Category Archives: sexism

Truck Attack on Reno Protesters; Trump Attack on Everyone Else

newspapers 1 ## The lead story on the Reno Gazette Journal website concerns two chubby white guys stalking and then driving a truck through a group of DAPL protesters in downtown Reno.  The two chubbies stopped a short distance away to “give their version of events” to police; fortunately there were no critical injuries sustained by members of the protest group.

## After the Citizens United debacle of a decision is anyone surprised that outside spending is a major feature of the Nevada senate seat race?  RGJ has more details.

## Perhaps it’s a measure of how “safe” the Nevada Congressional District 2 seat has become for Republicans that Mark Amodei is still backing Donald Trump:

“In the past couple of days every negative adjective in the English language has been used to describe Mr. Trump’s comments toward women,” Amodei said in the letter. “Frankly, the harsh criticism and outrage are, in my view, appropriate and deserved. Americans, in the final analysis, expect perfection, leadership, and someone they can be proud of as the leader of their country on the world political stage. At this point, sadly, neither nominee can lay claim to any of those traits.” [RGJ]

Amodei is now the only major Republican in Nevada supporting the Trump candidacy.  Maybe it’s appropriate to ask at this point – precisely WHAT has Secretary Clinton done that puts her even remotely close to the egregious behavior and insult driven campaign waged by the “deplorable” Mr. Trump?

The Benghazi Flap was a GOP manufactured pseudo-scandal upon which the GOP wasted two years and about $7 million dollars to come up with NOTHING.  The “emails” are another exercise in sound and fury signifying nothing.  If Representative Amodei is constructing his false equivalence predicated on these two bits of bombast, it’s a thin reed to grasp for the long run.

For his part, Mr. Trump announces himself unshackled from the Republican Party of which Rep. Amodei is a proud member, and launched one of his almost-patented Tweet Storms overnight.  Thus Representative Amodei places himself in support of the Donald J. Trump Insult-O-Rama:

Trump ChecklistThis isn’t exactly a list upon which to build a credible candidacy? For anyone. 

Comments Off on Truck Attack on Reno Protesters; Trump Attack on Everyone Else

Filed under Amodei, Native Americans, Nevada politics, Politics, Republicans, sexism, Women's Issues, Womens' Rights

Wage Discrimination is an Economic, not just family, Issue

Rosie Riveter

Consider the following report from the Institute for Women’s Policy Research:

“Women are almost half of the workforce. They are the equal, if not main, breadwinner in four out of ten families. They receive more college and graduate degrees than men. Yet, on average, women continue to earn considerably less than men. In 2015, female full-time workers made only 79 cents for every dollar earned by men, a gender wage gap of 21 percent. Women, on average, earn less than men in virtually every single occupation for which there is sufficient earnings data for both men and women to calculate an earnings ratio.”

DB’s ranted on about this before: (2013)

“Women are having a tough time in the present economy, and the situation isn’t made any better by the wage gap.  NPWF reports: ” In Nevada, on average, a woman who holds a full-time job is paid $35,484 per year while a man who holds a full-time job is paid $41,803 per year. ” (pdf)  This has some very real economic consequences for the state since 125,402 households in Nevada are headed by women. In 32,479 of those households the income is below the poverty line.  Thus 25.89% of those households are barely getting by.”

And on the GOP filibuster of the Paycheck Fairness Act (2014).  However, it really is necessary to broaden the discussion – equal pay for equal work is not just a “woman’s issue,” nor is it a “family issue.” It’s an economic issue.

Once more, let’s look at the reality of what happens when men and women aren’t paid equally for equal work.

In the state of Nevada right now, the average annual wage for a food service manager is $62,160. Pay ranges from $18.51 per hour to $46.97 per hour with a mean wage of $29.89/hr. [NDETR calc]  Let’s keep all the variables such as experience, tenure, and specialization, the same, and concentrate solely on what would happen if two people of the same level of experience, expertise, and skills were to be paid based on gender.  Let’s have our hypothetical male food service manager paid the annual average of $62,160 per year.  This means that our hypothetical female food service manager would receive 79% of that, or $49,106.

If both our male and female food service managers were being paid $62,160 per year, and if both were in the same household then the household income would be $124,320.  Now, here’s why this is an economic issue and not merely a “gender” one.

If our male and female food service managers are paid along the lines of the 79 cents for every dollar that holds nationally, then the total household income is reduced.  That $124,320 in total household income drops to $112,266, a reduction in income of $12,054.

That $12,054 is money NOT spent at the grocery store, or at the furniture store, or the clothing store, or at the restaurant, or the automobile dealership, or the carpet center, or the movie theater. It is NOT spent on educational expenses, books, and Internet service. It is NOT spent on sporting goods, family entertainment, or automobile parts and service.  It is NOT spent at the florists’ shop, or the cabinet-maker’s store, or the barber shop, or the beauty salon.  It can’t be spent because they don’t have it.

The only way to avoid talking about this simple arithmetic is to prattle on about “Job Creators” and the Trickle Down Economics Hoax. “Supply side economics” is a theory in search of statistics – it doesn’t work in the real world, and it never has.   If there is no demand for goods or for a service, there will be no jobs created.  And, there will be no demand IF people don’t have the money to spend for those goods and services.

Once more, here’s the First Law of Personnel Management:

First Law Personnel ManagementHow are businesses in this country supposed to SUSTAIN demand for goods and services if the female employees in the country, who are doing the same jobs as their male counterparts, aren’t able to contribute the same amount to the family’s disposable income?

So, tell me, how do we grow the economy of the United States of America, an economy based in no small part of consumer spending, if we artificially limit the amount of income contributed to family coffers by women?

There are 123 million women ages 16 and above in the United States, and 72 million (58.6%) are working or looking for work. Women are now 47% of the total U.S. labor force, and they are projected to account for 51% of the increase in the total labor force between 2008 and 2018.  73% of employed women are working full time, while 27% are employed on a part time basis. [DoL]

We are no longer talking about the “little woman” working outside the home for some ‘pocket money.”  We are talking about two-income families, both incomes being necessary to move toward the middle class life style or to maintain it.   If a family of four, with an annual income of $112,266 lives in the Las Vegas metropolitan area, their income is comparable to 56% of those adults in that area. That’s the middle. [Pew Calculator] Diminish the second income and we diminish the whole.

Diminish the whole and we diminish the potential for economic growth.  Equal pay for equal work is simply dollars toward a stronger economy and old fashioned common sense.

Comments Off on Wage Discrimination is an Economic, not just family, Issue

Filed under Economy, labor, Nevada economy, Politics, sexism, women, Women's Issues

Venus Rising?

girls soccer One of the ESPN documentaries which deserves another look now is “Venus Vs,” the 2013 film narrating how Venus Williams took on the titans of tennis – the financial titans – and won.  It took until 2007 for women to receive the same prize money at Wimbledon as men, and it required Venus Williams to draw the line at what was acceptable in her Times op-ed.  Now, the parade for the US Women’s National Team is over, and presumably the cake’s been eaten and the ceremonial key to the city handed over. However, when the debris from the parade is cleared the economic prospects for women will be essentially the same as they were before the ride through Manhattan began.  Nor are we close to training and coaching the young people we need to develop the talent required to maintain our rankings.  We could use another Venus rising.

We’re Number One!

The disparity in men’s and women’s financial support in athletic endeavors is in too many ways illustrative of our perspective on sports in general: We expect to win, but we really aren’t all that excited about financially supporting youth development programs.  The parsimonious way in which we support after-school activities in general (for both boys and girls, academic and athletic) contrasts sharply with our expectations of the national teams which later represent us.  Since we’re speaking of soccer, let’s look at those statistics.

In 1974 there were 103,432 youngsters enrolled in youth soccer programs, and as of 1995 there were 2,388,719.  55% of that number were boys, 45% were girls. [usyo]  Somewhere in that 2209% increase in participation were members of the 1999 World Cup winning women’s national soccer team.  Further, if we drill down we find the members of that trailblazing crew came from collegiate programs – including Portland, UMass, Cal, Notre Dame, Central Florida, Stanford, and of course UNC.  Title IX worked.

As of 2014 there were 3,055,148 youngsters participating in youth league soccer, and we’d have to guess the breakdown was close to the 2008 reporting – 52% boys, and 48% girls.  Again, from this group came the ladies who enjoyed the parade in NYC.  School programs, youth/community programs, and collegiate programs contributed to the talent pool from which this team was drawn.

TV commentary made much of the “16 year drought” since the ‘99 World Cup match in women’s soccer, and when the US men’s basketball team placed 3rd in the Seoul Olympics (1988) one might have expected the sky to shatter at any moment – a problem corrected by sending the Dream Team to Barcelona the next round.  When the 3rd place finish repeated in Athens (2004) the response was to send in the Big Guns again in 2008.  We expect the national men’s team to excel, to win, – to crush opponents. We expect the women’s soccer teams to rank in the top five – and we expect to win.

However, we don’t necessarily DO what it takes to expand the talent pool from which we derive these teams.

Penny Wise Pound Foolish

We’ve left some after school programs in general languishing on the vine, both for academic and athletic interests:

“In the Afterschool Alliance’s 2012 survey, although a majority of afterschool program providers revealed that their program’s budget is inadequate to meet the needs of the students and families in their community, this number is even higher among Latino majority programs and African-American majority programs.  Additionally, African-American majority programs and Latino majority programs were more likely to report that their funding is down from three years ago.” [asall]

Not only is funding strained for after school programs but we’re not addressing a crucial factor for African American and Latino youngsters, safe transportation to and from program venues.

“Transportation, safe transport in particular, is a significant hurdle to enrollment in afterschool programs in African-American and Latino communities.  African-American parents and Latino parents were both much more likely to cite that their children did not have a safe way to get to and from afterschool programs as a barrier to enrollment than parents overall.  Additionally, approximately half of African-American and Latino parents of kids not enrolled in an afterschool program indicated that transportation to and from afterschool programs factored into their decision not to enroll their child, compared to less than two-fifths of parents overall.” [asall]

All too often we’re pleased to lecture parents on how their children need more exercise, more academic assistance, more Story Hour, more Anything After School – but we’re obviously not willing to invest in the transportation which would enhance those enrollment figures.   If we drill down to athletic activities, the money issues become ever more evident.  Consider the implications of the following ESPN graphic:

Age entry sports graph The single largest factor in establishing when children start participating in youth activities is whether or not the parents are earning over $100,000 per year.

Here’s another ESPN graphic which sheds a bit more light on the subject.  Whose children are more likely to participate in a variety of after school exercise/athletic activities?

most likely playing on teamsIf you noticed “Suburban/Affluent” across the “most likely groups” and urban/low income across the graphic for “least likely groups,” you’ve gotten the point.

Should we continue to constrict the talent pool to suburban/affluent families, to those families which can afford transportation, to those families which can come up with the cash for equipment and other necessities, then we’ve artificially constrained our own cohort of prospective talent – and yet we still demand that the outcome in world competition be the same – we crush opponents in soccer and basketball.

Was Title IX supposed to fix all this, especially in women’s sports?  The law itself can’t fix the disparity in resources illustrated above.

“Most importantly, Title IX hasn’t managed to extend the enormous social and health benefits of sports to all girls equally. In 2008, a national survey of third- through 12th-graders by the Women’s Sports Foundation found that 75 percent of white girls play sports, compared to less than two-thirds of African-American and Hispanic girls, and about half of Asian girls. And while boys from immigrant families are well-represented in youth sports, less than half of girls from those families are playing.*The gender gap is also worse in urban schools and among kids from low-income families.

These disparities in youth sports persist at the collegiate level. African-American women are underrepresented in all sports except Division I basketball and track and field, and Latinas make up just 4 percent of female athletes in the NCAA. As Benita Fitzgerald Mosley, an Olympic gold medalist in track and field, recently explained to the New York Times, “[I]n the grand scheme of things, Caucasian girls have benefited disproportionately well, especially suburban girls and wealthy Caucasian girls.” [MJ]

The disparities we find in programs for very young children continue through collegiate competition.  And, here we go again – the gap is wider between the affluent suburbs and the urban, less affluent communities of color.

Thank you from a grateful nation….

And here we return to the money question.  If we can expand the talent pools for our national teams, and if we can get more youngsters involved in healthy activities at earlier ages, and if we can get more young girls involved, and if we can get more young girls from less affluent neighborhoods – what happens?

“This year’s (World Cup) tournament featured a generation of American women who have not lived in a world without Title IX and did their jobs elegantly and professionally: They won the game, defeating a longtime rival in Japan; and as they did during the 2012 London Olympics, they won with high-caliber athleticism, class and sports-womanship along the way.

Yet the total payout for the Women’s World Cup this year will be $15 million, compared with the total for the men’s World Cup last year of $576 million, nearly 40 times as much. That also means that the Women’s World Cup payout is less than the reported $24 million to $35 million FIFA spent on its self-aggrandizing fiction film, United Passions.” [Politico]

Yes, and two members of the USWNT were living with Jeff Van Gundy and his family because the salaries paid in the professional leagues make finding accommodations a real problem. [USAT]  The salaries in the US for women players range from a measly $6,000 to $30,000. [STFAnother graph may tell part of the tale:

Air timeAt this juncture we have a Chicken and Egg argument of sorts – do we have to have air time before people get engaged sufficiently to attract more corporate and advertising sponsorship? Or, if we have more corporate and advertising sponsors will the women’s side of the ledger get more public interest? What will crack the egg or chase down the chicken?

“Most of us have been socialized to accept men’s sports as dominant, and somehow automatically more interesting. The problem is that once society has internalized this falsehood — and let’s face it, it’s a falsehood that’s millennia in the making — it’s not so easy to correct it. Women have been fighting for decades, centuries, to be seen as equals to men both on the playing field and off of it.” [BusInsider]

There are some glimmers of hope on the horizon.  EA Sports will include women’s soccer in its products, Fox Sports did a good job of broadcasting this latest World Cup tournament and was rewarded with high ratings for the final game, and advertisers dipped their toes in the water – even Clorox got into the act. Nike sold jerseys, and no doubt other firms will find ways to capitalize on the market.  However, it may not be all sexism and short attention span theater issues, there’s also the problem of longevity.

As long as investors in women’s sports leagues continue to demand immediate returns there will be problems – just as there are with short-termism in other markets such as our financial ones.  Even a league as formidable as the NBA has had its problems – remember the original Denver Nuggets? Few do. Or, the end of the ABA in 1976? Or, the much traveled Hawks from Moline, to Milwaukee, to St. Louis to Atlanta?  Or, the struggles and travels of the Philadelphia Warriors and the Syracuse Nationals?  Obviously,  some patience is required.

Now What?

While it would be nice to have some powerful voice like that of Venus Williams championing more compensation for female athletes, we probably can’t afford to wait for that day.  Instead, if we truly want to see continued top level, world class, performances by our players and teams we need to:

  • Invest in after school activities for young people, and not just those in the affluent suburbs, with attention to such quotidian problems as transportation for the children so they can participate safely.
  • Encourage the development of youth programs, both academic and athletic for urban and rural youngsters, and be willing to staff and maintain these efforts.
  • Encourage and invest in programs for youngsters from ethnic minority groups – leave No Child’s Behind Left on the Couch.  To accomplish this we’ll need to invest in creating safe public spaces for kids to play on safe grounds with adequate and up to date equipment.
  • Get over the idea that a game between East Deer Breath State’s men’s team and the Wolverines of Western Boonie U. will automatically be more interesting than a match between the University of Connecticut and the University of Notre Dame’s women’s basketball teams.  Or, South Carolina? Or, Tennessee? Or, Stanford? Or, UCLA? Or LSU?
  • See some heavy-duty marketing campaigns establishing a positive brand for women’s teams in local and regional areas.
  • Develop some patience – no league (or any other enterprise) will yield immediate returns.

Finally, it will be a fine day when we stop perceiving children as an “expense,” and start visualizing them as “investments.” Every after school activity, every sports team, every youth league, every school extracurricular activity, every neighborhood playground, every city park, every local library is an investment in healthier more productive future citizens.  Yes, kids are expensive – but they’re well worth it.  We have proof of that in the eloquent words of one Venus Williams on June 26, 2006:

“I believe that athletes — especially female athletes in the world’s leading sport for women — should serve as role models. The message I like to convey to women and girls across the globe is that there is no glass ceiling. My fear is that Wimbledon is loudly and clearly sending the opposite message: 128 men and 128 women compete in the singles main draw at Wimbledon; the All England Club is saying that the accomplishments of the 128 women are worth less than those of the 128 men. It diminishes the stature and credibility of such a great event in the eyes of all women.” [Williams]

We can add some stature and credibility to our interest in athletics by adding a few more blows to that glass ceiling, and allowing more youngsters to dream of playing at Wimbledon, at Maples Pavilion, at BC Place, or Madison Square Garden….

Comments Off on Venus Rising?

Filed under basketball, football, media, sexism, Title IX, Women's Issues, youth

>No Matter What Mama Cass Elliott sang in ’69: It Isn’t Getting Better

>

Democratic presidential candidate Senator Barack Obama will give a speech tomorrow he wouldn’t have to give – except that the corporate, and white-dominated, media in this country can’t seem to get past 1969. Senator Hillary R. Clinton has taken several interview questions she should never have had to address – except that the corporate, and white-male-dominated, media in this country can’t seem to get past 1969.

Simply because it’s more timely, let’s address the “How far does Senator Obama have to back away from his church before the likes of Chris Matthews will be satisfied?” question first. One way to analyze the question is to look at it from the “framing” and “narrative” perspective. To do this requires stepping back and looking at its context in the empowerment of African Americans, and the subsequent White reactions.

A trip down memory lane:

In 1969 we were embroiled in Vietnam, and the assassinations of Robert Kennedy and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. were still fresh memories – not historical ‘artifacts.’ On April 14, 1969 the Student Afro-American Society at Columbia College occupied an abandoned NROTC office and renamed it the Malcolm X Liberation Center, [BSO] [Time] and a week later African American students took over Willard Straight Hall at Cornell University. Even music icon Aretha Franklin wasn’t immune from the turmoil, she was arrested in June for “creating a public disturbance.”

The patrons of the Stonewall Inn, a gay bar in Greenwich Village clashed with police and the “Stonewall Rebellion” announced the birth of the homosexual rights movement in June, 1969. An FBI memo “New Left and Extremist Movements” revealed that California Governor Ronald Reagan had plans for the destruction of ‘disruptive elements’ on college campuses using “psychological warfare and other methods.”

California was dealing with another hot topic – the Grape Workers Strike. Between 1967 and 1970 hundreds of striking workers spread across the continent to organize an international boycott of all California table grapes.

One of the most disturbing riots of 1969 took place in York, Pennsylvania, where July 21st rioting left two people dead and former members of the Girarders white street gang were given ammunition by the police and told, literally, “Kill as many n—s as you can.” A settlement in the death of one victim wouldn’t be made until 2005. Things were calmer in Woodstock, which began on August 15, and many women were a bit more relaxed when, on September 4, 1969 the FDA officially declared that birth-control pills were medically safe.

Events heated up again as the Chicago Eight were brought to trial on September 24, 1969 over events at the 1968 Democratic National Convention in Chicago the previous year. The convictions of Tom Hayden, Abbie Hoffman, Jerry Rubin, David Dellinger, and Rennie Davis would be over-turned on appeal.

Race relations hit the headlines again on October 29th when the U.S. Supreme Court dropped the “with all deliberate speed” part of the de-segregation rulings and ordered immediate integration of public schools. Jacksonville, Florida, promptly had a race riot two days later. Native Americans entered the lists, occupying Alcatraz Island on November 20, 1969. Early in December the Chicago police force stormed an apartment on the West Side and killed two members of the Black Panthers, Fred Hampton and Mark Clark; another prominent Panther, Bobby Rush, had left the apartment just hours earlier. Violence also erupted at the Altamont Speedway in Livermore, CA, during a Rolling Stones Concert, demonstrating that perhaps hiring the Hells Angels wasn’t the best choice for security. [Timelines]

The Year of the Great White Whine: If nothing more, the tenor of 1969 headlines, and the civil unrest palpable from one coast to the other, made the year a perfect illustration of the Chinese curse: May you live in interesting times. Conservative white men weren’t having a good time, not at all. Hispanic Americans were organizing in California. African American students and the Black Panthers were telling them that “black was beautiful – and powerful.” Women were telling them that the pill was perfectly safe and that they intended to use it. Native Americans had the temerity to remind the government that it had once promised to return abandoned lands to the tribes. The Supreme Court was telling them that, yes, your lily white daughter may, in fact, sit next to an African American youngster in class – Now. Gay men announced, forcefully, that they were tired of getting rousted by the cops. And, John Lennon and his wife were asking them to “Give Peace a Chance.”

Because it was no longer socially acceptable to refer to African Americans as “uppity,” the media was only too happy to apply the adjective Radical. Students were Radical. Black Panthers were Radical. The campus office or building sit-ins were Radical. Native Americans were Radical. Hispanic Americans were Radical. Gays were Radical. Adding to this unsettling situation for White American Males was the fact that their “girls” were no longer satisfied with a schedule load of Home Economics classes in high school, and weren’t any more delighted with the prospects of getting a college degree in one of the “three respectable occupations for women” – secretary, nurse, teacher. Now, even their women were Radical.

So, from the late 1960’s onward, the wonderfully handy word ‘radical’ took its place in the lexicon of current events narrative. Once associated with the provinces of abolitionists, suffragettes, labor organizers, communists, and anarchists, the ‘radical’ could now be applied to African Americans, Hispanics, young people of nearly all ethnicities, women, and Native Americans. No matter where a White Man might look he’d find a Radical.

We all know what Radicals are; they are angry, mad, fuming, irritated, and wrathful; filled with resentment, indignation, excitement, and turbulence. They are virulent, raging, and furious; and in their vexation we can dismiss their issues as irrational.

With this in mind, read the description of the Reverend Jeremiah White by columnist (and very White Male) Howard Fineman:

By now you probably know who Wright is: the brilliant, learned, eloquent, charming but also often angry and sometimes virulently anti-white (and now retired) pastor at the Southside Chicago United Church of Christ. A disciple of what came to be known as “black liberation” theology, Wright mixed social and moral uplift with nasty (even if often justified) stabs at the white power structure that has dominated American life.” – Howard Fineman [MSNBC]

Why would Fineman use the word “angry” instead of “passionate?” Why would he characterize being opposed to White oppression as “virulent?” Why is Black Liberation in quotation marks? Why would he use the word “nasty” and then seek to provide a parenthetical palliative? This isn’t to argue that Fineman is a poor reporter or columnist, but to observe that he, like so many others called upon to comment on American society, comes with a verbal toolkit of short-hand descriptive terminology that conforms in large part to the White Male narrative in which opposition to that “white power structure that has dominated American life” is Radical

Whether the corporate media wishes to acknowledge it or not, there is a double standard in its reportage. Consider the Wall Street Journal’s description of Rev. Mike Huckabee.

The former Baptist minister and governor of Arkansas is surging in Iowa, and is tied with Rudy Giuliani in national polls. He’s selling his party on a simple message: He’s not those other guys, with their flip-flops and different faiths, and dicey social positions. As to what Mr. Huckabee is–that’s as unknown to most voters as the Almighty himself. Mr. Huckabee is starting to get a look-see by the press, though whether the nation will have time to absorb the findings before the primaries is just as unknown.” [WSJ] However, Huckabee is know for using more honey than vinegar in his public speeches, and his Church hasn’t released copies of his sermons. However, there have been some White preachers who could get every bit as “nasty” and “angry” as any purveyor of fire and brimstone. One of these was the late Dr. Francis A. Schaeffer, a founder of the modern religious right, and the author of one of Huckabee’s favorite books.

In the confines of the White Male narrative, White Males are not Radical – even when the verbiage comes out as in the following excerpt:

I would now repeat again the word I used before. There is no other word we can use for our present situation that I have just been describing, except the word TYRANNY! TYRANNY! That’s what we face! We face a world view which never would have given us our freedoms. It has been forced upon us by the courts and the government — the men holding this other world view, whether we want it or not, even though it’s destroying the very freedoms which give the freedoms for the excesses and for the things which are wrong.” Dr. Francis A. Schaeffer (sermon to the Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church 1982)

Schaeffer’s son noticed the difference in the way the reporting game is played between African American and White ministers of the Gospel.

My dad’s books denouncing America and comparing the USA to Hitler are still best sellers in the “respectable” evangelical community and he’s still hailed as a prophet by many Republican leaders. When Mike Huckabee was recently asked by Katie Couric to name one book he’d take with him to a desert island, besides the Bible, he named Dad’s Whatever Happened to the Human Race? a book where Dad also compared America to Hitler’s Germany.” Frank Schaeffer, Huffington Post

Senator Clinton has managed to avoid being declared a Radical, but she still has trouble getting beyond the “Little Woman” mythology. If she seems stern and addresses an issue firmly, she’s “cold, and calculating.” If she shows an emotional side, then Newsweek is asking if this is a “Muskie Moment, or a helpful glimpse of the ‘real Hillary?’”ABC News asked “Can Clinton’s Emotions get the best of her?” Fox News felt compelled to produce an entire “Special Report: Panel on Hillary Clinton’s Emotional Moment.”

White Males are ‘powerful;’ women are ‘strident’ – as in “…At the same time, Clinton’s strident reaction to her Iowa loss, and some of the extreme policy positions she’s brought into her campaign since then, are making Obama seem like the safer choice in these dangerous times.” [SmrtMny]

Oh, if only she had stuck with Home Economics classes in high school – then she wouldn’t have had to come with that oatmeal-chocolate chip cookie recipe to appease the press? (The cookies are really pretty good!) However, instead of taking on one of those grand old traditional roles for women (house wife, secretary, teacher, or nurse) she had the audacity to attend Yale Law School and serve on the Board of Editors of the Yale Review of Law and Social Action.

This is truly a pipe dream, but wouldn’t it be nice if the reporting and punditry associated with the 2008 presidential election had advanced beyond the days when “Build Me Up Butter Cup” and “A Boy Named Sue” were top plays on AM radio stations?

2 Comments

Filed under Clinton, Obama, racism, sexism