Has anyone else noticed the influx of female-related material flowing onto the pages (or sites) of several newspapers and news organizations? Everywhere I look there's an article about an issue regarding women. Obviously, I'm not necessarily complaining about the fact that women's issues are being brought to the forefront of conversation. I am curious however, why now? Undoubtedly it is because of the picture-perfect vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin. She's a news peg. But really, just because a sweet-faced mother of five burst onto the scene? Where was the concern with Hillary?
One of the biggest issues being addressed as of late is that of motherhood. How will Palin care for her children and be vice president? Hillary doesn't have young children, it wasn't an issue. The question of the capability of a mother being able to care for children and hold down a significant job is ludicrous. It angers me every time it's brought up. The children do have a father, gasp! One response I got to that justification was, "Yeah, but he has a full-time job too." Really? Many American households deal with both parents holding down full-time jobs and their kids aren't wandering off into rivers or sticking forks in electrical outlets.
Another issue being looked at more closely (thank you a thousand times) is the reality of the "glass ceiling" and how women are treated in the corporate environment. I came across an intriguing article by The New York Times earlier today under the Jobs section. The author Hannah Seligson, shares her experience as a 20-something woman coming out of college and entering the workforce. Seligson argues that young women, while in college, are naive and used to the equality of academia. When a woman enters the workforce she is often stunned by the gender ideas still in place in many establishments. I can agree on some level. Certain comments that have been made in my own work place (eg. "Well this is a room full of trouble," said by a male co-worker when entering a room solely full of women with no man to "police" them) that left me gritting my teeth. I take it with a grain of salt usually and chalk it up to the small-town attitude. I have no metropolitan experience with which to compare my current situation. When I was in a metropolitan setting, I worked in an office with only women. However, I don't doubt that these things happen on a frighteningly frequent basis.
The Seligson article contradicted itself however. It at one point brings up the issue of inequality in the work place, but in the next breath says women need to stop showing "feminine" traits at work.
"I have also seen young women — myself included — getting in the way of their own success. I have found that we need to build a new arsenal of skills to mitigate some of our more 'feminine' tendencies," she wrote. Seligson goes on to talk about how women need thicker skin and to toughen up in order to make their lives easier. Why can't we just say everyone needs to be more professional? No one wants an employee sobbing over a tough critique or on the opposite end of the spectrum throwing a computer tower through a window. Which by the way, either sex is completely capable of.
I'm just so tired of the categorizations. Yes, men can act in certain ways and women in others, but both can absolutely act in those same ways conversely. It's the same thing as questioning how Sarah Palin can take care of a family while being vice president -- a very scary role reversal (for some) that for whatever reason Americans can't fathom. God forbid a father take on the role of caregiver.
These categorizations are also the cause of such attention being paid to Palin in the media. She is an attractive woman. A mother. And a potential national leader (technically). This makes her a spectacle, a novelty. How many articles are bringing up the issue of race regarding Obama? Far less, I can assure you.
Bottom line, what women in this country need to demand is a level playing field.
Friday, September 12, 2008
Thursday, September 4, 2008
What a gal.
Throughout my citizen's journey toward the upcoming election, I have tried to keep an open mind and weigh both sides of the political divide with honest intention. This desire led me to watch Sarah Palin's speech last night... as well as the urge to see what she would have to say in regards to the media sputum about her personal life pumped into every outlet in existence.
Palin began her speech with a little McCain adoration, then continued into a brief synopsis of her personal life and struggle. Her first personal point was that she is the mother of a soon-to-be-deployed soldier. Palin's 19-year-old son will head to Iraq to serve this country on Sept. 11. Really? I would like to preface the impending bit of cynicism by saying that I feel completely indebted and grateful toward any citizen that joins the military to serve this country. I am in no way trying to imply that what Palin's son, Track, is doing is anything but admirable.
However, this is just the first issue I have with the entire package deal that is Sarah Palin. The point I keep coming back to is that McCain's choice seems so "perfect." He's chosen a woman (Hey, Hillary lovers... look! She's got one of them vaginas too!) that is just as cute as button (Even prettier than McCain's wife!) and has a Vaseline smile that could knock down a crowd of cowboys in an instant. Her family has, as she said in her speech, "the same ups and downs as any other -- the same challenges and the same joys." Without a doubt, her family does mirror many families in this country: a larger family, a child going into the military, a child with special needs and a child having a child out of wedlock. No one can ignore the fact that these are challenges that "normal" American families face every day. It just seems contrived. Do both candidates think they are fooling people? Perhaps it has come with age, or a more cynical nature, but almost everything about this entire election screams manipulation. I guess it goes with the territory.
To her credit, Palin was well-spoken throughout her speech. It seemed that under the surface however, there was a multitude of various insinuations and contradictions. I believe she does have the capability to win over at least a few hearts and minds in this country with her at-first-glance sugary, sweet demeanor. Especially by throwing in phrases like, "He's still my guy," in regards to her husband and making sure she comes across as just another PTA mom. And of course by making little quips about eBay and how her children missed the personal chef she put the kibosh on, I'm sure she'll be a big hit with the 65+ crowd.
As far as the meat of her address goes, Palin did point out a few of her accomplishments but also spent quite a bit of time debasing opponent Sen. Barack Obama. Granted, this comes with any political debate or speech, but generally I think opposing candidates try to at least stick to fact and truth in order to effectively debunk each other. In this instance... not so much. I came across an interesting article released by the AP about Palin stretching the truth during her speech. One of the best parts the AP contradicted with research, was when she spoke about Obama's tax plan.
"The Democratic nominee for president supports plans to raise income taxes ... raise payroll taxes .. raise investment income taxes ... raise the death tax ... raise business taxes ... and increase the tax burden on the American people by hundreds of billions of dollars," Palin said.
The AP article offers the facts that in actuality Obama's tax plan would, "increase after-tax income for middle-income taxpayers by about 5 percent by 2012, or nearly $2,200 annually... He also would raise income taxes, capital gains and dividend taxes on the wealthiest. He would raise payroll taxes on taxpayers with incomes above $250,000, and he would raise corporate taxes. Small businesses that make more than $250,000 a year would see taxes rise."
Hundreds of billions, huh?
As a word-oriented person, I generally pay attention to the language people use and the associations that go along with it. In Palin's speech, a few words jumped out at me. What also made itself apparent was the reason for choosing these words.
First: "Take it from a gal who knows the North Slope of Alaska." Gal is a slang term for girl originating in the late 1700s. The term "good ol' gal" comes to mind. Palin is trying to align herself with the good ol' boy mentality that goes along with much (not all) of the Republican party. Why couldn't she have just said woman? Using the term "gal" softens the blow for men. It makes taking direction from a female a bit easier to swallow. Some make take no offense to it, but call a steadfast feminist a "gal" and see where it gets you.
Second: "By the grace of God." Self explanatory. Separation of church and state.
Third: "... how evil is overcome." The term evil in this sense is being used in reference to McCain's time as a P.O.W. The evil is the enemy. Isn't Satan also an evil enemy? I'm just spit-balling here. Point being again... religious connotation. But I do have to commend her for not bombarding us with "folks."
I can't deny that Palin does have a certain charisma that will reach out to a specific demographic. I can see people falling head over heels for her and her family. McCain made a smart decision in choosing Palin to be his running mate, there's no doubt about that. How far will it get both of them? The next few months will be extremely interesting as the finish line nears. Palin still has a lot to prove, but I'm just not sure how much shucks-infused dialogue I can take.
Palin began her speech with a little McCain adoration, then continued into a brief synopsis of her personal life and struggle. Her first personal point was that she is the mother of a soon-to-be-deployed soldier. Palin's 19-year-old son will head to Iraq to serve this country on Sept. 11. Really? I would like to preface the impending bit of cynicism by saying that I feel completely indebted and grateful toward any citizen that joins the military to serve this country. I am in no way trying to imply that what Palin's son, Track, is doing is anything but admirable.
However, this is just the first issue I have with the entire package deal that is Sarah Palin. The point I keep coming back to is that McCain's choice seems so "perfect." He's chosen a woman (Hey, Hillary lovers... look! She's got one of them vaginas too!) that is just as cute as button (Even prettier than McCain's wife!) and has a Vaseline smile that could knock down a crowd of cowboys in an instant. Her family has, as she said in her speech, "the same ups and downs as any other -- the same challenges and the same joys." Without a doubt, her family does mirror many families in this country: a larger family, a child going into the military, a child with special needs and a child having a child out of wedlock. No one can ignore the fact that these are challenges that "normal" American families face every day. It just seems contrived. Do both candidates think they are fooling people? Perhaps it has come with age, or a more cynical nature, but almost everything about this entire election screams manipulation. I guess it goes with the territory.
To her credit, Palin was well-spoken throughout her speech. It seemed that under the surface however, there was a multitude of various insinuations and contradictions. I believe she does have the capability to win over at least a few hearts and minds in this country with her at-first-glance sugary, sweet demeanor. Especially by throwing in phrases like, "He's still my guy," in regards to her husband and making sure she comes across as just another PTA mom. And of course by making little quips about eBay and how her children missed the personal chef she put the kibosh on, I'm sure she'll be a big hit with the 65+ crowd.
As far as the meat of her address goes, Palin did point out a few of her accomplishments but also spent quite a bit of time debasing opponent Sen. Barack Obama. Granted, this comes with any political debate or speech, but generally I think opposing candidates try to at least stick to fact and truth in order to effectively debunk each other. In this instance... not so much. I came across an interesting article released by the AP about Palin stretching the truth during her speech. One of the best parts the AP contradicted with research, was when she spoke about Obama's tax plan.
"The Democratic nominee for president supports plans to raise income taxes ... raise payroll taxes .. raise investment income taxes ... raise the death tax ... raise business taxes ... and increase the tax burden on the American people by hundreds of billions of dollars," Palin said.
The AP article offers the facts that in actuality Obama's tax plan would, "increase after-tax income for middle-income taxpayers by about 5 percent by 2012, or nearly $2,200 annually... He also would raise income taxes, capital gains and dividend taxes on the wealthiest. He would raise payroll taxes on taxpayers with incomes above $250,000, and he would raise corporate taxes. Small businesses that make more than $250,000 a year would see taxes rise."
Hundreds of billions, huh?
As a word-oriented person, I generally pay attention to the language people use and the associations that go along with it. In Palin's speech, a few words jumped out at me. What also made itself apparent was the reason for choosing these words.
First: "Take it from a gal who knows the North Slope of Alaska." Gal is a slang term for girl originating in the late 1700s. The term "good ol' gal" comes to mind. Palin is trying to align herself with the good ol' boy mentality that goes along with much (not all) of the Republican party. Why couldn't she have just said woman? Using the term "gal" softens the blow for men. It makes taking direction from a female a bit easier to swallow. Some make take no offense to it, but call a steadfast feminist a "gal" and see where it gets you.
Second: "By the grace of God." Self explanatory. Separation of church and state.
Third: "... how evil is overcome." The term evil in this sense is being used in reference to McCain's time as a P.O.W. The evil is the enemy. Isn't Satan also an evil enemy? I'm just spit-balling here. Point being again... religious connotation. But I do have to commend her for not bombarding us with "folks."
I can't deny that Palin does have a certain charisma that will reach out to a specific demographic. I can see people falling head over heels for her and her family. McCain made a smart decision in choosing Palin to be his running mate, there's no doubt about that. How far will it get both of them? The next few months will be extremely interesting as the finish line nears. Palin still has a lot to prove, but I'm just not sure how much shucks-infused dialogue I can take.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
