This is not a political statement; it is a feminist statement. I will say it again: Sarah Palin scares the crap out of me. I believe that she has one of those personas, that you either love her or hate her. I repeat - she just scares me. She scares me because she is put upon us as a role model for women.
Let's move the politics aside for a moment; although, I admit, it is very difficult for me to do. Palin is a strong, beautiful woman; now she needs to be quiet. When I point to role models for young women she is no where to be found on my list.
She claims to be promoting women; promoting the power of women; telling her story of making choices and being "maverick-y". Why does she then frequently portray herself as a victim? Listen to her accounts of the 2008 campaign. She takes no responsibility for contributing to adverse public opinion or mistakes she made. It is always someone else who put her in the position. Palin "let" the Republicans treat her like a puppet and promote an agenda of pseudo-equality. She is forever the "beauty queen" who fails the questioning category.
Palin blames "bad campaign management" for her interview with Katie Coric. Excuse me, was it such a stretch for her to actually name a newspaper she read; not even the Wasilla Gazette came out of her mouth. Actually, based on that hemming and hawing I am even surprised that she knew who Katie Coric was. If you listen to her, Palin believes her only mistake was to let others manage her. A truly strong woman isn't "managed".
She is a master manipulator. The media has promoted her to celebrity status; she blasts the media and how "they treat her" and there she is - on a media blitz. Smiling and winking her way to front page coverage.
Palin criticizes everything (except "huntin' and fishin' and hockey moms") but offers no suggestions for solutions. "Drill baby drill" is not a solution.
She was put on the Republican ticket in 2008 because she was a woman. I feel, as a woman, that she threw us under the bus. In this era, women need leadership to support issues pertaining to our bodies, our livelihood and our children. Pseudo-equality just isn't good enough anymore.
Palin quit her job as governor; not to find other outlets to serve her community, state or country, but to write (ghost) a book to serve her bank account. That's fine Sarah, but just admit it. Don't pretend that your book will have any earth shattering impact on the world as we know it.
I want women leaders who are accountable and take responsibility and admit to their mistakes. I want women leaders who won't buckle in the face of adversity. I want women leaders who don't whine and point fingers at others. I want women leaders who embrace their children and at the same time hold the hand of the rape victim during her abortion. I want women leaders who can be regarded beautiful because of their intelligence and creativity. You betcha, I want a lot.
Palin scares me because she is being lauded as a female role model. Not on my list.
Showing posts with label feminism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label feminism. Show all posts
Thursday, November 19, 2009
Saturday, October 24, 2009
A Woman's Nation - Divided
The posts over the last couple days addressing the Shriver Report on A Woman's Nation has drawn a number of diverse comments (primarily on my Facebook page). It concerns me, because it is evidence that there is still a huge divide on women's issues; and the divide is between the women.
I'm not sure if the divide centers on women with children and women without children or women with careers and women without careers or single woman and married woman. Both groups on each issue need each other's support. Each of us have made choices in our lives and each of us should address those choices with responsibility and acceptance.
The Women's Movement provided us all with choice. If it wasn't for the movement, many of us would not have had the opportunity to build our careers. Had we made the choice not to marry and not to have children before the movement, we would have been confined to pink collar jobs and low wages; literally eating cat food in our old age.
The Women's Movement sanctioned women with children working out of the home. It gave increased opportunity to single mothers to provide for their children. Mothers, married and single, have every opportunity to pursue education, career and relationships because of the movement. The children are no longer an excuse not to do something.
Some of us may believe that if you choose to have a child, that you should stay home and raise the child. Some women do not have that choice. Some of us believe that woman who pursue careers, without children are selfish. These are the judgements that create the divide.
Do not judge unless you walk in those shoes. We were given choices, but the choice we make are still a result of our personalities and value system. The cornerstone of the foundation of the movement was "acceptance"; acceptance of choices to fulfill our dreams.
Some women raise three children on their own, work full-time, volunteer in their community, go to the gym regularly and spend quality time with family and friends. That full schedule may be too much for other woman. Some women are married with children, stay home and keep house; and that is a full enough schedule for them. Both are right. Both made a choice.
We should not feel the need to make excuses for why we do or don't do more or less in our lives. You answer only to yourself.
We cry for diversity in the workplace, in education and within political policy. Why can't we achieve diversity and acceptance within our own gender? No more excuses. Just know you have choices thanks to many women before you.
I'm not sure if the divide centers on women with children and women without children or women with careers and women without careers or single woman and married woman. Both groups on each issue need each other's support. Each of us have made choices in our lives and each of us should address those choices with responsibility and acceptance.
The Women's Movement provided us all with choice. If it wasn't for the movement, many of us would not have had the opportunity to build our careers. Had we made the choice not to marry and not to have children before the movement, we would have been confined to pink collar jobs and low wages; literally eating cat food in our old age.
The Women's Movement sanctioned women with children working out of the home. It gave increased opportunity to single mothers to provide for their children. Mothers, married and single, have every opportunity to pursue education, career and relationships because of the movement. The children are no longer an excuse not to do something.
Some of us may believe that if you choose to have a child, that you should stay home and raise the child. Some women do not have that choice. Some of us believe that woman who pursue careers, without children are selfish. These are the judgements that create the divide.
Do not judge unless you walk in those shoes. We were given choices, but the choice we make are still a result of our personalities and value system. The cornerstone of the foundation of the movement was "acceptance"; acceptance of choices to fulfill our dreams.
Some women raise three children on their own, work full-time, volunteer in their community, go to the gym regularly and spend quality time with family and friends. That full schedule may be too much for other woman. Some women are married with children, stay home and keep house; and that is a full enough schedule for them. Both are right. Both made a choice.
We should not feel the need to make excuses for why we do or don't do more or less in our lives. You answer only to yourself.
We cry for diversity in the workplace, in education and within political policy. Why can't we achieve diversity and acceptance within our own gender? No more excuses. Just know you have choices thanks to many women before you.
Friday, October 23, 2009
A Woman's Nation - Part Deux
A Woman's Nation: the story of my life. I read more of the Shriver Report last night. And then I sent it to all of my nieces and young women friends. Yesterday, I said it was "old news". It is old news to me, but a "must read" for women 45 and younger; and for their fathers, brothers, husbands and sons.
Maria Shriver opens her chapter with great affection and reverence to the achievements of her mother, Eunice Shriver. Eunice was a great role model for many women. It was often said that "had Eunice been a man, she would have been President." Eunice had the "luxury" of being "liberated" and took the responsibility of being a role model very seriously. It was appropriate for Shriver to laud her mother in the opening paragraphs of this report.
One of the driving forces of the report/study undertaking was the sentiment that women did not have "a place to connect". Between the lines, that reads as the lack of "a good ole boy club." I submit that this is true for the fact that in the early days of achieving success, many of us saw each other as the "enemy". Instead of finding our role as successful women, we took the role of "mini-men". We wanted to be accepted as "one of the boys" and believed there was a very finite space for "mini-men" at the table. Maybe that was because we didn't have access to team sports as we grew up; we were trained to compete for the attentions of men and that very much got in our way as we left the confines of our father's and husband's homes.
"They don't speak with one voice and they don't have just ONE issue." Well said.
During John F. Kennedy's presidency, he charted the Commission on the Status of Women. The purpose of the commission was to reveal how the nation could best achieve "practical equality" with men educationally, economically and politically. Practical equality? Practical: dealing realistically and sensibly with everyday activities; that is in practice whether or not in theory, belief, value or law. There was a disguised contempt is that treatise.
In the Commission's final report, released in 1963, Margaret Mead, co-editor, wrote, "The climate of opinion is turning against the idea that homemaking is the only form of feminine achievement." It was no longer practical.
Hence the "battle of the sexes" began. Those of us who were of age in the 70s took to the schools, the workplace and the political forums. We came with a different perspective, with different ideas, but were forced to assimilate into the men's accepted practices. We went undercover, waiting for the time we could truly speak our voice. Nearly fifty years later, we are still seeking "one voice". Can we achieve "one voice" when we have so many issues to address?
The Shriver Report provides findings on TEN issues: economy, government, immigrants, health, education, business, faith, media, men and marriage. All of these issues affect men as well, just in different ways.
Much attention is given to the "sandwich generation". The generation that is finding itself responsible, not only, for the caring of its children, but the the caring and support of aging parents. Look around and you will find that the duties of care taking are more often thrust upon the women. By choice or by necessity, women find themselves attending to the needs of the generations before them and following them; and the men with them. Agreed that there are many men who have stepped up to the plate to assist and provide. However, have you ever attended a caregivers support group? Mostly women.
In the report it says that the battle of the sexes is now "the negotiation between the sexes." That is a huge step and I agree that we do sit down at the table to discuss who will pay what bill, who will take the kids to school, who will address locating an appropriate facility for Mom when the time comes.
However, "we are all a bit disoriented", in this constantly changing landscape - economy, health care, climate change. Hence I return to the comment I made yesterday: these are not just women's issues, these are "people issues".
We are genetically coded to be aware of the "differences" in each other; it is some sort of survival mechanism. Isn't there some"code" we can use to to collectively find one voice? It is not women versus men; it is not black versus white versus brown versus yellow; it is not Christian versus Jew versus Muslim.
For all practical purposes - its us against ourselves. The change to acceptance is within. Can we find the "place on the porch" together?
Maria Shriver opens her chapter with great affection and reverence to the achievements of her mother, Eunice Shriver. Eunice was a great role model for many women. It was often said that "had Eunice been a man, she would have been President." Eunice had the "luxury" of being "liberated" and took the responsibility of being a role model very seriously. It was appropriate for Shriver to laud her mother in the opening paragraphs of this report.
One of the driving forces of the report/study undertaking was the sentiment that women did not have "a place to connect". Between the lines, that reads as the lack of "a good ole boy club." I submit that this is true for the fact that in the early days of achieving success, many of us saw each other as the "enemy". Instead of finding our role as successful women, we took the role of "mini-men". We wanted to be accepted as "one of the boys" and believed there was a very finite space for "mini-men" at the table. Maybe that was because we didn't have access to team sports as we grew up; we were trained to compete for the attentions of men and that very much got in our way as we left the confines of our father's and husband's homes.
"They don't speak with one voice and they don't have just ONE issue." Well said.
During John F. Kennedy's presidency, he charted the Commission on the Status of Women. The purpose of the commission was to reveal how the nation could best achieve "practical equality" with men educationally, economically and politically. Practical equality? Practical: dealing realistically and sensibly with everyday activities; that is in practice whether or not in theory, belief, value or law. There was a disguised contempt is that treatise.
In the Commission's final report, released in 1963, Margaret Mead, co-editor, wrote, "The climate of opinion is turning against the idea that homemaking is the only form of feminine achievement." It was no longer practical.
Hence the "battle of the sexes" began. Those of us who were of age in the 70s took to the schools, the workplace and the political forums. We came with a different perspective, with different ideas, but were forced to assimilate into the men's accepted practices. We went undercover, waiting for the time we could truly speak our voice. Nearly fifty years later, we are still seeking "one voice". Can we achieve "one voice" when we have so many issues to address?
The Shriver Report provides findings on TEN issues: economy, government, immigrants, health, education, business, faith, media, men and marriage. All of these issues affect men as well, just in different ways.
Much attention is given to the "sandwich generation". The generation that is finding itself responsible, not only, for the caring of its children, but the the caring and support of aging parents. Look around and you will find that the duties of care taking are more often thrust upon the women. By choice or by necessity, women find themselves attending to the needs of the generations before them and following them; and the men with them. Agreed that there are many men who have stepped up to the plate to assist and provide. However, have you ever attended a caregivers support group? Mostly women.
In the report it says that the battle of the sexes is now "the negotiation between the sexes." That is a huge step and I agree that we do sit down at the table to discuss who will pay what bill, who will take the kids to school, who will address locating an appropriate facility for Mom when the time comes.
However, "we are all a bit disoriented", in this constantly changing landscape - economy, health care, climate change. Hence I return to the comment I made yesterday: these are not just women's issues, these are "people issues".
We are genetically coded to be aware of the "differences" in each other; it is some sort of survival mechanism. Isn't there some"code" we can use to to collectively find one voice? It is not women versus men; it is not black versus white versus brown versus yellow; it is not Christian versus Jew versus Muslim.
For all practical purposes - its us against ourselves. The change to acceptance is within. Can we find the "place on the porch" together?
Thursday, October 22, 2009
A Woman's Nation? Part One
Get comfortable, because I believe this is only the first posting in a series to comment on "The Shriver Report - A Woman's Nation." At this point in time I have listened to some of the NBC report and have read the Preface, Executive Summary and Epilogue of the report itself (www.awomansnation.com). I will read the full report tonight. So far I have learned that a woman's life is pretty hectic and often under-rewarded for the work we do. Really?
"When we look back over the 20th century and try to understand what's happened to workers and their families and the challenges they now face, the movement of women out of the home and into paid employment stands out as a unique and powerful transformation." (excerpt from the Preface)
This is not breaking news. I am a feminist and believe I have been since the late sixties. I am a feminist, not because my mother provided me with a role model or encouragement to step out of the box. I am a feminist because my father encouraged me and my brothers "let" me.
I was a feminist when the majority of people believed that I hated men or wanted to be a man. That was never true. I love men but just don't think they "get it". As for a being a man? No, I wanted the same opportunities that the men had.
We hated being told what do to by men. It wasn't that we minded taking care of the home and children; we just wanted to have the option to do something else too. "Too", that's the operative word. We should have dropped that word from our treatise. Because what happened was this: the men said fine, do something else "too", but make sure the kids are still cared for, the house is clean and dinner is still ready when I get home from work. And, we did. Well, some of us did.
We thought we had to prove that we could do a man's job and found that to do that we had to stop doing some of the "women's work" like childbearing. And then if we did forgo childbearing, we were frowned upon; regardless of the reason.
I actually got into a debate with a man about twenty years ago who complained that the price of real estate was a result of birth control. From a logic point of view, the theory "worked". The birth control pill allowed women to delay child birth. By delaying child birth, women entered the work force and were able to focus on upward mobility, thereby increasing their salaries. Married and with a two income household, there was more disposable income to purchase a home. Because of the ability to "get what they want", it drove the prices of real estate up in a competitive market. So you see, it is in fact the "woman's nation" that tanked the market, not the men who run Wall Street. Pleeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaassssseeeeee!!!
But that is how it goes. Blame the victim. I do not say that from a position of feeling disenfranchised. I say that because the political and social policies in this country are stuck in the past; a past that resembles "Father Knows Best" and not the reality of "Roseann".
Even in the current battle for health care reform, women are still feeling the pinch of discrimination: we pay more for health care insurance because of this "pre-existing condition" we have called a reproductive system. We are "sick and tired" because we work full time, take care of kids, aging parents and the home; often in a single status.
If our society would walk the walk of equality and equity and create an enviroment of inclusiveness, this would cease to be a "woman's issue". It is a people issue.
Stayed tuned. . .
"When we look back over the 20th century and try to understand what's happened to workers and their families and the challenges they now face, the movement of women out of the home and into paid employment stands out as a unique and powerful transformation." (excerpt from the Preface)
This is not breaking news. I am a feminist and believe I have been since the late sixties. I am a feminist, not because my mother provided me with a role model or encouragement to step out of the box. I am a feminist because my father encouraged me and my brothers "let" me.
I was a feminist when the majority of people believed that I hated men or wanted to be a man. That was never true. I love men but just don't think they "get it". As for a being a man? No, I wanted the same opportunities that the men had.
We hated being told what do to by men. It wasn't that we minded taking care of the home and children; we just wanted to have the option to do something else too. "Too", that's the operative word. We should have dropped that word from our treatise. Because what happened was this: the men said fine, do something else "too", but make sure the kids are still cared for, the house is clean and dinner is still ready when I get home from work. And, we did. Well, some of us did.
We thought we had to prove that we could do a man's job and found that to do that we had to stop doing some of the "women's work" like childbearing. And then if we did forgo childbearing, we were frowned upon; regardless of the reason.
I actually got into a debate with a man about twenty years ago who complained that the price of real estate was a result of birth control. From a logic point of view, the theory "worked". The birth control pill allowed women to delay child birth. By delaying child birth, women entered the work force and were able to focus on upward mobility, thereby increasing their salaries. Married and with a two income household, there was more disposable income to purchase a home. Because of the ability to "get what they want", it drove the prices of real estate up in a competitive market. So you see, it is in fact the "woman's nation" that tanked the market, not the men who run Wall Street. Pleeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaassssseeeeee!!!
But that is how it goes. Blame the victim. I do not say that from a position of feeling disenfranchised. I say that because the political and social policies in this country are stuck in the past; a past that resembles "Father Knows Best" and not the reality of "Roseann".
Even in the current battle for health care reform, women are still feeling the pinch of discrimination: we pay more for health care insurance because of this "pre-existing condition" we have called a reproductive system. We are "sick and tired" because we work full time, take care of kids, aging parents and the home; often in a single status.
If our society would walk the walk of equality and equity and create an enviroment of inclusiveness, this would cease to be a "woman's issue". It is a people issue.
Stayed tuned. . .
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
