Equally Sexist

Now that’s equality!

Just a taste…

Michelle Obama’s European Outfits: Which did she wear best?

Michelle Obama Makes a Fashion Statement in London

Michelle Obama: Fashion icon?

Michelle Obama: Fashion diva or disaster?

There was also the contrived media drama over Michelle Obama and Carla Bruni-Sarkozy’s “fashion faceoff,” about which Melissa McEwan noted:

Why is it, when any two powerful womenespecially beautiful powerful womenare in the same place at the same time, the media has to treat it like a grudge match?!

Not surprisingly, there was little mention of the male G-20 spouses’ fashion choices. They didn’t even bother to show up for the G-20 spouses dinner (or at least, they missed the photo). I mean, who could blame them?

 

Permission to Marry

How would you feel if you had to ask 269 million people for the right to marry?

 

Californians’ Lives Not a Joke

Most of the time I hear Arnold Schwarzenegger’s voice, I change the station. It irks me how he always seems to be joking about things I do not find funny. It’s a trait George W. possessed as well. I think it betrays their inability to discuss the situation at hand intelligently, like the class clown who acted out because he couldn’t read.

Californians are suffering. The budget has been hung up for months, over what increasingly looks like Republicans’ failed ideological stance against raising taxes. They even ousted their leader last night, during their budget nightmare sleepover that failed to reach an agreement. Due to the lack of one Republican vote, 20,000 people are getting pink slips in our state. Those are real people who probably would have chosen to pay a few more cents on the dollar in taxes to losing their jobs and their abilities to support their families.

 

Bill O’Reilly Can’t Use Teh Google?

Courtney Martin, of the Women’s Media Center and Feministing, took on Bill O’Reilly yesterday. In his segment, he defended his comments against journalist Helen Thomas, but quickly got off topic. O’Reilly accused women’s groups of staying silent on the issue of sexism against Sarah Palin, arguing they were hypocrites for only recognizing sexism against women whose politics they agree with.

Now, if Mr. O’Reilly had taken just 10 seconds to google his guest Courtney Martin, he would have found that not only has she spoken out against the sexism Sarah Palin faced, she even called out Bill-O himself for sexist comments regarding Ms. Palin.

Shakesville has a list of over 25 examples of Sarah Palin sexism. The Women’s Media Center also ran pieces covering sexism against Sarah Palin, including this one from Campbell Brown on CNN.

O’Reilly says that if Martin in fact did speak out against the sexism that Sarah Palin faced, he would apologize. We won’t hold our feminist breath. But seriously, do some research on your guests. What you’re doing is not journalism.

 

Women and Children Are Not Pork

Why is it that when it’s time to find places to tighten our belts, the first programs to go are those that benefit women and children? Who decided that education, health care and the Violence Against Women Act were pork? ThinkProgress notes that the proposed cuts to make the bill more “stimulative” (which of course leave tax cuts untouched, contrary to Economics 101), disproportionately affect women and children.

These cuts would include:

$150 million cut to the Violence Against Women Act

$50 million to the Victims of Crime Act

$25 million to the Internet Crimes Against Children Task Forces

$1.1 billion to Head Start

$50 million to Teacher Quality Partnership Grants

$5.2 billion for Prevention And Wellness (including diabetes screening and HIV testing)

$13.9 billion for Pell Grants

$2 billion for Child Care Development Block Grants (ThinkProgress)

Basically, the conservatives have decided that anything that isn’t tax cuts is “pork.” So, like President Obama, when you hear their criticisms just ask yourself, “Are these folks serious?” What I want to know is, how are they planning to face their constituents after voting against programs like Headstart and Pell Grants in these tough times?

 

Clear Double Standard

This morning we get news of yet another administration official with tax problems.

Nancy Killefer, appointed by the president last month to a new position to scrutinize government spending, told the administration on Monday that she intended to step down from the position at the Office of Management and Budget. An administration official, speaking on condition of anonymity because the announcement was not finalized, confirmed that Ms. Killefer’s withdrawal came because of questions with her taxes. (NYTimes)

The arguments will be that if we are to restore people’s confidence in government, there cannot be any question about the integrity of these appointed officials. Unless, of course you’re Tom Daschle, or Tim Geitner, or…

It’s not clear if Killefer’s issues are significant in a vacuum or whether she’s a victim of the “Rule of Three” — i.e., being lumped in with Geithner and Daschle. Then again, Killefer was involved with the IRS in a significant way, so there may be a zero tolerance on the tax front for her, specifically.  (MSNBC)

Of course, only one of the three is withdrawing.  Yesterday, administration big wigs, including President Obama and Senator Edward Kennedy, rushed to Daschle’s defense. It’s difficult not to notice that the men are surviving while the woman pays the price.

Now, with Geithner having survived what was largely a party-line confirmation vote and Daschle battling to keep his nomination alive, White House officials seemed to have decided that they could not have a third prominent official in the administration who failed to pay taxes.

Daschle admitted failing to pay $100,000 in back taxes on a free limo service provided by a Democratic donor. Geithner also paid $42,000 in back taxes and penalties.

“She has nanny tax problems that may not have been insurmountable on their own, but given the Geithner and Daschle cumulative effect, she had to withdraw” said a Senate source informed of the withdrawal. (Politico)

Nanny problems…why does that sound familiar? Oh, that’s right. Caroline Kennedy recently withdrew from consideration over a similar issue. Now, I’m not making excuses for their dishonesty. What I am doing is noticing that these indiscretions seem to have a much great impact on the women involved than they do on the men. The reaction of the public, the administration, and the press is also disproportionate.

Is it any wonder that young girls already recognize that women in politics have to work harder to gain positions of leadership?

Political strategist Donna Brazile noted the contrast between the excitement surrounding Obama’s inauguration this week and the general public attitude toward women in office, one that she said helped drive Kennedy out of the running.

“Obama inspired us to turn the page, and now women seem stuck in the table of contents,” she said.

Noting that women still make up less than 20 percent of both houses of Congress, Brazile said: “The elevator to our future growth in the Congress is still stuck in the lobby. It’s time we hurry history.”(WaPo)

 

Yay for Fair Pay!

Today President Obama signed his first piece of major legislation…

The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act!

He reminds us that we’re all created equal, and each of us deserves a chance to pursue our own version of happiness.

Thank you, Mr. President. This is long overdue. And it is not lost on the world of feminism that this was the first (major) bill you have chosen to sign.

 

Obama Rollercoaster

Yesterday was so clearly a day for the history books. It was evident in all the exchanges I had with people yesterday. There was an underlying understanding that we were living through a great “where were you when…” moment.

Some of my hopefulness is dashed as I read headline after headline about yesterday’s events in which the only mention of Michelle Obama deals with her outfits. Really? As the headline over at Feministing so accurately summed up my frustration,

Historic Moment! Michelle Obama Wears a Dress

The historical significance of yesterday’s events somehow exaggerates the offensiveness of reducing this woman to her clothing. Reports could have asked her how it feels to be First Lady, what her plan is for how she will fill this role, or even what she thought of the inauguration events. Instead, we get this:

Who Made Michelle Obama’s Dresses? (ChicagoTribune)

Michelle Obama Wears it Well (BostonGlobe)

First Lady Passes Fashionista Test (ABC)

Michelle Obama Makes Important Statement with Fashion Choice (Bloomberg)

The First Lady Tells a Story with Fashion (NYTimes)

So on a day in which reporters gushed about how we can now tell our children that they can truly be anything they want to be, the message to little girls continues to be: what matters most is how you look.

 

Legislating DREAMs

Parents and out-of-state students of California universities are challenging the constitutionality of AB 540, which allows undocumented high school students to pay in-state tuition rates at public universities. They argue that the law gives preferential treatment to undocumented students that is not given to out-of-state students who are US citizens.

Cristina Jimenez points out:

Undocumented students who qualify for in-state tuition have grown up in California. Most of them migrate with their families at an early age and have lived in the state most of their lives. By all means, they are residents of the state. To be eligible for in-state tuition, they must meet the following: 1) Attended a California high school for three years, 2) Graduated from a California high school, 3) Signed an affidavit saying they will gain permanent immigration status as soon as they become eligible.

Let’s also keep in mind that unlike students who are U.S citizens or documented immigrants, undocumented students do not have access to financial aid, loans, and can’t work legally to pay for their studies. Most of these students, some of them who graduate high school with honors, work two to three low-wage jobs to pay for their education–evidently, not an easy journey. (DMI blog)

Clearly the people arguing against CA’s version of the DREAM Act do not understand their privilege.  All they would need to do is live in CA for one year in order to qualify for in-state tuition.  In contrast, many of the undocumented students have lived in the state for most of their lives. Many of them are excellent students who only want the chance to continue their education in order to find good jobs upon graduation.

The anti-immigrant argument is illogical when it comes to educating children.  First of all, these children did nothing wrong. Many of them were brought here as babies by their parents who were searching for better lives. Second, why spend so much money educating these children in public schools only to prevent them from attaining degrees that will help them to becoming contributing members of society? Preventing these students from attending college doesn’t magically send them back to their home countries.  They will still be here, and without giving them access to an education, we refuse them the tools to improve their lives and support their families.

 

The Caroline/Woman Comparison

In the past several days I’ve read numerous articles comparing Caroline Kennedy to Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin. Seriously? For the most part, I understand the concern over the fact that she’s not been elected to anything. But the outrage over the fact that she’s rich or that she comes from a political family baffles me. 

In a carefully controlled strategy reminiscent of the vice
presidential hopeful Sarah Palin, aides to Caroline Kennedy interrupted
her on Wednesday and whisked her away when she was asked what her
qualifications are to be U.S. senator. (seattlepi)

One of Ms. Kennedys qualifications, leading the Fund for Public Schools
in raising $240 million in private donations, is about as impressive as
being Mayor of Wasilla, Alaska. Ms. Kennedys main
disqualificationsnot having paid her political dues, not having enough
experiencewere also attributed to Mrs. Palin. (examiner)

The curious thing about this story is how closely it resembles Hillary
Clinton in the early months of this year’s presidential campaign, when
the former first lady was running as a quasi-incumbent. (seattlepi)

Though I disagreed with Sarah Palin on nearly every political issue, I flinched when she was asked to defend her qualifications. Yes, she was extremely unqualified. But so have several male politicians been, yet they are much less often asked to defend this weakness. Arnold, the Governator, comes to mind. But as Marie Cocco points out,

There are no female Arnold Schwarzeneggers. That is, no woman will
ever burst into politics, capture the voters’ imagination and be
catapulted into high public office without a lick of experience.

Perhaps one of the reasons that the extremely unimaginative comparisons are being made between Caroline Kennedy and Sarah Palin or Hillary Clinton is that the sexism is all too familiar.