Jezebel: the personal is political

Why Bristol Palin's Pregnancy Should Be Fair Game To Pundits (If Not Democrats)

Jessica — Tue, 02 Sep 2008 12:00:00 EDT

When Sarah Palin gave her introductory speech on Friday in Dayton, Ohio, she spent a minute or two thanking the McCains and uttering various pleasantries about her nomination before launching into a several minute spiel about her family — about her snowmobilin' husband, Todd, and about her oldest son, Track, who enlisted in the army on September 11th and will be deployed to Iraq on the same day this month. After that, she talked about what a great man and patriot John McCain is. In the nearly 20 minute speech, we learned literally nothing about Palin's policy, except that she "never really set out to be in public affairs," adding,"I was just your average 'Hockey Mom' in Alaska." And let's be honest: were Palin not a woman, and not a mom, she wouldn't be anywhere near the Republican ticket. Her motherhood is the crux of her public image. Which is why I must respectfully disagree with Megan that Bristol Palin's pregnancy should be off-limits.

Of course, I agree that Bristol should not be shamed for having sex, nor should she be judged for her choice to keep her baby. However, how can any pundit worth his or her salt not mention this pregnancy when talking about John McCain's abysmal record with sex education? As CBS News notes, "In 2006, McCain joined fellow Republicans in voting against a Senate Democratic proposal to send $100 million to communities for teen-pregnancy prevention programs that would have included sex education about contraceptives."

One of the few things we know Palin's stance on is abortion, and as has been noted before, Palin wants to eliminate reproductive choice in this country. Which makes it curious, then, that as Rebecca Traister over on Salon notices, the language of choice still pervades the party's public statements about Bristol. "According to the New York Times story, 'Bristol Palin made the decision on her own to keep the baby, McCain aides said.' That's just peachy in its presumption that Bristol had a choice about whether or not to continue her pregnancy," Traister writes. "It's true that in 2008, she certainly does have a legal choice. But she wouldn't under the proposed administration of her mother and John McCain, both of whom oppose abortion rights and tell us they would work to overturn Roe."

Like it or not, especially in this election, the personal is political: the fact that Palin had a baby with Down syndrome is already being used as a Republican talking point. Timothy Shriver notes in Newsweek, "Trig could be a high-profile example of how wonderful it can be to choose life, even in adversity, even when the conditions aren't perfect. After all, the conditions are never perfect, but the promise of a newborn baby is that God's love is. Somehow, despite everything, love is triumphant. The message: Love life. Choose life." And you can be sure as hell that Palin and the Republicans would be happy to use Trig's existence to push their anti-choice message. How does the logic work then, that while 17-year-old Bristol should be protected, a four-month-old baby boy is fair game?

Also. There is evidence that McCain did not thoroughly vet Palin before offering her the VP spot, and that "top aides were vague on Monday about how and when [McCain] had learned of the pregnancy, and from whom." If Palin was trying to hide Bristol's pregnancy, who knows what other shady business she has hiding in the bushes. In addition, McCain's mere cursory vetting of Palin shows that his decision-making on important things is incredibly rash. Do we really want a man in charge of our military who is prone to making such knee jerk choices?

It seems that Obama has already started using this pregnancy to his advantage without explicitly naming Bristol. According to Politico, Obama is already running radio ads hitting McCain on abortion rights. But! At the end of the day, I think Democrats should not use Bristol Palin directly in any way, shape or form, and not because they should be above it, but because it detracts from the real issue at hand: the fact that Palin is entirely inexperienced and has barely any defined stances on any issue. Bristol and baby Trig are just smokescreens. At the end of the day, it will be far more satisfying and fruitful to attack Palin on her entirely wobbly platform than the productiveness of her womb.

America: Meet Sarah Palin [YouTube]
McCain Opposed Funds For Teen Moms-To-Be [CBS News]
Palin, Pregnancy And The Presidency [Salon]
Palin's Choice: Pro Trig [Newsweek/WaPo]
Disclosures on Palin Raise Questions On Vetting Process [NYT]
Raising Abortion [Politico]

Earlier: Bristol Palin Is Pregnant, Let The Opprobrium Begin
Sarah Palin: When Choosing A Woman Might Not Be Choosing For Women

When Pamela Brown and Shauna Rajkowski were ...

Megan — Tue, 05 Aug 2008 12:45:00 EDT

When Pamela Brown and Shauna Rajkowski were married in California, they didn't go with just your traditional cake-topper. They went with one that said "Vote No On 8," which is the number of the California ballot proposition that would make gay marriage illegal in California. They're joining a growing movement of people (many of whom have been co-habitating for far longer than my last relationship) who are eschewing "traditional" wedding accoutrement for political cake-toppers and registries that allow guests to make donations to the group fighting Prop 8, Equality For All. Although it's great to see same-sex couples celebrate marriage (and, in some small way, stick their thumbs in the eye of the Wedding Industrial Complex), it's sad that they don't really have the choice but to be political — without a defeat of Prop 8, their weddings will be declared invalid by Christmas. [NY Times, Equality for All]

Question: How Much Did Misogyny Cripple Hillary Clinton's Historic Campaign?

Anna — Mon, 19 May 2008 11:30:00 EDT

While Barack Obama plays host to "spectacular" crowds across the Pacific Northwest, the post-mortems on Hillary Clinton have begun in earnest… and the verdict is that misogyny has been a contributing, if not fatal, factor in her presidential campaign. Jodi Kantor made the front page of the Times today with her report on the gender discrimination directed at Clinton's campaign; that story follows a similarly-themed essay by Peggy Orenstein in yesterday's Times Magazine and a more forward-looking accompaniment in the paper's 'Week in Review' section. There was the AP report about disgusted Clinton supporters and Blake Fleetwood’s protest against “ugly sexist vilification” of the candidate in the Huffington Post. And then there was Julia Keller, who, in yesterday’s Chicago Tribune, raged against the “appalling preponderance of violent, death-infused imagery in conversations about Clinton”, calling them “an unprecedented public call… for a person’s death.”

Although I think the jury is still out as to how much sexism (or "misogny" or "gender discrimination" — whatever you want to call it) contributed to the probable-failure of Clinton's campaign, Keller's suggestion that Barack Obama loudly and publicly condemn the sexist attacks against his opponent was notable in that she made no room for the possibility that Senator Clinton should do the same.

Devil In A Pantsuit Or The Demonization Of Hillary Clinton [Chicago Tribune]
As Clinton's Hopes Dim, Gender Issue Lives On [NY Times]
The Hillary Lesson [NY Times]
Who Will Be Hillary Clinton's Successor? [NY Times]
Clinton's Female Fans Wonder What If — And When [AP]
Powerful Video Of The Ugly Sexist Vilification Of Hillary Clinton [Huffington Post]

New York NOW President Calls Ted Kennedy A Traitor; Obama A "Psychological Gang Banger"

Moe — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 17:30:00 EST

The National Organization for Women's New York State chapter president Marcia Pappas just went apeshit on Ted Kennedy for endorsing the "new guy," Barack Obama. "Women have forgiven Kennedy, stuck up for him, stood by him, hushed the fact that he was late in his support of Title IX, the ERA, the Family Leave and Medical Act," and also blah, blah, No Child Left Behind, Medicare something. "And now the greatest betrayal! We are repaid with his abandonment! He's picked the new guy over us." Did I mention she also called it the "ultimate betrayal"? She also goes off on Kucinich lovers, Alternet, Progressive Democrats of America, democrats.com and Howard Dean for tolerating Obama. Why does she so loathe Barack? Well, according to a press release she wrote two weeks ago, it's because he's guilty of teaming up with John Edwards to "psychologically gang bang" Hillary.

We've all witnessed scenarios where, on the playground little girls are being taunted by little boys while both girls and boys stand idle, afraid to speak up or even cheering. Or, in the workplace males tease young and older female co-workers; make obscene gestures, inappropriate comments, laughing and expecting (often correctly) that everyone will join in. Then there was that movie where Jodie Foster portrayed the true story of woman who was ganged raped in a bar while others looked on and encouraged the realization. Still others pretended the rape didn't happen. In short, gang raping of women is commonplace in our culture both physically and metaphorically.

Um.

Okay.

So Marcia, I get it. You're clearly a little rage-happy, and this is an emotional campaign — I feel you. But since you decided to bring up not only the concept of Ted Kennedy as a feminist, but society's willingness to stand idly/denial-blinded by as all this anecdotal degradation of women goes down — and seriously, when the fuck did John Edwards and Barack Obama snicker at Hillary's tears? — why didn't you bring up that one time in the Vineyard? Because it reminds you too much of that other time in that Arkansas hotel room? What of, after all this abuse and betrayal, just finally learning your lesson and, I dunno, taking up with the new guy?

NY Now: Betrayal! [Politico]
Psychological Gang Bang Of Hillary Is Proof We need a Woman President [NOW NY]

Young Feminists Can't Decide Between Obama & Clinton

dodai — Fri, 11 Jan 2008 16:00:00 EST

At Wellesley college, Hillary Clinton's alma mater, young women are split on the Clinton vs. Obama issue, The Washington Post reports. For instance: Katie Chanpong and Aubre Carreon Aguilar are both feminists and political activists. "If you're a woman, you vote for Hillary because of what it means to women everywhere," says Ms. Chanpong, a sophomore. Ms. Aguilar, a senior, says: "If I'm supposed to vote for Hillary just because I'm a woman, that's kind of sexist." The female-only school finds many of its students are having to decide what it means to be a feminist, writes Eli Saslow. "Do you vote for a woman to shatter the glass ceiling and further the cause? Or do you make an empowered, individual decision that is not confined by gender?" Ona Keller, the co-president of Wellesley College Democrats, is "hard-core Wellesley." She wears vintage ERA T-shirts, calls incoming students first-years instead of freshmen. "Everybody who knows me thinks of me as a feminist," Ms. Keller says. "Nobody imagined I wouldn't vote for Clinton."

Senior Kirstin Neff discussed her leaning toward voting for Obama with her mother, who helped Ms. Neff change her mind in five minutes:

"She started telling me about how our generation takes for granted a lot of advances that women have made. She told me what it was like in the '70s and '80s and, you know, the general feeling that you were never as good or as important as your brothers or the men who you worked with. She talked about how women's stakes are so tied up in Hillary's candidacy, and how it could change what it means to be a woman and what all these little girls will think is possible in their own lives. So I just kind of started thinking about it like that, and it was like, 'Hmm. Okay. Do I really want to step in front of all of that?'"

While the women of Wellesley face tough decisions, writer Caille Miller is striking back at Gloria Steinem's op-ed in The New York Times referring to the "Sexual Caste System." In an open letter on Glamour's "Glamocracy" blog, Ms. Miller writes to Steinem: "You said, 'the sex barrier [is] not taken as seriously as the racial one.' How would you know, Ms. Steinem, having never been on that other side? You pulled out that old I'm-the-bigger-victim routine, complaining that black men were given the right to vote before white women, while forgetting that black men were prevented from exercising that right because of poll taxes and the threat of being lynched." She reminds Steinem that the "battles of the 1960s are over" but there are "new battles to be fought that affect all women, young and old, rich and poor, black, white, Latina, Asian. Right now you're not helping us in those battles. You're being—yes, that word you hate, 'divisive.' Ms. Miller notes that as a woman of color, "I want to make my own decisions."

What it comes down to is the meaning of feminism and what it means to be a woman. Is it more important, above all, to further the cause of women? Or is your number one priority to stay true to yourself and your ideals? Check out Hillary Clinton's Wellesley yearbook picture, and try to imagine her as a student and not a candidate. Which side do you think she would be on?

Young Feminists Split: Does Gender Matter? [Washington Post]
An Open Letter to Gloria Steinem [Glamour]

How Does A Black Woman Feel About The Glamour Controversy? I Asked Myself!

Dodai — Tue, 09 Oct 2007 14:30:00 EDT

About a month ago, we wrote about an incident at a NYC law firm involving an editor from Glamour magazine, the "appropriateness" of certain African-American hairstyles, the word "political", and some angry, offended attorneys. Yesterday, the (now-former) editor, Ashley Baker, called Moe and gave as much of her side of the story as she could. Then the proverbial shit hit the fan on the comments, followed by the news that Glamour editor Cindi Leive will be convening a roundtable on the issue for an upcoming story. Anna asked me what I thought about the situation, and wondered if she and I, as black women, ought to weigh in. She was incredibly conflicted, and not sure what to think (she still isn't). But here I am.

Let me begin with a deep sigh. I do not know Ashley Baker, and I was not in the room of lawyers when the alleged incident occurred. Do I think the remarks, as reported, were racist? Yes. Do I think that Ashley Baker is racist? I honestly don't know. The facts are black and white, so to speak: She made offensive, bigoted comments; then Glamour sold her down the river. But the rest is all shades of gray. I believe that plenty of well-intentioned people make ignorant, misinformed, undereducated statements all the time. Does that make them racists? I can't tell you how many times I've been asked, "can I touch your hair?" by a new friend. Does that make them racists? I can't tell you how many people have been shocked to discover that I, as a black person, can get a tan. And that I enjoy doing so. That I like my skin to be darker.

Are they racists? This is the world we live in. Hair is political. Some people do actually think that some hairstyles are more "professional" than others. We're a nation with a shameful past, from slavery to Jim Crow, and whether Adrienne Curry can see it or not, we're still dealing with the aftermath and ramifications. The dream is of equality, but the reality is that this nation is built on uneven ground. It's not right, or something we must endure silently. But is calling dreadlocks and/or Afros "political" and "inappropriate" hairstyles the same as cross-burning or unapologetic hatred of black people? Isn't it more like xenophobia or racial illiteracy or insensitivity? I think that what Ashley Baker has is the luxury of never having been "other." She's probably never had to even think about the meaning behind dreadlocks or an Afro, so how could she have an informed opinion? The best possible outcome of all this is that she now knows something she didn't know before.

It's not that I excuse or tolerate this self-centered or majority-centered thinking, it's just that I understand it, and I believe that the cure lies in information and education. Sometimes I think that flat-out, straight-up, old-tymey racism, where someone is capable of blind hatred, has its advantages: You know who the enemy is. These days, there are friends and enemies and frenemies and spies and plants and double-crossers and ringers. We are all part of the problem. Would Beyoncé be the star she is now if her skin were darker, like her Destiny's Child cohorts? What if she had an Afro? What about Halle Berry? As a nation, we like our black people pretty white: Narrow noses, straight hair. Hair is complicated, race is complicated, and we are still living in a world in which many people believe, without seeing that it's wrong, that the closer you are to Caucasian, the better. Ashley Baker's remarks reflect that thinking, and, to be honest, I can't say that I was surprised. We are talking about a fashion and beauty magazine editor here. Not a teacher, lawyer, doctor, social sciences professor. An editor who was representing an elitist publishing company well-known for its nepotism and homogeny. And I feel about her the way I feel about new friends who ask questions about my hair or "nationality": I can only respond with weary patience and resolve to show them the error of their ways.

But that's just my opinion, and a gut reaction. This issue is just a symptom of several larger diseases of the American Psyche; Hair, Skin color, the banning of baggy pants, the Jena 6 and Bill O'Reilly being some other indicators of how far we have to go, how much there is to talk about. Hopefully, Glamour's Cindi Leive will invite Toni Morrison (pictured above!), Angela Davis, and anyone else with an "unprofessional" hairstyle to weigh in during that roundtable.

Earlier: Glamour "Racist" Ashley Baker Calls Us, Sets Nappy Hair Story Straight
Glamourpussy
Glamour "Racist" Freed From Slavery To Fashion
'Glamour' Editor To Lady Lawyers: Being Black Is Kinda A Corporate "Don't"

Smart Women, Happy Husbands

Jennifer — Fri, 20 Jul 2007 16:59:03 EDT

According to a new study published by Australian researchers this week, for each year of education a man's wife has, the more satisfied he is with his life. We'd make a joke about Bill and Hillary disproving this theory, but now that Hillary's suddenly flashing her tits like every other famous American woman, the whole marriage-of-convenience rumor seems a little shakier. In fact, isn't Bill totally looking down Hillary's shirt in that picture? Cleavage! Just as likely to get a man's attention and respect as a summa cum laude!

Bright Blokes Go For Smart Over Sassy [Sydney Morning Herald]
Earlier: Hillary Dresses Like A Total Whore