the year 2007, such a clear cut form of segregation still exists in state schools and professional sports. Now, I am not saying that every woman is ready to play against 300 lb men in the NFL, but if there is an exception that can physically keep pace with those athletes, then she should be given the opportunity to play. I mean, colleges and the NFL should not lower their standards to admit enough females or anything, but if certain women are able to perform as well as the men, then they should not have any barriers in their way.
The second event was when I watched a SEC women’s basketball tournament game this week. Basketball is my passion and I will admit that I could watch almost any men’s game and be satisfied. But, I am ashamed to say that anytime a women’s basketball game is on, I flip the channel. I don’t know why I have always done that, but it was just instinctual. I believe it stems from the fact that I know all of the men’s teams, coaches, and players and I know very little about the women’s game. But while I watched the two teams play earlier in the week, something funny happened. I noticed that the game was actually played the way basketball is meant to be played. It was beautiful. Passes were crisp, the girls boxed out correctly, they dribbled with their heads up, and they had a perfect form shooting. I sat there thinking and realized that the game I was watching was a much better, cleaner game than two thirds of the men’s basketball games I have watched. I then began to count how many televised games there were that week and how many of them were women’s games. There were 68 televised men’s basketball games on all the networks I get for this week, and there were only 6 women’s games. Those few women’s games were namely due to the fact that conference tournaments were being played and that local teams were competing. The amount of tv time between the male and female sport was astonishing to me. It is no wonder that few people watch women’s basketball compared to men’s with all the media bias. It really is astonishing.
All in all, I have come to the realization that women are systematically oppressed and segregated in the sports world. In some cases, like the NFL, few women could compete with the male athletes because of their size and strength. But, those that are physically able are not given the chance. Yet, sports like baseball and golf do not have the size factor that limits women. But there is still segregation. I guarantee that women like Jennie Finch could outplay many MLB baseball players but they are not given the chance. Michelle Wie and co. could give many male golfers on the PGA a run for their money, but Augusta is not open to women. About 50 years ago the color barrier was broken in most sports. It is unfortunate that 50 years later the gender barrier is still not broken and rarely even discussed.
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/02/22/no-ring-no-vote/
The New York Times: "No Ring. No Vote."
I find it interesting that I am considered a “political gold mine.” As a single female in my twenties, I’ve never felt that individuals my age, male or female, have been truly recognized when it comes to voting. I had never really considered that martial status had much of an effect because married or unmarried, I’m going to vote because I feel that its both my duty and privilege. However, even in local elections, I’ve never received a piece of campaign mail with my name on it or been asked for my vote by a candidate, even though I have been registered to vote since the day I turned 18. I was surprised but glad to read in an above post (by Maggie Rheinstein) that the WVWV has started an 18th birthday program to attract young voters—I think it’s a truly excellent idea. So while I will continue to keep up with politics and continue to vote, I will now be more aware to recognize if future candidates really start “digging for gold.”
I have to personally agree with Jessica. I am a single female in my twenties and not once have I felt that I was being singled out to vote. I've never heard anyone say "Hey all single females it's your turn to vote!" I can understand why alot of female who are single don't vote. Many of them are working hard to provide for themselves and sometimes a family. Their main intention is not to run right out and vote but to work longer hours to provide. I'm not saying that the issues that are being placed in front of us during an election aren't important, however I find it important to work and pay my bills. I am a registered voter and I vote every election but still part of me feels that I just go in and vote for someone with a pretty name just so I can rush the process. I know that I need to start paying more attention to the details of the political debates however when you work all through the night just to make ends meat, its hard to pay attention to anything other than what bills to pay and how many hours of sleep you can afford to get that night!
http://mamatink.blogspot.com/
I see that you've called yourself a "comment whore" so I've elected to pick you for an assignment that my class is doing, because I'm assuming someone with a self-proclaimed title such as yours would be extra speedy when it came to recontacting me.
I'm in a Politics of sex class at a University IN (not of) Kentucky, and I noticed your bio states your a mother of three, wife, and teacher, while also being a friend. We've been discussing that women are less likely to run for a political office, because of the factors you list in your biography or your "about me" section. I was wondering what your thoughts were on this subject. First off I would have to assume that you have a basic understanding of our political system, and then I would have to assume, that politics interest you. While I don't know you at all, I'm going to assume that you do watch the news (when you get the time, since you have three children). Do you feel like perhaps you would run for a political office (Locally, state, or national). If so, why do you feel that way, but more importantly if you don't feel that way, why? Is it because you feel your duty as a mother, teacher, and wife rank higher than being a politician? Or is it because you're just too busy and don't have time for it? Or is it something I didn't list (which is very possible). Also, I would be interested in knowing why you think women don't run for a political office more often. I can tell you studies show that when women do run for a political office they win just as often as the men do. So why is it then, when it comes to actually running for a political office women are less likely to run? If you would like I would love for you to email me your response and perhaps we can keep this discussion going past this original comment.
Hope to hear from you soon.
JMadison
I found this Mother's blog just by searching. I thought it would be interesting to start a conversation with a Mother of three, who is married, and also is a teacher. More to come.
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/02/22/no-ring-no-vote/
Sorry Jessica I used your source as well. It was just a great site and I couldn't pass it up!
http://www.globalclashes.com/
I also made a edited post here since my first comment wasn't posted on a blog specifically related to class. This one had a couple issues pertaining to our class.
http://blogs.chron.com/bluebayou/2007/03/ann_coulter_ate_my_blog.html
Commenting on Anne Coulter and the name calling on John Edwards, she called him a …a bad word, oh no likes that is new for politics hmmm when we can’t find anything true to ruin a politician with that we don’t like, we resort to name calling….
It's not anything new to hear name calling when it comes to politics, but yet it is new to hear a woman in politics do the name calling. Even Hillary leaves the name calling to her staff; by the way that individual is a man. Women in politics are expected to be tough and be able to play the game or get out, but yet when a woman actually does the same thing that men do, oh no, no no that’s just wrong (sarcasm).
I am reminded of a saying, "If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen!" I don't think Coulter was actually calling Edwards gay, but yet she may have just characterized some of his actions to that of what society deems a gay person acts. I don't know, but maybe Coulter wanted the attention and we just gave it to her, now she'll go to rehab anyways, like that will excuse her behavior, its politics in the U.S., known for its infamous name calling between politicians (men). Why, oh why is it so wrong for a female to do some name calling, what it isn't like Coulter is running for office and now if she ever harbored thoughts, well she probably won't get far because she called Edwards a bad word.
http://liberalfeministbias.blogspot.com/2007/01/were-mommies-mantra-will-not-help.html
I agree that the women who are in politics should not portray themselves as mothers in an attempt to downplay their political abilities. Women have a very difficult time trying to balance the not too bitchy but not too nice persona that they have to portray in order to remain successful in a male dominated field. Women spend so much time trying to get the right balance so that men won't feel threatened by them that the real issues get forgotten. I am taking a "politics of sex" class and we have been discussing why there are so few women in politics. There are many theories as to why this is...family, disinterest, confidence level and so on. My theory is that women have to do twice the work as men with a smile on their face so that they can be accepted by men. I feel that women get frustrated with trying to conform to this mold and either don't enter politics at all or leave because of it. I wonder if playing the "mommy" card is a way of neutralizing their power so that they don't seem as threatening to men or if it is a way to solicit votes from other "mommies". On the other hand, the media tends to focus on the "mommy" aspect rather than on the hard political facts as a way to "put women back in their place...the home" and maintain the status quo. We read quotes from current and former female politicians who were frustrated with the way the media portrayed them, describing them based on the clothes they wore, who was taking care of the children, what household responsibilities they performed. Even when the women tried to revert back to the political issue at hand they were diverted back to children, husband, home, and wardrobe. I wonder how successful a female politician would be if she did not appease the media and downplay her political abilities so that she could "get along with the boys". For a female politician to completely alienate everyone around her would be political suicide. There has to be some compromise. I think there needs to be an evolution of female political leaders who push the envelope and challenge the status quo. However, I don't think this happens overnight. I think it takes an infiltration of women in powerful political leadership roles over time who will redefine what it means to be a female politician. It is not only the male politicians who want to keep the status quo; unfortunately it is many of the voters as well.
Janice Clayton
http://jweissdiary.blogspot.com/2007/03/law-covering-susan-stanton-city-manager.html
I'm just giving my opinion on this whole matter; I know there isn’t a law that states that Stanton can't get fired for transsexual discrimination. But I think that what he does in his personal life and what he does for work should be completely separate. I know that even in today's world people are somewhat skittish about transsexuals getting sex changes.
I don’t think its right to fire Stanton when he has put in 14 excellent years as a public official. I think that this act of discrimination is uncalled for. Stanton will still be the same person that he will be after his sex change. Sexual discrimination is wrong no matter what circumstance.
I understand that Florida is a conservative state and there are no laws to protect Stanton from being fired from his job. But I still think something is wrong here if he gets fired for being transsexual. Shouldn’t there be something to protect transsexuals? Especially in Stanton's situation? All people should be treated with respect no matter what they are; Gay, straight, bisexual or transsexual. You can’t help who you are, but you'll always be that great person that you are to others. I think that’s the only thing that matters. I mean like I said, he's an honest to goodness seems like a well educated person and he's good at his job. So what if he wants to be a woman? I see nothing wrong with that. If Stanton is still doing a great job it should not matter what he is or what he will come to be.
http://liberalfeministbias.blogspot.com/
I find it disturbing that far right wingers can be against the HPV vaccination. This is a break through, it has the ability to stop thousands and thousands of girls from getting cervical cancer and Health Care Providers will save millions of dollars.
HPV does not scare anyone away from having sex, pregnancy doesn’t even do that. By not giving girls the protection of a horrible virus just so they won’t have sex crushes the feminist movement, and places women’s rights in the hands of the government; which is ran by men.
Laws, medicine, and religion do not do much to deter teenagers from sex. Parents involvement does, by teaching them the responsible ways to protect themselves and going the extra mile to protect them in by any means necessary.
Women have lobbied and pushed for decades to have the right to vote, acquire jobs and have equal pay, do we really even need to waste time discussing the issue of protecting a women’s body? It’s a no brainer. What have you got to lose by giving them the HPV vaccination?
Marketta Ray
http://femalemisogynist.blogspot.com/2005/07/can-feminist-hate-women-reason-1.html
oh dear god. everyone needs to check out this blog.
Alright, so you are a woman who feels that things are not as they should be with women. You find innumerable flaws with the feminine, the mainstream, the socially-constructed and societally-bequeathed behaviors as well as the biological, chemical, and hormonal characteristics of women. You have particularly high hopes for what women, and indeed humanity, should live up to, and when you find that you are often let down, you become cynical and frustrated.
But your arguments are largely over-broad and stereotypical, and wildly negative. If you recognize that women are behaving in a way that is harmful to womankind, or degrading or whatnot, then that is one thing. But just to recognize is not particularly of any consequence. It is what you do with that recognition that defines you as a human being. If you think women should be behaving in a different way, or that feminists are uninformed or have misplaced agendas, then you can either hold a bitch-session and pour hours and hours of your life down a black hole that will only suck you down with it, into a pit of cynicism and hopelessness and bitterness that you'll have the great pleasure of wallowing in for the remainder of your days, or, option 2, you can seek to help make those changes that you think should be made. Assuming you think there are changes that need to be made. You have so keenly pointed out endless problems, but you have not spoken much on the topic that things SHOULD BE DIFFERENT, just consistently reitterating that they suck as they are now.
So. In short, I can identify with your frustrations. Honestly, I was a little put off by your blog until I read your profile, and then suddenly I understood--I've felt the same way before. But we tread on a slippery slope, and in our recognition of all the problems with society, we teter dangerously on the edge of falling into our own frustrations and bitterness, which in the end will prove to be the antithesis of our intention serve to do nothing more than make us miserable.
So stop hating women. Stop hating feminists. Stop hating yourself. Stop defining yourself with what you hate, and, although it may sound corny, start focusing on what you love. Start trying to foster that part of the feminine in the rest of womankind. Try to inspire. Try to uplift. Try to educate. Very little good has ever come from persistently berating a group of people (or society as a whole). Humankind just does not respond to that sort of thing. Yes, recognize that there are problems. POINT THEM OUT. But realize that you have to do it in a certain fashion or you'll never change anything. Unless you don't really care if anything ever changes, and then you've just become consumed by your hoplessness and hate for the world, and that is the saddest existence I can imagine.
I echo the first comment made. We should all live for a reason. All the better if that reason is self-determined. Live to be useful, and stop bitching. You've got a start by recognizing that many women who are feminists are indeed coutner-productive for many reasons, but you have to take that a step beyond if you want your opinion to matter an even an iota. Because unless you are going to do something proactive with all that frustration and that insight into society, you're just running a bitch-session here, which is essentially only serving to perpetuate all those things you claim to loathe. Something tells me you recognize this too, and therefore have spawned some sort of self loathing from that recognition. My suggestion for that would be simple. Stop already. Stop being so self-indulgent in your hypocricy, particularly since you recognize that's what you're doing. Take some responsibility and have some control over the way you feel and stop being one of the people you claim to hate.
about.com:http://echidneofthesnakes.blogspot.com/
I cannot remember ever NOT being a feminist.
I love how a man previously posted that he, too, was a feminist! kudos to him! So many men I know (and women too, for that matter), think feminists can only be lesbian men-haters. Or that feminists don't even exist anymore.
And the word has such a negative connotation, as if only someone crazy and radical would even consider calling themselves that. What is a feminist? Just anyone who believes in the need to have rights equal to those of men? What is so outrageous about that? Would any women actually not want this? I suppose so, since the ERA never passed. Women were afraid that it meant they would get drafted if all rights were equal to men.
I read a blog recently in which a man said , "women just are not that interested in politics, and those who are interested are weird or lacking femininity". I cannot explain how angry I was at this statement. Maybe he never thought of the fact that if women were more encouraged to participate, they might have more interest, since they know getting involved may be more trouble than it's worth. And why do women have to worry about being unfeminine if they get involved in politics? Because it's a man's job? Or I suppose because women are supposed to stay home and be the caretakers and homemakers, and politics just doesn't fit that mold. Society has placed norms on what women should and should not do, but they can change, and there should be no barriers as to what women can and cannot do. Women not only have to worry about the same things men do in politics, but also about how they are perceived. If they are too "soft" and motherly, then are not tough enought o do the job. If they are too aggressive then they lack femininity.I was a bit discouraged when I read that blog, because I realized everything I had read about in textbooks and talked about in class was really true, that people really did feel this way and believe that women should not be equal. But we are, and someday everyone will know it. And we will get paid the same as men, and not have to worry about getting into politics. Hell, maybe we'll finally pass the ERA. Sign me up.
http://www.blogger.com/publish-comment.do?blogID=28166804&postID=114772968597854954&r=ok
Kristeena said...
I realize at times it seems like there are those select few women who ruin all the advancement our predecessors have made for women in the work force and society in general. However, I don't think we should necessarily let that affect us so much that it prevents us from climbing the ladder of mobility. It doesn't really matter what the situation is, whether it be women not living up to their potential in the work force or women being completely submissive to their spouses to a point where they permit abuse, there are always going to be a set group of women who make it harder for the rest of us. These women are just another set of hurdles the rest of us have to jump over to pave the road to higher achievements for women in society.
In the politics of sex class that I am taking at my University we have been discussing issues concerning women in the work place. In one of our readings it was noted that employers tend to hold female employees to a higher standard than male employees. The premonition was that because these women had made it through the "bottle neck" that so often pushes women out of professional occupations, more was expected of them. Male and female bosses alike stated that they expected more from the female employees simply because they were female. Do you think this plays into your assessment of your female colleagues? Are women in the business setting held to a higher standard because their presence is scarcer than that of men?
On a slightly different note, concerning the few bad apples you spoke of ruining the whole bunch, do you think it's fair that the actions of these women are being reflected on you? If things were turned so that you were a male and these were male colleagues not performing to standards do you think their lack of motivation would be reflected on you the same way that the actions of you female colleagues are? I think that especially in the work force employers, sadly both male and female tend to stereotype and group women together more often than they do male employees. The stereotypical picture painted of women in the work place is that they are over emotional, whiney, and more concerned about socializing than getting actual work done. It seems that the female colleagues you described fit this stereotype to near perfection. If you took a few steps back from the situation would you look in on it and find that you yourself have become a culprit of mentally molding your impression of your female co-workers into this stereotype of women in the work place? I think that society has so engrained in us this idea of women in the business world that sometimes we unconsciously let it affect our opinions of our fellow women. Unfortunately for women, stereotypes of male workers don't seem to be as present or engrained in our society as those we apply to females.
Additionally, as you stated, these women could be very well just as catty, over-emotional, and whiney as you suggested, allowing themselves to become the stereotype. I think that sometimes when society and institutions such as the media impress so severely a stereotype on us we sometimes start allowing ourselves to lapse into it just because that's what is expected of us. Perhaps your female co-workers have been so bombarded with society's stereotype of women in the workforce they have simply conceded and fallen in line with what society expects of them. It's sad truth but, when you're told your whole life that you're over-emotional you are more apt to live down to that expectation.
Concerning your comment about the women in your workplace fighting and bickering among themselves, let's look at why exactly they would do that. In the business world competition to get to the top for anyone, male or female is fierce in the first place. Add in the fact that you're a female and are already perhaps disadvantaged in the minds of employers because of the stereotypes society has placed on you and the struggle to the top becomes even harder. I can see how some women would, placed in this situation be propelled to be more resentful of their male colleagues and competitive toward their female co-workers. Now, I'm not saying in any way shape or form that these women are going about climbing the ladder of success the right way. I'm only saying that the stereotypes society places on women can be a contributing factor to the way some women present themselves in the professional world.
So what's next? How do we motivate these women to strive for betterment of the sex as a whole instead of allowing themselves become the stereotypes. In another reading for my class the author noted that girls in grade school all the way up to the 8th grade had a tendency to be more confident on average than boys. The girls were more apt to run for student offices and take leadership positions. The reading said that after these adolescents entered high school this all changed and for some reason female confidence diminished and male confidence elevated above that of females. The book didn't give any real indication of what exactly caused this. Ideas such as female insecurity with their bodies after hitting puberty in high school and the introduction of sex and the vulnerability it places on females were passed around during class discussion as possible contributing factors. So, how do we insure that even with the onset of puberty and the introduction of sex and the vulnerability and insecurity that comes with this, that women are able to maintain confidence in themselves and not allow themselves to "fall victim" to the stereotypes of society? I think the best way to do this is have more women's history classes in our school systems and encourage more classes like the one I am taking at Universities. One last suggestion would be to also alter, if at all possible the way society and the media portrays women in the workplace. If we allow the media to continue to push stereotypes onto women the problem of women like your co-workers dragging the rest of us down will continue to persist. To remedy this problem I think the only thing we can do is educate journalist better before they obtain their degrees and join the workforce on all the advancements women have made and how women can be just as qualified as men in the workplace. If we can remove some of the stereotypes from their minds then we can remove some of the stereotypes from society in general, as society is greatly influenced by what theses journalist print and say.
6:20 AM
http://www.nashvilleistalking.com/2007/03/05/13379/#comment-24768
I agree with the comments made by S-town. Hillary was in fact reciting from James Cleveland’s original work. This clip by Hillary may be humorous, but she is not attempting to “slap” on an accent to ally herself with the South. This whole incident is once again the media using its favorite technique of framing. By taking, this clip out of context the media is able to divert whatever issues Clinton was trying to convey and making the entire speech a joke to some and offensive to others. You will also find ample opportunities to comment on the articulately labeled Barack Obama’s usage of the word “ya’ll”. Media outlets frame the stories about political figures in order to convey whatever message they find important, or to detract from the individual’s message. Look no further than Hillary and Bill Clinton. Hillary is portrayed as cold and uppity and Bill is portrayed as charismatic and likeable, this even in light of President Clinton’s extra curricular activities while in the White House. One a side note, President Bush is not exactly portrayed as an intellectual giant whenever he opens his mouth to speak. I am not a supporter of Hillary Clinton, quite the contrary actually. However, fair and equal treatment in the media is not a luxury to most politicians. Maybe if we are all lucky, we will get to see Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton burst out into a Howard Dean “BEYAH” before this Presidential election is done. That would be entertaining!
http://mediamatters.org/columns/200703050007?made_comment=1
Women in Politics, a dirty mix...
A class I am enrolled in at Eastern Kentucky University is tackling this same issue.
Women in politics we have found are held to standards that are not required of men. For some reason, when a woman enters politics, and especially in high up positions, they are expected to be infallible. Any mistakes they make are usually blown completely out of proportion, to somehow prove the point that women are incapable of engaging in politics. Senator Clinton, although she has served as First Lady and as a NY Senator, still has to prove that she belongs in the world of politics. I’ve even seen that her dress and choice of plastic surgery come into media limelight. I’ve never in my life read an article demeaning a male candidate for his choice of suit. Would the media really care if his belt and shoes didn’t match?
However, this article clearly illustrates the untruths of this tactic. Not only was Senator Clinton grossly misquoted, but those quotes were then used to prove she was a war-mongering hawk, who obviously does NOT know what is right for America. The media, perhaps wishing she really was, describes her of having immense difficulties and challenges on the campaign trail. Instead of focusing on the message of her campaign.
Interestingly enough, Senator Edwards has none of this difficulty, and in fact has to actively ASK the audience to ask him questions about Iraq, although his vote was the same as Sen. Clintons. Double standard here? Not to mention the fact that the media is not focusing on the people demanding that President Bush apologize for actually SENDING troops to Iraq. Doesn't that seem like a more worthwhile use of their time. Clinton is an easier target however, and they will use whatever they can to prove their assumptions that she is cold, calculating, and incapable.
http://monster.typepad.com/monsterblog/2007/01/female_us_presi.html#comments
I either had technical difficulties posting, or it's on a timed effect and may take a few minutes to post.
I don’t think it is ridiculous at all to think that a woman would ascend to the White House at some point during the lifetime of a small child. Credible female candidates are beginning to build up the political clout and financial resources to make a legitimate run at the presidency even in the 2008 election. To think that the situation wouldn’t be more plausible in 2028 or 2048 is absurd.
I am personally intrigued by the idea of the pundits that the relative victory of women in 2006 was a result of public desire to eliminate corruption. This idea of women as the moral guardians of the country is one deeply rooted in society, and has been a prevailing opinion for as long as women have been eligible to vote (the amount of social reform legislation passed in the early 1920’s is considerable). I suppose that society still retains this idea that women can clean up the corruption of government. On the other hand, might they become just as easily corrupted as a male politician when thrust into that role of power? Perhaps the advancement of women recently in politics can be simply explained away by the reemergence of the Democratic Party as the majority party in Congress. Given that women are more likely to be Democratic than Republican, it would be no surprise that women took over a few seats in Congress.
If the idea holds true that women are viewed by society as the moral guardians against government corruption, and this is proven in fact by the women who are reaching new heights of power and prestige within the government, then it seems rather inevitable that at some point in the next fifty to seventy years there would be some scandal that would cause such a reactionary backlash as to put a woman in the White House. I personally feel that this can be done without such a scandal, but it’s a theory at least.
http://wizbangblog.com/2007/02/06/chicks-and-politics.php
Nancy Pelosi's argument that it might take a woman to clean out the House of Representatives does not seem to me to revert back to the idea that women in general are more moral and essentially better at cleaning up politics simply because of their gender. Undoubtedly a female politician is going to have a different perspective on what to do to clean up politics. Does this make them any more moral or able to do the job? No. It simply means that maybe a new perspective, a new outlook is needed to clean up politics. The comment that it might take a woman to clean up politics simply suggests that a woman may be able to bring something to the table that will make a difference. The specific words used her is that it "might take a woman", so we can only assume that it "might take a man". Either way, Pelosi as a woman, had every right to comment that the perspective that a woman brings to the job could be helpful in cleaning up politics without being criticized as damaging the feminist movement or "trying to have it both ways".
We can't simply ignore the differences between men and women. And it seems possible to recognize these differences, without arguing that either sex is better suited for on thing or the other. Different doesn't mean better, different doesn't mean worse, it simply means that their are recognizable differences in the way men and women handle things, including politics. That it might take a woman to clean up Washington, or any political arena for that matter, quite simply could be a probable possibility. On the other hand I can't imagine them dirtying it up anymore than men already have.
Cameron Griffith
I am a political science student at Eastern Kentucky University. While this institution or region may not be regarded as a "hot-bed" for the feminist equality movement, the topic is widely discussed and lectured on. I am currently enrolled in a class, the politics of sex, that is discussing gender inequality that is politically and socially contextual. We operate a class blog that discusses a variety of topics related to gender inequality. The blogs can be found at http://politicsofsex446.blogspot.com
I ran across your blog and thought you had some interesting ideas. The statistics widely used (Women earn 76 cents on the dollar compared to men) in discussing gender inequality in pay, seems to be skewed as it does not consider many important factors. The economists cited on your blog, after considering women and men of equal qualification, came up with a gap of 12 cents. I feel that this number is more representative of the acutal pay gap between women and men. One reason you listed for the pay gap between women and men was that women work on the lower tier of the job market. Women today earn more specialized and graduate degrees than ever before. Why are they still confined to the basement of employment opportunity? While it seems that our capitalist economic system would eliminate a wage gap between genders, a real wage gap does exist. While the exact amount of that wage gap can be debated, the existence cannot. I hope you can find the time to stop by and check out our class blog. We have some interesting ideas about gender inequality.
Thanks,
Andrew Rogers
http://www.sacarny.com/blog/2006/01/11/the-gender-pay-gap-is-real/
http://mamatink.blogspot.com/
This is the first blog I posted on, and the owner of the blog posted a response to my question to her. It's very interesting, as is another post from one of her friends (apparently). Feel free to view it
Well...I just realized my comment is late. For some reason I thought It was supposed to be posted by midnight on Tuesday. Sorry, its been a really long day and I'm not feeling so good.
Here's my post:
http://feministfigure.blogspot.com/search/label/Politics
I found this poster completely proposperous. Not only is it offensive to liberal women and perpetuates the myth of the "ugly feminist" it demonstrates the connection between political women and their appearance.
Sadly, there is a connection between the two. A woman politican faces much more criticism about her appearance and clothing choices than her male counterparts. Its a catch-22 situation. If a woman politican chooses not to follow typical beauty stereotypes, chooses to not wear skirts, or makeup, she is seen as out of touch with her femininity, or called derogatory terms questioning her sexuality. Hilary Clinton is a good example of this. I found a facebook.com group recently that repeatedly called her names because of her so-called "manliness."
However, if a woman chooses to dress stylishly and wear makeup, she is seen as TOO feminine, as weak and not capable of a powerful position in the government. Its a sad state that our media is in when it pays more attention to women's appearance than her actual statements.
http://thekitchenthink.viewfromthebay.com/2007/03/hpv_vaccine.html#comment-62574042
As health-risk oriented as all of this political HPV vaccination conversation is, there are so many underlying implications in the mess of it all, that I don’t believe should be allowed to be at the whim of politicians. Yes, if it is good for our daughters, we should want it for them. But is allowing the government to make such decisions worth the cost in ripple effects?
We can justify giving the girls of this nation the shot with its plethora of benefits. But if politicians are given leeway to dictate what medical decisions can be made for the young girls’ bodies of this country now, who is to say that this won’t pave the way for dictation of other medical decisions?
What about the controversies of allowing women their own right to choose what happens to their bodies, as in the pro-choice matters of the abortion debate. Couldn’t it later be said that if a woman, once a girl who had submitted to the vaccination, had done so, that she should also submit her body to the other dictated factions of the law as the government so deems moral and for the best medically of female citizens.
Now of course, what I have said may be a bit extreme. But the possibilities’ exist in this politically and morally corrupted nation. And perhaps that is why I believe the matter of this vaccine and its’ benefits should be placed back into the sphere of the medical authorities and the autonomous parents of the next generation, rather than the politicians who would vaccinate their mother’s with anything under the sun, if it implied the power of the funds for re-election.
erin jo mullen
To asumnlers, It wasn't a big deal that she was name calling, it was the fact that she directly called him a faggot. even in regular political mudslinging such derogatory remarks are not common, at least for those who want to get reelected. calling someone gay and calling someone a foggot are two very different things.He may very well be gay, and to note that would not be rude, but faggot? When was the last time you heard a senator call someone a nigger or a wet back? even in the unethical world of politics there are certain barriers you don't cross.
Post a Comment