As it so happened, I went to Toys 'R Us recently to pick a board game, and wandered, sentimentally, into the Barbie aisle.
I remember President Barbie. I remember Dr. Barbie. I remember when Barbie had careers unrelated to children and animals.
Now Barbie can do the following:
"What do YOU want to be when you grow up - a pet boutique owner? Baby doctor? Swim instructor? You can do it all, with Barbie® doll and these sweet "I Can Be…™" sets! Barbie® doll has fun and looks fab as she pampers pets, takes care of those baby bundles of joy, and teaches the toddlers to swim safe!" (http://barbie.everythinggirl.com/catalog/productbrd.aspx?subcat_id=210015&product_id=2000947)
Now, Barbie always had pets and babies that you could play with. But, for a while, we saw more diversity. And, of course, it's not to say these 3 aren't admirable careers, but they seem to represent a very sexist, old-fashioned stereotype that Barbie/women can only involve themselves in nurturing careers--careers that deal with small children and animals.
I think someone needs to inform our guest lecturer that, sadly, President Barbie is dead.
...Anyhow, I found yesterday's lecture very interesting on so many levels (I promise, no more about Barbie).
First, I thought it was interesting that Ms. Winter played into the very old belief that women are automatically more moral than men, and thus will run things differently. On the one hand, it is very possible that, due to socialization, we would run things differently. But, on the other, it seems a naive assumption that presumes something about women--that we are the opposite of men. This idea is very old, and while it is possible that there are some biological components to differences between the sexes, a lot of it appears to be socially constructed as a way of marking men and women as different from one another.
Secondly, I got a kick out of the quote about Sarah Palin as a temptress/cheerleader. The honest truth is that the GOP has played her up in exactly that way, and her constant winking at the camera during her debate DID feed into that image. The problem, I feel, is that Sarah Palin and her backers are playing directly into sexist stereotypes, and then crying sexism when the public responds.
Finally, I do very much agree with Ms. Winters on one thing in particular: for women to stop feeling the pressure to 'be men', more women do need to be elected. We do need to shift the political landscape, and with it our idea of what a politician is, to encompass more than traditional, hegemonic masculinity. Then, perhaps, we can stop focusing on whether our candidates are too masculine or too feminine, and just allow them to be whoever they are along the gender continuum.
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Civic Engagement Project: Canvassing for No on 48
For my civic engagement project, I canvassed for No on 48. On October 11th from 11-5, I learned about Amendment 48, met some very cool people and had my first canvassing experience. First, Liz, Sarah and I went to Planned Parenthood in Stapleton. It was interesting because as we drove up, there was a group of people standing around in the rain yelling about how abortion is murder and we were perverts for going in there. It made me sad that they not only make people feel bad about their decisions and that they focus on that one small aspect of Planned Parenthood. When we told the receptionist that we were volunteers for No on 48 along with two other women who came in with us, she was shocked! When we went up to the conference room, the three Planned Parenthood employees were even more shocked that we were volunteers and that we had actually shown up. It made me sad that they were so excited because it just showed how few volunteers they have for their campaign. To begin, they handed out packets about the No on 48 campaign and coached us on easy points to remember and tell people. We even did a little role playing with one person being the canvasser and the other being the person at the door. It was good practice because I was nervous who we were going to encounter while we were canvassing.
All three of the No on 48 employees was super enthusiastic with very strong feeling about the Amendment. One of the women filled us in on all the powerful organizations backing the No on 48. One woman knew more of the biological aspects of fertilization while another knew more of the legal aspects of getting an amendment on the ballot. I was so glad that I had been able to learn so much about Amendment 48 from Lynn Paltrow’s presentation because that way I wasn’t totally unaware when I got there. I learned even more about 48 from the people at Planned Parenthood. I didn’t realize how much Amendment 48 would affect health care and doctors’ ability to care for women without breaking the law.
We did our canvassing in Lone Tree, in three different groups, each with one Planned Parenthood employee. I spoke with a few actual residents but mostly we just left lit at the door. I was surprised how impatient most people were. They didn’t really want to listen, so it was great to just explain who you were and then hand them a flyer about No on 48. I think a lot of people just vote yes because they don’t know what the amendment is even about. It felt good to be spreading the word and hopefully preventing people from voting for something they don’t understand.
I loved canvassing. I felt so powerful and like I was really doing good things for society. Before we left, the leaders gave us shirts, stickers, signs and posters. I put up posters all over my house and gave some to my friends. I am really glad I canvassed for No on 48. I feel like I made a small but important difference.
All three of the No on 48 employees was super enthusiastic with very strong feeling about the Amendment. One of the women filled us in on all the powerful organizations backing the No on 48. One woman knew more of the biological aspects of fertilization while another knew more of the legal aspects of getting an amendment on the ballot. I was so glad that I had been able to learn so much about Amendment 48 from Lynn Paltrow’s presentation because that way I wasn’t totally unaware when I got there. I learned even more about 48 from the people at Planned Parenthood. I didn’t realize how much Amendment 48 would affect health care and doctors’ ability to care for women without breaking the law.
We did our canvassing in Lone Tree, in three different groups, each with one Planned Parenthood employee. I spoke with a few actual residents but mostly we just left lit at the door. I was surprised how impatient most people were. They didn’t really want to listen, so it was great to just explain who you were and then hand them a flyer about No on 48. I think a lot of people just vote yes because they don’t know what the amendment is even about. It felt good to be spreading the word and hopefully preventing people from voting for something they don’t understand.
I loved canvassing. I felt so powerful and like I was really doing good things for society. Before we left, the leaders gave us shirts, stickers, signs and posters. I put up posters all over my house and gave some to my friends. I am really glad I canvassed for No on 48. I feel like I made a small but important difference.
The Excitement of the 2008 Campaign
The presentation about persuadable voters with Dr. Sunshine Hillygus was great. First of all, she began with the fact that academics had come to the conclusion (using only non-campaign factors) that Obama will be our next president. That’s fine by me! I just had so much interest in this presentation because it is happening all around us. I loved previous speakers on historical issues, but this election is so different and new, it is incredibly exciting.
I appreciated that Dr. Hillygus explained exactly what is so different about this election, like the candidates and their “firsts” for sex, age, and race, the huge amount of money spent, the desire for radical change, and the huge mobilization of voters. Going into the presentation, I believed that the campaign played an incredibly huge role in the actual election. I had not even really thought that people can choose who they want to vote for without it being shoved in their face.
Dr. Hillygus said that there are two camps in the debate of whether campaigns matter. Those who say yes are pundits, candidates and journalists. Those who say no are academics and political science forecasters. In terms of pre election polls, I really thought the idea of the Bradley Effect was fascinating. The Bradley Effect is when people overstate their support of black candidates to appear more socially desirable.
I will be voting on November 4th so like Graham, I found it fascinating that some people just vote for the president by who is first on the ballot. It made me sad that young people vote in such smaller numbers than adults. Do we think the government doesn’t truly affect our lives? Do we think our vote doesn’t really matter? Do we just not care? Because I am from California, I have never seen so many campaign ads until I came to Colorado. California is seen as pretty much a lost cause for McCain, so I love being able to vote in Colorado and possibly help that push for Obama. Being in a so-called “purple” state, I am getting a much more charged and nerve wracking experience of the election.
I appreciated that Dr. Hillygus explained exactly what is so different about this election, like the candidates and their “firsts” for sex, age, and race, the huge amount of money spent, the desire for radical change, and the huge mobilization of voters. Going into the presentation, I believed that the campaign played an incredibly huge role in the actual election. I had not even really thought that people can choose who they want to vote for without it being shoved in their face.
Dr. Hillygus said that there are two camps in the debate of whether campaigns matter. Those who say yes are pundits, candidates and journalists. Those who say no are academics and political science forecasters. In terms of pre election polls, I really thought the idea of the Bradley Effect was fascinating. The Bradley Effect is when people overstate their support of black candidates to appear more socially desirable.
I will be voting on November 4th so like Graham, I found it fascinating that some people just vote for the president by who is first on the ballot. It made me sad that young people vote in such smaller numbers than adults. Do we think the government doesn’t truly affect our lives? Do we think our vote doesn’t really matter? Do we just not care? Because I am from California, I have never seen so many campaign ads until I came to Colorado. California is seen as pretty much a lost cause for McCain, so I love being able to vote in Colorado and possibly help that push for Obama. Being in a so-called “purple” state, I am getting a much more charged and nerve wracking experience of the election.
Random Thoughts
Dr. Hillygus’s lecture was by far one of the most entertaining out what we have already heard this quarter. It was very well organized, and packed tight with a ton of information and interesting facts. Her use of images really helped her presentation, and the delivery of all that information. Unfortunately, with so much information being thrown at me I found it hard to hold onto anything except a handful of randomness.
The Truth of Bradley Effect: People with negative racial attitudes don’t vote for any Democrat.
First of all, I found the statement that Palin actually de-excited Republican voters to stop my train of thought on a dime. If that is indeed factual, then is quite a hit for the Grand Old Party to take. What was supposed to attract Hilary supporters away from the Democratic Party, might have actually sent away fellow Republicans. That is a bad position since party members are the most likely to vote for the party. It is doubly bad since Republicans are already in a relatively unexcited state because of the circumstances of the election. The combination of economic turmoil, and being the incumbent party already put them in a tough place. Palin might have gotten the GOP the gender card, but that might have lost them the election.
Two weeks in an eternity. Those in Canada can relate, but so can quarter students.
Another note that I took was that the voting history of senators are held against them. I have never thought of that, because I had always been under the impression that governors are usually elected simply because they can be seen as mini-Presidents that would make the transition well.
Independents are mostly made up of partisans who disagree with the party, for example a pro-choice Republican.
The Truth of Bradley Effect: People with negative racial attitudes don’t vote for any Democrat.
First of all, I found the statement that Palin actually de-excited Republican voters to stop my train of thought on a dime. If that is indeed factual, then is quite a hit for the Grand Old Party to take. What was supposed to attract Hilary supporters away from the Democratic Party, might have actually sent away fellow Republicans. That is a bad position since party members are the most likely to vote for the party. It is doubly bad since Republicans are already in a relatively unexcited state because of the circumstances of the election. The combination of economic turmoil, and being the incumbent party already put them in a tough place. Palin might have gotten the GOP the gender card, but that might have lost them the election.
Two weeks in an eternity. Those in Canada can relate, but so can quarter students.
Another note that I took was that the voting history of senators are held against them. I have never thought of that, because I had always been under the impression that governors are usually elected simply because they can be seen as mini-Presidents that would make the transition well.
Independents are mostly made up of partisans who disagree with the party, for example a pro-choice Republican.
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Persuadable Voters
I found this lecture to have been one of the best all quarter for a variety of reasons. First off, she was non-partisan, which was a nice change from previous speakers. Politics can be a very sensitive topic and it was nice to have a lecture that focused on politics as a whole, not just one side or issue. She also was a very polished public speaker, which made a huge difference for me. It is much easier to stay focused and really listen when someone’s speech flows fluently and I thought she did a great job at that. Being a visual learner, I liked her use of graphs and charts because they were the perfect complement to her speech. She was very professional, yet relaxed at the same time, which makes for a good lecture combination.
Going on what Sarah said, I also found it very interesting that certain amendments are chosen based on their ability to attract voters who are passionate about the subject and otherwise might not bother to vote. I think this kind of reflects what a dirty game politics can be. Everyone always has an ulterior motive and things are never just how they seem. I understand it is done to increase voter turnout but it seems like people are playing games with our futures and constitutional rights.
I really learned a lot from this lecture about the small and little things about this election and elections in general. Besides the fact this election has a 72 year-old man, an African-American, and a woman, I was surprised to learn that only 2 senators have been elected to President and we are guaranteed a 3rd this November, which truly makes this a rare election. I was shocked that something like being first on a ballot gives a candidate a better chance to win but the more I thought about it, the less surprised I was about it. We live in a country where people choose a candidate based on whether the candidate “is like one of us”, so its not that surprising that people would pick the first name they come across (still a little sad though).
Going on what Sarah said, I also found it very interesting that certain amendments are chosen based on their ability to attract voters who are passionate about the subject and otherwise might not bother to vote. I think this kind of reflects what a dirty game politics can be. Everyone always has an ulterior motive and things are never just how they seem. I understand it is done to increase voter turnout but it seems like people are playing games with our futures and constitutional rights.
I really learned a lot from this lecture about the small and little things about this election and elections in general. Besides the fact this election has a 72 year-old man, an African-American, and a woman, I was surprised to learn that only 2 senators have been elected to President and we are guaranteed a 3rd this November, which truly makes this a rare election. I was shocked that something like being first on a ballot gives a candidate a better chance to win but the more I thought about it, the less surprised I was about it. We live in a country where people choose a candidate based on whether the candidate “is like one of us”, so its not that surprising that people would pick the first name they come across (still a little sad though).
"Your Vote Counts!"
Although everyone has heard the statement, “Every Vote Counts,” and it is slightly cliché, I feel that this election will be a very critical one in not only history but in the whole projection of American views, values, nature and later analysis examining statistics. As a first time voter it is almost overwhelming to investigate and keep up with all the issues and messages the media and society has been bombarding us with. Now in an effort to move past the “Your Vote Counts” public service announcement, I would like to shift my attention in response to Dr Sunshine Hillygus’ lecture.
I would like to begin by saying that I loved the way she conveyed so much information clearly and concisely, her charts and graphs served as a great visual aid, the presentation was very neatly organized, and she expanded on current views and perspectives. I agree with Ayres, on her comment, “It was nice to have a speaker with no agenda. She was someone who wanted to tell us the facts and not push her personal views on us.” Further expanding on the lecture, beyond the notion of this election being historically different, I liked the way she pointed out that there are more key points besides age, sex, and race such as the fact that there is no incumbent running, the vast “Anti-Bush” sentiment and call for “change” in terms of status quo being significant factors.
In addition to this, just as intriguing as the material she was presenting, were the questions and thoughts provoked. I thought it was interesting how she asked the question, “Do campaigns matter?” From the perspective of the average citizen, this question should be a no brainer, “yes,” however, I feel that more often than not it is just taken as tradition and is part of the game. Conceptually speaking, the purpose of a campaign should be to serve as the instrument(s) and structure for raising political social consciousness in answering the inquiry of: “What matters?” “To whom does this matter?” and “Why does this matter?”
In conclusion, I would just like to say that I thoroughly enjoyed the lecture, learned a lot, and left with a few new thoughts to consider more analytically. In response to the election as the campaigns intensify, I eagerly await November 4th because I am tired of all the petty campaign strategies (although sometimes entertaining), media being nit-picky about how a candidate is presented/represented , and finally want to see the results.
I would like to begin by saying that I loved the way she conveyed so much information clearly and concisely, her charts and graphs served as a great visual aid, the presentation was very neatly organized, and she expanded on current views and perspectives. I agree with Ayres, on her comment, “It was nice to have a speaker with no agenda. She was someone who wanted to tell us the facts and not push her personal views on us.” Further expanding on the lecture, beyond the notion of this election being historically different, I liked the way she pointed out that there are more key points besides age, sex, and race such as the fact that there is no incumbent running, the vast “Anti-Bush” sentiment and call for “change” in terms of status quo being significant factors.
In addition to this, just as intriguing as the material she was presenting, were the questions and thoughts provoked. I thought it was interesting how she asked the question, “Do campaigns matter?” From the perspective of the average citizen, this question should be a no brainer, “yes,” however, I feel that more often than not it is just taken as tradition and is part of the game. Conceptually speaking, the purpose of a campaign should be to serve as the instrument(s) and structure for raising political social consciousness in answering the inquiry of: “What matters?” “To whom does this matter?” and “Why does this matter?”
In conclusion, I would just like to say that I thoroughly enjoyed the lecture, learned a lot, and left with a few new thoughts to consider more analytically. In response to the election as the campaigns intensify, I eagerly await November 4th because I am tired of all the petty campaign strategies (although sometimes entertaining), media being nit-picky about how a candidate is presented/represented , and finally want to see the results.
Monday, October 27, 2008
Persuadable Voters
I found Dr. Hillygus' discussion very interesting. I had never really thought about all the factors that influence who people vote for and how a campaign is run. The one thing I still have a question about is how a poll is conducted. When they say a certain percentage of people are going to vote for McCain or Obama, who are these people? Do they do a sample and apply it to the whole country because I am voting but I have never participated in any survey regarding the election so that makes me wonder how accurate the polls actually are.
What I found most interesting about the talk was about the function of the amendments. Dr. Hillygus said that which amendments are chosen to be on the ballot is a strategic decision to increase turnout on election day because they anticipate people being passionate about the wedge issues. This angered me in a way because I can't help thinking back to amendment 48 and that it is on the ballot to get all the people who are passionate about women's issues and abortion to come to the voting booth when they may not normally. I think this is a dangerous strategy because of the horrible reprocutions if it is passed and all just to increase voter turn out.
I was also struck that Dr. Hillygus said that anything can make a difference in who people vote for. She said that whichever name is listed first on the ballot is likely to get more votes simply because they are listed first. The point was that even a rainstorm can effect voter turn out and I was surprised that some people could really be that apathetic about the election. I can't imagine that anyone could be so neutral on the election that they can't decide and just vote for the first name on the ballot. I haven't seen many elections in my lifetime but I think we all have a sense that the passion people have for this election is unprecedented and for some to not care who wins is unimaginable to me.
Dr. Hillygus also surprised me when she said that some academics are wondering why anyone would want to win this election because they would inherit the bad economy and wouldn't be able to turn it around in four years so they would most likely lose re-election. She said some democrats think the best strategy is for Obama to lose the election. I had never thought about that before and I suppose it makes sense but I don't think anyone who is for Obama could ever vote for McCain or visa versa because of this strategy.
What I found most interesting about the talk was about the function of the amendments. Dr. Hillygus said that which amendments are chosen to be on the ballot is a strategic decision to increase turnout on election day because they anticipate people being passionate about the wedge issues. This angered me in a way because I can't help thinking back to amendment 48 and that it is on the ballot to get all the people who are passionate about women's issues and abortion to come to the voting booth when they may not normally. I think this is a dangerous strategy because of the horrible reprocutions if it is passed and all just to increase voter turn out.
I was also struck that Dr. Hillygus said that anything can make a difference in who people vote for. She said that whichever name is listed first on the ballot is likely to get more votes simply because they are listed first. The point was that even a rainstorm can effect voter turn out and I was surprised that some people could really be that apathetic about the election. I can't imagine that anyone could be so neutral on the election that they can't decide and just vote for the first name on the ballot. I haven't seen many elections in my lifetime but I think we all have a sense that the passion people have for this election is unprecedented and for some to not care who wins is unimaginable to me.
Dr. Hillygus also surprised me when she said that some academics are wondering why anyone would want to win this election because they would inherit the bad economy and wouldn't be able to turn it around in four years so they would most likely lose re-election. She said some democrats think the best strategy is for Obama to lose the election. I had never thought about that before and I suppose it makes sense but I don't think anyone who is for Obama could ever vote for McCain or visa versa because of this strategy.
A Great Nonpartisan Discussion
I have to start off saying that I loved the lecture by Sunshine Hillygus. But then again how could it not be an interesting with the name Sunshine. It does seem like a common theme, not only in our class but also the general public, the loathing of the Electoral College.
Sunshine started off her talk by why this election/campaign season is so historic. I always thought it was because of the range of the candidates (young women running as VP under McCain, young black man running for president), I never really thought of any other reasons for it being historic, but she mentioned quite a few. From the 22 weeks for the Democrats to choose their nominee, Independents allowed to vote in Vermont during the primary, only two Senators have EVER been elected and now we have both main party nominees being former Senators and a HUGE amount of money, just to name a few. This was a very interesting way to look at the historic future of this election and I will bet most Americans have no idea about this aspect of this historical election. I will assume that most Americans think the same way that I did when it come to the historic aspect only being in the candidates.
The most interesting point that I took from Sunshine’s talk was about who is going to win. Obviously that was a main point of the talk as well as the main thought in the American people as we get closer and closer to Election Day. But she made interesting points about the fact that American Democrats are being very loud and yet that does not mean that there is not huge support for the Republicans. In fact she used a great analogy to show why this is so. She says that when people are excited they talk more about it. They are louder and they want to be heard. Obama is a new change, a new twist on the ‘normal’ candidates for president (as Hillary would have been as well). Whereas McCain is just like the ‘normal’ candidate for president and the Republicans are not speaking out as much. Yes Obama has more money and yes Obama has more people speaking out on his behalf but it does not in any way guarantee that he will be the President. There is no doubt that because of Obama’s outspoken supporters there will be bandwagon voters. The type of swing voters who will join Obama’s campaign because of all they hear and the amerce hype around his campaign. One would hope voters choose a candidate over morals and political platforms not just on public appeal. (but then again it is this public appeal that McCain was trying to get women voters to vote for Palin).
There is no doubt that this is going to be yet another election that is going to come down to the wire with a huge amount of upset either direction the results show.
I think the most pleasing aspect of Sunshine’s lecture was that she was NONPARTISAN! It was nice to have a speaker with no agenda. She was someone who wanted to tell us the facts and not push her personal views on us.
Friday, October 24, 2008
A Jumble Of Thoughts...
Like Liz and Ashley, I have long disdained the electoral college, though it's rumored to have a purpose. I believe that purpose is to try to prevent candidates from targeting specific demographics and overlooking others. I do not know enough about political science or campaigns to know whether this is a reasonable assumption. I did, however, find Dr. Hillygus' discussion of the narrowly-targeting mail propaganda to be quite fascinating. My household has been getting propaganda from both campaigns; the fact that my father was, many years ago, registered Republican seems to be causing an influx of letters that identify him as a loyal one. I wonder now whether they know he has 'crossed over', but are using that past knowledge and perhaps a knowledge that he has worked with Republicans in our district (while advising the Democrats that run against them), to try to enact medicare reform, as a basis for sending mail that they hope will sway him to the other side.
On the subject of votes counting, I really do have reason to hope that this year mine matters, as the state of Colorado is so up-in the air. The lecture did, however, give me reason to be nervous, as I was taking solace in the extent of Obama's lead in the polls. However, McCain and the online and televised chatter about his campaign seem to be on a continuous downward spiral, between the lambasting of the money spent on Palin's wardrobe and this week's racially-charged hoax that even Fox News said, before it was revealed as a hoax, could spell the end of McCain's campaign if it was discovered to be such.
Speaking of Palin's wardrobe, anyone have any thoughts on whether this discussion is sexist? She certainly thinks it is, but then again, she only seemed to start thinking media commentary was sexist once applied to her.
Does it matter if the question is less about what she is wearing then the misuse of funds by the RNC to dress her as such? I think it does. But then again, perhaps the fact that they spent so much money to make her appear presidential but attractive is sexist in and of itself. Granted, all presidential and vice-presidential candidates need to put on a certain appearance. But does it reflect negatively on a campaign that's touting it's VP nominee as 'the hot chick' to spend 150K on clothes and pay her make-up artist from Dancing With The Stars the highest salary of anyone on staff?
Granted, I have often thought the media portrayal of female politicians such as Hillary Clinton and Condoleeza Rice have been more than a little bit sexist. At least Palin's being referred to by her last name, a respect that has often been accorded to neither of these other women who, in my estimation, are ten times smarter and more deserving of respect than she. I thought the attention paid to how much cleavage Senator Clinton was shown was outlandishly sexist. So is it my disdain for Palin that makes me less inclined to see this as such? Perhaps, but I really do think that this is something different. In this case, like so many other times since Palin was chosen as McCain's VP-nominee, I feel like the 'sex card' has been thrown out there to try to avoid a real critique of the candidate and her backers--in this case, an outlandish, frivolous use of funds, which should raise eyebrows among donors, as well as an American public caught in the midst of a major economic downswing.
On another, very different note, to supplement the 2 hours I spent on Hank Eng's campaign, I spent 2 hours on the Driscoll Bridge tabling for NARAL (I hope to add another hour or two next week). I was heartened when several women came past and thanked me and my fellow tabler, a similar reaction I got while carrying a No on 48 yard sign to the car about a month ago. I was also heartened by a group of high school boys touring DU who were so pro-choice that they threw our pamphlets back on the table when, in the jumble of trying to explain things to them, they misinterpreted us and thought we were a pro-life/anti-choice group. It's nice to see men, even and especially men that young, taking a stand on women's rights.
On the subject of votes counting, I really do have reason to hope that this year mine matters, as the state of Colorado is so up-in the air. The lecture did, however, give me reason to be nervous, as I was taking solace in the extent of Obama's lead in the polls. However, McCain and the online and televised chatter about his campaign seem to be on a continuous downward spiral, between the lambasting of the money spent on Palin's wardrobe and this week's racially-charged hoax that even Fox News said, before it was revealed as a hoax, could spell the end of McCain's campaign if it was discovered to be such.
Speaking of Palin's wardrobe, anyone have any thoughts on whether this discussion is sexist? She certainly thinks it is, but then again, she only seemed to start thinking media commentary was sexist once applied to her.
Does it matter if the question is less about what she is wearing then the misuse of funds by the RNC to dress her as such? I think it does. But then again, perhaps the fact that they spent so much money to make her appear presidential but attractive is sexist in and of itself. Granted, all presidential and vice-presidential candidates need to put on a certain appearance. But does it reflect negatively on a campaign that's touting it's VP nominee as 'the hot chick' to spend 150K on clothes and pay her make-up artist from Dancing With The Stars the highest salary of anyone on staff?
Granted, I have often thought the media portrayal of female politicians such as Hillary Clinton and Condoleeza Rice have been more than a little bit sexist. At least Palin's being referred to by her last name, a respect that has often been accorded to neither of these other women who, in my estimation, are ten times smarter and more deserving of respect than she. I thought the attention paid to how much cleavage Senator Clinton was shown was outlandishly sexist. So is it my disdain for Palin that makes me less inclined to see this as such? Perhaps, but I really do think that this is something different. In this case, like so many other times since Palin was chosen as McCain's VP-nominee, I feel like the 'sex card' has been thrown out there to try to avoid a real critique of the candidate and her backers--in this case, an outlandish, frivolous use of funds, which should raise eyebrows among donors, as well as an American public caught in the midst of a major economic downswing.
On another, very different note, to supplement the 2 hours I spent on Hank Eng's campaign, I spent 2 hours on the Driscoll Bridge tabling for NARAL (I hope to add another hour or two next week). I was heartened when several women came past and thanked me and my fellow tabler, a similar reaction I got while carrying a No on 48 yard sign to the car about a month ago. I was also heartened by a group of high school boys touring DU who were so pro-choice that they threw our pamphlets back on the table when, in the jumble of trying to explain things to them, they misinterpreted us and thought we were a pro-life/anti-choice group. It's nice to see men, even and especially men that young, taking a stand on women's rights.
The Chance of Salmonella Outweighs the Guarantee of a Nasty Strain of E. Coli
Author David Sedaris on undecided voters:
"I look at these people and can't quite believe that they exist. Are they professional actors? I wonder. Or are they simply laymen who want a lot of attention? To put them in perspective, I think of being on an airplane. The flight attendant comes down the aisle with her food cart and, eventually, parks it beside my seat. 'Can I interest you in the chicken?' she asks. 'Or would you prefer the platter of shit with bits of broken glass in it?' To be undecided in this election is to pause for a moment and then ask how the chicken is cooked."
I found D. Sunshine Hillygus's lecture on the political science view of the presidential campaign and the persuadable voter to be quite interesting. The way undecided voters are narrowed and targeted with certain "wedge" and moral issues was intriguing to me. I never realized how specific candidates could get in singling out certain "undecided/persuadable" individuals and feeding them less nationally discussed campaign issues that may sway how they vote. But I share in David Sedaris' sentiment that this presidential race seems to leave little to be undecided about. Additionally, it was great to see the breakdown of the considerations in the analyses predicting the election outcome. Things look good for the Obama supporter. The certainty of political scientists and Hillygus's willingness to bet on an Obama win is reassuring in view of all the banter happening on the news and the endless (and often redundant) campaigning.
Although all the number analyses point towards an Obama win, the section of Hillygus's presentation entitled "The Trenchant Irony Story," revealing the limitations of the predictions and why McCain could "pull it off," makes me worry about a repeat of the 2000 election and another Gore-y disappointment (this reminds me of the Sarah Silverman video for The Great Schlep when she talks about Florida). It was disheartening enough that upon returning home, I found solace in making another donation to Obama - a kind of shopping splurge for the politically depressed, I suppose. However, I have faith in the Democratic vote, especially with, seemingly, more Republicans announcing their endorsement of Obama (i.e. Colin Powell - someone on Hardball noted if his decision had been about race, he would have come out in support of Obama a long time ago). I feel Democrats are more motivated this year to change the status quo. Also, young voters, who seemed to fail us in the previous election, are more politically engaged perhaps due to the inability to overlook our country's pressing and obvious setbacks. At the same time, we can't take the predictions as Gospel and should keep up our guard and enthusiasm. As Obama reminds us, Democrats shouldn't be overconfident ("then he boarded Air Force One, blasted 'We Are the Champions,' and shouted, 'I'm king of the world!'" - Amy Poehler, SNL Weekend Update).
I'm with you on the electoral college, Ashley, it's kind of bullshit. The voice of the people seems better represented by the popular vote. I think this is why some (or perhaps many) people are turned off by the election and don't vote, holding the belief their say doesn't really count in the end. This is probably especially true for young people, who may feel they have little power within many institutions in the U.S., subsequently leaving them to feel their opinions are not taken seriously by our "elders" who should be on the edge of their seats with ears like a bat. So "gather ye rosebuds while ye may," let's hone our political edge, become professionals in the art of controlling our environment and give them something to echolocate.
Persuadable Voters
You gotta love a person with the name Sunshine :)
I felt that our speaker presented interesting perspectives regarding polling surveys and predicted outcomes for this election. Although, for my own personal reasons, I hope support for Obama is genuine, there's no way to really know for sure until the 4th... But it comes down to this - are people likely to respond to a survey, claiming that they are voting for a black man just to "prove" or demonstrate that they are not racist? And are the people who are voting for McCain taking the time to complete the survey, or do we have a majority of Obama supporters, who are more excited and active during this election, that are taking the survies and slanting the data? It's definitely a different way to look at things.
And can I just say that I really do not like the electorial college?!! I am openly admitting right here and now that I do not get how it works exactly (feel free to comment if you think you can help me out here) so it may just be a lack of understanding, but from what I do understand about it - I don't like it. How is it that the popular vote does not elect our president? For the people, by the electorial college? I don't like the sound of that. And is it true that if the popular vote counted for more than the electorial college, Gore would have won years ago? Again, someone help me out here...
As far as predicting the outcome of this election - we're not going to know until the 4th, and I'm trying not to get my hopes up because there's no way to tell for sure how it's going to turn out. Despite everything we're being told, despite "expert predictions" - it's up in the air, if you ask me.
I felt that our speaker presented interesting perspectives regarding polling surveys and predicted outcomes for this election. Although, for my own personal reasons, I hope support for Obama is genuine, there's no way to really know for sure until the 4th... But it comes down to this - are people likely to respond to a survey, claiming that they are voting for a black man just to "prove" or demonstrate that they are not racist? And are the people who are voting for McCain taking the time to complete the survey, or do we have a majority of Obama supporters, who are more excited and active during this election, that are taking the survies and slanting the data? It's definitely a different way to look at things.
And can I just say that I really do not like the electorial college?!! I am openly admitting right here and now that I do not get how it works exactly (feel free to comment if you think you can help me out here) so it may just be a lack of understanding, but from what I do understand about it - I don't like it. How is it that the popular vote does not elect our president? For the people, by the electorial college? I don't like the sound of that. And is it true that if the popular vote counted for more than the electorial college, Gore would have won years ago? Again, someone help me out here...
As far as predicting the outcome of this election - we're not going to know until the 4th, and I'm trying not to get my hopes up because there's no way to tell for sure how it's going to turn out. Despite everything we're being told, despite "expert predictions" - it's up in the air, if you ask me.
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Affirmative Action
Like Graham, I have mixed feelings on Affirmative Action (unfortunately, I was not able to listen to the lecture, so I suppose I'll just have to go on views not informed by that). On the one hand, I believe in the essence of this policy: that we need to give minorities and women a fair shot, as they have been lacking that chance in the past and still face insurmountable discrimination (both subtle and obvious). On the other hand, I am unconvinced that Affirmative Action is the best way to go about solving the issue, and am fairly certain that at some point it will need to become obsolete. Like Graham, I think that the problem and solution lies much earlier in education; it is essential that we give all children, of all genders, races and classes, an equal starting point. Unfortunately, this might still be equal only on paper, but lacking quotas, which have been outlawed and are far more discriminatory than Affirmative Action, I suppose it is impossible to completely guarantee the lack of racial and gender bias in hiring and admissions processes. Honestly, this requires a major restructuring of social ideology that will probably not occur over night, although I hope to see it happen in my life time.
Having said this, I voted no on 46, for a multitude of reasons. The first being that I do not want to take the chance of important programs being cut in the way that they have been in other states that have passed similar laws.
Secondly, if Affirmative Action is to be eliminated, as I believe to be necessary down the road, there MUST first be put in place alternative programs and educational funding to maintain opportunities for minorities and women. Additionally, as per my point above, I believe it would be hazardous to eliminate programs targeted specifically for interesting women, minorities, and lower-class individuals in opportunities they may otherwise not have considered because of low numbers within a profession. In other words, although I don't think the law should favor individuals because of their race or gender, even if to remedy past discrimination, I do believe outreach and other such programs designed to increase opportunity are important. At the same time, we must be careful not to further disadvantage minorities and women, or to curb their opportunity growth.
Affirmative Action to me is so incredibly complicated. On the one hand, I think it is unfair and unconstitutional to discriminate based on race or gender, including discrimination against members of a power-holding group (white, middle-class, able-bodied, heterosexual males). On the other, I am very aware of the matrix of domination and oppression that plays into our policies, hiring practices, and social worlds, and am as uncomfortable encouraging it as I am with saying that members of a power-holding group should be discriminated against because they are already advantaged within the structure of our political-economic-social landscape.
Gender roles and race relations both follow certain social scripts that we cannot chuck overnight, much as we'd like to, because the opposition is too great and we don't know how to live entirely outside of such scripts. Thus, we need to navigate toward the edges of those scripts, creating new boundaries that can later be pushed yet again. As with most issues I am ideological about, I am impatient that we are not yet at a point that these long-held social scripts have not disappeared entirely. But I am hopeful that they will continue to mutate so that, eventually, we can live in that ideal world where there is no need for Affirmative Action, because women and minorities will have equal opportunity and will no longer face the discrimination they have for so long.
Having said this, I voted no on 46, for a multitude of reasons. The first being that I do not want to take the chance of important programs being cut in the way that they have been in other states that have passed similar laws.
Secondly, if Affirmative Action is to be eliminated, as I believe to be necessary down the road, there MUST first be put in place alternative programs and educational funding to maintain opportunities for minorities and women. Additionally, as per my point above, I believe it would be hazardous to eliminate programs targeted specifically for interesting women, minorities, and lower-class individuals in opportunities they may otherwise not have considered because of low numbers within a profession. In other words, although I don't think the law should favor individuals because of their race or gender, even if to remedy past discrimination, I do believe outreach and other such programs designed to increase opportunity are important. At the same time, we must be careful not to further disadvantage minorities and women, or to curb their opportunity growth.
Affirmative Action to me is so incredibly complicated. On the one hand, I think it is unfair and unconstitutional to discriminate based on race or gender, including discrimination against members of a power-holding group (white, middle-class, able-bodied, heterosexual males). On the other, I am very aware of the matrix of domination and oppression that plays into our policies, hiring practices, and social worlds, and am as uncomfortable encouraging it as I am with saying that members of a power-holding group should be discriminated against because they are already advantaged within the structure of our political-economic-social landscape.
Gender roles and race relations both follow certain social scripts that we cannot chuck overnight, much as we'd like to, because the opposition is too great and we don't know how to live entirely outside of such scripts. Thus, we need to navigate toward the edges of those scripts, creating new boundaries that can later be pushed yet again. As with most issues I am ideological about, I am impatient that we are not yet at a point that these long-held social scripts have not disappeared entirely. But I am hopeful that they will continue to mutate so that, eventually, we can live in that ideal world where there is no need for Affirmative Action, because women and minorities will have equal opportunity and will no longer face the discrimination they have for so long.
Amendment 46 and Voting in General
I just got my voter booklet in the mail last week, and Amendment 46 was one of the ballot measures that I skimmed. At the time it didn’t really sound that bad, after reading Melissa Hart’s brief I realize I was one of the many people mislead by the language of this amendment. The fact that “preferential treatment” isn’t defined really is the fallout of this amendment, because of this Amendment 46 won’t be what presumably most people think will be, or accomplish what these very people want it to. On that same note it’s quite a shame that Initiative 82 didn’t get enough signatures to make it on the ballot. I think that movement would have been critical into making this amendment better aligned with the perceived.
In response to what someone said earlier, there are a lot of crazy ballot initiatives this year, and my step-mother and I discussed that when we briefly discussed the contents of the “blue book”. I mentioned that there must be a lot of amendments, and a good measure of them could be undoing what a previous amendments set out to do in Colorado. While I haven’t done any research to confirm or refute that statement, it is something interesting to consider. My step-mother had been a voter in Montana for a lot of years, and she said she never had to vote on this many amendments before. It’s kind of scary that so many people are willing to sign so many amendments onto the ballot. Of course this is from a fairly naïve perspective, I’m just starting to really understand how all of this works since this will be the first year I’ll be voting.
The potential to ban student groups based on race and gender, and similarly, programs in existence to encourage underrepresented groups in certain fields to pursue those career paths and provide better access to those industries is appalling. Another student touched on student groups earlier saying that they offer much needed support. And might I add that they also provide a way to educate others outside that particular group in the safe learning environment of a college or university with programs that those groups usually bring to campus and co-sponsor.
In response to what someone said earlier, there are a lot of crazy ballot initiatives this year, and my step-mother and I discussed that when we briefly discussed the contents of the “blue book”. I mentioned that there must be a lot of amendments, and a good measure of them could be undoing what a previous amendments set out to do in Colorado. While I haven’t done any research to confirm or refute that statement, it is something interesting to consider. My step-mother had been a voter in Montana for a lot of years, and she said she never had to vote on this many amendments before. It’s kind of scary that so many people are willing to sign so many amendments onto the ballot. Of course this is from a fairly naïve perspective, I’m just starting to really understand how all of this works since this will be the first year I’ll be voting.
The potential to ban student groups based on race and gender, and similarly, programs in existence to encourage underrepresented groups in certain fields to pursue those career paths and provide better access to those industries is appalling. Another student touched on student groups earlier saying that they offer much needed support. And might I add that they also provide a way to educate others outside that particular group in the safe learning environment of a college or university with programs that those groups usually bring to campus and co-sponsor.
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
follow up
I did not want to be the only one to say it and I am very glad that Graham brought it up but yet again our speaker brought in her own personal views on the topic. I understand that she is passionate about 46 but what I originally expected was for these talks to be academic and suppose to give us facts and information. I know that it is hard when someone is very passionate about atopic to keep their opinions to themselves. But I was yet again disappointed that we had a far left speaker coming in and preaching her believes on us. As I said about the last speaker, I sure hope that when she teaches she is not so blatant about her political believes.
AA
I had a lot of mixed emotions over last week’s lecture on affirmative action. I was very put off by the speaker for a variety of reasons. I was disappointed that she was unable to keep political views silent and insisted on reminding us just exactly what she thought (I have also found this to be a consistent problem with teachers here at DU). While some topics may necessitate political views, this was not one of them. Bringing up personal political or religious views when they are unnecessary can only create division and mask the issue at hand. While I understand she is very passionate about her work, I found her anger to be a little unsettling and immature. She came across as very judgmental and negative, which for me took away some of her credibility. I believe in the cause she is promoting but it affects me differently when there is so much negativity and childish antics in her approach (kind of like negative political ads-enough!)
I believe we live in a racist and unjust society where someone’s race, sex, or class will determine their opportunities for the future. Being a white, middle-class male gives me privilege over any minority or female just because of how I was born, not because of my character or what I have accomplished. I am completely against amendment 46 because it pretends to be about equality when it is anything but and like amendment 48, it just simply goes too far. However, I am very ambivalent on affirmative action. It’s not that I don’t support it; I just think it’s wrong but for the right reasons (if that makes sense). I believe in creating diversity and giving minorities an equal and fair chance; I just don’t agree with the methods for solving this problem. It is an issue that needs to be addressed earlier in the education system, along with issues about race and inequality. Maybe this wouldn’t work but I believe it has a better chance of working in the long term than the current state of affirmative action.
I believe we live in a racist and unjust society where someone’s race, sex, or class will determine their opportunities for the future. Being a white, middle-class male gives me privilege over any minority or female just because of how I was born, not because of my character or what I have accomplished. I am completely against amendment 46 because it pretends to be about equality when it is anything but and like amendment 48, it just simply goes too far. However, I am very ambivalent on affirmative action. It’s not that I don’t support it; I just think it’s wrong but for the right reasons (if that makes sense). I believe in creating diversity and giving minorities an equal and fair chance; I just don’t agree with the methods for solving this problem. It is an issue that needs to be addressed earlier in the education system, along with issues about race and inequality. Maybe this wouldn’t work but I believe it has a better chance of working in the long term than the current state of affirmative action.
New Issues Taking a Step Back…
In following up from my last blog, I had done the reading early and was looking forward to hearing Melissa Hart speak. Unfortunately I was somewhat disappointed with Wednesday’s class as a whole, not only because one of the speakers, Roberto Corrada, University of Denver Sturm College of Law cancelled last minute but also because it shifted from a (hopefully well rounded) debate to a single, scattered, unorganized lecture. Although Melissa Hart’s passion for the subject shown through and she was very knowledgeable about amendment 48, I found her issue brief to be much more enjoyable.
On a side note, in an effort to connect class with other extra-curricular activities, last Wednesday, after the lecture, I attended a regular Latino Student Alliance meeting and I just thought it was ironic how one of the items we briefly discussed was amendment 48. Based on course reading and lecture I had the opportunity to speak up and inform the other members a little more on the topic. Furthermore, I shared the article over the list serve for anyone else interested in learning more. Also as another side note, the AUSA Senate will be having a meeting on Tuesday, October 21st at 6:00 and the issue of amendment 48 will be brought up, discussed, and voted on as a whole to represent our campus in terms of supporting or opposing it.
Now in an attempt to wrap it up, in response to many of this past week’s blogs, I agree with the general consensus and their responses to these “new” ridiculous amendments. If you step back and take a look at some of these issues, what I find scary, is that amendment 46 and 48 are both attempting to bring up issues that already have monumental, historically based resolutions, such as the Civil Rights Movement and Roe v. Wade behind them. If you look at the similarities of each case, both captured national attention and a nation was divided on personal belief, opinion, morals, ect. Therefore, taking this into consideration, I think that the personal agendas and bias present today in conjunction with their “newly” emerging issues are largely unnecessary. In addition to this, I think it is entirely unfair how the people pushing critical ballot issues are using deceptive strategies and unclear, undefined, misleading wording to push their own personal agendas.
On a side note, in an effort to connect class with other extra-curricular activities, last Wednesday, after the lecture, I attended a regular Latino Student Alliance meeting and I just thought it was ironic how one of the items we briefly discussed was amendment 48. Based on course reading and lecture I had the opportunity to speak up and inform the other members a little more on the topic. Furthermore, I shared the article over the list serve for anyone else interested in learning more. Also as another side note, the AUSA Senate will be having a meeting on Tuesday, October 21st at 6:00 and the issue of amendment 48 will be brought up, discussed, and voted on as a whole to represent our campus in terms of supporting or opposing it.
Now in an attempt to wrap it up, in response to many of this past week’s blogs, I agree with the general consensus and their responses to these “new” ridiculous amendments. If you step back and take a look at some of these issues, what I find scary, is that amendment 46 and 48 are both attempting to bring up issues that already have monumental, historically based resolutions, such as the Civil Rights Movement and Roe v. Wade behind them. If you look at the similarities of each case, both captured national attention and a nation was divided on personal belief, opinion, morals, ect. Therefore, taking this into consideration, I think that the personal agendas and bias present today in conjunction with their “newly” emerging issues are largely unnecessary. In addition to this, I think it is entirely unfair how the people pushing critical ballot issues are using deceptive strategies and unclear, undefined, misleading wording to push their own personal agendas.
Amendment 46 - real life examples
After blogging about Amendment 46, I began to think more about how affirmative action has worked in my life in the past. I have a few friends who on job and college applications they refuse to check any of the boxes denoting their race or gender. I can't tell if this an anti-affirmative action or a pro-affirmative action. Most of these people were white and female, so I don't think marking the boxes would have changed the outcome for them anyway. However, I think it was a statement on how things like race and gender are important in our society when they shouldn't be. I think those people who refuse to check the boxes are wondering why does it matter what race I am; does that change my accomplishments or abilities? But the truth is, if a black female from an impoverished home and city who was first generation high school, graduates college with a 3.5 that is much more of success story in our society than a white male from a rich, college educated family achieving the same thing. If you erased the story of gender and race from those two applicants, they would look the same which isn't the case. I'm not sure what my point is about that, I can't decide yet but it's just an interesting point.
Another real life example that comes to mind is from high school. My best friend was so concerned that she wasn't going to get into any of the colleges she wanted. When she confessed her fears to others, she always got the same response. People would tell her she was a shoe-in anywhere because she was Filipino. I confess that I said the same thing, I thought I was comforting her at the time but now I see that it was degrading. No one praised her actual abilities, just her minority status which we believed would secure her in any college. I know she would hate to think that she was only at a certain school because of her race but also I have to wonder would she like to be considered based only on her accomplishments without her nationality playing into it at all if you know it would help you? I think affirmative action is a tricky thing, on one hand you love it but on the other people can resent it- but I think to add a constitutional amendment that is anti affirmative action isn't helping anyone, but hurting many.
Another real life example that comes to mind is from high school. My best friend was so concerned that she wasn't going to get into any of the colleges she wanted. When she confessed her fears to others, she always got the same response. People would tell her she was a shoe-in anywhere because she was Filipino. I confess that I said the same thing, I thought I was comforting her at the time but now I see that it was degrading. No one praised her actual abilities, just her minority status which we believed would secure her in any college. I know she would hate to think that she was only at a certain school because of her race but also I have to wonder would she like to be considered based only on her accomplishments without her nationality playing into it at all if you know it would help you? I think affirmative action is a tricky thing, on one hand you love it but on the other people can resent it- but I think to add a constitutional amendment that is anti affirmative action isn't helping anyone, but hurting many.
Hidden behind 48
I found Melissa’s talk to be very informative, but unfortunately as Eliza said she was a bit scattered. She was very well versed in Amendment 48 but because she was so passionate about it that she got lost in her emotions and in my opinion was not able to present in an organized manor.
Growing up in California I am very aware of how things changed with and without affirmative action. My boyfriend had a teacher when he was in high school that had to be replaced because he was white and they needed to have a certain percent of African American teachers. It was sad because he was considered by the students as one of the best teachers, but because of affirmative action he was moved to another school in San Jose. When I was talking to my mom about Melissa’s talk she brought up another story that I had forgotten about. Our good family friends the Hromadka’s have two sons. Both are very smart. The oldest applied to Michigan State and did not specify his race or color. He got in and when he got there the school was shocked that he was a blond hair, blue eyed boy. They had expected him to be ethnic in some way. Three years later when his brother attempted to get into MS he was declined even though he was 10 times more qualified to attend MS. Even though people are ‘qualified’ to attend certain universities it is still a factor that because of law colleges are required to have a certain percentage of African Americans, Indians, ect.
I found it very interesting that white women have been the ones who have benefited the most from affirmative action. I would never have guessed that. I was not shocked at all about the statistics about the University of California system. Growing up around UCSB you rarely see people who are not white. (There are quite a few Asians but as for African Americans, they are few and far between). The only time that I would have dealt with Affirmative action (before it was illegal) would have been in Elementary school. But it really made no difference at my elementary school. We had one Hispanic girl and that was it. The other 21 kids where as white as snow. I guess growing up in Santa Barbara gave no real chance for affirmative action to take place, because there really were not that many African Americans.
I think that affirmative action is very important. Melissa pointed out that affirmative action just insures the chance for minorities to be remembered. It is not just the African Americans, and Indians that are minorities anymore and I don’t think a lot of people realize that. As a white woman, I don’t see that I have gotten a hand up because of affirmative action but I guess I have never really thought about it either.
Monday, October 20, 2008
We are still a racist society
I found the presentation on the law and politics of affirmatives action to be really informative, if not a little bit scattered. Before last Wednesday, I didn’t know anything about California’s Prop 209 and I’m from California! I had never even heard of Ward Connerly and Jennifer Gratz. I loved how passionate Professor Hart was and how she laid out exactly what would happen in Colorado if Amendment 46 passes and what had happened in states that voted yes in the past. It is interesting that even if a similar law is passed in two states, the way each state handles it is very different. This is all due to the fact that the American Civil Rights Institute did not enforce their desired change in Michigan and the fact that the governor of California at the time was a proud supporter of Connerly. It is incredible that the wording of an amendment can make or break its passage. The two words, “preferential treatment” destroyed any affirmative action in California. I agree with Ashley when she says that the “language of the amendment… masks its true intention.” That was better than I could have said it! I was slightly confused at the beginning of the presentation and couldn’t seem to grasp all the names and laws, but I eventually figured it all out. I loved when Professor Hart went more into the broad idea that there is so much rage in our society today about race and the so-called opportunities they get because of equal opportunity. I didn’t even realize it, but sadly, white women have benefited the most from equal opportunity. It’s so frustrating that we are slowly getting rid of our equal opportunity amendments before they truly can benefit minorities. I liked that Professor Hart addressed the fact that ending equal opportunity is idealistic in that we still live in a racist society, not matter how badly people want to believe that we don’t. I was shocked to hear that Boulder has only 140 African American students out of almost 30000 students. As I’m writing this, I’m noticing how carefully I’m choosing my words, for fear that I sound racist. When I discuss gender, it is easier because I am a woman, I am the victim whereas in the case of race, being Caucasian, I feel like the bully.
Affirmative Action Amendment
Let me first start by saying that I worked by butt off in high school, and I'll be damned if anyone tells me I got into college because of my skin tone.
That being said, I can somewhat agree with the whole pride-issue, the idea that a black man would want to abolish affirmative action because students (particularly black students in his case) can and should get in on their merit. However, this amendment is still bogus. The consequences for such an amendment would cause social repercussions that I don't think many people have considered. Black Student Unions, BSAs, LSAs, ASAs - the idea of dis-banning these groups seems ridiculous to me because they serve as support systems for students. Being able to build a network and communicate with students that look like you is often essential to the success of many students - just to have a safe place to return to is important enough to make a student feel secure in their school environment. I firmly believe that math summer camps for girls will help motivate women to shift into this career field simply because if they are surrounded by other girls they can feel comfortable enough to achieve in and enjoy math.
I think it's very sad that people will be deceived into believing that they're voting yes when they want to vote no on this amendment. The language of this amendment, while brilliant and carefully thought out, masks its true intention. I fear that people are not going to realize the consequences of this amendment just because of the wording. This is horrible. And the majority of voters are not going to take the time out to study the amendments.
I agree with our speaker - I think money is a greater motivator than dignity or pride for this amendment. And this irritates me. The lengths people will go to in America to work around something that they are uncomfortable with never fails to amaze me.
That being said, I can somewhat agree with the whole pride-issue, the idea that a black man would want to abolish affirmative action because students (particularly black students in his case) can and should get in on their merit. However, this amendment is still bogus. The consequences for such an amendment would cause social repercussions that I don't think many people have considered. Black Student Unions, BSAs, LSAs, ASAs - the idea of dis-banning these groups seems ridiculous to me because they serve as support systems for students. Being able to build a network and communicate with students that look like you is often essential to the success of many students - just to have a safe place to return to is important enough to make a student feel secure in their school environment. I firmly believe that math summer camps for girls will help motivate women to shift into this career field simply because if they are surrounded by other girls they can feel comfortable enough to achieve in and enjoy math.
I think it's very sad that people will be deceived into believing that they're voting yes when they want to vote no on this amendment. The language of this amendment, while brilliant and carefully thought out, masks its true intention. I fear that people are not going to realize the consequences of this amendment just because of the wording. This is horrible. And the majority of voters are not going to take the time out to study the amendments.
I agree with our speaker - I think money is a greater motivator than dignity or pride for this amendment. And this irritates me. The lengths people will go to in America to work around something that they are uncomfortable with never fails to amaze me.
Wrapping Up Civic Engagement Hours
Okay, so like I was telling you all, I went to the Women for Obama rally this past Saturday. I went with my mom again and we rallied hard for about 2 hours - I really thought it was a fun experience. There were speeches and signs and a lot of discussion on the amendments, and I felt right at home because so much of what was said (especially about amendment 48) has been discussed in our class.
As I said, I thought this was a fun event. Of course, there were people who drove past and wanted to act foolish, but I thought that this was all a part of the rally experience. The greatest thing that stuck out in my mind about Saturday were the McCain supporters. I was waving around a sign that said change and a man in a pick up truck drove past and flipped me off! Me, being the most patient and understanding person in America, I had to stop myself from stooping to his level. I think I'll be really grateful, no matter what the outcome of this election, when people are done acting stupid. Of course, people very well may continue to act foolish after our president is decided but at least the annoying commercials will go away...
As I said, I thought this was a fun event. Of course, there were people who drove past and wanted to act foolish, but I thought that this was all a part of the rally experience. The greatest thing that stuck out in my mind about Saturday were the McCain supporters. I was waving around a sign that said change and a man in a pick up truck drove past and flipped me off! Me, being the most patient and understanding person in America, I had to stop myself from stooping to his level. I think I'll be really grateful, no matter what the outcome of this election, when people are done acting stupid. Of course, people very well may continue to act foolish after our president is decided but at least the annoying commercials will go away...
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Amendment 46
During Melissa's talk I found myself getting angry that we were presented with yet another amendment that has a strong possibility of winning based on deception. Melissa mentioned that the people who wrote the amendment spent a lot of time working on language that couldn't lose. What that translates to is using language that is complicated and backwards so people are tricked into voting yes when they think they are voting no. Another problem with the language of the amendments is that so much is left undefined, Melissa mentioned that preferential treatment isn't defined which is very problematic.
It seemed to me that the people supporting this bill are bitter and resentful of minorities because they took their spot at a college or job because of their skin color. Melissa mentioned that a major female supporter of 46 always mentions how a black student took her spot at Michigan. So is this amendment really about equaling the playing field or about getting retribution for something that happened 15 years ago?
The first thing that came up when I googled yes on 46 is an article in the Rocky Mountain news entitled Time to Ban Preferences. They do present both sides of the issue but in the end do not remain objective in any way and flat out tell voters to vote yes and their conclusion is that the glass ceiling has been smashed to smithereens because we have a black man in the presidential race. Melissa mentioned this idea too and discredited it which I agree with. There is a difference between an educated, wealthy, multi-racial man gaining respect and given a fair chance and a high school educated, poor, minority woman trying to achieve the same thing. My main concern for why we do still need affirmative action laws is because people trying to celebrate certain aspects of themselves should be able to do so. I am most worried about minority student groups at public universities being denied funding and girls and women being denied school programs because it would be "preferential treatment." I think amendment 46 is ridiculous because really at the end of the day, who are affirmative action laws really hurting? Perhaps white men but they don't need the upper hand in the first place.
It seemed to me that the people supporting this bill are bitter and resentful of minorities because they took their spot at a college or job because of their skin color. Melissa mentioned that a major female supporter of 46 always mentions how a black student took her spot at Michigan. So is this amendment really about equaling the playing field or about getting retribution for something that happened 15 years ago?
The first thing that came up when I googled yes on 46 is an article in the Rocky Mountain news entitled Time to Ban Preferences. They do present both sides of the issue but in the end do not remain objective in any way and flat out tell voters to vote yes and their conclusion is that the glass ceiling has been smashed to smithereens because we have a black man in the presidential race. Melissa mentioned this idea too and discredited it which I agree with. There is a difference between an educated, wealthy, multi-racial man gaining respect and given a fair chance and a high school educated, poor, minority woman trying to achieve the same thing. My main concern for why we do still need affirmative action laws is because people trying to celebrate certain aspects of themselves should be able to do so. I am most worried about minority student groups at public universities being denied funding and girls and women being denied school programs because it would be "preferential treatment." I think amendment 46 is ridiculous because really at the end of the day, who are affirmative action laws really hurting? Perhaps white men but they don't need the upper hand in the first place.
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Civic Engagement with No on 48
For my civic engagement project I volunteered for the No on 48 campaign. On Saturday October 11th I volunteered from 11-5pm. We started the day out with a training session on the effects of the amendment if it were to pass. I already knew quite a bit about it from Lynn Paltrow’s speech a few weeks before but even though I already knew how devastating it will be for women, families, doctors, the court system etc. I was still in shock and very upset as if I had heard it for the first time.
However, I did learn many new things about 48 through that training. On the official ballot it reads that the Colorado constitution will define the term “person” to “include any human being from the moment of fertilization.” However I learned that there is no scientific or medical way to determine if a woman has a fertilized egg in her body at any time. In fact, three out of five fertilized eggs don’t implant, so by voting yes on amendment 48 we are defining personhood at a point where it is impossible to detect. When I heard that I wondered how this amendment could even make it on the ballot since it is based on giving personhood to a thing we have no way of knowing if it exists. This just furthers the conviction that this amendment is simply anti-abortion activists pushing their own agenda.
Also, when Lynn was speaking I don’t think she conveyed the full impact of this law if it should pass in Colorado. We learned that there are over 20,000 laws in the Colorado Constitution which have the word person in them and would thus be affected by this law. This would clog our court systems; tie up lawyers and in general waste valuable time and resources. The country simply doesn’t need that right now at time when we should be focusing on more important issues like the economy and health care.
Another issue concerning the amendment that was highlighted at the training session is that it would put a “what if” into the constitution. They say personhood begins at fertilization but haven’t outlined what laws that will effect and on what level. For instance, every time a woman has a miscarriage it could trigger government investigation to see if they did anything to contribute to it. However, that is not defined, so is it drinking a glass of wine or flying on an airplane? We don’t know and it’s dangerous business to change the constitution without knowing exactly what the implications are.
So after our training session we headed out into Lone Tree to canvas. We had literature to hand out and were supposed to see if the people knew what amendment 48 was and then tell them our own personal blurb about why they should vote no. The majority of people in the neighborhood we went to weren’t home, so we mostly did a lit drop. However, of the few houses I did go to, most people didn’t know what amendment 48 was so I had to explain it to them. I was surprised at how rude people were and how unwilling they were to listen to a quick 30 second talk. I found that it’s difficult to sway somebody to your side in just a few seconds and those people will probably only understand all the reasons they should vote no if they decide to do some internet research on their own. One thing that I thought was interesting is that the volunteer coordinator who I canvassed with always got excited about going to a house that had an Obama sign in their front yard, because in his experience those people were very friendly and agreed that we need to vote no. However, the two houses I canvassed at with Obama signs were extremely uninterested, so I thought that pointed out that the presidential candidate you support doesn’t necessarily correspond with your political views or perhaps some people don’t care about amendments because they think it won’t affect them. Either way I learned a lot about the amendment and political strategies and when and if amendment 48 gets shot down in November I can feel like I did my part.
However, I did learn many new things about 48 through that training. On the official ballot it reads that the Colorado constitution will define the term “person” to “include any human being from the moment of fertilization.” However I learned that there is no scientific or medical way to determine if a woman has a fertilized egg in her body at any time. In fact, three out of five fertilized eggs don’t implant, so by voting yes on amendment 48 we are defining personhood at a point where it is impossible to detect. When I heard that I wondered how this amendment could even make it on the ballot since it is based on giving personhood to a thing we have no way of knowing if it exists. This just furthers the conviction that this amendment is simply anti-abortion activists pushing their own agenda.
Also, when Lynn was speaking I don’t think she conveyed the full impact of this law if it should pass in Colorado. We learned that there are over 20,000 laws in the Colorado Constitution which have the word person in them and would thus be affected by this law. This would clog our court systems; tie up lawyers and in general waste valuable time and resources. The country simply doesn’t need that right now at time when we should be focusing on more important issues like the economy and health care.
Another issue concerning the amendment that was highlighted at the training session is that it would put a “what if” into the constitution. They say personhood begins at fertilization but haven’t outlined what laws that will effect and on what level. For instance, every time a woman has a miscarriage it could trigger government investigation to see if they did anything to contribute to it. However, that is not defined, so is it drinking a glass of wine or flying on an airplane? We don’t know and it’s dangerous business to change the constitution without knowing exactly what the implications are.
So after our training session we headed out into Lone Tree to canvas. We had literature to hand out and were supposed to see if the people knew what amendment 48 was and then tell them our own personal blurb about why they should vote no. The majority of people in the neighborhood we went to weren’t home, so we mostly did a lit drop. However, of the few houses I did go to, most people didn’t know what amendment 48 was so I had to explain it to them. I was surprised at how rude people were and how unwilling they were to listen to a quick 30 second talk. I found that it’s difficult to sway somebody to your side in just a few seconds and those people will probably only understand all the reasons they should vote no if they decide to do some internet research on their own. One thing that I thought was interesting is that the volunteer coordinator who I canvassed with always got excited about going to a house that had an Obama sign in their front yard, because in his experience those people were very friendly and agreed that we need to vote no. However, the two houses I canvassed at with Obama signs were extremely uninterested, so I thought that pointed out that the presidential candidate you support doesn’t necessarily correspond with your political views or perhaps some people don’t care about amendments because they think it won’t affect them. Either way I learned a lot about the amendment and political strategies and when and if amendment 48 gets shot down in November I can feel like I did my part.
Civic Engagement, My Style...
So I now have four of my five hours completed for our civic engagement assignment, and hopefully by next Saturday, I'll be finished! I posted some time ago that I spent two hours asking people to register to vote outside of the second year experience seminar in Driscoll. That was an interesting experience... I firmly believe more people were drawn to the table more for the candy than the registration. But still, it was an interesting two hours.
Last Saturday, I spent two hours at a women's rally for Obama (if you're for McCain, you may want to stop reading about now)... it was freezing outside and I was slightly sick, but I went with my mom, grandma, and aunt and we listened to different speeches, carried around signs, and purchased t-shirts. These charming older ladies performed this fabulous dance to Frank Sinatra's "New York, New York" and I found a bumper sticker that said "Soccer Mom for Obama - No Lipstick Required." Even though I don't have a car, I had to get it :)
If you like the sound of these rallies and you're looking for hours, let me know. There's going to be another one this Saturday at the capital. I can provide details if any one is interested...
Last Saturday, I spent two hours at a women's rally for Obama (if you're for McCain, you may want to stop reading about now)... it was freezing outside and I was slightly sick, but I went with my mom, grandma, and aunt and we listened to different speeches, carried around signs, and purchased t-shirts. These charming older ladies performed this fabulous dance to Frank Sinatra's "New York, New York" and I found a bumper sticker that said "Soccer Mom for Obama - No Lipstick Required." Even though I don't have a car, I had to get it :)
If you like the sound of these rallies and you're looking for hours, let me know. There's going to be another one this Saturday at the capital. I can provide details if any one is interested...
“Equality” ~ A Formality or Opportunity?
Last week I received an email from the Latino Student Alliance list serve about some lecture on the law and politics of affirmative action encouraging all members to attend… Ironically, this happens to be the same lecture scheduled for tomorrow night’s class. So, for my next instillation into the GWST 2981 course blog I decide to do my homework and read Melissa Hart’s The State-by-State Assault on Equal Opportunity Issue Brief.
Considering I knew little on this subject to begin with, I decided to learn more. From a relatively naïve perspective, up until now all I knew about affirmative action was that it created opportunities for minorities in terms of continued schooling and jobs based on civil rights movements to make equality more attainable. However I have never exactly thought twice about its wide spread role in society.
Drawing upon Hart’s article, I feel that she brought up several good points. For instance, I like the way she laid a foundation for the understanding of affirmative action by stating, “…equal opportunity initiatives have been an essential component of efforts to foster true equality and ensure civil rights for women and people of color. (page 1)” Then, from here she took it further by stating, “Outreach, recruiting, training, and mentoring programs that target underrepresented groups have been indispensable to tearing down barriers to opportunity and giving long-excluded communities a fair chance to achieve their full potential. (page 1)” After reflecting on this, it broadened my perspective of affirmative action to consider a number of programs that I have been a part of throughout my life or have been instrumental in helping me get to where I am now.
So now with a more peaked interest, I believe she brings up a very good question regarding the concept of equality. From a good old American perspective, is “equality” merely a surface value we as a people cherish as part of a democratic nation or does it extend to create opportunity ensuring the success of all people? I feel that if America really is the land of opportunity, then anything that would oppose this ideal would be counteractive to the success of society as a whole and furthering diversity on all levels of society. In conclusion I look forward to hearing and discussing more on the affirmative action debate and the controversial ballot issue with its deceptive strategy and misleading language in class tomorrow.
Considering I knew little on this subject to begin with, I decided to learn more. From a relatively naïve perspective, up until now all I knew about affirmative action was that it created opportunities for minorities in terms of continued schooling and jobs based on civil rights movements to make equality more attainable. However I have never exactly thought twice about its wide spread role in society.
Drawing upon Hart’s article, I feel that she brought up several good points. For instance, I like the way she laid a foundation for the understanding of affirmative action by stating, “…equal opportunity initiatives have been an essential component of efforts to foster true equality and ensure civil rights for women and people of color. (page 1)” Then, from here she took it further by stating, “Outreach, recruiting, training, and mentoring programs that target underrepresented groups have been indispensable to tearing down barriers to opportunity and giving long-excluded communities a fair chance to achieve their full potential. (page 1)” After reflecting on this, it broadened my perspective of affirmative action to consider a number of programs that I have been a part of throughout my life or have been instrumental in helping me get to where I am now.
So now with a more peaked interest, I believe she brings up a very good question regarding the concept of equality. From a good old American perspective, is “equality” merely a surface value we as a people cherish as part of a democratic nation or does it extend to create opportunity ensuring the success of all people? I feel that if America really is the land of opportunity, then anything that would oppose this ideal would be counteractive to the success of society as a whole and furthering diversity on all levels of society. In conclusion I look forward to hearing and discussing more on the affirmative action debate and the controversial ballot issue with its deceptive strategy and misleading language in class tomorrow.
What is True Feminism?
In reference to this past week’s reading and lecture I learned a lot in terms of the progression of women’s rights, attitudes, and the social culture around women’s history. I was surprised to find out that women in a sense were their own worst enemy in terms of progressively passing any sort of legislation to ensure women’s rights. I also think Ashley raised a valid point, when she noted that women suffragists went against the E.R.A. Up until this point, I also thought the two went hand-in-hand and the key players were similar. However, they are drastically different.
Drawing upon the lecture, I found it interesting when Dr. Syrett went into more detail explaining the controversies between the two groups by contrasting Alice Paul and Florence Kelly. When paired side by side it is easy to see the differences. For example, Alice Paul, of upper-middle class standing ardently fought against what she felt was female discrimination in the labor market and what she believed to be the constraints of gender. However, Florence Kelly led a less privileged life and openly welcomed the protection granted for women in the labor market as she fought for better factory conditions, more reasonable hours, and higher wages. Therefore each of these two strong women can be considered a feminist in their own respect even though they held opposite stances in defense of women’s rights.
So in final reflection, I would like to beg the question, “What is true feminism?” Although the dictionary, (Encarta available on MS WORD), prescribes feminine to be broken down in terms of “conventionally though to be appropriate for a woman or girl” and “considered to be characteristic of woman” I do not feel this is very explanatory. Therefore with such a vaguely broad definition, and considering the work of Alice Paul and Florence Kelly, it is still open to interpretation and still leaving the question, “What is true feminism?”
*Sorry for the old post but I almost to forget to get this up from our last class. For some reason I had some trouble with it last time...
Drawing upon the lecture, I found it interesting when Dr. Syrett went into more detail explaining the controversies between the two groups by contrasting Alice Paul and Florence Kelly. When paired side by side it is easy to see the differences. For example, Alice Paul, of upper-middle class standing ardently fought against what she felt was female discrimination in the labor market and what she believed to be the constraints of gender. However, Florence Kelly led a less privileged life and openly welcomed the protection granted for women in the labor market as she fought for better factory conditions, more reasonable hours, and higher wages. Therefore each of these two strong women can be considered a feminist in their own respect even though they held opposite stances in defense of women’s rights.
So in final reflection, I would like to beg the question, “What is true feminism?” Although the dictionary, (Encarta available on MS WORD), prescribes feminine to be broken down in terms of “conventionally though to be appropriate for a woman or girl” and “considered to be characteristic of woman” I do not feel this is very explanatory. Therefore with such a vaguely broad definition, and considering the work of Alice Paul and Florence Kelly, it is still open to interpretation and still leaving the question, “What is true feminism?”
*Sorry for the old post but I almost to forget to get this up from our last class. For some reason I had some trouble with it last time...
Monday, October 13, 2008
Part two of my Civic Engagement Project
The other day I was able to finish up the last few hours of my Civic Engagement Project. For the second half I helped people register to vote. It actually was an opportunity that fell into my lap. My apartment complex had an October Fest pool party. When I got there, there were people at one table with both McCain and Obama posters. I walked over and they asked if I was registered to vote. I said yes and then asked if they needed an extra hand. They said they would love one so I helped out.
It was very interesting because even though there were people from both campaigns there, they were not interested in getting people to support their campaign but instead they were just interested in getting people registered. My apartment complex wanted to make sure that people were involved and make it easy for people to register to vote. With this being a whole community gathering with quite a great turn out, we were able to sign up over 20 people!
I thought it was very cool that my apartment complex would want to have the involvement and take the opportunity to help out its residence with making it easy to register. I would never have guessed they would EVER help out their residence! Over all I was very excited to be part of the registration process.
Between both of my Civic Engagement Projects I have been able to not only learn about the voting process and history but play an active role in the whole process. Before this year I was not interested in politics at all. Ever since I took the C-SPAN in the Cable Center I got the political bug. And learning more and more about politics today has helped me become much more informed. This project has been great for me. I am looking forward to working at the Molly Brown House in January and hopefully in 4 years be able to help more people register to vote.
Saturday, October 11, 2008
Catch 22
I agree with everyone else that women are held to different standards than men and are criticised for their choices in a way that men never are. If a woman chooses to stay home she is old fashioned and seen to be doing nothing of value because she doesn't have a job but at the same time if she is a career woman she is seen to be disregarding her responsilibty to be at home to take care of her husband and children.
While reading everyone else's posts I couldn't help but think of all the modern movies that deal with this struggle. Even though the movie was horrible I can't stop thinking about Uptown Girl in which the mother is characterized as a complete bitch and a horrible mother because she puts career before family. This mother is obviously a very extreme example but she is depicted as mean and heartless person who shouldn't even be allowed to have kids because she has chosen her career over them. It's movies such as this which contribute to societal views on matters of the role of women, so I do think they have an impact.
While reading everyone else's posts I couldn't help but think of all the modern movies that deal with this struggle. Even though the movie was horrible I can't stop thinking about Uptown Girl in which the mother is characterized as a complete bitch and a horrible mother because she puts career before family. This mother is obviously a very extreme example but she is depicted as mean and heartless person who shouldn't even be allowed to have kids because she has chosen her career over them. It's movies such as this which contribute to societal views on matters of the role of women, so I do think they have an impact.
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
Lecture on working women
The lecture last week was very informative and I agree with Eliza in terms of believing that all women would want equal rights. I have been brought up in a household that has always been 50 50 between the men and women in the family. The mommy wars that Dr. Syrett talked about was the issue that really hit home. There are so many people that believe that stay at home mothers are not smart and that they have no job and that working mothers don't care about their children and would rather be at work. At the end of the day, it is a preference that women have to choose. It is interesting that there are not more stay at home fathers. I know two stay at home fathers and they work a little bit at home but are the primary childcare person. I think that there are not that many stay at home fathers because it is an ego knock to have to stay at home. Little boys are being raised to provide for the families no matter what. Having a women make more money than you goes against the fundamentals of what boys are being raised to be. I also found it interesting that Dr. Syrett mentioned that for women, the wedding day is the most important and that men do not find that important. Of the married men I know, their weddings were important. I think society as a whole makes women feel like it has to be the biggest day of their lives. Look at how many wedding magazines and expos there are solely dedicated to the "big day". Should women feel bad that they look forward to their wedding day? What is so wrong with that? The gay marriage debate is interesting also. It is important to note that Joe Biden and Sarah Palin do not believe in allowing the gay population to marry, they both support giving rights to them such as visitation rights in the hospital and contracts just like married couples, however, both candidates clearly stated that changing the definition of marriage is not in the picture. I do also have to agree with Ayres in terms of how blatant Dr. Syrett was on what political party he was for and that he cannot believe that people can be swayed. Humans have the ability to think and to change their opinion in all aspects of life. I felt like he was criticising people who do change their minds after thinking through what is important to them. I do not know if there is a rule or anything that states that professors can or cannot state their political opinions to students, but I felt like Dr. Syrett took it too far and it took away from the significance of his lecture.
No Woman is Exactly the Same
Dr. Syrett’s presentation on the Equal Rights Amendment was very eye opening. He brought up a very important question that affected women then and today, how can we possibly think that we know what is right for ALL women? I naively believed that of course all women would want equal rights. Dr. Syrett presented a lot of women that had valid reasons for being wary of the 20th amendment and its possible guarantee that all women would be treated equal to men. For example, Florence Kelly did have a very valid reason for opposing the ERA. It could possibly ruin all of her gains in terms of women workers rights. There are so many women in incredibly different sets of circumstances; there is no way to know what is best for someone simply due to her gender. The National Women’s Party did not have the extensive difficulties that working class women did, so they decided to oppose the only real discrimination in their lives due to their gender. I really appreciated not only the humor in Dr Syrett’s presentation, but also the fact that he covered such an extensive time period. It just showed that no matter what time period we are in, you cannot treat women like they are all the same. I was so struck by what Dr Syrett said in regards to gay marriage. He was saying that so many people see their role as husband or wife as their most fundamental role. If gay marriage was seen, by law, as equal to heterosexual marriage, they feel that they would lose the uniqueness of their “special identity”. I had never thought of it in that way. They see gay marriage is a threat to their roles as husband or wife. It was upsetting that the fight for rights always turned into a war of women as opposed to finding a resolution that could work for the most people. I really appreciated Dr Syrett’s thoughts on the “mommy wars” as a distraction from the real problem. That problem being that in our patriarchal society, girls are raised to believe that marriage and motherhood will be their greatest accomplishments whereas boys are raised to believe that their careers will be their greatest accomplishments and therefore, everyone around them needs to sacrifice in order for them to achieve their goals. Like Sarah, I noticed that Palin’s roles as a mother and a wife were brought up quite a bit in the vice presidential debates. It was her way of telling voters, “I’m just like you, I’m a just a middle class wife and mother.” There are two things wrong with that image. Firstly, it is not necessary for the vice president to be just like me. I just want a president who will support the causes I support and deal with the issues I find to be most important. Secondly, Sarah Palin is not like all women. Not all women are trying to be vice president of the United States. Also, her desire to identify with the American wife and mother just detracts from the fact that when it comes down to the issues, she is not looking out for the American women. Why does she think the American woman is so stupid as to believe that just because Palin is a woman, she will stand up for women?
Career Vs. Motherhood
I was struck when reading Ayres' post by our propensity as women to second guess our desires, whether they be for career, motherhood, or both, and can't help but think how that second guessing is reinforced by social stigmas regardless of which a woman chooses. On the one hand, having a career or 'doing it all' is seen as being a modern woman, on the other, as Ayres points out, wanting to just be a wife and mother is seen as old-fashioned. Thus, it has been severely downgraded, as have the women who have chosen to be stay-at-home mothers.
I speak from hearing for years of my own mother's experience as a stay-at-home mom. She was at the end of the Baby Boomer generation, and many women in her age group were so strongly pro-career/anti-'old fashioned' roles that they snubbed women like her. Instead of women having the right to choose a path of their own accord, yet another path became socially acceptable over another.
It is sad to me that women must be questioned by men, themselves, and, in large part, other women when choosing a path in life (which, of course, presumes a choice, more a luxury of the upper, and, to an extent middle, classes). No matter what, we find ourselves in a catch-twenty-two. If we do not want children, there is something wrong with us; we are not 'women enough.' If we want children but no career, we are slaves to an old-establishment, old-fashioned and un-liberated. Somewhere in the midst of this it seems to have been lost on people, feminists included, that women are not all alike--we have different desires, goals, opportunities, etc. If we are lucky enough to be in a position to make a choice in our life, we may not all choose the same.
Just as it should not be wrong for men to choose stay-at-home parenting, as some have begun to do in more recent years, it should not be wrong for women to choose the same. The person who disdains a woman who chooses to be a homemaker is as anti-feminist as the person who disdains a woman for choosing a career, or, for that matter, for trying to juggle both.
Monday, October 6, 2008
ERA Discussion
This is such an overwhelming time for me, with everything going on right now... but let me try to write down at least a few of my thoughts.
First of all, I found it really kinda shocking when I was reading and during Dr. Syrett's speech that women suffragists went against the ERA. To me, the two went hand-in-hand. But the idea that women would all vote in a certain way, the "mother instinct" for government as Dr. Syrett put it, is absolutely ridiculous. Of course it would appear that way at the time - women had to stand together if they wanted to get anywhere in the battle for suffrage - but just being a woman doesn't mean your vote will match that of every other woman. You're never just one thing - you're not just a woman. You may be a black, 18 year old, middle-class, liberal, on-the-road-to-being-fully-educated young woman, or you may be a white, 50 year old, upper-class, conservative, educated woman, or any number of other possibilities. So to vote one way just because you're a woman... you limit yourself in so many other areas.
Having said that, and I'm sorry this is coming up again but I can't avoid it, there's Palin. I did not get to see the v.p debate (yay slanguage!) but I have to comment on Sarah's observations. The fact that Palin kept bringing up motherhood is EXTREMELY annoying to me. Again, I admit that I did not see the debate, but going off of what Sarah said, Palin found it a decent political strategy to tie in the fact that she was a mom wherever it would fit. Everyone in support of Palin claimed that her daughter's story and the things that were happening in her family should be left to her family - hell even Obama said that the children were off limits. So why, if she wants everyone out of her business, does she try to spin it to her advantage? Its back to playing the "sex card" again, and I hate that about politics. Dr. Syrett brought up a good point when he said that people often rely on who they can relate to when deciding who to vote for, which would, in theory, mean that Palin's continued reliance on the fact that she's a mother would be a good tactic. But, again, you limit yourself when you only vote because she's a woman or because she's a mom, and you miss out on the more important things. I think it's petty that Palin is trying to reel in voters just by saying she's a mom, it limits her outside of motherhood. And furthermore, there are a lot of people who believe she's not a good mother if she preaches about abstinence and then her daughter winds up pregnant... At this point, some of you reading this may be saying to yourself really, Ashley, leave her daughter out of this and focus more on Palin herself. BUT I can't leave her daughter out of it when Palin HERSELF brings up her parenting every chance she gets!!
As far as the ERA goes, women are not going to think the same, act the same, handle everything the same way - which is why I think it is so important that women get more involved in politics. It would offer a broader scope of what's really going on in America today.
First of all, I found it really kinda shocking when I was reading and during Dr. Syrett's speech that women suffragists went against the ERA. To me, the two went hand-in-hand. But the idea that women would all vote in a certain way, the "mother instinct" for government as Dr. Syrett put it, is absolutely ridiculous. Of course it would appear that way at the time - women had to stand together if they wanted to get anywhere in the battle for suffrage - but just being a woman doesn't mean your vote will match that of every other woman. You're never just one thing - you're not just a woman. You may be a black, 18 year old, middle-class, liberal, on-the-road-to-being-fully-educated young woman, or you may be a white, 50 year old, upper-class, conservative, educated woman, or any number of other possibilities. So to vote one way just because you're a woman... you limit yourself in so many other areas.
Having said that, and I'm sorry this is coming up again but I can't avoid it, there's Palin. I did not get to see the v.p debate (yay slanguage!) but I have to comment on Sarah's observations. The fact that Palin kept bringing up motherhood is EXTREMELY annoying to me. Again, I admit that I did not see the debate, but going off of what Sarah said, Palin found it a decent political strategy to tie in the fact that she was a mom wherever it would fit. Everyone in support of Palin claimed that her daughter's story and the things that were happening in her family should be left to her family - hell even Obama said that the children were off limits. So why, if she wants everyone out of her business, does she try to spin it to her advantage? Its back to playing the "sex card" again, and I hate that about politics. Dr. Syrett brought up a good point when he said that people often rely on who they can relate to when deciding who to vote for, which would, in theory, mean that Palin's continued reliance on the fact that she's a mother would be a good tactic. But, again, you limit yourself when you only vote because she's a woman or because she's a mom, and you miss out on the more important things. I think it's petty that Palin is trying to reel in voters just by saying she's a mom, it limits her outside of motherhood. And furthermore, there are a lot of people who believe she's not a good mother if she preaches about abstinence and then her daughter winds up pregnant... At this point, some of you reading this may be saying to yourself really, Ashley, leave her daughter out of this and focus more on Palin herself. BUT I can't leave her daughter out of it when Palin HERSELF brings up her parenting every chance she gets!!
As far as the ERA goes, women are not going to think the same, act the same, handle everything the same way - which is why I think it is so important that women get more involved in politics. It would offer a broader scope of what's really going on in America today.
Equal Rights with Dr. Syrett
I found Dr. Syrett’s talk very interesting. I really liked that his talk was on the history of women’s rights. I found it very very interesting that the women who were originally involved in the suffrage movement did not want anything to do with the ERA (Equal Rights Amendment). Sarah brings up a very good point about the idea that all women would vote the same. I guess I hadn’t thought about it either before, of course not all women would vote the same but in some ways I understand why back then the men would believe this. Women are one sex and since they all did the same things they would feel the same way. Of course this is not at all true, but it was something I had not really thought about.
I found it very interesting talking about what women really wanted and what they want today. The Mommy Wars really spiked my interest. It seems like today it seems like women have to choose whether to be a stay at home mother or have to work. Yes if she is lucky she does not have to work when she has children but most of the time that does not happen. For me I would rather be a mother then have a career but maybe I am old fashioned. I also found it interesting when Dr. Syretty said that for women the wedding day is the most memorable day and men don’t agree. I find that to be wrong. Most of the married men I know so their wedding day was their most memorable event. But many of them are older so maybe they see it differently. I will not lie; I cannot wait to get married. Getting my M.R.S. degree for me is just about as important as getting my BA. I know, it is an old way of thinking but it is true for me. Working is very important and I look forward to it, but I can’t wait until I get married and can start a family of my own.
Over all I thought Dr. Syrett gave a very good talk. I have kind of a pet peeve though about teachers’ blatantly telling students what political party they are part of. I guess that is just me…but when he made a comment about not understanding how people can be swayed to change their position I found it almost insulting. As a first time voter I have some believes that I will never be swayed on but others that I don’t know much about and can be swayed either way. I am sure as I become a more experienced voter this will change and maybe my opinion of telling college students how I vote will change but until then…I was under the understanding that a good teacher you have no idea what party they are part of. Again I guess this situation is a bit different, but STILL it just really bothered me that he was ‘so far left’ that he could never change his mind.
I guess for me I got more caught up in what he was saying politically then the message and lesson he was trying to teach us.
Sunday, October 5, 2008
Equal Rights for Women
I thought Dr. Syrett's talk on equal rights for women was very interesting in the context of today's election. At the beginning of his lecture he asked if we can talk about what's best for women as a whole in politics, or does that not exist? At first I thought of course it exists but as the talk continued I realized it would be impossible.
Just because women share the same sex doesn't mean they have a single thing in common. I think today we assume that women politic ans and civilians still vote like women said they would in the 20s; always in favor of the home and the family and against war. I think a lot of women will vote for McCain Palin simply because they are still relying on those stereotypical notions of what women want and assume just because Palin is a woman and a mom that she is anti war and for the family.
During the vice presidential debates on Thursday night Palin would constantly refer to her role as a mother. When asked what she thinks of the economy she responded saying if you went to a park and asked any soccer mom what they thought, she knows they would say they are worried. In response to other questions she would bring her role as a mother and "hockey mom" into the answer. This is because Palin wants women voters to believe that they are all united and all want the same things. It is a smart political move because everyone assumes there is a "right" candidate for women and a "right" candidate for men. However, as I think Dr. Syrett was trying to point out, this simply isn't true. That belief assumes that all women and men agree on the same issues simply because they share the same sex.
Another thing Palin's constant refferal to motherhood did was to try to sway voters to side with the person they identity with instead of the issues they agree with. Palin was trying to establish herself firmly as a mother so other mothers would identity with her and think Palin has the same values as them and will in turn vote for her. However, again just because women have the common job of being a mother doesn't mean they are politically in tune but I think many Americans will fall into that trap and assume like they did in the 20's when they were trying to pass the ERA that women are more moral and responsible voters and politicians which isn't necessarily the case.
Just because women share the same sex doesn't mean they have a single thing in common. I think today we assume that women politic ans and civilians still vote like women said they would in the 20s; always in favor of the home and the family and against war. I think a lot of women will vote for McCain Palin simply because they are still relying on those stereotypical notions of what women want and assume just because Palin is a woman and a mom that she is anti war and for the family.
During the vice presidential debates on Thursday night Palin would constantly refer to her role as a mother. When asked what she thinks of the economy she responded saying if you went to a park and asked any soccer mom what they thought, she knows they would say they are worried. In response to other questions she would bring her role as a mother and "hockey mom" into the answer. This is because Palin wants women voters to believe that they are all united and all want the same things. It is a smart political move because everyone assumes there is a "right" candidate for women and a "right" candidate for men. However, as I think Dr. Syrett was trying to point out, this simply isn't true. That belief assumes that all women and men agree on the same issues simply because they share the same sex.
Another thing Palin's constant refferal to motherhood did was to try to sway voters to side with the person they identity with instead of the issues they agree with. Palin was trying to establish herself firmly as a mother so other mothers would identity with her and think Palin has the same values as them and will in turn vote for her. However, again just because women have the common job of being a mother doesn't mean they are politically in tune but I think many Americans will fall into that trap and assume like they did in the 20's when they were trying to pass the ERA that women are more moral and responsible voters and politicians which isn't necessarily the case.
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
Women's rights and Amendment 48
Like most (or all) people posting their reaction to amendment 48, I was subject to an array of different thoughts and feelings. Twice during Lynn Paltrow’s presentation I experienced chills and goosebumps. The complete disregard for pregnant women’s rights for the rights of the fetus is awful, not to mention hundreds of other words too. I almost want to go as far as to say for the rights of an imaginary being. While that isn’t quite accurate, since the fetus is as real as the mother is, it also isn’t too far from the truth. I wonder how you can even begin to fathom giving a fetus “personhood” when they can not communicate desires. A born child, opposed to an unborn child, can tell us when they are hungry, hurt, and many other things just by crying. We know that one doesn’t need to be able to talk, or cry for that matter, to communicate. Fetuses on the other don’t have a similar method of communication. How does a lawyer know what a fetus wants? It’s all speculation, and mostly based on their own opinions and biases. There are very few cases when the mother isn’t the best person to consult when it comes to the life of the fetus.
Abortion, on the other hand, is questionable when it comes to the needs/wants of the fetus, but I believe that the wants/needs of the mother should always come first. No one should force a woman to carry a child to term. It’s inhuman to force a woman to be pregnant.
Similarly, I was against late term abortions, unless it was out of medical need, until the talk last week. But again how do you force a woman to be pregnant. It just brings up images of dumpsters, hangers, and awful medical consequences. Passing this amendment would send woman’s rights into the dark ages.
Did Lynn Paltrow’s presentation last week change or solidify any beliefs you held prior?
Abortion, on the other hand, is questionable when it comes to the needs/wants of the fetus, but I believe that the wants/needs of the mother should always come first. No one should force a woman to carry a child to term. It’s inhuman to force a woman to be pregnant.
Similarly, I was against late term abortions, unless it was out of medical need, until the talk last week. But again how do you force a woman to be pregnant. It just brings up images of dumpsters, hangers, and awful medical consequences. Passing this amendment would send woman’s rights into the dark ages.
Did Lynn Paltrow’s presentation last week change or solidify any beliefs you held prior?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)