Senators Hillary Clinton and Patty Murray continue to fight the HHS proposed rules which further undermine women's access to reproductive health care. A Ms. piece about the proposed rule points out further problems which have gotten little attention: Title X money could go to anti-choice clinics (via Feminst Underground). Clinton and Murray have proposed legislation to block the HHS rules.
Contact your Senators and express your support for the Protecting Patients and Health Care bill.
Now might be a good time to express support for Clinton by donating. For a $50 donation you can receive a DVD of highlights from her campaign and her convention speech.
Friday, November 21, 2008
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
If you give a mouse a cookie...
If Hillary Clinton is the next Secretary of State she will be the third woman to hold the position since its formation in 1789, not a small accomplishment. Of course, all three women will have been appointed to the position in a short time, raising some interesting questions. Has this become the accepted spot among high-ranking cabinet positions to put a woman, leaving the men to breathe easy... they have done enough. Look how enlightened they are! Look how this shows the president cares about women!
There's also the concern that the more women are seen as fit for a particular job, the less valued that job becomes and the more people will go out of their way to say it is more appropriate for womanly characteristics.
None of these things affect my opinion of whether Clinton is a good fit or whether she should accept the position, but they are questions worthy of discussion.
You know what's not a good question?
"What's with women and the Secretary of State job?"
That's how NPR posed the question in a promo for a piece on the the radical possibility that three out of the last four Secretaries of State have vaginas. Seriously, what's with those women? There are a couple problematic things going on here.
First, in any area long dominated by men, more than a few token women in the area suddenly becomes a concern. This is especially true in positions of power, where a small fraction of representation is considered sufficient. Anyone remember the Year of the Woman? In this case, all it takes to trigger this response is more than 50% women in the small amount of time since the first. Ignore the many men who preceded them!
(Of course, this isn't true just for women. I doubt that the next person elected president of the US will be black. I don't think either party will be willing to try to tackle the hurdle of the "but we've already done that" element. Which is nicely overlooked in all the white self-congratulatory pieces about how wonderful it is that the US can now elect someone other than a white man.)
And second, it reinforces the idea that women in positions of power and authority are taking the jobs away from men.
Finally, I'd like to ask, what's with men and the POTUS job??!!
There's also the concern that the more women are seen as fit for a particular job, the less valued that job becomes and the more people will go out of their way to say it is more appropriate for womanly characteristics.
None of these things affect my opinion of whether Clinton is a good fit or whether she should accept the position, but they are questions worthy of discussion.
You know what's not a good question?
"What's with women and the Secretary of State job?"
That's how NPR posed the question in a promo for a piece on the the radical possibility that three out of the last four Secretaries of State have vaginas. Seriously, what's with those women? There are a couple problematic things going on here.
First, in any area long dominated by men, more than a few token women in the area suddenly becomes a concern. This is especially true in positions of power, where a small fraction of representation is considered sufficient. Anyone remember the Year of the Woman? In this case, all it takes to trigger this response is more than 50% women in the small amount of time since the first. Ignore the many men who preceded them!
(Of course, this isn't true just for women. I doubt that the next person elected president of the US will be black. I don't think either party will be willing to try to tackle the hurdle of the "but we've already done that" element. Which is nicely overlooked in all the white self-congratulatory pieces about how wonderful it is that the US can now elect someone other than a white man.)
And second, it reinforces the idea that women in positions of power and authority are taking the jobs away from men.
Finally, I'd like to ask, what's with men and the POTUS job??!!
Monday, November 17, 2008
Doublemint Sexism
ugh. Two sexisms for the price of one:
Ya know what else is great about Clinton being offered the Secretary of State job? ALL THE MISOGYNY AND SEXISM. WOOO.
For actual grown up analysis of what Clinton as Secretary of State could mean, visit Anglachel.
And with Bill along (a future Mideast Uber-envoy?) you’d get two secretaries of State for one. Finally it’ll keep Hillary out of the country a lot rather than inside the Beltway plotting for her comeback in 2012 or 2016.
But there are downsides: Hillary can use State as a major power base from which to undermine Obama administration policies she doesn’t agree with (does anyone doubt there’ll be a few?). And to the extent she succeeds as a diplomat, it raises her profile and lowers Obama’s. Note to John Podesta: Maybe put Hillary—and Bill too--on the Supreme Court instead?
Ya know what else is great about Clinton being offered the Secretary of State job? ALL THE MISOGYNY AND SEXISM. WOOO.
For actual grown up analysis of what Clinton as Secretary of State could mean, visit Anglachel.
Friday, November 14, 2008
Keep the presure on the president-elect and congress!
The National Women's Law Center worked hard to support fair pay for women, and during this crucial time they are going to be working hard to push the new administration and members of the strongly Democratic congress to uphold their promises to women. You can read their Platform for Progress here.
If you have money to spare, The National Women's Law Center could use your help.
If you have money to spare, The National Women's Law Center could use your help.
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
Where do we go from here?
I started a nice, organized essay about lessons learned from this election and how to move on from here. If it were written on paper it would be torn up in tiny little pieces and flung away with impatience.
My feelings about the election are messy. I haven't come to any grand realization or new perspective. I'm not moving on with a new sense of hope and optimism and confidence in my fellow man. heh. So my response is going to be a little messy.
I voted for Obama and I'm not happy about it. I felt a lot of pressure, being in Ohio, to try to cancel out at least one of the assholes I have to hear all day talking about how Obama is OMGSOCIALIST. Maybe I should have just pushed the button for the ACTUAL FOR REAL socialist party. But I'm okay with not being happy about it. It was a shitty decision made in a shitty situation. There was no right thing to do, except doing the best I could and being honest with myself.
We have no progressive party in the US. Obama won by courting the center. He won, in part, by taking advantage of homophobia and misogyny. He won, in part, by emphasizing religion and further blurring the line between what government does and what organized religion does. Pelosi has determined that the country must now be governed from the middle.
That a centrist won against a man who could barely be said to have "won" the Republican primaries and whose campaign was a complete disaster is not something I can celebrate.
I was reading back through old posts from Anglachel, who said it better than I can:
I'm relieved that McCain didn't win. But I can't be happy for a victory won on the backs of all the people the Obama campaign and his supporters walked over.
My feelings about the election are messy. I haven't come to any grand realization or new perspective. I'm not moving on with a new sense of hope and optimism and confidence in my fellow man. heh. So my response is going to be a little messy.
I voted for Obama and I'm not happy about it. I felt a lot of pressure, being in Ohio, to try to cancel out at least one of the assholes I have to hear all day talking about how Obama is OMGSOCIALIST. Maybe I should have just pushed the button for the ACTUAL FOR REAL socialist party. But I'm okay with not being happy about it. It was a shitty decision made in a shitty situation. There was no right thing to do, except doing the best I could and being honest with myself.
We have no progressive party in the US. Obama won by courting the center. He won, in part, by taking advantage of homophobia and misogyny. He won, in part, by emphasizing religion and further blurring the line between what government does and what organized religion does. Pelosi has determined that the country must now be governed from the middle.
That a centrist won against a man who could barely be said to have "won" the Republican primaries and whose campaign was a complete disaster is not something I can celebrate.
I was reading back through old posts from Anglachel, who said it better than I can:
What the campaign lacks, however, and why it cannot achieve what Bill Clinton did, is an unswerving dedication to bettering the lives of ordinary people. It is trading on the most shallow of all political impulses (Oh, please, stop arguing about stuff and making me feel uncomfortable! Stop with the partisan bickering! Won't somebody think of the children?) and deliberately sidesteps the tough work of coalition building. Saying that you will seek common ground with the right - who wants no such thing - builds no coalition to promote progressive causes. It just gets you an inside track with David Broder and the Blogger Boyz who all want to become the next Tim Russert. Getting a bunch of college students with free time to swarm caucuses is not building a coalition, either, btw. ...And Kate Harding said it perfectly on Shakesville:
Too many times, when asked about progressive issues, he's said he just doesn't think that's the best place to put his energies--and even more gallingly, that the activists working tirelessly on these issues are going about it all wrong.
I'm relieved that McCain didn't win. But I can't be happy for a victory won on the backs of all the people the Obama campaign and his supporters walked over.
Thursday, November 6, 2008
Quote of the Day
The country must be governed from the middle.
Speaker Nancy Pelosi confirming the new OMGSOCIALIST agenda of the OMGRADICAL Democratic party.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
