Feminist Moms UNITE!

cross-posted at TheRantingMommy.com

The lovely blogger Transatlantic Blonde has started a new meme called the Friday Feminist Mom Roundup. I found out about this opportunity quite by accident, but in the way I find out A LOT of news … through Twitter.  The idea instantly appealed to me because 1) I feel pretty strongly about feminism, 2) I am a mom, and 3) feminism has traditionally gotten a pretty bad rap over the years.


Today, I am going to focus on one specific thing that relates to parenting and is a personal pet peeve of mine: gender stereotyping. More specifically gender-role stereotyping (which takes me into the area of psychology-isms, so I will leave it at gender stereotyping). I have some time restrictions today (story of my life), so I will keep it brief.

So here is my rant: it drives me nuts that we box in our children to certain stereotypical behavior, dress, toys, etc. at such an early age. Here are a few of examples that make me twitch:

• Little girls have long (or at least longish) hair and boys have short hair. My 4 year-old daughter already says this. Grrrrrrr. People constantly call my son, whose hair is longish and curly, a girl. It does not bother me in the slightest, but the presumption is silly.
• Girls are supposed to like the color pink, Barbies (another rant for another day), and playing dressing up. Boys are supposed to like playing in dirt, tearing up or crashing things, and bugs. Why? Says who? My daughter likes the color yellow, planting plants, and finding bugs. My son loves to wear my hats, glasses, and sometimes my shoes, does not like his hands to be dirty, and likes playing with his sister's dolls. Why should ANY of that behavior by either of them be even given a second-thought?
• I recently took my daughter with me to the nail salon to get her nails painted, as decidedly 'girly' thing. When we returned, my son whined a little because he wanted his nails painted too. My husband chimed in that 'boys don't paint their nails'. I bristled. Sure that is typically true, but why not just offer to do something else special just for him? Or paint his nails with clear polish?
• This summer, I enrolled my daughter in several different summer camps each with their own themes. There was a princess camp and a super heroes camp. Guess which one they offered her? Boo. She actually OWNS a cape and mask that she uses for dress up. Granted she also owns several princess and ballet dresses too because she LIKES dressing up, but still.

These are but a few. Now, don't get me wrong. I truly believe in celebrating all there beauty there is in being female. Those are lessons I hope to teach my daughter throughout my lifetime. In addition, I think boys should know that being male is special in its own right. And, no, I would not send my son to kindergarten dressed in a princess outfit or with his nails painted purple. But it bothers me immensely that both of my kids WILL go to kindergarten with all these stereotypes imprinted on their brains already. Bugs me. Anyone else?

On dinner parties, cool cocktails, & drunk tweeting

Last night, my husband and I went to a fantastic dinner party with an eclectic, fun group of folks. Multi-ethnic, multi-religious, multi-talented collection with a varied set of experiences and life circumstances. Married couples with and without children. A gay couple, unmarried, no kids. A just-friends couple (though we may suspect something there). Our hosts, co-habitating parents of one small child. One engaged couple. Hometowns and/or places where they grew up: Jamaica, Maui, St. Simon's Island, Dominican Republic, U.S. Virgin Islands, Atlanta, Dominican Republic, and California. Occupations: entrepreneur, orthodontist, psychologist, political consultant, restauranteur, hair dresser, artist, gemstone broker, real estate investor, teacher, and an importer. It was beautiful to see.

What we had in common: we were all foodies and all lovers of long, lingering meals with creative cocktails abound. Dinner started with a lovely potato-based curry fish soup. For dinner, there was grilled rack of lamb, dressed steelhead trout, tomato salad, couscous salad, roasted brussell sprouts, and tostones. *burp*

Cocktails, you ask? We had pomegranate bombs (host-created cocktail), sipping rum from Cuba, cucumber lemonade, cucumber martinis (I swear, they were great), and Italian port.  But wait .. what about dessert? TWO courses: freshly sliced watermelon with balsamic dip, followed by poached pears and figs served with vanilla Haagen-Daz.

Needless to say, by the end of the festivities, this girl was quite tipsy. I tweeted that I was considering drunk tweeting. I got no less than a dozen replies, most encouraging me to go for it. Alas, I did not. But it was ONE MORE reason I love Twitter and my tweeps.

Good times.

Lessons from Sherrod Debacle?

I started this little ol' blog in large part because I sometimes found myself full of emotion or reaction about a particular story or event, so much so that I wanted to write about it. This is where I find myself today.

As I put fingers to the computer, I'm wondering where to start with this story. Does it start with Andrew Breitbart's wholly unethical hatchet job of Shirley Sherrod? Well, that is the crux of the story. But the story is merely, I believe, a response to the recent NAACP resolution regarding the Tea Party. In fact, Breitbart admitted as much in his post. He is trying desperately to avenge any notion that the Tea Party has racist elements to it. How desperately? This desperately.

He begins his post with a soaring speech on how the Tea Party is not racist and how the Left, the Democrats, the White House, the Easter Bunny, Fidel Castro, and the troll under the bridge are simply out to vilify the cause and moral fiber of the Tea Party. He then posts a video (which to my knowledge he has yet to reveal where he got the video or who he got it from or who edited it) with ominous graphics announcing how this is a federally-appointed employee practicing racism ..  
....bom bom bom bommmmmm.

In the video, Shirley Sherrod, a black woman, is seen and heard telling the story of working with a white farmer at some point in her career. It is completely unclear from this two-minute video what the context of this story is, i.e. when did this incident take place, in what role was she helping him, why is she even telling the story, etc. She speaks briefly of the condescending way in which she perceives this white farmer speaking to her (*gasp* white people in the deep South talking condescendingly to black people??!! Unheard of!) despite the fact that she was in a position to help him. She talks of her admitted hesitancy to help this man with her full resources (an honest admission, in my book). She goes on to speak of how she took him to see a white lawyer, 'one of his kind, ya know' she states, to see if this white farmer can be helped. She makes a reference to so many black farmers losing their farms at the time, yet she is still having to work with this white farmer. Again, no context is provided because of the editing down of the full video. She finally concludes (in this tiny, edited portion) that she came to realize that the issue was not about race as much as it was about poverty. Not exactly earth-shattering revelations for anyone under the age of 92 living in the United States. The U.S. has a long, torrid, racist history. Shocking, I know.

But Breitbart would have you believe you are reading the devil's lecture. His breathless narrative reads:

"In the first video, Sherrod describes how she racially discriminates against a white farmer. She describes how she is torn over how much she will choose to help him. And, she admits that she doesn’t do everything she can for him, because he is white. Eventually, her basic humanity informs that this white man is poor and needs help. But she decides that he should get help from “one of his own kind”. She refers him to a white lawyer.
Sherrod’s racist tale is received by the NAACP audience with nodding approval and murmurs of recognition and agreement."

So wait, 'nodding approval and murmurs of recognition and agreement' is evidence of racism? Breitbart clearly failed Science 101 and could not pass Remedial Logic. This is not evidence and his conclusions are inane. Perhaps the people in attendance were nodding because they understood the dilemma and conflict that a black woman helping a white man in the Deep South might have been feeling. Perhaps they were were recognizing that, like Shirley, sometimes our prejudices keep us from initially assessing a situation in the most righteous way. Hell, perhaps they were falling asleep and the nods were actually their heads tipping over. We do not really know. But Breitbart trumpets this snippet as if this is irrefutable evidence of racism. He fails miserably.

First, Breitbart is clearly ignorant on what racism ACTUALLY is. Here, Andrew, is a definition. A six year-old could look this up, but since you are too lazy, I'll provide you a link. Let's see, does Shirley express a doctrine that black people are superior to whites? Nope, actually quite the opposite. Does she exhibit a policy or system of government that espouses racism? Uh, no. Does she display hate or intolerance for whites? No, she does not. She actually admits to, points out even, her own prejudices (another word Andrew needs to look up. Here you go, lazy boy).

So, the 'context' that the despicable Breitbart so blatantly tries to peddle, is, in fact, important. Here is the true context. He is playing a game. A desperate game trying to avenge his wounded exposed delicate Tea Party position. It is a familiar game .. from our childhood. When young children are on the playground and calling each other vile names, they sometimes try to be annoying by saying "I know you are but what am I" every time one child calls him or her a bad name of some sort. It has nothing to do with defending oneself. It has nothing to do with whether the 'bad word' is true or not. It is merely deflection. That is the context here. On it's surface, it is a silly game that Breitbart is playing. Looking deeper, it is a dangerous game.

One does not prove your beliefs are not racist but calling the accuser racist. There are plenty of examples of racism to be found without trying that tactic. Breitbart has made of name for himself (albeit not a name I would wish for myself) with his ACORN shenanigans and his silly use of dog-whistles. But the puppetmastery of this stunt is so blatantly politically motivated, it is horrifying. It is so clearly done for self-interest and for self-preservation - damn the cost. Everything about it reeks of opportunism. Nothing of it smells of genuineness.

Of course, just as with his ACORN witch hunt, he eventually had to admit that the video was edited.  Once the full speech was released, it was abundantly clear that this was a hard-hearted, mean-spirited, falsely-trumped up hatchet job. He responded to accusations of racist elements of his pet political project by trying, and in some measure, succeeding in obfuscating the whole issue of racism. We are all profoundly sensitive to accusations of racism. Most of America cannot have a discussion about race in a non-defensive, non-accusatory, and/or intelligent manner. This entire episode has given us not a 'teachable moment' as some love to profess, but another example of how we do not know how to discuss race. We do not know how to be uncomfortable in the realities of our prejudices, our histories, our past, our present, our innermost anxieties about one another. That is why this game he is playing is so dangerous. It advances NOTHING; it plays into fears; it sends us all to our respective corners to defend our respective ideologies. Breitbart and his tactics are held up by the Right and excoriated by the Left.

In other words, homeostasis maintained. Damn shame.

Energy, fiscal responsibility, & GOP hypocrisy

The Gulf oil spill has been front and center in the news, and rightly so. Most of America has watched the spill with great concern about both the impact and how this will affect future energy policy. Predictably, the spill is being exploited from all sides.

The Interior Department has temporarily halted new drilling leases; drilling they had recently approved. President Obama has put a 30-day hold on current offshore drilling, believing that we should wait for the results of the investigation into the Gulf oil spill. Many politicians are backpedaling on their former approval of offshore drilling. The Right would say that this is politicizing the oilspill. Rational people would say 'THIS IS WHAT YOU DO WHEN SOMETHING GOES MASSIVELY WRONG'. (To be fair, I do feel that we should take advantage of the oil spill to re-think our energy policy.)

My first question/complaint: How does the Right justify this whining that the oil spill is being politicized when you have politicians who are using the Times Square bombing attempt to try to gain support for stripping citizenship from people suspected of terrorism. SUSPECTED, not convicted, not tried, not even charged. Piss poor.

So what is the Right's politicization of the oil spill look like? This. Ok, ok. The list is not ALL Republicans, but still. How is this insanity ok? How does justifying, ignoring, minimizing, mocking, whatever asshattery they can imagine NOT politicizing? My crusty old uncle used to call this 'talking outta the side of yer neck'.

My second complaint/question: How can you say things like 'Obama wanted this to happen' and then complain that the administration is politicizing the oil spill? Better yet, why is the knee-jerk position from the Right to always complain instead of offering solutions? Seems to me that we should use this event as a stepping off point to bring energy independence and policy back to the forefront.

Here is where I am really frustrated.  I will grant you that 'energy independence' by definition means relying less on the oil-producing foreign countries with which we have tenuous and/or shady relationships, that is true. But overarching energy policy is the bigger picture. The 'drill baby drill' crowd (who have now decided they never supported that position ... meh) makes the argument that offshore drilling will prevent $4.00+ for a gallon of gas. Point taken. But here is where I have a problem. These are the same folks who believe in fiscal conservatism, which is a crock of crap political term in my opinion. These are the same individuals who in the midst of the financial meltdown believed that governments and individuals had the responsibility to rein in spending, to live within our means, to budget and prioritize, to let capitalism run it's course. Blah blah blah blah.

Really? Ok. Let's take that mindset and apply it to fossil fuel use. If we do not want to depend on foreign oil, then let's don't! Let's live within our means. Tighten our belts, use less gas. Drive less. Force companies to find ways to use less gas. If we do not have the gas, we cannot use it. Market forces will just have to strain to work it out. Families, businesses, local governments will just have to trim the budgets.

'Not possible!' they scream. 'You are being unreasonable!' they shout. No, I am talking about the difference between energy independence and energy policy. We could make ourselves energy independent, we are just too lazy to do it. We are too set in our lifestyles. That is why we should be talking broad energy policy, clean energy, alternative energy. But Republicans just want to 'drill baby drill'. Awesome policy.

If Republicans truly believed in making good energy policy decisions, they would support clean/alternative energy from a capitalists' position. After all, green technology is going to be a multi-billion dollar industry. China is already trying to jump out ahead in the industry. Going back to the fiscal responsibility analogy, this is synonymous with changing careers or adding a new revenue source to the household budget. If one cannot live within their means, go out and find new means .. yeah! Get that, new means, not new ways to use more money.

But, alas, when you are talking outta the side of yer neck, you cannot make much sense anyway. The hypocrisy ... it burns.

Things that caught my eye today

Well, I have woefully neglected my blog lately. But I am posting today, though I will be mostly highlighting other stories/posts that were enlightening and/or entertaining for me.

First up, a confession: I haven't paid much attention to the financial reform being pursued by the Obama administration and the Dems. That being said, I really appreciated @ezraklein 's  post explaining the X's and O's of basic issues in financial reform. I heart Ezra is the mostly delightfully nerdy way possible. Read this post. Seriously.

Next, I enjoyed David Brooks' column discussing internet users and their use of ideologically homogeneous websites. Or maybe it is not exactly that way.

Melissa @harrislacewell 's moving post about race in America and President Obama's census form. As always, good stuff.

Two women I admire: @queenofspain and @thepioneerwoman  get together. Queen of Spain blogs about it. Hilarity ensues.

Finally, Jon Stewart had me hysterical with laughter at his "Go Fuck Yourselves" gospel extravaganza. Good TV.

Ahhhhhhhh... all is right in the world again.
Not really.
Oh well.

Health care summit punditry & other evils of the day

(NOTE: I am not a pundit, don't wish to be a pundit, don't call me a pundit. Look at the title of my blog if you are still confused.) 

So, I watched most of the health care summit, aka Blair House Project, yesterday. I can't say that I had high expectations. When it comes to politics, I rarely do. Does that make me cynical? Probably. Oh well.

But it WAS interesting to watch for several reasons. There were brief moments of actual discussion; unfortunately, there were too many moments of talking points on both sides as well. There was the very rare scene of a President sitting before a roundtable (ok .. square table. whatever) talking to ranking members of Congress from both sides of the aisle about an important piece of legislation.

Let's be honest. President Obama called this summit for two basic reasons: 1) to have an open forum to let the Republicans display their obstructionism & defend their *ahem* policies, and 2) to display a public attempt at opening up the conversation about health care reform. Here is what I took from the day's event:

• Politicians can rarely (at least in a public forum) resist the overpowering urge to blather talking points seemingly without the ability to stop themselves.
• The Republicans strategy of the Party of No was exposed for all to see. While I appreciate that they have a few *cough cough* proposals, the focus of EVERY opposition was anti-Obama health care and pro- ... well nothing. They kept acknowledging the need to reform our system, but simultaneously kept offering ... well .. nothing.
• Republicans whined about being left out of the process. I am not sure how I feel about that argument. On it's face, it seems disingenuous at best and hypocritical at worst. I mean, if your party position is to refute EVERYTHING the President says, then why would they need/want to include you in the process? Seriously. Politics aside, if I know that you have an agenda to shoot down everything I propose, then guess what? I am not inviting you to the party. I will say "fuck you, I'm having this party without you."
• President Obama was calm, cool, & collected throughout the proceedings, even in those soundbite moments with Alexander and McCain. The fact that the right-wing douches call his performance arrogant is yet another indication of their bias/prejudice/ignorance/stupidity ... whatever.
• In the end, nothing was really gained. Each party began their spin, then pundits weighed in with ratings, commentary, bullshit analysis, etc etc etc.

So now what? The Republicans seem to have two talking points post-summit:

1. The Democrats got to talk more that us. Wah wah wahhhhhh.
2. We can't afford this government takeover of health care. *yawn*

What is left to conclude? The Republicans don't really have an interest in fixing our healthcare system, they will continue to obstruct, and they will continue to stay on their talking points - one of their core strengths.

The rest of us? We will continue to be frustrated by a populace that does not understand the process, yet hates the process. Bad combination. An ignorant voting public does not always make great decisions. A smart Republican party knows this and stays on task for POLITICAL GAIN .. NOT for the betterment of our country.

Will health care reform take place? I don't really know. It seems it has died 462 deaths over the last year. I will await the ultimate end to this long road. But for now, I support my President and I continue to detest what the Republican party has become.

I am angry .. or maybe it is depressed.. nope I'm pissed

On the weekend, I try to disconnect a bit. Spend time with the family, laze around and read books, and so forth. I turn on the news or I check my Google reader. But I try not to invest too much energy, for better or worse, into the shitty news of the day.

Yesterday, I saw a brief snippet on CNN about a new poll showing that a majority of Americans are now against the health care reform bills that are now in the House and Senate. I jerked my head around fast enough to guarantee whiplash, then yelled, "Whaaaaaatttttt?"

Then, I got pissed. I rattled off a rant to my husband, whose eyes glassed over when I started talking about polls, policy, politics (apparently, the three "P"s don't have quite the same appeal to him!). I still decided to push the news aside and enjoy the weekend. Until now. Now I just need to sort my way through this frustration.

Obama campaigned on health care reform. It was a big part of his platform. Multiple polls indicated that the American people believed that we should reform our broken system. We are one of the only large democratically-ruled countries that doesn't provide health care for it's citizens. Other countries shake their heads at us, puzzled that in a country with this much money and power, we can't even get on board with whether we should take care of the health of our citizens.

This is basic stuff, right? I mean, sure we can disagree on what should dominate domestic policy. But the need to fix the broken, potentially disastrous future that our current system could bring .. is that really questionable? The answer is yes and no. That is, yes if you are the party of NO. No if you understand the alternative.

Here's a quick progression (or lack thereof) of health care reform. Congressman go out during summer recess and conduct town halls - standard practice designed to get the in touch with their constituency. Only this summer, some asshat tea party schmucks put out a memo asking people (not necessarily constituents) to attend DEMOCRATIC members' town halls, specifically, and to disrupt them with shouting, interruptions, generally annoying commotions. The purpose of this? To 'rattle' the Democratic congressman. That's right, not to promote discussion, not even to be heard; just to disrupt.

These wild, chaotic town halls were tailor made for the bored mainstream media. All manner of shouting, insult-hurling, faux outrage made for good TV. The problem? Two things. One, it was manufactured and at best disingenuous. Two, it gave the appearance that this opposition was widespread and righteous. So, now the American public, who are notoriously politically-apathetic and lazy, are now like "Wait, what is so scary about this bill? Should I be scared? I'm scared. What was that sound? Did you hear the boogey man, cuz I just did. *cue scary music* We are all doomed!!!" (or something like that)

Of course, when the Congress returned, it was noted that these *cough* disruptions were not common place or widespread or reflective of the feelings of the constituents (in many cases). No matter. The opposition's strategy worked.


Then Teddy Kennedy dies. This wasn't unexpected, but still it was ironic that the cause of his political life teetered on it's own death. Then there was the on-again, off-again, it's dead, it's alive, public option, no public option, Senator Snowe as President, Max Baucus and the Gang of Six rule the world, etc. etc. etc. drama that played out every day. It was exhausting to watch. Difficult to follow even if you are an invested, educated, informed politically-minded American, which coincidentally leaves out 89.8% of the general public.

Then there were the endless polls. Majority favor health care reform; majority oppose health care reform; majority feel Congress is not doing enough to help health care problems; majority feel Obama not doing what is needed with health care reform; majority approve of health care reform; majority majority majority blah blah blah gah gah gah (I think this is how Lady GaGa wrote her new song).

Then a Republican (or a pseudo-Republican, depending on whom you ask) wins Teddy's seat??? What? How is this possible? What the hell is going on? Here comes the spin. I will not EVEN go into that topic now. Then our President decides to slow down health care reform. He vowed to listen to the people and try bipartisanship. Again, I will not even go into that here. Another post for another day.

Now the polls from the Massachusetts voters indicate they are against health care reform (ironic, considering that they already HAVE health care). Of course, it is a 46/48% split (favor/oppose), not exactly the mandate/landslide/OMG moment the Right tried to portray it as. In fact, those numbers generally match the nationwide polls, too.

Not bad enough yet? Then a poll came out suggesting 55% of Americans think Democrats should shelf the negotiations on the current bill. Not bad enough yet? Said 55% of people want Dems to go back and consider alternatives that would get more Republican support. Ummm.. pardon me? We have a majority of the Congress. My four year-old can figure out basic math. Republican support is not going to change shit. Besides, Republicans are the party of NO. Their mission has been to shoot down EVERYTHING that the Obama administration proposes, even if occasionally they try to make it seem otherwise. Interestingly, the same poll says nearly 60% of Americans are either pleased with the progress our President has made (39%) or wish he would have done MORE on his agenda (20%).

So what happened? I'll tell you what, it is what has me pissed off. The Republicans have stolen the message AGAIN. They block reform at every possible avenue, then cry about a lack of bi-partisanship. They successful got the meme of 'reform is too costly', despite CBO projections saying that the Senate bill will LOWER the deficit. They successfully got the meme entrenched that reform is 'being shoved down our throats', again despite the filibustering, stalling, bullshitting, and every other tactic imaginable that the Republicans have used to stall votes, debate, etc.

Google 'health care reform'. Now look at the right column under 'sponsored links'. What do you see? Half of them are Right-wing websites looking to kill reform at any cost. Who is winning the message now? Exactly. 

And now? They can sit back and watch their machinery at work. They have convinced the American public that somehow bi-partisanship will work; that the Republicans are the poor victims sitting at the unpopular table in the lunchroom. Just waiting for someone to talk nice to them. I waive the BULLSHIT FLAG on that meme.

I am pissed.