If you haven’t already heard, Sarah Palin is the current cover girl of Newsweek. Fair enough–she has a new book out. But the magazine chose to use a photo originally taken for an August 2009 article in Runners World about health and fitness. Runner’s World claims the picture was provided to Newsweek without Runners World’s “knowledge or permission” by the photographer’s stock agency. There has already been a good deal of commentary, some glee, and even speculation it was intended to rally conservative support for 2012. But for once, I agree with the former governor. Her statement on mirrors my reaction:
The choice of photo for the cover of this week’s Newsweek is unfortunate. When it comes to Sarah Palin, this “news” magazine has relished focusing on the irrelevant rather than the relevant. The Runner’s World magazine one-page profile for which this photo was taken was all about health and fitness — a subject to which I am devoted and which is critically important to this nation. The out-of-context Newsweek approach is sexist and oh-so-expected by now. If anyone can learn anything from it: it shows why you shouldn’t judge a book by its cover, gender, or color of skin. The media will do anything to draw attention — even if out of context.
I am extremely disappointed in Newsweek for pulling a fraternity-prank-like stunt. Yes, I strongly disagree with Palin’s political views about almost everything, but that does not make their decision acceptable. Choosing an out-of-context image is not only dubious, but a manipulative move, unworthy of the magazine. Misrepresentation may indeed sell well, but it comes at the cost of integrity.
In the broader context, I am sick of this sexist nonsense. How are we to encourage more women to consider a career in politics when the media casts every female as a ‘pin-up’ or ‘bitch’ with no middle ground? As I’ve written in the past, while candidates should never be chosen based on a number of X chromosomes, it would benefit everyone if women became more involved in the decision-making process given we represent about 50% of the population. The way Clinton and Palin were treated in 2008 made Washington seem like a boys club. I often wondered how many girls might be completely turned off to politics by watching the unrelenting onslaught of ogling, sexy photo-shopping, and worse that ensued from across the aisle. And so, with many miles to go toward achieving an equal voice in America and around the world, Newsweek’s latest faux pas sets us back.
CNN asks ‘Is Feminism Obselete?‘ and Mary Matalin goes so far to suggest:
‘No conservative woman would choose to call herself a feminist as it’s described by liberals today.’
The story begins with David Letterman’s apology to Sarah Palin after a tasteless joke at her daughter’s expense. She accepted, but some conservatives took notice that many ‘feminists‘ didn’t stand beside her in the scuffle. In terms of Palin, I’ve said this before:
[Her] politics are not ‘pro-woman’ simply because she is female..a candidate’s gender should bear no role in his or her ability to take on the responsibilities of president. But our VP-in-waiting must be prepared on day one. In global decision-making, we don’t get a do-over. Sarah Palin’s positions on critical policies seem based on values that many throughout this diverse country do not share and she lacks the experience–especially in foreign relations–to lead…The message I advocate at The Intersection and elsewhere is that men and women should be considered equally for many roles, never that anyone should be afforded preference based on number of X chromosomes. Let our leaders be chosen, not by the composite of their gender, but by their readiness to preside over our great nation.
The CNN piece goes on to explore what feminism means and how it has changed since the movement began. Carol Costello asks who embodies feminism today and considers how ideals have changed. But must modern feminism be dictated by political ideology?
It’s complicated. On the surface, Merrium-Webster defines ‘feminism‘ as:
1 : the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes
2 : organized activity on behalf of women’s rights and interests
Quite obviously, women polarized at liberal and conservative extremes do unquestionably hold very different interpretations of women’s rights. However, I sincerely hope that feminism does not become indistinguishable from the left because I fear it would be cast off as radicalism which would undermine the movement. We have so many miles to go toward achieving an equal voice in America and around the world. I may not agree with Ann Coulter or Laura Ingraham, but there are women across the aisle doing tremendously positive work that every ‘real‘ feminist ought to celebrate regardless of affiliation. We must rise above petty partisanship if we are to get anywhere.
No CNN, feminism is most definitely not obsolete.
Yes folks, ‘I’m Glad I’m a Boy! I’m Glad I’m a Girl!‘ is a real book apparently, brought to my attention by a friend who sent this link. The publication date appears to be 1970.
Finally, we have something that actually makes 1966’s The Exciting Game For Career Girls sound progressive. [Deep breath]. Where do I begin…
You can read the full book below the fold. [Or order it used for $300 at Amazon.] (more…)
I’ve long pondered why more women do not pursue politics. Madeleine Kunin, the first female governor of Vermont, composed an interesting piece on the subject after visiting a Women’s Studies course where female students surprised her by expressing fear of being judged for speaking out. According to Kunin, we may be holding ourselves back by internalizing stereotypes about XX in power and politics:
Many women do not want to venture out into the “opinion world” until they are certain of themselves, the facts, and that they are right. They are afraid of being shot down. The result is often silence.
To be political means to speak out, to risk being called “catty”, or worse. I don’t hear men worrying about whether they may be right or not. They enjoy the fight, whether it is with words or fists. Women still tend to shy away from controversy, to be uncomfortable with competition. Perhaps that is why only 17 percent of the members of Congress are female, and men are still largely running the country.
Read her full thought-provoking article over at HuffPo…
Today’s NYTimes features a sad article about child abduction and sale in rural China where boys are targeted because of the tradition of favoring them over girls:
Su Qingcai, a tea farmer from the mountainous coast of Fujian Province, explained why he spent $3,500 last year on a 5-year-old boy. “A girl is just not as good as a son,” said Mr. Su, 38, who has a 14-year-old daughter but whose biological son died at 3 months. “It doesn’t matter how much money you have. If you don’t have a son, you are not as good as other people who have one.”
This is related to an important topic explored earlier this week. Christine Luk’s research on women in science and technology is focused on why the gender gap persists despite enhancement of female status in the U.S. There are many hypotheses, but the NYTimes piece serves to remind us that we’re not isolated from the rest of the world. While social change and new technologies continue to offer emerging opportunities for women to rise in many fields, bias–conscious or otherwise–persists globally in a myriad of forms. We are working against thousands of years of anticipated gender roles and so cannot expect to rise to equal status over a few generations. And despite progressive ideals and new institutions, there will likely be a very long lag time for many women to achieve visibly prominent positions across the spectrum. We may get there eventually, but a gap will undoubtedly persist far into the foreseeable future.
In January I shared the Senate victory when S. 22, The Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2008 passed 73-21. The package includes ocean exploration, NOAA undersea research, ocean and coastal mapping integration, the integrated coastal and ocean observation system*, federal ocean acidification research and monitoring, coastal and estuarine land conservation, and lots more.
Today I’m delighted to add that the House version–H.R. 146–just passed as well meaning it’s all on the cusp of becoming law! Folks, this is as much a bill about the environment as it is about people and our collective future. So you bet I’m excited and encouraged over today’s win… Next stop President Obama!
* hat tip to Senator Snowe for all her terrific work!
“Today Congress confirmed its commitment to realizing the vast potential of ocean science and research,” said Senator Snowe, Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmospheres, Fisheries, and Coast Guard. “Oceans make up nearly three-quarters of the Earth’s surface and impact the economy, environment, and culture of the entire global community yet the physical properties and natural systems of the ocean world remain largely a mystery. This legislation will help our country unlock these mysteries by developing a national integrated system of ocean observing efforts that will provide a range of invaluable public services — such as improving our ability to gauge the impact of major disasters and predict ocean and climate trends. I am proud to support these critical programs that will stimulate economic growth and science-based environmental conservation in coastal regions and throughout the nation.”
Curiously Laura Ingraham is supposed to be someone who ‘stands up for conservative women‘. Yet when Meghan McCain criticized Ann Coulter, the best Ingraham could do was to make fun of the 24-year-old’s body, joking that she didn’t get a ‘role in the Real World‘ because ‘they don’t like plus-sized models.’
Memo to Ingraham: This kind of neanderthal behavior is not all that becoming of a ‘positive role model‘. The message we should be all sending to women everywhere–right, left, and across the spectrum–is the truth: Our worth is defined not by how we look, but who we are.
So if that’s the best Laura can retort, I encourage her to kindly sit down.
The blogosphere is buzzing over the new middle school aged Dora The Explorer because of her recently released silhouette.
Over at Packaging Girlhood, Lynn and Sharon suggest:
If the original Dora grew up, she wouldn’t be a fashion icon or a shopaholic. She’d develop her map reading skills and imagine the places she could go. She’d capitalize on those problem solving skills to design new ways to bring fresh water to communities in need around the world. Maybe she’d become a world class runner or follow her love of animals and become a wildlife preservationist or biologist.
Wait… what?! We’ve only seen her silhouette and have no idea what Dora’s up to yet. And since when are brains and social consciousness defined by appearances? The notion is absolutely ridiculous. Further, I would love to see more messages to girls (and boys) that smart = attractive. Because it certainly does!
I hope that Dora remains curious, clever, self confident, and kind. And if she chooses to do so while wearing cute shoes, she’s entitled. I could wax poetic on this one, but Isis has done a terrific job over at On Becoming A Domestic And Laboratory Goddess so go take a look. In short, we each have many dimensions that make us interesting and unique. Let’s not judge Dora’s character based on an obscure image before we learn more about who she is.
Of course, I hope she loses the monkey… Sends the wrong message to kids.
I’m off to the city for a panel in recognition of International Women’s Day. Given the theme, I’d like to point readers to a recent piece from The Guardian asking ‘Where are the books by women with big ideas?‘
Books like Freakonomics, defining significant cultural or economic trends with a punchy title, never seem to be produced by women. But why?
As you can imagine, I have much to say on the topic coming soon, but am first interested in your reaction to the article. Here’s an excerpt to get us started:
Julia Cheiffetz, blogging at publishing website HarperStudio, dubs the genre “big think” books – making serious non-fiction subjects accessible and popular. “The point is, all of them promise access to a club whose sole activity is the exchange of ideas; all of them promise, however covertly, to make us feel smarter. And all of them are written by men,” she writes, also singling out The World is Flat by Thomas L Friedman, The Black Swan by Nassim Nicholas Taleb, The Wisdom of Crowds by James Surowiecki and Predictably Irrational by Dan Ariely.
“It is hard to know whether women are better at telling stories than propagating ideas (I’m thinking of Susan Orlean, Mary Roach, Karen Abbott), or whether the intellectual audacity required to sell our hypotheses about the world simply isn’t in our genetic makeup.”
Genetic make-up, eh? I’m not convinced.
So where are the women with BIG ideas? Before I dissect this one, let’s hear from readers…
