Wiping off the Lip-sctick

Tell 'em, NOW!

Dear Kelly,

"Sarah Palin represents a new feminism. . ."
conservative commentator Laura Ingraham, quoted in the Los Angeles Times

It has been a long time since we've heard the word "feminist" spoken in public so many times a day. Like me, I'm sure you find it a bit ironic.

According to The Washington Post, Republicans think "Palin's burst onto the national scene could be a chance to redefine the nature of feminism in politics," and prominent media suggest her as "a feminist dream" or even the new "face of feminism."

That's where we come in. NOW is working hard to make sure that, despite some media pundits' apparent confusion, every woman in the country understands what is really at stake on November 4. For us, the spotlight on feminism in the 2008 elections should be about real change -- change that will help secure and advance true equality for women -- not just lip service or lipstick. We're putting all possible resources into educating voters and turning out the feminist vote on Election Day.

With less than forty days left before Nov. 4, time is short. Voter registration in most states will close in just a few days. And we need your help to mobilize and get the word out. Our activists are going the extra mile, but our resources are stretched thin as we work against the clock.

I won't go through the laundry list, but you know that from equal pay to abortion and birth control, we have a lot to lose in November. We need you to help us alter the course this country has been on for the past eight years as we work for the change WOMEN need on election day and beyond.

NOW will be working hard to get out the vote and highlight critical women's issues, including dangerous state ballot measures. And the NOW Political Action Committee has endorsed the Obama/Biden ticket, as well as solid women's rights candidates in critical congressional races across the country.

Please consider what you can do to help in our final push. I look forward to hearing from you.

Kim A. Gandy
NOW President

Two Problems with this Statement

"But her son has given Ms. Palin, 44, a powerful message. Other candidates kiss strangers’ babies; Ms. Palin has one of her own. [Trig] is tangible proof of Ms. Palin’s anti-abortion convictions, which have rallied social conservatives, and her belief that women can balance family life with ambitious careers." -NYTimes

The first: Raise your hand if you think calling Governor Palin's Down syndrome infant "tangible proof of anti-abortion convictions" is immoral and demeaning... The idea that a living, breathing child is being touted by the conservative right as a proof of ideology doesn't sit well with me. In fact, it makes me want to vomit in my mouth a little. Maybe it's because all this talk of Palin's choice to sanction Trig's existence, despite his disability, makes me think of eugenics in a Brave New World /Gattaca sort of way. Or maybe it's because even I (zealous advocate of reproductive choice) distinguish between an embryo and... oh... a 4 month old child.

The second: I don't know what to make of all the talk about Sarah Palin's "balancing act" between family and career. This issue in general is one on which I am deeply conflicted. On one hand, I am supremely pleased that the media is making average Americans consider the compatibility of motherhood and public power/leadership. Indeed, it warms my heart (at least least in the sense that indigestion warms the heart) that the hillbilly-bigot set is actually able to support a woman candidate, period. [The downside to that? Refer to string of anti-Palin posts below]. On the other hand, I can't help but experience periodic moments of disgust when I think about how much the GOP is exploiting Plain's almost-exploding femininity. Although the McCain campaign has yet to say it outright, the message seems to be: "See, OUR token female candidate is beautiful (a "VILP"), nurturing, soft-spoken, and not a bit like that OTHER female politician and her Sisterhood of Traveling Pantsuits." Has anyone else noticed this? I will return to this topic again soon....

Sex Matters in '08

Like it or not, sex matters in this election. Even Texas Republicans say so!

Independent evidence indicates that her sex is a strong asset in seeking the Democratic nomination. And while it would be premature to say for sure that it will help in the general election, initial signs are that it will be a plus, something a prominent Texas Republican pollster says his party has failed to recognize.

"Republicans underestimate the very powerful symbolism and feel-good emotions that would accompany electing the first woman president," said Dr. David Hill of Houston, director of Hill Research Consultants. "It's a big deal."

And remember yesterday's post?

"Before this is over, Hillary's candidacy will have more in common with Amelia Earhart's first trans-Atlantic flight or Sally K. Ride's first trip into space than Helmsley's heartlessness," he wrote.

...Mark today on your calendar - it's the one time this year I'll agree with a Texan.

And in case the cowboy rhetoric isn't enough to convince you, some empirical evidence that the "uterus vote" makes a critical difference:

Andrew Kohut of the independent Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, said a study of 40 statewide elections showed that female Democrats did better against male Republicans, largely because they did better among women and no worse among men.

Though conceding that some find Mrs. Clinton "more polarizing" than some other female candidates, Mr. Kohut suggested she would enjoy a similar advantage. He said the Pew study showed that "the gender differences in support for Clinton at this early stage in the campaign are, on average, typical for Democratic women who run for statewide office."

Her advantage is most obvious in polls of prospective Democratic primary and caucus voters. The latest USA Today/Gallup poll shows that she attracts 55 percent of women, compared with 44 percent of men. By contrast, Sen. Barack Obama gets 23 percent of women and 20 percent of men.

2008 will be so fun :)

:(

Frustrations of a Capable Woman

A certain Dr. Mack recently brought to my attention the fact that my current legacy in the blogosphere is a criticism of Dennis Kucinich’s eyebrows (albeit a poignant one). So after much soul-searching and grave, meditative reflection, I have decided that this is not the mark Oh Kermie is destined to make on the internet. Au contraire, mes amies (note the use of the feminine). I have far greater designs for this dear little blog of mine.

For today, that design shall include a much-overdue condemnation of the systematic use and abuse of gender-specific pro-nouns and nouns. Mind you – this is not a topic that is new to Oh Kermie (or my prolific friends The Colonic and On a Diner Napkin). What is more, the general point I am trying to make has been expressed time and again by feminists everywhere. But regardless, in the last few months I have become increasingly sensitive to the specific injuries that I am about to discuss – especially since the perpetrators of these crimes are often my would-be mentors.

Yeah, I’m talking to you: USC Political Science professors.

It is one thing for a professor to verbally acknowledge an anatomical difference between male and female students. For example: “Where is Jane? She did not show up for her paper conference today” vs. “Where is Dick? He did not show up for his paper conference today.” Similarly, the gendered use of pronouns and nouns is acceptable when describing the actions of political leaders, figures in history, or pertinent others who happened to identify as a woman or a man (i.e., “We should remember the women who championed the nineteenth amendment and be thankful for all they did for American daughters of the twentieth century and beyond”). I am not even offended (feel free to take issue here) by references to the “Founding Fathers” instead of the rather new alternative of the “Framers,” given that the names signed to the Declaration of Independence belonged to men. (The fact that it’s a timeless alliterative device also helps…As many of you know, I’m a sucker for alliteration.)

However, I am absolutely outraged to hear my supposedly distinguished and learned political science professors automatically revert to the masculine when speaking about unspecified or hypothetical political leaders. As a senior who is now completely immersed in upper division Poli-Sci courses, I would expect to find my esteemed educators more sensitive to the myriad stereotypes and implied social expectations embedded in the continual use of “he” when describing any situation in which an undefined political actor may operate. I am sick of hearing about how the ambiguous “he,” a member of California congress, would react to proposed amendments to “his” legislation from the Appropriations Committee… or how “he,” the as-yet-undetermined Democratic presidential nominee, will fare against Republican opponents in 2008.

In case you’ve been living under a rock, you should know that women make up a quarter of the seats in state legislatures across the nation, and the Democrat leading in national primary polls by about 20 points is Hillary Clinton – the proud owner of a uterus. Assuming that the professors leading my political science courses had to abandon the cover of their respective rocks to earn their PhD’s, I am profoundly upset that this discriminatory lexicon continues.

When half of the students (or more) sitting before you are ambitious women yearning for a quality education that will help propel them to careers in politics, law, and a host of other fields, you should be careful that your words do not reinforce limiting stereotypes of who may or may not participate in American law and government. While I am certainly not accusing any of my professors (male and female!) of utilizing such discriminatory language intentionally, I am disappointed that they routinely overlook verbal equality in the name of convenience or acquiescence to society’s default pronoun (“he”).

Furthermore, I am profoundly disturbed by a professor’s recent reference to the number of hours “girls” in his class presumably spend getting ready before coming to lecture (he pegged it at three – my, what use we Trojan women make of our time). It is truly unacceptable to belittle the exceptional women of USC by calling them as you would your ten year old “little girl.” If you must pick a term to counter references to the “guys” in your class, try to use the correct equivalent of “gals.” Don’t insult my age and maturity with a noun meant for school children.

Respect the capable minds of those you should teach and inspire; don’t disappoint us with limiting terminology and reveal your willingness to reinforce gender stereotypes.

(For more on this topic, read this 2005 piece from CampusProgress.org.)

Pick Up Your Phone! Now!

...In support of the Freedom of Choice Act. Here is the alert I received from the Feminist Majority Foundation:

NATIONAL CALL IN DAY

CALL YOUR MEMBERS OF CONGRESS ON APRIL 25 (202) 224-3121 FOCA House Bill Number: H.R. 1964 FOCA Senate Bill Number: S. 1173

On April 18, the Supreme Court turned back the clock on women's health. Every American who values freedom and privacy should be troubled by the Court's decision to uphold the Federal Abortion Ban, an abortion ban with no protection for a woman's health.

You can fight back. The Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) would guarantee reproductive freedom for future generations of American women. With the Court's decision, we need the protection of FOCA now more than ever before.

Join us for the national call-in day on April 25, the third anniversary of the historic March for Women's Lives. We will flood the phone lines of the U.S. House and Senate.

Don't let this attack on women's freedom and privacy go unanswered. Urge your members of Congress to co-sponsor the Freedom of Choice Act.

Shattering the Glass or Wiping it Down?: Issues in Public Opinion Research on Female Presidential Candidates in the Age of Hillary Clinton

At the height of her short-lived bid for the American presidency in 1988, Congresswoman Patricia Schroeder famously told the press: “When people ask me why I am running as a woman, I always answer, ‘What choice do I have?’” Although her ironic response successfully called attention to the inherent gender-bias associated with such a question, Schroeder was ultimately unable to shake public skepticism at the notion of a female front-runner in the Democratic primary. When the excited buzz surrounding her candidacy failed to produce significant funds to support a competitive campaign, Schroeder’s quest for a seat in the Oval Office ended abruptly with a tearful press conference that was endlessly mocked by critics of the day (Tickner, 1992). Twenty years later, a new woman has emerged from the political landscape with an eye on capturing the highest office in the land. But unlike Schroeder, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton is generating both the buzz and the bucks needed to mount a bold campaign for the presidency. As analysts continue to place Clinton’s campaign finances at the top of the list for the 2008 frontrunners, stereotypes of female domesticity, submission, and apathy seem dusty vestiges of great grand-pappy’s political dogma. Yet despite the unprecedented optimism with which Clinton-enthusiasts regard her gendered presidential campaign, a vast and complex body of public opinion research suggests that Hillary’s attempted return to the White House may not be as free from the throes of gender discrimination as the civic-minded, ambitious women of our generation would happily believe. An analysis of the evolution of gender bias in public opinion studies and the attribution of leadership qualities to female political candidates will show that the American public’s readiness to elect a female president remains an elusive question – with Hillary Clinton’s upcoming run in the Democratic primary the nearest thing to an answer on the horizon.

Social scientists have long been fascinated with American attitudes toward female politicians, with inquiry into the public’s willingness to vote for a woman president fundamental in their historic investigations. Although significant numbers of female representatives in senatorial and gubernatorial offices were a dream until the early 1990s, questions probing the willingness of citizens to elect a woman president first appeared in national opinion surveys as early as 1937 (Carpini & Fuchs, 1993). In a survey that would become the first in a long series of investigations into national gender biases, the Gallup Organization asked respondents whether they would “vote for a woman for president if she were qualified in every other respect” (1937). Indeed, the blatantly discriminatory language of this question reflected the cynical public sentiment at the time, with 64% of respondents saying they would not vote for a woman. In hindsight public opinion scholars have been deeply critical of the leading language of this first question, noting that “the use of the word ‘other’ clearly suggests to the respondent that simply being a woman makes one unqualified for the job” (Falk & Kenski, 2006, p. 414). Future researchers were more careful in framing questions about women candidates, and the word “other” was dropped from survey lexicon completely in 1939 (Falk & Kenski, 2006).

Yet despite long running researcher-recognition of problems in framing questions about women presidential candidates, modern opinion surveys persist in using loaded language to ask respondents if they would vote for a female president. Recent surveys from the most respected polling agencies in the United States continue to ask questions such as: “If your party nominated a generally well-qualified person for president who happened to be a woman, would you vote for that person?” or “If your party nominated a woman for president, would you vote for her if she were qualified for the job?” (USA Today & Gallup Poll, 2007; Newsweek & Princeton Survey Research Associates, 2006). Although such wording is by and large an improvement on the 1937 prototype, the underlying assumption in each of these examples is that being a woman is an inherent disadvantage to any individual seeking office, “clearly prim[ing] questions about a woman’s qualifications” (Falk & Kenski, 2006, p. 414). Of course, our country has never had a female president or an official female nominee for the office, so pollsters may make a case for the necessity of such wording; but ultimately this persistence of biased language seems indicative of enduring social norms regarding women leaders.

This is not to say, however, that public sentiment has lain stagnate on the issue of willingness to vote for a woman president. In her acclaimed analysis of Americans’ changing responses to the question, Myra Ferree found that public opinion moved significantly in favor of a woman president between 1958 and 1972, with the most noticeable change occurring between 1969 and 1972 (Feree, 1974, p. 392):

Change over time in percentage of respondents willing to vote for a female presidential candidate
Year of Survey	Percent “Yes”	Percent “No”
1958	55%	39%
1959	58	38
1963	56	40
1967	57	38
1969	55	38
1972	70	25

In that final period, the number of respondents willing to vote for a woman candidate for president jumped 15% (from a slim majority of 55% to almost two-thirds of the sample population), and the number of those unreceptive to a female president declined at a comparable rate. As may be logically inferred, “the increase in positive attitudes toward a woman for president coincides with the impact of the feminist movement… beginning in the 1970s” (Mandel, 2006, p.5). Since the late 1990s (and the many monumental advances women have made into the public sphere), positive response rates to the woman-candidate question have remained steady at above 90% of most samples.

Indeed, these numbers paint a promising picture for a candidate like Clinton – with deep running campaign funds and a prominent name among the American people to boot – but not all public opinion research paints U.S. voters as so accepting of the prospect of a woman’s leadership. A significant number of social scientists believe that the social desirability effect (whereby individuals feel the need to conform to perceived expectations of interviewers) may be accountable for the large percentage of survey respondents who say they are willing to vote for a female presidential candidate (Falk & Kenski, 2006; Streb et al., 2006). Although this effect is extremely difficult to examine or manipulate in a research setting, those who believe that social desirability has an impact on modern survey respondents wary of being labeled as “sexist” would agree that the effect may explain significantly lower positive responses to survey questions regarding the nation’s overall readiness for a woman president. Carole Kennedy writes: “While most Americans report that they personally would be willing to vote for a woman president, other polls show that a majority of Americans still believe that the country is not ready to elect a woman president” (Kennedy, 2001). Kennedy’s findings reflect those in a February 2007 poll conducted by the Gallup Organization, in which only 60% of respondents felt that America is actually ready for a woman president (CNN & Opinion Research Corporation, 2006). Such a narrow majority of individuals who believe the country is ready to elect a woman to the Oval Office suggests the existence of very real reservations among American voters about the capability of a woman to serve as president.

Researchers have attempted to determine how voters evaluate this presidential capability by examining respondents’ attribution of leadership traits to both male and female candidates; yet perhaps unsurprisingly, the studies have produced unclear results for interpreting the elective power of a woman like Hillary Clinton in today’s political climate. In a 1993 experiment, Alexander and Andersen found that:

…gender role beliefs may predispose people to a more or less favorable view of women politicians, and in particular that those who profess an egalitarian ideology see female candidates in a positive light both in traditional “female” terms and in their possession of more “masculine” attributes (Alexander & Andersen, 1993, p. 541).

But while such a finding is promising for female presidential aspirants counting on votes from so-called egalitarian ideologues, the option of a less favorable view of women politicians remains, with the unfavorable set of biases presumably originating from voters in the conservative heartland of America that has often proved important to presidential hopefuls.

Ultimately, the things that influence individuals to attribute leadership characteristics to political candidates – regardless of gender – are dependent upon multiple factors outside of mere gender stereotypes. Kenski and Falk believe that political partisanship is the most important indicator of voter preference for a female or male presidential candidate, when information regarding their respective policy backgrounds and party identification is readily available (Kenski & Falk, 2006). Yet these scientists also find that “gender, education, and ideology [of respondents] are strong predictors of presidential gender preference,” though it remains unclear how each of these traits may influence an individual’s liking of female (or male) politicians (Kenski & Falk, 2004, p. 58). In short, the effect of voter gender, party identification, ideology, and other demographic characteristics on voter preference for female (or male) political candidates is unknown.

So although we can be confident that the American public is more receptive to a female president now than in 1937, the critical mass of public opinion research on political gender biases has left much to be desired in terms of definitive answers regarding the nation’s true readiness to elect a woman president. But in the absence of any serious female candidates in the United States’ long history of presidential elections, this shortage of conclusive data is not entirely unexpected. Indeed, steadily increasing numbers of female senatorial and gubernatorial representatives indicate that the public is both ready and willing to elect women leaders (in spite of that cursed uterus early Gallup Pollsters once considered damning for a politician). The question remains, however, whether these “uterus votes” can be extended to the Oval Office, the virtual no-woman’s land of presidential power and influence. As the first-ever female candidate to possess substantial financial resources, national visibility, and respected political credentials all at once, Hillary Clinton will doubtless be a crucial figure in public opinion research for her upcoming leading role in the 2008 presidential elections – when we will finally have a chance to determine if America is willing to vote for a woman president.

Actually, I quite like cookies

Since gender identity and socialization issues are so often discussed/mentioned/debated in the blogosphere, I would like to make a brief point regarding my attitude towards stereotypical femininity and intelligence:

I caution all my readers not to automatically revert to a confrontational or condescending stance against those of us who ride “super cute” beach cruisers or choose to indulge in other outward displays of socialized femininity. The participation in (or enjoyment of) such ritual is not indicative of vapidity, a shallow demeanor, or a somehow inferior sense of identity and individuality. If you believe that such is the case, then you are simply reinforcing those stereotypes which (I agree) are extremely limiting and frustrating in their assumptions.

I absolutely commend those with the inspiration and innovation to go against the grain of conventional society and challenge traditional social roles (whether based in gender, race, class, or some other ideologically-loaded characteristic). I simply ask that you do not assume that everyone (or anyone, for that matter) who has a more outwardly conventional lifestyle is a mere “social cookie-cutter.” While it is true that we may endlessly scrutinize the sociological implications of such “boring” individuals, we may also scrutinize the persistent need for distinction, recognition, or divergence that seems so common to individuals who actively refute traditional norms and declare their independence from/superiority over said counterparts.

Now I’m off to watch the Superbowl in my sorority’s TV room…

Christian: [to Gina] "You're like herpes. Every time I feel like I'm getting my life back, I have a Gina outbreak”

Season two of the fabulously salacious Nip/Tuck included a particularly gruesome story line in which former McNamara/Troy classmate Merrill Bobolit

is found to be doing cheap, illegal surgeries in the back of a Korean nail salon. Not only is he performing these surgeries in a non-sterile environment, he's addicted to the anesthetic gas. Christian gets him to go to Narcotics Anonymous, even volunteering to be his sponsor. When Christian can't make it to a meeting, Merrill loses his mind and accidentally kills a woman who Sean and Christian refuse to perform unnecessary liposuction on. The salon owner and Merrill then cut the girl into pieces to dispose of her.

This week, life has imitated art.

Don’t get me wrong – I fully understand the often-crunching social pressure to join the Waifs in Wonderbras brigades. In the age of an image-obsessed media and ample, affordable cosmetic surgery options, a little Botox injection here or a saline implant there (and there) doesn’t really sound all that bad! But the obsession has to stop somewhere, and I think it’s safe to say that the red light is here. As cases like these appear with increasing frequency, I pity those who feel so uncomfortable in their own skin that they would resort to such sordid measures.

No corn oil ass-injections for me, thanks.

Deprivation and Karate Chops

Whether you believe it was a) cruel and unusual denial of formative female fiction or b) visionary feminist parenting on the part of my (innovative?) - (progressive?) - (nut-job?) mother, there is no denying the fact that the “Cinderella Ban” left an indelible mark on my psyche. Not, perhaps, the mark my mother had hoped for when she outlawed Disney’s Terrible Triptych (Snow White,Sleeping Beauty, and Cinderella); but her repeated vetoes of these classic feminine narratives did indeed have some kind of lasting effect on my world view.

Early on I learned the importance of tenacity in achieving one’s innermost desires… “If mommy won’t let me enjoy cartoon versions of outdated domestic stereotypes, then by golly, I’ll find someone who will!” My Aunt Christine was very helpful in establishing an efficient Black Market Princess Trade when I was still a tender age of six or seven. In hindsight I believe my mother knew about these underground exchanges (I did, after all, know all the words to “Once Upon a Dream”), but I think she was satisfied knowing that I understood her reasoning behind the ban - that she did not want her impressionable daughter to think that the Prince-Will-Rescue-Me model of womanhood was in any way empowering.

And she liked the Muppets. So mom and I could happily enjoy the exploits of Kermit the Frog, Gonzo, Fozzie Bear, and of course the powerful Miss Piggy with limited ideological struggle. Over time my respect and admiration for the feminine and forceful Muppet has grown, and I find myself increasingly able to identify with the character. Wikipedia’s bio on the Pig says it all:

She is absolutely convinced that she's destined for stardom, and nothing is going to stand in her way. Her public face tries to be the soul of feminine charm, but she can instantly fly into a violent rage whenever she thinks she's insulted or thwarted. Kermit the Frog has learned this all too well, since he's the usual target for her karate chops.

To be fair, I am no loose cannon. In recent years, especially, I’ve started to hone the delicate skill of “thinking before one speaks” (who knew I could be so patient??). But I still identify with the Pig on many levels. (And interestingly, my last boyfriend can vouch for my ability to quickly juxtapose angry karate chops with “Oh Kermie!” affection and wiles…)

So, Miss Piggy, I salute you, and thank you dearly for the alternative cultural norms you represented in my years of (marginally successful) Princess deprivation. May your spirit guide me and my nascent blog through many fun, fanatical, and fearless posts to come.