Obama's Speechwriter is a Woman

Have you ever wondered who writes Obama's expertly-crafted speeches?  Apparently, this girl does.  I think it's interesting that a young white lady is the person who constructs our middle-aged African American male president's presentations to the public.  Although she may be his exact opposite in surface-level traits, he must trust her intelligence and character to have such an important (albeit behind the scenes) role in politics.  Personally, I was pleasantly surprised when I saw this article about the pair.  I think it's great that he's using the help of all kinds of Americans instead of people who are just like him.

According to the article, Laura Dean studied Women, Gender, and Sexuality at Harvard University.  Do you think that she might have some sort of influence over the president in terms of women's issues?

Gender wage gap

I've recently signed up for e-mails from Texas Monthly that send me news daily about things going on in Texas. Yesterday, this story was one of the five included in the e-mail. It's a blog from  a web site based in Beaumont, a town located about two hours northeast of Houston. The author presents a lot of statistics from a recent study done by the National Partnership for Women and Families, which broke the state into Congressional districts and examined the median salary for both men and women in each district. The writer of the article's main focus is on the larger income disparities for the two Southeast Texas Congressional districts, compared to most of the other districts in the state (all but one of which also had men earning more than women).

While the case seems pretty cut and dry from the presentation in the blog post, I decided to look at some of the comments, because I had some questions about the study that weren't really mentioned in the story. I found that, though some of the commenters just seemed defensive about the statistics presented in the story, a lot of them offered insight as to why these results may be skewed.

For example, one person commented, "I am all for equal pay for equal work, but I think that these numbers might be a little deceiving. In a highly industrialized area like ours there are a lot of well paying jobs that women don"t normally go after. For these statistics to be accurate it would have to be broken down by trade." It's helpful because it presents a better look into what work is like in that region, and it looks at some of the flaws of the study that could have been improved.

I know that we've talked about the equal pay disparities quite a bit in class, and I thought that this blog and its comment section were an interesting online discussion of the topic. So, what do you think?

Would woman be where they are today without contraception?

As I was reading this article on Huffington Post about contraception providing more opportunities for women's higher education and financial security, it got me thinking about several things we discussed in class.

First of all, the story states that there has been very little research on why women actually use contraception. Now, while both sides in the political playing field are accusing each other of a "War on Women", you would think people would be asking these questions to those it directly affects--women. This relates to the graphs we previously discussed in class about how many women are actually quoted when talking about women's issues versus the number of men quoted on the same subject. Do you think women should first be asked why they use contraception before trying to eliminate its coverage under healthcare?

Next, I noted that a new study confirms most women use contraception to allow them to further their educations, careers and financial stabilities. Now, since Romney and Ryan want to massively decrease the coverage of contraception, are they trying to set back women's progress in career and educational advancement? Does this have to do with what a woman's traditional role historically has been? Are they attempting to keep women in their 'place'?

What do you guys think?

Obama, more honest

This might be a hard concept for most American to grasp but some politicians are "honest". According to this  article 12% of Americans expect politicians to lie, but  in general, Americans think that Obama's ads are a little more honest than Romney's, what? I find this concept to be a little naive. I'm one of the 12% of Americans that  expect politicians to lie, and I don't think its smart to measure if someone is more honest than the other.  I support Obama but that doesn't make him any less of a liar in my eyes than Romney. I don't measure him against Romney that way. They are both liars, and I thinks it unnecessary to smear another candidates campaign but I guess that's what I hate most about election time.

What do you guys think about the concept of politicians lying and the average American's desire to vote for someone on the basis of their integrity? Its a little ironic. I'm not talking about saying you are going to do something during the election and not being able to complete it during presidency, i'm talking about blatantly lying to smear someone else's campaign, or not checking the facts before televising ads.

Free Contraception

I recently read an article reporting that schools in New York City have been handing out birth control pills as well as "Plan B" to students without notifying their parents. The program is called CATCH - Connecting Adolescent to Comprehensive Health. The school district sent home a letter informing the parents of CATCH and stating that they are able to opt out of the program by sending a signed letter back to the school.

What is your reaction to this? Many people disapprove. However, how is it any different that supplying male students with free condoms? That practice seems to be widely accepted in our society.

Is there really a difference between supplying female contraceptives rather than male contraceptives? Or is it just a double standard in our society that allows "boys to be boys" while girls must remain pure and moral angels?

Let me know what you think.

Paul Ryan's To-Do List

Yes, we all know that the GOP and especially the devout catholic Paul Ryan cannot stand the thought of women being covered by their insurance companies for birth control. I say this because of a recent article from the Huffington Post in which Ryan declares his day one activities: strike down the religion/freedom killing birth control mandate! They want religiously (Christian) affiliated employers to have to make an insurance plan available with preventative healthcare measures like contraception for women that work for them; who may or may not have the same religious ideals as the distant founders??? Not on his watch.

This is definitely not a new theme in this election, it has been one of the central issues. It is just incredibly interesting that the republican candidates seem to one, ignore the flocks of moderate, religious women evacuating the GOP and two, that most catholics seem to agree that employers should in fact provide plans with contraception regardless of a mandate. In one poll from February of this year, 58 percent of catholics think that all employers should be required to provide plans that include contraception. It is also interesting that the short article projects that the republicans will have to drop the issue after the base gathering primaries, we wish.

SO, the question I would like to throw out is why do you think Ryan and other staunch religious right-ers are holding so fast to banning the contraception mandate when a small but definite majority of fellow followers feel the opposite? Do you think it is limiting their chances of winning or aiding it? And of course, why?

Romney Targets Women

Have you yet seen Romney's newest ad aimed at women?  I saw it for the first time today, while I was reading this article from the Huffington Post.  (Isn't the title perfect?  Voting with our hormones, ha!)  I'm a Republican, first off, so one might expect me to be sort of gung-ho about Romney and his newest endeavors.  But to be frank, I'm not.  And this ad, though it was created to make women turn a disapproving eye towards his Democratic competitor, didn't really affect me at all.  I'm not a mother, but I want to be one day.  So why shouldn't this message alarm me?  Well, honestly, I feel like it misses the entire point of what women are fighting for these days.

The ad focuses on unemployment among women.  While unemployment is a key issue in the United States, I don't think it's a key issue for women.  Not specifically, anyway.  Let's face it, the reason women love Obama and dislike Romney is because of the reproductive rights issue.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but does unemployment and poverty among women really have anything to do with it?  Probably not so much.

The video also seems to be ineffective because of its contrasting audience targets.  The narrator is talking about the rising number of women without jobs.  So you'd think that these facts would stand out to a career woman or a woman who is trying to find a job.  And yet the only visual we get is of a newborn baby.  This kind of confuses me...  Is he trying to reach out to mothers or career women?  Both, perhaps?  I guess I just don't understand why the ad doesn't feature a working woman as well as a mother.  Because when you make a baby the center of everything, it really does seem like you are hoping we vote with our hormones.

How celebrities (& specifically females) are judged

I found this article a few days ago on HelloGiggles, a website that has articles written mostly by girls for girls to read, and the topics cover pretty much everything. This particular article was aimed and Miley Cyrus and all of the people that publicly exclaim their hate for her on the Internet. I'm not a fan of Miley either, but I definitely get the point of the article. While it somewhat talks about age and how young Miley was when she made the decision to star in a show, it also parallels a lot of how celebrities evolve with the world watching, and how much they are judged for every decision they make.

The author also appeals to her readers by writing, "To be fair, it takes tremendous courage to be any teenage woman, and, in an age of Facebook and Twitter, each young woman who makes it through to the other side is a certifiable war hero."

Most people go through tough periods in their lives, and with girls it can definitely be a lot worse (as Mean Girls proved), but we tend not to think of celebrities as people in the same way we think of our friends as people, so the hate is so much more passionate. So, do you agree with the author of the article? Why or why not?

3 in 4 Americans Feel no Personal Connection to Romney

Hey kids, I just found an interesting article on yahoo with a lot of graphs showing the general feeling to both candidates running for the presidency. Being students, where do you think we are included in these graphs? And more personally, how do you feel towards both Romney and Obama, do you feel you can relate to either of them?


Let me know what you think.

Career vs. Family

After learning about Hanna Rosin's new book, The End of Men, I immediately assumed that the author and the book itself would receive praise across the board from women in the United States...  Not because American women are looking to "destroy" men in any sense of the word, but because of its seemingly empowering message that we as a gender can "rise from the ashes," so to speak.  However, I was surprised to learn (through this video) that a number of women don't see eye-to-eye with Rosin on this subject or believe that the message she’s sending is a positive one.  

When sitting down to discuss her book with a panel of women writers/journalists, Rosin first paraphrases the point of her book by describing men as cardboard and women as plastic, arguing that by being the "underdog" for so many years, women have learned to adapt to the career world in more ways than men.  In other words, women are seeking out and taking advantage of a plethora of career opportunities, while men – who feel obligated to be the "bread winners" – are staying put in their prescribed roles.

The women on the video see several things wrong with this.  One argues that a lot of young women just out of college are more relationship-oriented than men of the same age and are feeling alienated for being that way.  Another one says that Rosin, who talks about “hook-up culture” in her book, is claiming that the idea of “young love” is essentially dead.  And the final observation made is that even though women are striving to be CEO’s of companies, they (unlike men) are still having to balance child-rearing and family life with their jobs, which sometimes creates a “snowball effect” that causes women to stay home for longer periods of time.

I haven’t read the book, but it seems to me like Rosin is making a general observation that women as a whole are embracing the working world and becoming successful because of it.  I believe this to be true, but I also agree with the panel that women still value their family and social lives just as much as they used to, and that this shouldn’t be seen as unimportant.  What are your thoughts on this so-called balancing act that women are pressured to take part in?  Are more women choosing their careers over their relationships nowadays?

P.S.  Did anyone else think it was sweet when Rosin’s husband came on the air to talk about his pride in watching his wife’s career skyrocket while he mainly took care of the kids?  What a man!

A Universal Double Bind for Women

In class I found it interesting that we never brought up how gender stereotypes differ over the world. Do women in other countries face the same battles as American women? What about women in third world countries, do they deal with gender stereotypes as well? 

In this article, the Faces of Feminism, anthropologist Margaret Mead discovered through studying three different primitive societies  that, "although every society defined certain activities as either male or female, the gender designation of those activities varied from culture to culture. No universal role was either male or female. [...] Nevertheless, there was always gender definition, and one pattern everywhere held true: Whatever men did was more highly valued by the village than whatever women did." Well, talk about being damned no matter what. 

Answering the question of why this happens seems to have stumped the scientific world for years. However, one theory mentioned in the article attributes the reason for males superior status to their physical strength. I believe this is an interesting argument because physical characteristics and differences in our anatomy are the two things that truly separate women and men. Could it be that muscles are what have stood in the way of women being taken seriously? If that's the case, women in America must be getting stronger. I believe that even though women in America may still face difficulties, a lot has changed and new stereotypes are beginning to evolve. "Stepford" wives are becoming a thing of the past and the new norm is becoming "Superwomen." Women are now expected to have careers and a family, sometimes juggling both at the same time. Even single, successful women are no longer smirked at by society, but instead envied for their independent nature. 

I'm not saying that all has changed. Sure, stereotypes of emotional women still exist, but the new independent-rebel woman is rising. We are even teaching this new norm to our children. For instance take a look back at the well-known Disney movie "Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs." Snow White was the perfect homemaker. She took care of the dwarfs like a mother would her own children, and in the end, after being poisoned by the witch, she was saved by her prince. 

Now, look at the new Disney Pixar movie "Brave." This is the description of the movie off of IMDB: 

"Determined to make her own path in life, Princess Merida defies a custom that brings chaos to her kingdom. Granted one wish, Merida must rely on her bravery and her archery skills to undo a beastly curse."

Wow. This girl sounds awesome. This girl would not exist 50 years ago. 

I think there are some great things in store for the women of our generation. What do you think? Do you think this says something about today's gender roles? 

Wife beating...really?!

While this news story does not directly relate to the double binds we have been discussing in class I found this story to be very...shocking, for lack of a better word. The Huffington Post reported that Pat Robertson, a televangelist, advised a man saying "Well, you could become a Muslim and you could beat her."

The article also include video of this statement.

Robertson has a Christian television show called The 700 Club. In this particular segment of the show members of the audience can write in to the show and Robertson will give them "advice" on how to deal with personal problems.

It just amazed me how calmly his co-host, a woman, reacted to this statement. She literally just laughed at first.

The reader comments below the article display the disgust and shock of many, if not most, of the readers. While most disagree with Robertson's opinion, it still baffles me that there are people, like Robertson, who seem to think of women as less valuable human beings or even property.

However, while the statement made by Robertson is extremely offensive on so many levels, the outcome of all this publicity may be a positive thing. It brings the issue of equality and women's rights to the forefront of peoples' minds. Realizing that not everything is perfect is part of the process in order to achieve equality.

What do you think? Do you think this statement will have any impact or is it just a passing story?

Adopt-a-Guy

So I just came across this article today and I really want to hear what the men have to say about this. I wonder how the world would react if retail stores started openly selling women in this fashion? There is a lot of controversy and colliding opinions about prostitution, but would you say that this form of selling men could be a "playful" form of prostitution for guys? The guys don't seem to mind that they are being sold, so i'm interested to hear what the class thinks. This is a pop up store in Paris, and the Parisians seem to see the fun in it but how do you think Americans would see it if south congress had a store selling men packaged like Ken dolls.

Just wondering.

The End of Men?

A former Women & the News student just sent me this: a David Brooks column discussing a new book titled The End of Men.  The column--and the book--offer an interesting contrast to what we've discussed so far in this class.  Gender stereotypes may persist, but research suggests that it's women who are more successful these days.

Why do you think women are adapting better to the new economy than men?