Here are some reactions I've read this morning - reactions that report what actually took place instead of continuing to write as if what's in the writer's head is what's on the screen or in the newspaper. I'm not in agreement with Palin on much except her conviction that government ought to help not hinder ordinary people as they go about their lives. But the slings that have come at her positions are amazing, many without having researched them and others with such a twist of the verbal knife that they end up implying falsehoods. Phrases like "she casts herself as a mayor and governor" make me nuts since, in fact, she was a mayor and is a governor. And what does a phrase like "her churchgoer's smile" actually mean? How do non-churchgoer's smile? And we know very well that Obama is a churchgoer (remember Jeremiah Wright?) so does he have a churchgoer's smile too?

The Anchoress
Betsy's Page (here, here and here)
Fresh Bilge (don't miss this)
Neo-neocon
The New Republic
Obi's Sister (I especially like her Rosie the Riveter poster)
Fergus Shanahan

The real problem now is that the issues and arguments in this election are huge and important themselves (the economy, energy resources, foreign relations, etc.) and need to have the focus on them. It seems entirely possible to me that ridiculous irrelevancies are dangerous partly because they detract so much from the serious issues at stake in this election. One can appreciate and even be delighted by this smart, spirited and worthy candidate and yet disagree with her almost entirely. What is vital now is to effective put issues front and center.

By the way, Rudy Giuliani's speech was wonderful, warming up the crowd for Palin and showing what he could have been if he'd put one-tenth the energy into enthusing over his own candidacy. A missed opportunity for him and, more importantly, for us.

A few people have remarked that Palin's speech wasn't entirely written by her and clearly had input from McCain's speechwriters. No bleeping kidding!? She's running for SECOND position and is meant to be supporting his candidacy so wouldn't it be ridiculous if her speech wasn't reviewed and/or tempered by his people and him? If Biden's wasn't, by Obama, I'll eat my computer. And if Obama or Biden wrote one hundred percent of their speeches, I'll eat my computer and my keyboard.

Here are the texts of Biden's speech at the dnc and Palin's speech at the rnc.
Biden and Palin are scheduled to debate at St. Louis's Washington Univ. on Thursday, October 2nd.

Labels: 2008 election, women

From Michelle Malkin's lead story today (but, um, er, isn't it "lede"??):

If a Democrat mom chooses public office, she’s a patriot Wonder Woman imbued with Absolute Moral Authority on children’s, health, and social welfare issues.

If a Republican mom chooses public office, she’s the child-neglecting spawn of Satan who has no business debating any domestic public policy because of alleged hypocrisy.

The worst part, though, is that, from perusing the web and talking with people at work and on the train, I find that Republicans are just as likely to think the latter as Democrats are. And Democracts are as unlikely to think the former as Republicans. Where are the people who actually believe that any one of either sex and of any background can do and be whatever he or she wants to do?? Or are the 18 million correct that sexism is alive and thriving.

Labels: 2008 election, modern culture, women

Update - Where there's smoke there's often a flame if not exactly a full-blown fire. The Palins released the information today that their eldest daughter is pregnant, no doubt fueling rumor/attack mongers who were wrong tho' not entirely. Incidentally, Palin is reputed to have stated that she doesn't favor explicit sex education in high school and I'm sure that stance will come under (a) attack, (b) question and (c) revision. It's not as if sex education has reduced the number of teen pregnancies anywhere, let alone in Juneau, Alaska, but I'm betting she'll modify her position and I'm betting in the end it will make no difference.

All that aside, I quite wish someone would explain to me why our election contests have become such nastiness fests. Why can't we have important differences and examine the differences carefully but without nastiness? Do personal attacks advance understanding or help anyone assess the important conceptual and practical issues, and the people who champion one or another point of view?

At the beginning of this (endless) election cycle the argument statement was all over the place that "Obama is obviously an Arab [read: not a patriotic American] because his middle name is Hussein." You'd think that the biggest melting pot in the world could adapt to a name without having a national nervous breakdown and without engaging in guilt-by-name-association.

The latest example is about Sarah Palin and her baby. On one attack's hand is that the baby is really her eldest daughter's (and that such a heinous lie means Palin is unfit to be v.p.) and on the other attack’s hand is that she was irresponsible to have had the baby (and that such a foolish act means she is unfit to be v.p.).
The first attack was sparked by the fact that Palin supposedly never looked pregnant enough (?) and that she went back to work only a few days after the baby was born and that the daughter was carrying the baby during Palin's introduction last week. Since Palin is nursing the baby, the fabrication would require collusion with a doctor who induced lactation in a woman seven years after her previous birth plus padding outfits since there are photos that show an evidently pregnant governor plus distracting everyone from a salacious story which the Alaskan press would surely have glommed onto, not to mention that she seems like someone who would say it had happened and everyone should just deal with it, if it had. Not to mention that it's pretty unbelievable what the press will put forth without proof, a girl's feelings and reputation apparently be damned.
The second attack - that Palin was irresponsible to have the baby because it had Down's – is an illogical twist from people who call themselves pro choice. The pro-choice people I know and have discussed it with are pro choice, not pro abortion, believing abortion should be legal but not required. I am floored that the current attack mongers, presumably labeling themselves pro choice given their side of the political aisle, are basically saying Palin should have had an abortion. But doesn't having choice mean having more than one option, by definition? If so, what does the phrase "a woman's right to choose" mean to them?

(By the way, let's not get into a pro choice / pro life discussion here. I respect the belief that a fetus is a living being and that the logical consequences that follow from that mean never having an abortion. My own belief is that it’s never ideal but is sometimes necessary and preferable to alternatives. That discussion would be intense and better at a different time. At this moment, I am writing about my astonishment that pro choice supporters would be so illogical as to attack Palin’s choice to have her baby.)

We who call ourselves pro choice say that we want respect for our own freedom of thought and choice. Right? Well, then, that means we also have to respect other people's freedom of thought and choice. Right? Even if their choices are not the ones we would make ourselves. Right? So just as someone might choose NOT to have a baby – and that is their choice – someone might also choose TO have a baby. Right?

I am reminded of something I have maintained for years, supported by the early literature but somewhat lost recently. Women's liberation was not designed to force all women to work outside the home but, rather, to encourage all women to assess their own needs, desires and goals and then make individual and personal choices. It might mean staying home for one and going to work for another, marrying a stay-at-home-guy for one and being a stay-at-home-gal for another. Hear the words and realize the meanings of "individual" and "personal" and "freedom" and "liberation." Your choices might be very different from mine. I'm not at all sure we have any right to make judgments or get angry or disapprove of someone who makes different choices from our own.

Labels: 2008 election, reflections, women

I've been listening to one of Joan Anderson's books in my car.  (Cds are a pleasant alternative to music or talk, by the way though that's a subject for another day.) I'm not sure what I think.  She's got some wonderful ideas but also a tone of smugness that's annoying and alarming.  Some of what she suggests is undoubtedly useful and I've even done a fair number of the exercises and processes on my own.  But you get the feeling that she's saying if women would isolate themselves and discover their own needs then everything else would fall into place.  I don't mean to challenge her but other people are involved in people's lives and we cannot control them at all.  Sometimes they don't respond as we'd like, even if we're entirely centered and calm.  Obviously the effect of someone being non-responsive or antagonistic is very different if one's own center is calm and clear, but that doesn't seem quite what she's saying.  Then again, maybe I'm just resisting.  I must say spending a weekend, month or year in a cottage on Cape Cod sounds like heaven although few of us have the financial wherewithal.  Have any rare readers experienced her books/workshops and, if so, what do you think?

Labels: books, women, writing

Why does Mrs NY Gov keep standing beside her hubris-ridden, felony-committing, falsehood-uttering, probably narcissistic husband when he makes his announcements? She looks as if she hasn't slept in days and she looks absolutely miserable. It certainly allows him to retain a semblance of family pride and normalcy but it seems nutty to me. Is there any way shape or form in which it helps her or her children, for example?

Please please please tell me this isn't a remnant of the "what did I do to make you do this to me?" syndrome to which many women, bright and smart having nothing to do with it, fall prey. We are raised to be the helpmates and "good girls" who are the "power behind the throne" and logically, therefore, hold the real reins to everything. Thus if we are beaten or abused or psychologically trampled, it is essentially our fault and therefore it us up to us to figure a way out of the maze (since it is, at least partially, of our own making, following the logic mentioned above). I thought perhaps women had moved beyond this but Mrs. NY Gov is in her late forties so maybe it is where she is coming from. But one would hope that all her degrees and professional success would have helped to disabuse (pun intended) her of that collectively unconscious habit. Or have we not progressed fifty years since fifty years ago?

Labels: family, people, reflections, women

If anyone says nothing much has changed, show them this piece and tell them about Airman 1st Class Vanessa Dobos.

When I was a young woman I chafed under the thumb screws of two choices: "be a housewife" or "be a hard-nosed working woman" and that was "long ago" in the seventies. I totally believed that women should be able to choose what they (we) want to do - all the way from staying home to being prime minister to combining pieces of everything. People usually smiled at me condescendingly and patiently. A few championed my ideas. A few even urged activism. Nowadays, young women pretty much know they can do whatever they want although they have a fairy realistic picture about the fact that some "having it all" may have to be sequential rather than simultaneous.

In any case, bravo a million times over for Vanessa Dobos. Doing what you want to do is really what it's all about.

Labels: about me, modern culture, women