Because....

* I trust women and I want to see them healthy and happy. I believe in a woman's right to choose and that women's health should never be put in air quotes. 19 million women are uninsured in this country and women are more likely than men to go without care in order to cut costs. I favor health care that is available for all and comprehensive. Birth control and contraceptive methods should be affordable and prevalent. Obama has fought to maintain funding for the Centers of Excellence in Women's Health at the Department of Health and Human Services. He also supports legislation to encourage research that will examine gender and health disparities. The same legislation would establish community outreach programs in underserved areas to help women access health care and maintain healthy lifestyles. Obama supports the Prevention First Act will increase funding for family planning and comprehensive sex education that teaches both abstinence and safe sex methods.

* I am middle class and fiscally responsible. Obama will not raise my taxes. I am not an oil company nor in a household making over 200K a year. I don't own a business which exports all my labor over seas. If I was, I might consider McCain. To vote against my economic interests is...in a nutshell... stupid. Inherent in the idea that I'm fiscally responsible is the notion that tax dollars should be used for the good of all. I do not subscribe to tokin'ism. So I believe the Oprah Winfreys, Bill Gates, and Horatio Algers of the world are the exception. Until it is the rule that all people (regardless of race, gender, geographic location, and luck of the birth draw) have a fair shake, I will continue to vote for people who support pooling resources for the good of the many rather than the few. This means I see it as beneficial to financially support things like universal health care and public schools. Despite being communitarian in nature, it is fiscally responsible. It saves the US money in the long run and makes us more competitive world-wide. To be fiscally responsible means to vote democratic.

* I am anti-war.

* I am pro-environment. I believe that global warming is person-made--just as solutions should be. Obama will invest money in green-collar jobs. He supports alternate energy.

* I trust Joe Biden more than I trust Sarah Palin. McCain himself said he "might have to rely on a vice president" for expertise on economic issues. Sarah Palin has none. In these economic times, we need a president with a plan and with good people surrounding him.

* I hope.

For all these reasons and many more....


And I hope you do, too.

Crushing

I cannot stop loving on Rachel Maddow...I'm sure you'll understand why:

I'm concerned....

I am a literal person. But, on occasion, I enjoy symbolism. I think symbolism can be powerful and effective. Except! Except! in images like these....The image campaign is from Declare Yourself--a voter registration group targeting young people to vote. The provocative pictures are accompanied by a headline that says "only you can silence yourself." And, I get it. In theory. I get that not voting means not having a say in the future. Except....women aren't the only ones who can silence themselves. Sexism silences women. Patriarchy silences women. Violence silences women.

The pictures mimic violence. And, perhaps worse, they normalize it. These pictures should be disturbing. And not because they makes us think of voter registration or political apathy.

Some words about the debate

I won't be watching the debate tonight. I've got a concert to attend. It is Rocktober after all...I can't be bothered with political participation. But I've had some thoughts over the past couple days regarding debates, expectations and sexism.

My sister-in-law sent me an interesting article today. The article does a few interesting things...

First, it lends credence to the idea that the Obama camp is attempting to raise expectations about Palin's debate skills. Most people who follow political rhetoric understand that if the expectations are low for a candidate, they most always meet or exceed those expectations. The better than expected performance is often misinterpreted to be a victory in the debate. The most recent example of this was George W. Bush. Because he was able to put together coherent sentences in 2000, he was seen in (some of) the post-debate spin as a winner. Not the winner but a winner. And soon, the headline was BUSH WINS DEBATE. These types of headlines suggest that Bush was somehow intellectual enough to be the leader of the free world. Obviously, the recent press about Palin suggests that she is about to crash and burn. This means any performance she has tonight is better than expected. The Obama camp is trying to manage some post-debate spin before the debate.

Second, the article continues the question of "how" Biden will debate Palin. Palin, after all, is a proud owner of a vagina. Vaginas make debates difficult. The article echos many others in tracing the difficulty back to the Bush/Ferraro debate in 1984 when Ferraro called H.W. out for being "patronizing." Of course, Ferraro dropped the line (although I don't doubt it was prepared) after Bush had offered to help her understand the difference between Iran and Lebenon. A difference she understood after 6 years in Congress.

To combat the difficulty, Biden has been practicing against Jennifer Granholm. A woman. The article says his practice is...."making it unlikely that he will fall into some of the potential pitfalls of debating against a woman." This is where I get a bit fuzzy....Does Biden normally fall into sexist, patronizing, hurtful speech? Does he have to practice against a woman in order to stay focused in the actual debate? Shouldn't it be true that Biden is as committed to a respectful, equal debate no matter the sex organs of his opponent? I'd like to think so. And I'd like Biden to come out and say so. I place much of the blame for this fuzzy analysis on the media and their pre-debate spin and (sudden) propensity to cry sexism. But I also am skepitcal of this essentialist handling of debate prep by the Obama/Biden campaign.

As a proud attendee of debate camp, I do not disparage the value of practice for debaters. I do not deny that Biden's biggest weakness during the debate will be his propensity to shout. Shouting=bad. Shouting does not seem presidential. Shouting does not sound calm and rational. And shouting can be sexist....when the words someone is shouting are sexist. But practice does not prevent falling into sexist traps. Nor does practicing against someone like Jennifer Granholm prepare Biden for debating Palin. As far as I can tell, Granholm and Palin can not be more different.

If Biden has to succumb to essentialist practicing to prevent sexist language from spewing out of his mouth, we have bigger issues than the debate....

[edit] Salon's take here

Brought to you by Sexism and Ridiculousness

During some internet browsing, I stumbled on this little gem...

PMS Buddy!

Yes, sign up! Keep track of the biological functions of your dearest female friends and receive advice on how to "handle the moodiness" of women. I keep looking and looking but I don't find any advice on how to keep from being a sexist jerk who assumes that women's anger over any number of issues can be attributed to PMS. But I do find lots of absurdity under the tab "PMS Stories."

My favorite quip so far is from Killer Joe-- "I should just become gay. Women are impossible."

Dear Killer Joe:
People in the LGBT community don't like you either.

Dogmatically yours,
kristen

Whoops

I can't stop laughing my sad, wry laugh that I reserve for true ridiculousness.

Via Feministing

Carly Fiorina, the former Hewlett-Packard chief who is now the Republican National Committee's "Victory Chairman" and a name oft mentioned as a McCain VP, argues that:

There are many health insurance plans that will cover Viagra but won't cover birth-control medication. Those women would like a choice.

Allow me to add some emphasis. WOMEN WOULD LIKE A CHOICE.

CHOICE!
CHOICE!

Fiorina is right. Women would like a choice. Too bad McCain has opposed funding for family planning programs and voted against requiring insurance coverage of birth control. This has earned him a zero rating from the Planned Parenthood Action Fund, the lowest rating possible in the U.S. Senate.

A zero rating. Seems to me McCain is definitively anti-choice.

Dangerously Reading v. 6

I finished my June selection on the last day of June. We were returning home from vacation and I spent a majority of the car trip reading. Before you go jumping to conclusions about how I procrastinated, let me just say that I started reading Jane Eyre in May. May. I know. Jane is a beast.

It took me over a month to plow through this dense work of (feminist) art. It was worth the labor and time.

Published in 1847, Jane Eyre can probably best be described as a proto-feminist piece. The protagonist and title character is an independent, educated and self sufficient woman. She works as a governess for a wealth family and when she falls in love with her employer, refuses to become his mistress and dependent. Instead, she sets off--penniless and alone--to discover herself and all that she is capable of.

The story was intense and some of the old English distracting. But the development and evolution of Jane was magical.

I suppose it is possible and useful to question the proto-feminism in the story. Mr. Rochester is very mean (almost abusive) to Eyre and at a time in the story, I was uncomfortable with how easy she overlooked the mistreatment for the benefit of "love."

But at the heart of the story, I argue, is a sense of female empowerment. One of my favorite passages can provide the proof:

Nobody knows how many rebellions besides political rebellions ferment in the masses of life which people the earth. Women are supposed to be very calm generally; but women feel just as men feel; they need exercise for their faculties, and a field for their efforts as much as their brothers do; they suffer from too rigid a restraint, too absolute a stagnation, precisely as men would suffer; and it is narrow-minded in their more privileged fellow-creatures to say that they ought to confine themselves to making puddings and knitting stockings, to playing on the piano and embroidering bags. It is thoughtless to condemn them, or laugh at them, if they seek to do more or learn more than custom has pronounced necessary for their sex.

Additional passages of note:
You never felt jealousy, did you, Miss Eyre? Of course not; I need not ask you; because you never felt love. You have both sentiments yet to experience; your soul sleeps; the shock is yet to be given which shall waken it.

I am no bird; and no net ensnares me; I am a free human being with an independent will.

Lovely, lovely novel. I would recommend it to all but I know not all would enjoy. Proceed at your own risk.

Mothering Vs.(?) Feminism

There is a controversy brewing over Rebecca Walker's latest column. A column in which she very publicly (and with a sense of bravado) ends her relationship with her mother--Alice Walker. The two women have long been on shakey ground but it appears the ground has broken open and swallowed any hope the two of them may have had of a productive relationship. Interestingly, this Feministing post comes a day after I finished R. Walker's latest book--Baby Love: Choosing Motherhood After A Lifetime Of Ambivalence and had quite an issue with it myself. I wrote on my goodreads' review:

This book was interesting and helpful as she unpacks a lot of complicated issues between motherhood and feminism. I enjoyed a lot of her story. In particular, I enjoyed reading about her struggles with choosing a parenting strategies.

But parts made me uncomfortable--mainly her seeming obsession with heterosexual parenting and her goal to wipe out ambivalence among women about motherhood. Once she became pregnant, she seemed to turn into a heterosexist, "motherhood is the only path for women" machine. It rubbed me the wrong way for much of the book. In particular, she tells a story about an interaction with a young woman who claims she will "never become a mother" because she dreads any day a human is dependent on her. Upon finding out her age, Walker reassures her that she has "plenty of time to change her mind." GAH. GAH. How patronizing and dogmatic can you be?! Oddly enough, she exhibits behaviors she complains about for much of the book. Walker has a pretty sharp indict of her mother and other "second wave" feminists who are critical of the unfairness of motherhood. She regales readers with stories about her mother's inability to support her decision to become a mother. As I reader, you feel shock and anger. Of course, that narrative is spliced with Walker's own inability to accept childless women.

Also, I was annoyed that Walker wasn't really all that "ambivalent" about motherhood (thus the title was more than a little flawed). She reports on the first page that she's wanted to be a mother for more than 15 years. Huh?!!? So throughout the book it seemed she had to invent struggles between motherhood and feminism. I do not think that being maternal is as antithetical to feminism as she states. Walker wanted to prove that in order to be a feminist one must be ambivalent about motherhood and that once you are self-actualized you will realize that to be ambivalent is to be wrong.

These issues are amplified once again in R. Walker's column. It is clear that Walker had a bad childhood. Her mother was not overly nurturing and maybe even a little bitter about the challenges of motherhood. But is that the result of feminism? I can't decide. Actually, that's a lie. I can decide. I think it *may* be the result of a certain brand of feminism. Certainly there have been time periods of feminism that are skeptical of motherhood. They see the undervalue of motherhood as a problem and have chosen not to participate because they don't want to fall victim to those pitfalls. I'm cool with that. I'm also fine with women who choose to be come mothers but do not uphold the typical aspects of motherhood. Thus, I think it would be possible for both Rebecca and Alice to negotiate the tensions R. speaks of in their relationship. And I think it possible not to be the type of mother R. expects yet still be a good one. Additionally, I don't think their mother/daughter relationship is any of my business no matter how much R. shoves it down my throat.

However, I'm also troubled by the rate at which feminists turn on Rebecca. In the comments on the Feministing piece, commenters call R. an "anti-feminist" and not part of the movement. What?!?! Rebecca Walker?! One of the women responsible for the current status of feminism-- toward a more inclusive and contemporary movement?

Why does it have to be either/or? Why are feminists quick to take sides? We don't have to be for Alice OR Rebecca. We can appreciate Alice's work on de-mystifying motherhood and Rebecca's work to appreciate it. Personally, I think that maternal thinking and feminism go hand in hand but before I become a mother, I'll set up my own standard of parenting that will draw on generations of feminist women.

So I thank both Rebecca and Alice. And I hope I don't fall into a trap of having to choose one over the other.

Wherein I remember I have a blog

And I write things....

While I generally don't like to apologize for slacking on projects that are optional (like this blog), I do regret my lengthy absence. I've had a conference to attend, a home state to return to, a dissertation to write, and leisure to enjoy. Really, I'm spent. But I have found some blogging motivation. Aren't we all excited?

A couple things.....

1. I adore this charming post over at Paper Cuts about things found in books. They report on the things booksellers have discovered in books, from a letter by C.S. Lewis to a baby’s tooth to Mickey Mantle’s rookie baseball card to thousand dollar bills. I just use a plain ole bookmark and post-it tabs. I'm practical and boring. I'm also poor.

2. MSNBC is doing a Veepstakes. They have picked the 32 most likely VP candidates for each party, seeded them, and we get to pick our bracket. Drew and I are LOVING this. The first round of the Democratic Party is up but don't get too excited, you have to wait a week for the next round. Very fun. Plus, it gives you lots of names to research and talk about in your political circles.

3. Great op-ed from the NYT last week about "Hillary's Next Campaign." Anna Holmes argues (quite persuasively) that it should be actively working against sexism and racism. I've been complaining for quite some time that I would have liked to have seen Clinton really address some of the double binds she faced. Don't only use sex/gender as a talking point when it serves you well. Use sex/gender when it doesn't and openly confront the sexism, patriarchy and misogyny that exists. Obama should do that as well but that's another post.

4. I've been doing quite a bit of reading. You should become my Goodreads friend and check it out.

The one in which I'm embarrassed by my home state v. 2

An interesting report in yesterday's Detroit Free Press.

According to the article:

Violent crimes against Michiganders because of their sexual orientation jumped 133% last year, according to a report released today by the Detroit-based Triangle Foundation.

In 2007, there were 226 reported cases involving violence or violent threats against gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgendered people, the report said. Out of those cases, two were murders, 46 were assaults and 101 of them involved intimidation or harassment, the report said. There were 97 reported incidents in 2006.

In addition to the violent incidents, there were 72 cases of discrimination, according to the Triangle Foundation.

I can't help but remember last week's news that the Michigan Supreme Court decided to outlaw same-sex partner benefits. Discrimination and hate begets discrimination and hate. Perhaps even more so when the highest court in the (state) land is setting the example.

Dangerously Reading v. 5

This month's selection was Truman Capote's Other Voices, Other Rooms. I went through a bit of a Capote phase obsession a couple years ago so I've already read this one. I enjoyed it but didn't need to revisit it. Instead, I substituted a Virginia Woolf selection. I decided upon A Room of One's Own. Even though I finished it yesterday, I still can't decide how I feel about it.

On one hand, it was very poignant and ahead of its time. Written in 1928, the book is a combination of lectures given by Woolf about art, fiction, intellectualism and sexism. In particular, I enjoyed her discussion about who controls "knowledge" and who has access to it. Her observations were true then and still ring correct today. I also enjoyed how applicable her words were to all writers and thinkers. I know the book is specifically about fiction but I found a lot of richness about writing in general.

However, the book was so boring. I hate to say it but I found my mind wandering constantly. She used so many examples that her argument got redundant after a while.

Of course, it is only a 2008 world that allows me this critique. I cannot imagine reading this work in 1928. It would have been groundbreaking and controversial.

Despite my boredom, I found lots of words of wisdom:

Pg. 5 "At any rate, when a subject is highly controversial--and any question about sex is that--one cannot hope to tell the truth. One can only show how one came to hold whatever opinion one does hold. "

Pg. 30 "The human frame being what it is, heart, body and brain all mixed together, and not contained in separate compartments as they will be no doubt i another million years, a good dinner is of great importance to good talk. One cannot think well, love well, sleep well, if one has not dined well."

Pg. 40 "...and I thought of the organ booming in the chapel and of the shut doors of the library; and I thought how unpleasant it is to be locked out; and I thought how it is worse perhaps to be locked in; and, thinking of the safety and prosperity of the one sex and of the poverty and insecurity of the other and of the effect of tradition and of the lack of tradition upon the mind of a writer, I thought at last that it was time to roll up the crumpled skin of the day, with its arguments and its impressions and its anger and its laughter, and case it into the hedge. "

Pg. 152 "It would be a thousand pities of women wrote like men, or lived like men, or looked like men, for if two sexes are quite inadequate, considering the vastness and variety of the world, how should we manage with only one?"

Pg. 188 "Intellectual freedom depends upon material things."

Weekly Geek v. 1

I couldn't pass up this blogger challenge over at The Hidden Side of a Leaf:

Choose a political or social issue that matters to you. Find several books addressing that issue; they don’t have to books you’ve read, just books you might like to read. Using images (of the book covers or whatever you feel illustrates your topic) present these books in your blog.

Not surprisingly, I immediately started gathering feminist books that I think every feminist and feminist reader should have in her/his library. BUT! I know that isn't that much of a stretch for this blog so I tagged on a bonus--Political Speechwriting! Feminism! Politics! And books! All in one post!

Maternal Thinking (Sara Ruddick): Fantastic book for feminists and peace activists. A new way to conceptualize motherhood and femininity. A must read.
Gender Trouble (Judith Butler): An academic book that has been accused of being too dense. But the book was fundamental to my understanding of the gender system and all that it encompasses.
The Heart is a Lonely Hunter (Carson McCullers): A book about isolation, loneliness and labor politics. While not explicitly feminist, I'm not the first to view it as such. McCullers is magical and this book is her best.
The Color Purple (Alice Walker): Duh. Alice Walker. A heartbreaking book that exposes the true depths of patriarchy and misogyny. Walker's contribution to the feminist movement cannot be overstated.

And now for the bonus! Speechwriting. I am obsessed with political speechwriters. I love to imagine the intimate relationship they have with the President and words. So romantic. I haven't read either of these books but I plan to this summer.


White House Ghosts: Presidents and Their Speechwriters (Robert Schlesinger): Veteran Washington reporter Robert Schlesinger opens a fresh and revealing window on the modern presidency from FDR to George W. Bush. This is the first book to examine a crucial and often hidden role played by the men and women who help presidents find the words they hope will define their places in history.


Counselor: A Life At the Edge of History (Ted Sorenson): John F. Kennedy's closest advisor recounts in full for the first time his experience counseling Kennedy through the most dramatic moments in American history.


Let me know if you've read any of these--or plan to read any of these!

Holy Mother of God

I was perusing PaperCuts this afternoon and came across their review of the 10 Books that Screwed Up the World: And 5 Others that Didn't Help by Benjamin Wiker.

Wiker, nice privileged white male that he is, gave honorable mention to The Feminine Mystique. Yes. That Feminine Mystique. The onethatchangedthecourseoffreakinghistory. That one.

Must be nice. Must be nice to live with your wife and seven children in rural Ohio and claim that that the Feminine Mystique screwed up the world.

Feel free to send e-mails to the guy....

Maybe include some of the highlights of the book:
1. It debunked the popular notion that all women would be happier at home with babies and a traditional, heterosexual marriage
2. It gave women an identity outside of marriage and motherhood
3. It created a sense of commonality among (middle to upper class) women who were feeling restless and unfulfilled

Perhaps Wiker levels a class charge against Friedan. Perhaps he's all like "Friedan you are so second-wave and you don't speak for the experience of all women so back off."

...But I doubt it.

The one in which I'm embarrassed by my home state

I must say that I am confounded by Michigan's recent decision to ban same-sex partner benefits. I was beyond disappointed by the 2004 voter-supported ban on gay marriage, but this decision is a grossly inappropriate application of that ban.

I'm bothered for three reasons. Let's discuss:

1. Obviously to discriminate against people based on things like race, gender, religious affiliation is wrong. I just don't understand how it has remained socially acceptable to discriminate against people based on sexual orientation. Where does the breakdown happen? How do logical people fail to make the connection?

2. As I'm sure any human with ears has heard, Michigan is in a wee bit of an economic slump. Businesses and business professionals cannot get out of the sinking state fast enough. Leaving in droves. The state is depressed. One seemingly bright spot in the state is their public education system. This will crush that bright spot. Memo to Michigan--good academics will leave your universities and work at ones from which their partners can receive benefits. Hands down. Just like female academics leave universities to work at ones which grant them family leave time. This loss will not be confined to the academic sector. Other businesses who care about equality and employee well-being will be hesitant to start businesses in the state. No matter what one's hangups about gay marriage (although I'd encourage people to get the hell over those--perhaps in therapy?), most people should be able to get on board with sound business practices.

3. This just continues the trend of tying economic benefits to heterosexual marriage. The fact deserves quite a bit of attention. A question I always pose to my Women's Studies students is--If heterosexual marriage is so "natural" why do we have to provide so many incentives to encourage people to do it? Of course, the flip side is that for every couple who benefits from heterosexual privilege, there is a couple who suffers from it. To send the message that the only way to gain economically is to marry someone with opposite sex organs, is to reinforce heterosexual conditioning. Heterosexual conditioning makes Kristen sad. Heterosexual conditioning is a weapon of patriarchy and sexism. And memo to all people privileged enough to identify as heterosexual, these policies hurt you as well. Let's just say you're widowed at a young age. You move in with your sibling. You live with your sibling for 20 or more years. You want to share benefits with your sibling or she with you. Guess what. You can't. You also cannot apply for certain tax exemptions and you better have a damn good will because your sibling is not automatically entitled to any assets upon your death. We need to separate economic incentives from heterosexual marriage for the good of EVERYONE. To do that would diversify partner and household recognition. We all suffer from these policies.

Unfortunately, people are too blinded by their homophobia to think through these things.

Shame on Michigan. And shame on a society that allows this discrimination to occur.

*thanks to BK for the tip

I-Tues v. 12 Concert Edition

I'm beginning to feel like I speak only in superlatives when it comes to music on this blog. "This concert was awesome." "This concert was the best I've seen in Athens." Blah, blah, blah. But if you'll allow me one more...On Saturday we saw Josh Ritter at the Melting Point. And, well, it was the best concert I've seen...maybe...ever. I know. But, my friends, this is not mere hyperbole....Allow me to present some evidence.

First of all, the venue is so incredible. I think I'd be happy only seeing shows the Melting Point from now on. It is small. There's a patio lit with gold Christmas light. There are pomegranate martinis. There is always a good crowd. I just adore it. If you are in the ATH, you must go to the Melting Point. And then write me a thank you note because I just changed your life.

Second, Ingrid Michaelson opened for J.R. She is all kinds of adorable. Most of you have probably heard her sing on this Old Navy commercial.


But don't hold this endorsement of capitalism against her. She released a cd without a label. You go girl. Her show was fantastic. Not only is she very talented (think Regina Spektor meets Vanessa Carlton-- only better) but she was charming without being nauseating. And let's not under emphasize the import of that. Not only that but she's a feminist. HELLO. Her lyrics are incredible and very empowering. After she was done both Drew and Dave turned to me and said that it looked like I had a BFF. How right they were.


And I bought her cd. At her own show. How lame am I?! But I couldn't help it. I just had to have her music and support her. I told her I taught WMST and I loved her lyrics. And she signed my cd.

Yes, it does say Vaginas Unite. Yes.


Ok so it is safe to say that I <3 Ingrid Michaelson. But I also love Josh Ritter. And his whole darn band. They are all adorable. And they got along so well. See?

And their energy was contagious. The set was awesome. They took us high and they brought us low. They seemed legitimately thankful we were all there and earnest in their attempt to give the best show they could. For those of you that know me in the "real" world, you know that I sometime use earnest as a descriptor for people I think are lame. But when I saw that Josh Ritter is earnest, I mean that in the good way.

If, for some reason that I cannot think of, you don't already listen to Josh Ritter you need to start. RIGHTNOW. I've told you this before. And maybe you haven't listened. I'll overlook it. But it is never too late to correct a bad decision.

And a big shout out to Drew and Dave who asked me not to post a picture of them. Whoops.

Leave it to Sweden....

This put a smile on my face. Last semester an exchange student from Sweden enrolled in my Women's Studies course. To say she was shocked by the attitudes of many students would be an understatement. It is very easy to understand why....

Gender equality is coming to Sweden's roadways with pedestrian crossing signs soon portraying women as well as men, the Swedish government has decided.

The National Road Administration has until Oct. 1 to design the new signs, SVT reports. The nationwide signage change came about after two local councils failed in their bids to make the changes on their own.

So by the end of the year, Swedish motorists will begin seeing pedestrian crossing signs with a female image, being called Fru Garman, either replacing or alongside the male version known as Herr Garman, which translates to Mr. Walkman and This is where you walk, The Local reported.

Feminists Unite!

Since I teach my WMST class about the power of the Internet for resistance and feminist activity, I had them post their assignments this semester on a class blog. Today their media analysis projects are due and you can view them at the sites listed below. The students could either create a feminist text OR do a mini rhetorical criticism of a cultural text. I'm really proud of how much work went into the project.

If you'd like to check them out:

http://ugafeminism.blogspot.com/
http://wmst2010.blogspot.com/

I love a lot of the projects, but in particular I thought these videos were pretty powerful. I encouraged them to put their activism on Youtube as well. I hope you're as inspired as I am!

Barbie Culture: http://ugafeminism.blogspot.com/2008/04/clark-media-analysis.html

Tension between sex positive feminism and sexual exploitation:
http://ugafeminism.blogspot.com/2008/04/sexpos-expos.html

Taking on the Beauty Myth:
http://wmst2010.blogspot.com/2008/04/peyton-feminist-text.html

FEMINISTS UNITE!

Counting Down The Days

Since I've started teaching for the Institute of Women's Studies, I've found myself a lot more involved in the politics of the University of Georgia. There is a ton of activism on and around campus which is awesome. What isn't so awesome is the need for activism. UGA is embarrassingly behind on things like family leave, child care and living wage for staff members. We don't have a women's center. And we don't have an Ombuds office to report sexual harassment. Keep in mind we are the state's flagship university and have over 30,000 students. Inexcusable if you ask me.

The sexual harassment issue has been a biggie this semester. It has been a big issue ALWAYS, but the university's inability to deal with the variety of cases is just making news this year. To give you a recap.....

* We've had a professor receive tenure and be promoted all while receiving over 15 years of complaints of sexual harassment
*Upon reports of that case, documents surfaced of four other professors accused and kept on staff. And one professor who UGA help get ANOTHER JOB AT ANOTHER UNIVERSITY (from which he has since been fired)
* Our women's golf coach resigned and admitted to sexual wrong doing with his team (including making them watch Paris Hilton's sex tape and inappropriately touching his team members) but was kept on staff while being paid over 90,000 dollars

Obviously to say we've had a wee problem with sexual harassment is an understatement. And to say that our administration needs to do a better job articulating that they take sexual harassment seriously is a HUGE understatement.

So imagine everyone's surprise when it was announced last week that our administration has selected Clarence Thomas as our May commencement speaker. I know! I was shocked as well. Surely the administration wouldn't deliberately choose someone with a less than stellar record on sexual harassment?! Surely the administration wouldn't want to give a big slap in the face to all the faculty members who have worked hard to raise awareness about sexual harassment?! But, oh yes, they would.

Chaos has ensued. And the thing that bothers me most about this whole decision is the way people who articulate any dissent are being treated. WMST faculty are not saying Thomas can't speak. They do say they prefer he doesn't. But they support his right to free speech. However, they are also calling for an open discussion about Thomas' past. They are looking to the administration to DO MORE TO COMMUNICATE THAT WOMEN MATTER.

If you have a moment, please take a look at the comments. Look at how students and community members communicate with faculty members speaking out against Thomas. It is shameful.

These are my favorites:
I'm very surprised he was invited given the super bed wetting liberals that run this university and town. I'm sure you would all whine if Bill Clinton was coming too???

It would be nice if some college professors would "grow up". Better yet, try to get a job in the private sector instead of playing "school" for your entire life. Some of you need a taste of the real world. For those who object to Judge Thomas, I bet you wouldn't have a problem with Bill Clinton.

I also love how all the commenters call the professors "Mrs." Not DOCTOR. Not Ms. Not by their names. But "Mrs."

Classy. The WMST building is also getting harassing phone calls. But it is starting to make national news. I can't wait to see how the rest of the country feels about the hate and ignorance that runs abound here.

So, yes, I'm counting down the days. Counting down the days until I leave this university. To be sure, I'm getting a good education here. I love my department, my colleagues and Athens. But the decision making on this campus infuriates me. And I think the discussions that take place on this campus reflects the administration. There is a lack of respect for faculty--especially female faculty. The students are learning it from somewhere.

The Election continued...

I remain undecided between Clinton and Obama. My horse was Edwards. Still is. I don't feel particularly inspired by either Clinton or Obama. It goes without saying that I feel either are better than McCain. McCain is scary. He's out of touch. I'll be disappointed in anyone who votes for him just like I think those who voted for Bush (especially in 04 when they knew what they were getting) owe the American people an apology for what he's done to our international reputation, our economy and our morale. But I digress....

I feel that my lack of strong support for either candidate gives me a unique perspective into the election. My only agenda is to see a Democrat take office in 08. So some thoughts...

1. If people truly want change. Truly? They would take a stand and not vote for either of the two major parties. I still don't understand why Obama and Clinton are out "changing" one another. I really don't understand how Obama gets to claim this narrative of change. As illustrated by the negative tone of the campaigns, the amount of money needed to participate and the airwaves being dominated by the pundits rather than the "common" people, politics is politics. Obama is not an outsider. Clinton isn't either. Both are entrenched in party politics. Both want to win. I think it is naive to assume that the only way to inspire is to claim outsider status. I am inspired by a politician (with experience) looking out for the middle class. I'm inspired by someone who has an understanding of the game of politics while playing it fairly. I'm inspired by someone who maintains a position of privilege maintaining a stance that shows they also stand on margins to fight for fairness and rights for those who often are overlooked.

2. I still have a hard time distinguishing between politics and sexism. I do think that Obama gets a free pass on many issues. He's treated better by the media. He's romanticized. Is that because Clinton's policies stink or is it because we have a deep seated distrust of women? I can't distinguish. I do know that more often than not Hillary is accused of being manipulative. She is accused of being calculated. We all know that there is nothing in any campaign that isn't calculated. I think it is more acceptable to accuse a women of playing games than it is a person of color. Don't get me wrong, racism is alive and well. When people go into that voting booth alone with their biases, I think racism could rear its ugly head. Sexism just gets to be alive and well in the open public sphere. I know a lot of smart and progressive people who pull for Obama who reek of sexism. I'm talking about the comparison of Hillary to Tracy Flick (in Election fame). I'm talking about the people who criticize her use of emotion (of course they never accuse Obama of "manipulating" the African American speaking style of past heroes). People who critique her role as mother (she isn't a "good" mother, she uses Chelsea) as if it matters to her potential job as President.

3. The newest thing to really piss me off? The claim that Clinton really has no "foreign" policy experience. It isn't that she has no foreign policy experience. It is that her foreign policy experience mostly deals with women's rights abroad. Not surprisingly, these efforts go unnoticed and are cast aside as not important and not "real." It goes without saying that it is a mistake for Obama to get into a "credentials" battle. I'm not sure why he is going there. However, even if it wasn't, the media would do it for him. Sexism.

4. The "war" issue. To be sure, neither democratic candidate is anti-war. Neither espouse a pacifist paradigm. Neither were actively trying to change American foreign policy until the 08 election approached. Neither would be afraid to use force. If someone is truly anti-war, they probably feel by the false choice of either Clinton or Obama. This is an issue I'm really struggling with in 08. I don't feel at home with either democratic candidate. Will I support the nominee? Yes. But it isn't exactly because they are "anti-war." They are other things. They uphold other policies that I hold dear. But they don't represent an anti-war alternative. Clinton, who I know to be intelligent, was "duped" by the Bush Administration. Obama, who is anti this war has threatened a Pakistan invasion and, by most accounts, over-sold his plan for Iraq troop withdrawal.

I want the primary to end soon. I'm getting annoyed at both candidates, the media, and the dogmatic fans of both candidates. In true hyper-competitive political fashion, we're splintering the party. We talk about the differences between Obama and Clinton (which are slight) instead of priming the American public for the larger issues of differences we'll see in the general election.

An Apology

I've been a sucky blogger lately. I'm sorry. To make amends, I'm giving you two other blogs to read in order to get your Georgia feminist fix.

Because we've talked about the power of the internet for minority communities, my Women's Studies classes have made their own blogs. The sites are places for them to post their assignments for the class. The first assignment is up and running--an interview project. A media analysis project will follow later in the semester. The students are excited to see their work made public and are eager for readers outside the class. Feel free to post supportive comments if you're so inclined.

I hope you enjoy the blogs as much as I am.

http://ugafeminism.blogspot.com/
http://wmst2010.blogspot.com/