All Posts By

The FeMOMist

Rape Culture & How It Impacts Our Children

July 14, 2016

 

kids-in-art-class

In 2007, my husband and I went to the first parent-teacher conference for our daughter, Beatrice (not her real name), who had started Kindergarten a couple months before.  I was eager to hear about my smart little girl.  Because of Beatrice’s advanced language skills, we had decided to send her to a private international school with a Spanish immersion program.  Although we are native speakers of English, this meant she would be learning in Spanish subjects like reading and math.  Naturally, I wanted to know how she was adapting to her new school–the immersion part, the academics, and to some extent the social life.

We sat down at one of the tiny tables that dotted the classroom and the teacher said to us, “Beatrice is doing great!”  I heaved a sigh of relief and looked at my husband and smiled.  Clearly, we had made the correct decision sending our daughter to this school.

The teacher then continued (somewhat exuberantly):  “The boys love Beatrice.  They always want to sit or stand right next to her.  They hold her hand. . . .”

By now, my feminist mom mind had switched on a very bright lightbulb over my head.  When the teacher finished with her description I asked (somewhat diplomatically), “Is Beatrice ok with that?”

The teacher didn’t hesitate:  “Oh yes, she loves it!”

Hmmm…I thought.  But does she?  Does she really?

We did at that point go on to discuss how Beatrice was adapting to foreign language immersion and academics, but the question hung in the balance.  Beatrice had always been a joy–a natural entertainer to whom people, adults and children alike, were drawn.  If someone was down, she would comfort or try to cheer him or her up.  I wondered if perhaps the teacher’s assessment of her interactions with her male classmates did not reflect how Beatrice genuinely felt about all that attention, including the touching part of it.

So I went home and asked her.  Beatrice was only five years old and had little self-awareness but I knew my daughter well enough to see that she found the routine invasion of her personal space by the boys–at the very least– annoying.  In any event, it clearly wasn’t something that she loved or wanted as the teacher seemed to infer (and enthusiastically at that).

Consent.  It is actually so simple (Yes means Yes; No means No; unconscious people are incapable of consent–see this video about tea to drive home the point):

Yet, young children are so innocent we don’t tend to think that sexual consent is an issue at that point.  The problem is that teachers like my daughter’s, when they put a positive spin on a boy’s impulse to touch a nice, pretty little girl, send a potentially dangerous message that both the boy and the girl may bring with them into adulthood.  The message that the boy gets is that he has carte blanche to touch girls.  The message that the girl gets is that she has to suck it up and pretend it doesn’t bother her.

These messages are dangerous, particularly when coupled with a culture that is–face it–absolutely saturated with messages that women are not in control of their own bodies; that unwanted touching is something to be endured without complaint; and that if a woman does dare to complain about unwanted sexual contact (e.g. rape)  she will be the one who is blamed, shamed, dismissed, and worst of all, even when believed, her rapist will get off with little more than a wink and a nod.

Growing up in this culture–the so-called “rape culture”–in this country makes for future men who may see “no” as just an inconvenient roadblock to move out of the way through verbal or physical coercion or brute force, or that believe if a woman is sexually assaulted on a college campus she is not a rape victim but merely an inconvenient roadblock to a college man’s bright future.  It makes for little girls who think it’s ok for little boys to invade their personal space because the teacher (who is, after all, a product of rape culture herself) thinks it’s cute, even if it is actually annoying to the little girl, who just wants to be left alone.

The problem is that teachers like my daughter’s, when they put a positive spin on a boy’s impulse to touch a nice, pretty little girl, send a potentially dangerous message that both the boy and the girl may bring with them into adulthood.  The message that the boy gets is that he has carte blanche to touch girls.  The message that the girl gets is that she has to suck it up and pretend it doesn’t bother her.

Therein lies the rub:

When schools have stringent dress codes that specifically target girls, this sends the message that girls are responsible for making sure that boys are not attracted to them, thereby serving as a distraction, and further implies that boys do not have the responsibility to learn and practice self control when around girls.

When matters of women’s bodies and health are routinely decided by male lawmakers rather than the woman herself and her doctor, this sends the message that women are not in charge of their own bodies.

When campus sexual assault is routinely “dealt with” outside the confines of the criminal justice system, that sends the message that a man’s future and the reputation of colleges and universities are more important than a woman’s health, safety, and physical and psychological well-being.

When the “song of the summer” (Robin Thicke’s hit song “Blurred Lines”) is all about “no” maybe not really meaning “no” and claiming that really there are “blurred lines” in the context of sexual consent, that sends the message that it’s ok to coerce or force a woman into sexual activity or ignore a woman’s state of consciousness; and further, that women don’t even know what they want sexually so men should just go ahead and decide for them.

When the hottest bestseller and movie (Fifty Shades of Grey) romanticizes the story of an older man who refuses to take no for an answer from a college woman and enters into what is an essentially physically and emotionally abusive relationship with her, this sends the message that relationships such as that one are normal, healthy, and desirable.

When a woman is brutally raped and assaulted by a college student (Stanford swimmer Brock Turner) who is convicted, yet receives a three-month jail sentence because the (male) judge is concerned about his future (and–“Hey-he is an amazing swimmer”!), that sends the message that even if a woman goes forward with a criminal rape case and is believed, her life and self-worth as a victim of rape is not worth as much as the convicted rapist’s future.

On the other hand, slut shaming puts society in the position of judging a woman’s exercise of certain freedoms by invariably identifying with the male perspective.   American women should be as free as men, however, to make their own choices in life.  Thus, when an adult woman consents to sexual activity with an adult man, that is her business.  She can make these decisions for herself, and it isn’t the place of a man or anyone else to make them for her.

Incidentally, having consensual sex doesn’t make a woman a “slut” or a “whore,” any more than it makes a man who decides to have consensual sex with a woman a “_______” (fill in the blank, because there is no male version of the term “slut” in our rape culture lexicon).  It doesn’t mean a woman is asking to be raped when she dresses in a way that some men might happened to find alluring.  Women should not be responsible for men’s lack of impulse control, however.  Boys and girls need to learn this from an early age before it becomes “normal” and accepted adult behavior.

One more time everyone:  “no” means “no” and “yes” means “yes.”  There is no secret language that exists–at least outside of our culture, which at every turn glorifies male sexual domination and control, equates masculinity with sexual conquest, and excuses men from wrongdoing because, well, a man has a powerful desire to do something wrong to a woman.  Put differently, sexual consent is no different than consenting to drink tea–the only difference between these two scenarios is that men (boys) have really strong urges at times to have sex with women (touch girls) but care a lot less about tea drinking.

It’s high time that we see our rape culture for what it is and make meaningful changes to it.  Our young children–both and boys and girls–are watching, and listening, and learning.

 

 

What I Found When I Lost My Ability to Eat

July 13, 2016

The following essay is a bit off-topic for my blog, but I wrote it a while ago and wanted to share this story with my readers for whatever it’s worth.

Have you ever heard the expression, “Some people eat to live; others live to eat”? I had always thought of myself as an “eat to live” kind of person, which is to say, someone who didn’t care all that much about what I consumed, but ate mostly for sustenance. That changed forever, though, in the winter of 2010, when I was 43 years old.

After a harrowing stage III colorectal cancer diagnosis, two major abdominal surgeries, 31 radiation treatments, and more than seven months of chemotherapy, I realized slowly but surely that I couldn’t eat. Now, everyone knows cancer patients struggle with nausea and poor appetite and, at first, I thought this was my problem. My oncologist expressed concerns, however, about my rapid weight loss from 102 to 76 pounds, as well as the seriously low blood pressure and extreme weakness that came with it, and put me on total parenteral nutrition (TPN). This meant that on a daily basis I prepared a large bag of milky white fluid and hooked it up to a needle accessing a medi-port that had been surgically installed in my chest. For 12 hours a day, a pump I carried around in a backpack transported the liquid into my veins, giving me all the calories, electrolytes, and nourishment I needed to stay alive while, ironically, a team of doctors worked to save me from death by cancer.

At first, I felt grateful and relieved to start the TPN, which could be viewed, quite legitimately, as a form of life support. But after cancer treatment ended and I was, to everyone’s great relief, in remission, I still couldn’t eat. Anything. If I dared to try, within hours I would inevitably feel nauseated. The nausea, mixed with abdominal cramping, would continue unabated for up to 24 hours until finally I would vomit so violently and profusely that one would think there was no fluid left in my body. Anti-nausea medication did nothing but make me drowsy. Without the TPN I would have literally wasted away.

My battle with cancer was hellish, but this latest development made me feel, somehow, less than human.   I mean, what is more basic in life than the ability to consume food through one’s mouth?

To say I “missed” eating is an extreme understatement. As the days of going food-free turned into months, I grieved my inability to eat like an amputee grieves the loss of her leg. My feelings swung wildly between scolding myself for not simply being thankful to be alive, to wondering if anyone would ever be able to understand what I was going through. Finally, my emotions plunged into sheer self-pity and despair, complete with crying jags, as I lay in bed wondering how I could go on if I could never again eat my mother’s chicken soup, much less a soft chicken taco, or a lobster dinner on my birthday. I also worried that, like some freak of nature, I would be dependent on TPN for the rest of my life.

I daydreamed about my favorite foods going back as far as my childhood, including things I hadn’t eaten or thought about in years, such as fried chicken, Philly cheesesteaks, and Italian hoagies. I began to watch the Food Network’s cooking shows, like “Barefoot Contessa,” for hours on end because I was too sick to do much else besides watch TV. Of course, I would fantasize about eating what Ina Garten was cooking, but ultimately the techniques started sinking in and I became tempted to try to make the dish myself. Now this might seem peculiar, given that I actually dreaded cooking prior to TPN. And I have no great psychological explanation for what happened next.

To try to bring myself out of my food-deprivation funk, I began researching recipes on the Internet, and cooking and baking for my family. I especially liked allrecipes.com and scoured that website looking for dishes my entire family, including my picky 8-year-old, would enjoy. Besides reading the recipes, I would pore over the many comments that followed and tinker with the recipe based on the advice of home cooks who had already tried it.  Inexplicably, something I began as a desperate, almost pathetic, way of reconnecting with food and my family became a hobby and a major source of pride and relaxation in my life. Even if I couldn’t eat with my family, at least I could be present while they ate food that I prepared for them with love and care and I could dine (albeit vicariously) with them. My cooking skills had improved by leaps and bounds and they were the direct beneficiaries.

Fast forward to Spring 2011, 14 months after I started TPN. My doctors finally determined the cause of my inability to eat. Bands of scar tissue (adhesions) had formed on my intestines due to multiple abdominal surgeries. The adhesions had led to chronic intestinal obstructions that had, in turn, physically prevented the food from making its way through my digestive system. As a last resort, I underwent a nine-hour, highly intricate operation with no guarantees and the goal of removing scar tissue while protecting the integrity of my remaining bowel. It took a lot longer to recover than expected and I’ll admit I started to think that this last-ditch attempt to regain my ability to eat had failed. My intestines had completely shut down and I wondered if the surgery had actually made things worse. Then, months later, the sun came up and my intestines suddenly and miraculously decided to start working again, the way they should.

Slowly, over many months, I added more and more to my diet, progressing from clear liquids to creamy soups and puddings, to low-fiber foods such as chicken, white rice, and potatoes, and all the way to raw fruit, salads, and the occasional box of popcorn at the movies. I celebrated each rediscovered food with the excitement of a toddler having cake for the first time. Friends and family took me out for special dinners to my favorite restaurants. Feeling better in every way, I started entertaining again—hosting homemade holiday dinners and a fabulous “wine and dine” party where every course was paired with a different wine. I made the entire four-course meal, including a refreshing yellow tomato gazpacho with cilantro and my hero Ina Garten’s delicious mustard-roasted red snapper.

Without question, I enjoy food more now than ever before and have become a more adventurous eater. I used to be content to eat and serve my family bland, uninteresting meals, but now I regularly cook with a variety of fresh, healthy ingredients, herbs, and spices, and continue to try new recipes. It is fair to say I am no longer an “eat to live” kind of person. Rather, I am a cancer survivor who is so very grateful—both to be alive and able to eat.

 

 

What Women/Moms Need to Know Now: Gun Violence Prevention 101

June 12, 2016

This is the first part in an ongoing series of posts that focus on educating about various hot button issues and how they impact women and moms.

Two recent shootings in Orlando. The first one–last Friday after a concert–resulted in the death of a former The Voice contestant, Christina Grimmie.  This horrifying shooting, that occurred as she was signing autographs, could have resulted in much greater carnage had her brother not tackled the shooter.  In retrospect, however, the Grimmie shooting seemed like foreshadowing for last night’s unfathomable massacre at an Orlando LGBT nightclub, in which a single assailant killed 50 and wounded another 53 with an assault-style weapon, making it the worst mass murder in US history. Gun violence continues to wreak havoc on and terrorize our country like none other in the developed world.  It’s thus well worth taking a look back to see how we reached this point in time where frequent mass shootings have become the new norm and how women and moms can help.

Following the 1994 midterm election, when progressives and Democrats everywhere woke up to a Congress that had changed hands overnight, there was a lot of Monday morning quarterbacking, a lot of hand wringing, and a lot of finger pointing.  Many believed–right or wrong–that what made the difference was that Congress had passed and then-President Bill Clinton signed into law the assault weapons ban earlier in the year, as well as the Brady Bill the year before. At that time, this legislation was a major coup, and the powerful gun lobby known as the National Rifle Association (“NRA”) sprung into action, spending big bucks to ensure that members of Congress who had voted in favor of the law (primarily if not solely Democrats) lost in the midterm elections.

When the dust had settled, the NRA had accomplished two important things: (1) the most progressive members of Congress up for reelection, and who believed that reforms were necessary to reduce gun violence in our country, lost to more conservative Republicans, resulting in a new GOP majority in Congress, and (2) at that point forward, incumbents or politicians running for public office would think long and hard about going against the will of the NRA.  The NRA had won a major victory and common sense gun regulation would not be raised again for many years. When the time came for the assault weapons ban to be renewed in 2004, Congress and GOP President George W. Bush let it die, an unfortunate outcome given the current statistics showing that mass shooters have possessed these weapons over half of the time and when used they tend to result in higher casualties.

After the 1994 bloodbath, politicians considered backing, or even mentioning, the concept of gun violence prevention to be nothing short of “political suicide.”  In the meantime, the state legislatures that had previously attempted to make strides in gun law reform, particularly in areas with high crime rates such as the District of Columbia, faced certain push back by the NRA.  In the District of Columbia v. Heller case, D.C’s stringent handgun ban faced staunch opposition by NRA-hired attorneys, who challenged the law all the way up to Supreme Court.

The NRA’s lawyers argued that the Second Amendment, which provides, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed,” somehow meant that individuals have a constitutionally mandated right to own guns.   In 2008, Antonin Scalia and a Supreme Court made up of a majority of justices appointed by Republican presidents, sided with the NRA and, by a 5-4 decision, struck down the D.C. handgun ban as unconstitutional. The damage ultimately extended well beyond this limited circumstance, however, as the NRA and more conservative state legislatures around the country used this decision to justify a variety of laws aimed at making it even easier for individuals–even terrorists, convicted felons, mentally ill, and domestic abusers– to obtain, carry, and use guns.  The Supreme Court in 2010 did indeed determine that Heller applied also to state and local laws, thus extending the reach of the original decision.

Consequently, during the reign of terror by the NRA, not only were politicians afraid to support common sense gun legislation designed to reduce gun violence, but also GOP politicians in the pocket of the NRA worked to loosen the ties even further. Incredibly lax gun regulation, coupled with giddy gun manufacturers, led to a dramatic proliferation of guns in this country.  Even the NRA had at one time said that there should be common sense measures put in place, such as universal background checks.  The original NRA, however, was intended to be an association that represented gun owners in this country. Over time, that changed, as increasingly greedy and wealthy gun manufacturers turned the NRA into a massive lobbying machine that cared first and foremost about maximizing income to gun manufacturers with little to no thought or care given to what was done with those guns after they were purchased.

The story of the gun industry is not a new one. Other major U.S. industries have similarly become so greedy and so rich and so powerful that they could dominate politicians with their agenda and thus get away with murder (both literally and figuratively).   A couple prime examples include the American auto and tobacco industries.  People within those industries knew that they were manufacturing and selling to consumers very dangerous goods, yet failed to make changes to protect consumers. Why? All they cared about was their profits and, moreover, they were not adequately regulated by the government.

Take the Ford Pinto case.  Ford knew that the Pinto was unreasonably dangerous and could have recalled the cars sold and made modifications but discovery in a case brought against the company revealed that they had engaged in a callous cost-benefit analysis showing they came out ahead financially by just paying off those injured or killed by their defective product. The auto industry also fought hard against putting available but somewhat costly safety features in their cars–features that we now take for granted, and are mandated by law, such as three point seat belts and air bags.  Likewise, prior to a seminal suit brought against cigarette companies that uncovered what the companies knew about the dangers and addictive nature of cigarette smoking, the industry marketed cigarettes to minors–remember Joe Camel?– in the hope that they would get hooked at a young age and become lifelong smokers, thus spending millions of dollars on cigarettes (and much more likely to develop deadly lung cancer as a result).

Unlike these other industries, gun manufacturers with the help of the NRA shield themselves from such glaring scrutiny by wrapping themselves in the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, as now defined by the Supreme Court. In fact, there is now on the books a terrible federal law that provides immunity to gun manufacturers against suit for damages caused by their product.   This law is virtually unheard of in the arena of consumer goods and, essentially, since the gun manufacturers have the deepest pockets, leaves individuals with no recourse when their lives are destroyed as the result of gun violence.

In the meantime, common sense and viable safety measures, such as a biometric gun lock with a fingerprint sensor also known as a smart gun (think the iPhone and it’s use of similar technology to unlock the phone), have been dismissed by the gun lobby (a parallel with the auto industry’s aversion to mandated safety features), nor utilized by the vast majority of gun manufacturers (an exception:  the intelligun)  though it could save countless lives.  Another parallel, this one with the tobacco industry, is the gun manufacturer’s attempt to market firearms to children by making them look more like toys, with colors like hot pink and designs, and utilizing cute cartoon creatures in advertisements (see images)images)
.c4806-1.jpg

crickett

 

 

Rather than make us safer as touted by the gun lobby, the proliferation of guns led to an alarming uptick in the rate of deaths due to guns in this country.  Politicians looked away or swept under the rug the shocking statistics for fear of retaliation by the NRA. In 1999, after a major mass shooting that resulted in 15 deaths and 20 more wounded took place at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado, gun control advocates had the ear and sympathy of the greater public for a time. Up against the NRA, however, they ultimately did not have a chance. The NRA was an extraordinarily wealthy and powerful lobbying organization by now, and regular citizens who were shocked and dismayed by this shooting in a public high school were neither organized, nor nearly as wealthy.

After Columbine, however, it became abundantly clear to anyone paying attention (and not a gun manufacturer) that something had to be done. High school students Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold had been able to scheme and plan a mass murder they carried out at their school, and develop their own arsenal of multiple weapons with relative ease, without their parents even knowing anything about it. Political activist and screenwriter Michael Moore filmed a documentary about the massacre entitled “Bowling for Columbine” that was released in 2002. As interest in the case faded over time, the NRA continued, largely unabated, their quest for loosened gun restrictions, advocating for state and local laws like concealed and open carry in public places, such as college campuses, bars and restaurants, and movie theaters.

The carnage continued. Between Columbine and Sandy Hook—the horrific massacre of 20 young children and six of their teachers in their own elementary school—there were five more mass shootings in public schools and on college campuses, including the deadliest mass shooting of all time (until yesterday’s nightclub shooting) at Virginia Tech in 2007, when 32 were killed and 24 more were injured by a student.  Other public places where people gathered became increasingly dangerous. In 2011, Gabrielle Gifford, a congresswoman from Arizona and gun owner, was shot and seriously injured at an outdoor public forum, that killed 6 people and wounded 13 others. Just as the shooting of James Brady, Ronald Reagan’s press secretary in 1981, led to a long, drawn out battle for common sense gun law reform such as background checks (the “Brady Bill”), so too did a shooting of one of Congress’ own, in a state with one of the least restrictive gun laws in the country.

Then came the 2012 shooting at a midnight showing of “The Dark Knight Rises” at a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado.  A mentally ill man, who managed to amass many firearms and 6,000 rounds of ammunition, walked in to the theater, and opened fire, killing 12 and injuring 56.  A similar incident happened in Lafayette, Louisiana at a screening of the movie, “Trainwreck,” in 2015.  Also recently, a white supremacist gunned down 9 African-American men and women in their church in Charleston, South Carolina, a blatant hate crime by a young white man who loved guns almost as much as he loved the Confederate flag.   All told, there are on average 289 people shot by a gun every single day in this country, and 86 of those Americans die. 

Statistics or even high school and college shootings are one thing, but no one mass murder galvanized the American public more than the December 2012 shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut.  The shock of so many young children (20 kindergarteners and first graders, and another 6 adults) gunned down in their own classrooms shook many to their very core. Moms led the foray, immediately organizing a grassroots group on Facebook under the leadership of Shannon Watts, an Indianapolis mother of five.  Many moms and other concerned citizens, including grieving families from Sandy Hook traveled to DC a month later on a freezing cold day to march on the National Mall demanding improved gun safety laws.

The power of grassroots organization via social media became clear, as Watts’ group, Moms Demand Action Against Gun Sense in America, not only grew in number of members, but also evoked memory of an earlier group formed by concerned mothers: Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD).    MADD had led to reforms of the criminal justice system by holding drunk drivers more accountable for their actions behind the wheel. The hope was that Moms Demand Action could effect similar change regarding gun laws in this country. Other groups also formed in the wake of Sandy Hook, including a group of concerned mayors such as the mayor of New York City, Mike Bloomberg, known as “Everytown for Gun Safety.”  Gabby Giffords’ group, “Americans for Responsible Solutions,” also led the fight for gun law reforms. The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence gained a powerful new voice in Colin Goddard, one of the students injured in the Virginia Tech mass shooting.

Well-organized, motivated, and increasingly wealthy, these groups together pushed hard to enact common sense gun laws, such as universal background checks.   The NRA would not be defeated, however, and the push back was decisive. Split almost entirely along party lines, the GOP in the Senate killed a bill introduced at the urging of gun violence prevention groups.  In the past, this might have been enough to knock the wind out of the sails of gun law reformers.  But the new movement had some key differences in that it had many more members with a newly found determination, more money, and more influential leaders, as well as a simple, coherent message and mission that they shared—the enactment of “common sense gun legislation,” such as universal background checks without loopholes,  and increased gun safety measures, such as keeping guns out of the hands of people who shouldn’t have them–convicted felons, mentally ill, domestic abusers, and terrorists.

The battle went well beyond Congress, and included boycotts of businesses that allowed guns on their property, etc. as well as fighting for stronger gun laws at the state level.   Hollywood actors and actresses, and other entertainers, weighed in as well in favor of improved gun laws.

Where the NRA had previously had free rein in these areas, now there was finally an organized lobby to fight for the opposite position. Recently, President Obama made progress on these issues, by using his power of executive order to put as many measures in place as possible to combat gun violence in this country.  Congress continues to, in this area as in so many others, fail to act, despite polls showing that 92% of Americans, and 86% of gun owners, are in favor of common sense gun law reforms, like universal background checks.  Nonetheless, gun violence prevention groups have begun forming at the state level to push for the best possible laws to protect citizens against gun violence and strides continue to be made, particularly in states with Democratic-led governments.

Now that you have the history of the gun violence prevention movement, you may be asking, how does gun violence and the movement specifically impact women, and your daughters and sons, and also what can be done to help?

Domestic Violence: Although the NRA likes to insist that guns keep women safe, the truth is that a gun is far more likely to be used against its woman owner by a domestic abuser than as a means of self-defense.   In fact, women are less safe living in a house with a gun, period, according to the research. 

Negligence/Accidental Shootings: An appalling number of children die every year because a parent has failed to lock up a gun.  The child—often a very young child—accesses the gun, which is loaded and somehow discharges. In some jurisdictions, this is considered to be an accidental shooting, but really it is negligence or even recklessness on the part of the parent.  Any parent knows that just because you explain dangers to your toddler or young child, doesn’t mean he or she will listen to you and avoid the dangers 100% of the time. It only takes that one time for a child either to injure or kill himself, a playmate, a sibling, or any member of the family. The child is a victim either way, having to live her life knowing that she killed a friend or loved one.

Teen Suicide: Suicide is on the rise and is the third leading cause of teen and young adult death in this country. Lacking impulse control, and if severely depressed, a teen who can easily gain access a gun is a recipe for disaster.  While a person can attempt to kill themselves in a variety of ways, one who has easy access to a gun is much more likely to succeed before getting treatment for the underlying mental disorder.

School Shootings:  Since Sandy Hook, there have been an unacceptable 186 shootings in schools and universities.   That breaks down to be about a shooting per week.  Even when a school has a concern about a possible threat, it often will go into “lockdown” mode, thus terrifying our kids, who wonder if their lives are in danger.

There are so many things that you can do as a woman and mom to help reduce gun violence in this country—both on the micro and macro level. Here are some of the most important:

  • Join your local chapter of Moms Demand Action (http://momsdemandaction.org ) and respond to their calls to action. This grassroots group, formed in the wake of Sandy Hook, continues to exert influence through simple yet effective means of advocacy and lobbying. Moms are encouraged to bring their children to events so you don’t even have to get a babysitter.  In fact, I recall meeting with a Senator, and another mom brought her toddler into the conference room.  No one batted an eye.
  • Write and call your members of Congress. For a list of your senators and representatives, as well as contact information, go to this website: http://www.contactingthecongress.org. Tell them you’re a constituent and a voter who is concerned about gun violence in this country and ask them to take measures such as voting for common sense gun law reforms, holding gun manufacturers accountable.  If your members of Congress are already on board, thank them for their leadership and implore them to continue to make gun violence prevention a legislative priority.
  • Vote for candidates at the state and federal level who are in favor of enacting common sense gun laws and who have a history to back it up. This includes voting for Hillary Clinton for President. Clinton has been endorsed by all major gun violence prevention groups in this country,  because she has made gun violence prevention a major part of her platform, the first presidential candidate ever to do so. The NRA has endorsed Donald Trump, who believes that the Second Amendment takes priority over public health and safety, and who wants to eliminate gun-free zones.  Clinton has also expressed a disdain for the Heller decision, which adopted a nearly unfettered constitutional right for individual gun ownership, including domestic abusers, terrorists, felons, and the mentally ill. If elected, it stands to reason that she would want to appoint to the Supreme Court a judge who interprets the Second Amendment more consistent with her views than Justice Scalia’s. 
  • If you are a gun owner, lock up your guns and do not risk that your child will be able to access a gun. Take responsibility for your guns.   Even if it is legal to open or conceal carry a gun in public, seriously consider leaving yours at home. Too many guns have fired “accidentally” in public places, such as  public bathrooms, Wal-Mart, restaurants, and hotel lobbies.
  • Before your child goes to a playdate or to a friend’s house, ask the parent if there are guns in the household.  Consider restricting visits to that home (especially if the parents do not keep their guns locked up at all times) and plan more playdates in your home, which is hopefully a gun-free zone.  If not, and you must have a gun for self-defense, consider buying a smart gun that can only fire if the owner is holding it.
  • Still skeptical about the role that our lax gun laws play in mass shootings, such as the Orlando nightclub massacre?  Read the “Definitive Guide to the Gun Safety Debate.”

With Love & Kindness,

The FeMOMist

 

 

 

We Are Living in a Post-Feminist Era and It’s Bad for Women & Our Girls

June 7, 2016

I remember them clearly. There were these books in my elementary school classroom about the earliest feminists: the ones who fought for the right to vote, or flew a plane, or pursued undercover reporting, or freed slaves through an underground railroad. These books were, in retrospect, highly inspirational to me; they sent the message that, even as an 11 or 12-year-old girl living in the U.S. in the late 1970s, I really could grow up to do anything I wanted. They also taught me that women had struggled with the pervasive sexism that had been deeply entrenched in our society from the earliest days, and that these things didn’t happen easily. So, these early feminists were also heroes to me. Besides reading, I also watched my fair share of TV, and loved programs like That Girl, and Mary Tyler Moore, and Maude. These shows made me see how a woman could be smart, strong, and feminine, all at the same time.

Then there was the proposed Equal Rights Amendment (ERA),  which provided, “Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.” (If it were written anew today, I suspect that the word “sex” would be changed to “gender.”) To me, the ERA made perfect sense because I learned at my Quaker school that, as a matter of morality, everyone is equal. I understood that the ERA was an important addition to our Constitution and that a certain number of states needed to ratify it for it to become law.   Congress had already approved it and only 38 of the states needed to ratify for it to become the law of the land. I also remembered how disappointed I was when I learned that there were not enough states and it looked like there might never be enough states. I’ve since learned that the ERA would have passed—we only needed 3 more states—but for the counter-movement of Phyllis Schlafly, an antifeminist political activist who basically told married women/housewives across America (and at the time about 65% of American women did get married) that they had it cushy already, but the ERA would send us off to war and have other negative effects.   Phyllis Schlafly’s movement killed the ERA. We lost our chance, and it was because of a woman. If I had realized this at the time, I am certain I would have seen this as the worst betrayal.

Even younger, when I was in kindergarten, I remember going into school and proudly telling the teacher that my mom voted for McGovern while my dad voted for Nixon.   This taught me that not only would I eventually have the right to vote, but just as importantly, that I didn’t have to exercise it the same way my husband did—that my right to vote was valuable and real and belonged to me.

My aunts were self-professed feminists—ahead of their time—and some of my earliest memories are of family gatherings where they would debate politics (often but not always involving women’s issues) with my father and uncles. I thought that was normal family gathering conversation, and that women should discuss and debate these things with men. I discussed U.S. history with my dad all the time at the dinner table. He had views about girls that were pretty much par for the course in that era: girls are good at English; boys are good at math and science. I certainly fit that mold, though I will never know if my father’s views encouraged me to think that I did, and it became a self-fulfilling prophecy.

On the other hand, my dad did introduce me to one of the earliest PC’s, made in the late 70s by Radio Shack, which he bought for his law practice—sparking an interest in computers, somewhat unusual in girls and women, that exists to this day—and had me doing data entry for him at the age of 10 or 11. Either way, my father never questioned that I was going to college and when I graduated cum laude from an Ivy League school he couldn’t have been prouder that I was going on to pursue the same career he did, as an attorney, with one of the largest law firms in the country.

After the fantasy world that was college in the 1980s, I carried my feminist sensibilities with me to law school, and beyond.   I took for granted, with a vague awareness of Roe v. Wade, that I could control whether or not I became pregnant through readily available contraception and could even have a safe abortion if I ever needed or wanted one. In the 1990’s, it was more common to be a professional woman (thanks to the trailblazers before us) and sexual harassment lawsuits could now be pursued in court due to the Civil Rights Act of 1991, resulting in more professional and civilized environments where men and women worked together.   I didn’t feel at all out of place at my law school where the male to female ratio was about 1:1, and I made the prestigious law review along with a lot of other women.

Then I graduated, and was suddenly thrust into the real world. In the early 90’s, the biggest issue facing us women (and a double-edged sword) was how to “have it all.”  Our parents raised us to be confident and think maybe we really could be “superwomen.”  (Another sign of feminism: Many of the younger women in my firm, though married, had decided to keep their “maiden name” or at least used their maiden name as a middle name.) I saw though the lifestyle of the female attorneys at my firm, even those who had somehow negotiated part-time status, and that almost all of the lawyers who became moms left over time. They had burnt out—we women lawyers worked as hard as the men—and they not only were working, but also taking care of a baby and running a household.

Moreover, I saw situations where part-time female attorneys ended up working for longer hours than they had negotiated—for the same salary they negotiated—so essentially they were underpaid. Also, the firm did not provide on-site day care, which made things even more difficult for these women who had to rush home to nannies or au pairs, or to a day care center. Fortunately, we big firm lawyers made enough money (alone or with one’s spouse) to cover the cost of the child care and still earn a living, but it quickly became apparent to me that in essence the cost of childcare ate up a sizeable portion of one’s income as a female lawyer and could be a barrier to resuming work for many women generally.

As a child, I didn’t even know if I wanted to be a mother some day, and gave it little thought, until I hit my mid-20s when my biological clock and maternal urges kicked into gear. The days of most of our parents—getting married young and having babies—were over. How could I possibly manage a career as a litigator at a large firm and a family? It didn’t help that I had a chronic illness—Crohn’s disease—that flared off and on, and even on my best days I never felt like I had the energy of the so-called “superwomen” I saw all around me. When I did get married—several months before I turned 30—I started noticing articles and hearing buzz about another phenomenon: By delaying having babies into their 30s or even early 40s, professional women like me who put career first risked infertility.  Sure enough, when the time came to try, I couldn’t get pregnant. I waited until my mid-30s and that was too long. Eventually, I did become pregnant and gave birth—twice—but at the time two years seemed like an eternity and I wondered if I would ever be a mother.

It was when I was very, very pregnant with my second child that I sat at a table with law school friends and realized what a deep chasm that had formed between us. We were all smart women, who practiced law in our chosen specialties. One woman had decided that she was going to have a child, but only one. The other woman was divorced after a short, disastrous marriage, and had no children.   The two mothers (me being one of them) at the table exchanged some ugly words that ended the friendship. I had decided to stay home with my two children. (To be completely honest, I’ll never know if I would have made that decision if I did not also have a serious chronic illness, but it was my decision and I owned it wholeheartedly.) The other mom went right back to work after a maternity leave from her job as a lobbyist, which had always been the plan. I believe she still works at the same job 14 years later.   That night, though, it was all about the judging, which was couched in angry words and harsh tones. Who made the right decision? What was the more feminist choice?

With all these years of hindsight I can look back and say—we both did. Feminism is, to me, the ability to choose one’s own path in life, without government interference for sure, but also without judgment from other women, or anybody else.   It is, put another way, the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, rights which, by the way, are only provided in the Declaration of Independence to extend to men.  So now I must ask the question: How far have we come, since I went into a kindergarten classroom and proudly announced my mother voted for the other guy, or even since I went to law school?   Young women and not surprisingly many men today seem to think we are living in a post-feminist society and perhaps, by dint of views like theirs, we are. But is that a positive or a negative development for women and girls?

Well, we have certainly evolved in our views towards women to some extent. There are currently 3 women on the Supreme Court, more than ever before. There are 20 women out of the total 100 currently in the Senate, and another 84 women out of the total 435 currently in House. There are many women in state legislatures around the country and a handful of governors (currently 6 out of 50).   This is a huge improvement over the makeup of our government in the early 90’s.  There are also more women working in a wider range of fields than ever before.

Still, we know that women remain a distinct minority in our government, sorely underrepresented in the upper echelons of the business world, in engineering and science fields, and in other careers thought by my father’s generation to be more for men than women. We know that, while there are sexual harassment laws, far too many women endure the sexual abuse and date rape that occurs on college campuses and elsewhere, and the victim shaming or sweeping under the rug that happens if a woman dares to complain about it.  We know that there continue to be disparities in salary for the same job  (even for Hollywood superstars like Jennifer Lawrence), no federally mandated paid maternity leave, and other obstacles that keep women from being able to work and have a family at the same time, thus making many of us lose traction or even fail in our careers.

We know that there are 15 states that still refuse to ratify the ERA despite it being introduced in various states every year since the 1970s. We know that we are but one Supreme Court justice away from further eroding or even overturning the landmark Roe v. Wade decision.  We know that Planned Parenthood is under attack and many conservative men in our government (and even some Republican female lawmakers) seek to defund it.  Finally, we stand on the brink of determining if we will elect our first woman President after hundreds of years of men. Despite this woman being eminently qualified for the job, we hear all the time the sexist views that persist when discussing her character traits and demeanor.   Misogynistic views towards Hillary Clinton extend to the popularity of highly offensive merchandise sold over the Internet that have Monica Lewinsky’s image with taglines like “I Got the ‘Job’ Done When Hillary Couldn’t” or “clever” retorts like “Hillary will go down faster than Bill’s pants,” and even “Trump that Bitch.”  Seriously.

Sexism is the persistent idea that somehow and, in some way, men are superior to women, or that we are objects put on this earth for their pleasure and service, and we should therefore be treated differently as a result.   It pervades our popular culture (for a woman, appearance is more important than anything else), our politics (nicknames like “Shrillary”), our business world (in the Fortune 500, there are only 22 companies with female CEOs), and our social interactions with one another. Instead of shows like Mary Tyler Moore or books about strong, positive female role models in the 1970s, we have instead The Real Housewives of Potomac and books and movies like Fifty Shades of Grey. To pretend sexism doesn’t exist and say things like, for example, “Don’t vote for Hillary Clinton just because she’s a woman,” particularly a woman like Clinton, whose goal is to further and even prioritize women’s rights, is to be like Phyllis Schafly, dismissing the ERA as bad for women, all those years ago.

It is so very apparent that while young women and most men believe we are in a post-feminist era, we are not in a post-sexist era any more than we are in a post-racial era. Moreover, if Barack Obama’s historic presidency is any indication, even if Hillary Clinton becomes our first women president, that will not mean the end of sexism in this country, and it surely will rear its ugly head in how others treat her or talk about her. Many conservative white men in particular will be unhappy and frustrated over the loss of their grip on executive power for yet another four years, and talk of “taking back their country” will continue.

Women of every ilk live in our great country: single, married, divorced; employed, unemployed, self-employed; straight and gay; religious and secular. Indeed, women fall into various combinations of these “categories.” It is not anymore the norm that a woman goes from her father’s home to her husband’s and is protected by him until the day she dies. Thus, when we advance the rights of all women, we advance the rights of everyone. As Hillary Clinton put it so eloquently (see below) when she went to Beijing 20 years ago at the Fourth World Conference on Women, “Women’s Rights are Human Rights.”

Girls and young women may not completely understand the history of women’s rights, may take for granted certain advances that required a lot of hard work and dogged determination by relatively few heroic women, and will certainly continue to be pummeled (brainwashed?) by messages born of an inherently sexist and paternalistic society.  Nevertheless, I propose we try our best to teach them before they leave home, for college, and certainly for the real world, that women’s rights are their rights, and the prospective rights of their daughters and granddaughters.

With love and kindness,

The FeMOMist

16 Female Empowerment Anthems (& 1 Pop Song that Set Us Back Decades)

June 1, 2016

 

I was in the car with my 14-year-old daughter listening to the Hits 1 station on satellite radio and I think she was a little surprised at my reaction to what was the “song of the summer” a few summers back. I abruptly changed the station and couldn’t help but say aloud in an annoyed tone, “I can’t believe they are still playing this song.” You see, I actually LISTEN to the lyrics of the songs that come on the radio, especially the stations that my kids like to listen to, which I suppose you can call generically “pop music.” So anyway, I didn’t have to listen to any more than the first couple bars because how many times have I heard that song played? The song I’m talking about is “Blurred Lines,” by Robin Thicke and Pharrell Williams (or actually not penned by Robin, whom you may recall copped to being strung out on prescription painkillers through the entire process, and didn’t write the song at all), and featuring rapper T.I.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m no Tipper Gore, and can tolerate some explicit language and even sexual innuendo, but I do think there are some songs that have become so engrained into our culture and that have content that is seriously damaging to our kids.  Take “Blurred Lines,” which includes lyrics such as “I know you want it . . . but you’re a good girl. . . .You’re an animal. Baby, it’s in your nature. Just let me liberate you. That man is not your mate and that why I’m gon’ take you.” The rap portion of the song is even worse. Did you even know that it contains this lyric: “I’ll give you something big enough to tear your a$$ in two.”???  Date rape much?

It would seem that Robin, Pharrell, and T.I. are inviting men to question whether “no” actually means “no,” and to sexually harm women, but it’s set to such darn catchy music (still can’t get it out of my head after hearing it earlier today), that we all say, “Wow, what a great, fun song.”  And (this is only as of June 2013—the summer had just begun) the music video was watched on YouTube over 73 million times, played over the radio over 50,000 times, had more than 1.4 million downloads, and made megastars out of Robin and Pharrell. Then, we are somehow shocked when we hear about the high rate of sexual assault and date rape on college campuses.

Context. It’s the only realistic answer when it comes to the non-stop popular culture that bombards our kids every day and leaves them with the idea that “no” might really not mean “no,” or that a girl is nothing without a boyfriend, or that appearance counts for everything in this world, or that sex is the end all be all. So, you can’t stop the culture bombardment—even those of you who may still be monitoring closely the content—because, face it, popular culture permeates our entire society and they are going to see and hear it: on iTunes, at a friend’s house, or on YouTube anytime he or she has a phone and you are not around. What you can do, however, is ferret out the truly pernicious aspects of our popular culture and point out to your teen that they are listening to a song about date rape, for example, and then talk to them seriously and meaningfully about date rape.

One more example: there was so much media attention directed at the book and movie “Fifty Shades of Gray,” but did anyone stop and think about how this so-called relationship might look to a teenager?  The story is about a college woman who is completely submissive and subordinate to a much older (wealthy) man who won’t take no for an answer.  And by submissive I mean, like S&M submissive, but also under his complete domination and control.  Even if you think your daughter (or son) isn’t paying attention, you can’t know for sure unless you open up the dialogue. Tell your teen son that “no” means “no” and to respect girls and women, and tell your teen daughter that she has the right to choose when and how she allows others to touch her body—that she is the sole keeper of her body—and that she is worthy of respect.   Because I’ve seen some rather ugly, scary things written on social media by middle schoolers about sex and date rape, which was so disheartening. It’s clear that these messages are coming from all corners and it is our responsibility to make sure that at least it is put in the proper context. I have so much more to say on this topic, but that will be for another day. In the meantime, let’s focus on the positive!

Our pop culture does have some saving graces. Every so often, a badass woman releases a song that becomes very popular, and that song is actually about female empowerment! I love these songs and fortunately since they are also set to catchy music they can also have an impact on our culture, our teens. However, some of these songs also need context, because sometimes the artist is being ironic or symbolic.   So here are some songs—actually anthems—that I have compiled. The next time Hits 1 plays “Blurred Lines” I’ll be ready with the antidote. In fact, I think I’ll make an iTunes playlist!

16 ANTHEMS OF FEMALE EMPOWERMENT (in no particular order)

Click on the song title to hear the song AND read the lyrics!

1.  “Let It Go” by Idina Menzel

Ah, how many times have we moms heard this song from the Disney movie, “Frozen”? Actually my kids were a bit old to become obsessed with a Disney movie so I never heard it enough that I got sick of it. I still listen to it in the rare times that it still is played on the radio. First of all, it’s sung by Idina Menzel, who is possibly one of the best female vocalists of all time. But it’s more than that—the movie plus that song equals young girls growing up to see that not all princesses are crooning “Someday my prince will come…” and that they should be who they want to be: “Don’t hold it back anymore…”   Also, the song teaches that everybody makes mistakes and to tune out the naysayers, something even we adult women sometimes forget to do.

2.  “Run the World (Girls)” (clean version!) by Beyonce

This song just might be the quintessential female empowerment anthem. Who run the world? Girls! Well that couldn’t be further from the truth (unless a certain woman ends up winning the 2016 election—wink, wink), but isn’t it important that we teach our girls to think that they can or could some day? My favorite line is “Boy you know you love it how we’re smart enough to make these millions. Strong enough to bear the children, then get back to business” Who runs the world? This song is a step in the right direction.

3. “Roar” by Katy Perry

Katy Perry’s anthem is the story of her evolution from mouse to lioness!   (Well, she did come from a strict, religious upbringing so I’m going to assume without knowing for sure that it’s at least partly autobiographical.) This is such an inspirational song for girls with a message that it’s ok to be assertive and strong, and also how to be resilient. Coming from one of their faves, Katy Perry, it is a message that can really resonate.

4.  “Material Girl” by Madonna

OK well this one is kind of the 80s—greed is good—version of an anthem, but it’s Madonna!   Her entire career has been about female empowerment.   Remember the time she said early in her career that her goal in life was “to rule the world”?   To put that statement into context, this was the 80s—before there was such a thing as the concept of sexual harassment and relatively few women in professional careers or the upper echelons of power in our country—and she was a female symbol of strength and power (even though some of our own parents might have seen her as a bad influence). As for the song itself, the point is in the end, which in essence is: I don’t need you, a man, in any event, because I make my own money.

5.  “Confident” by Demi Lovato

Well, what is wrong with being confident?  Absolutely nothing–it should be no-brainer that it is better to be confident than not.  The issue is that our girls have a confidence problem relative to the boys,  which partly explains why girls do well in school and testing, but then get passed over for the guy when the time comes to get a job.  So if one of their favorite artists is telling them it’s a good thing to be confident, well, that can only be a good thing.

6.  “I Will Survive” by Gloria Gaynor

An earlier feminist anthem released in 1978, within a year of when we learned that the Equal Rights Amendment was not to be, this song is actually about a woman’s plucky determination to get by without her man who wronged her. He has the nerve to walk through the door and she’s not having it. The emotion and passion of this song is impossible to resist.

7.  “Fight Song” by Rachel Platten

This: “Like a small boat on the ocean, sending big waves into motion. Like how a single word can make a heart open. I might only have one match but I can make an explosion.” And it goes on from there. Beautiful, meaningful poetry set to a beautiful melody, and released in the year 2015, amidst a lot of bad, inappropriate fluff music. I love Rachel Platten’s defiant “Fight Song”! Apparently, so does Hillary Clinton, as the song is often played after her rallies and special events.

8.  “Girls Just Wanna Have Fun” by Cyndi Lauper

This 80s song, widely considered to be and used as a party or dance song, actually has a “hidden” feminist message. The song is about a young, unmarried, working woman (an increasingly common demographic by then), who holds on to her right to live her life on her own terms.   Not her mother’s, nor her father’s. And this: “Some boys take a beautiful girl and hide her away from the rest of the world. I wanna be the one who walks in the sun. . . .” I have to give props to Cyndi Lauper too for “True Colors,” which has become an anthem for the acceptance of people who are different from the norm, including the LGBTQ community.

9.  “I Am Woman” by Helen Reddy

“Invincible,” “strong,” “wise.” “If I have to I can do anything!” These are words that we want our girls to associate with being female. This early 1970s folk anthem—the original feminist anthem—does that and much more.

10.  “Respect” by Aretha Franklin

This still-beloved classic from the 60s still says it all in a word. Respect. Respect yourself, and respect others. Everything else will then fall into place.

11.  “Shake It Off” by Taylor Swift

Taylor Swift generally writes songs about relationships, both good and bad ones, but every so often she makes an exception. This 2014 song off her smash “1989” album sends the message to girls that they shouldn’t get hung up on what others think or say about them. Just do what Taylor does and Shake. It. Off. In this era where cyberbullying happens all the time, and there have even been incidents of teen suicides at least partially attributable to cyberbullying, this message is a very important one to convey.

12.  “Stronger (What Doesn’t Kill You)” by Kelly Clarkson

While ultimately about the end of a relationship, this popular anthem is also about not needing a man for happiness.  Kelly Clarkson sings this song like a mantra and it’s a good mantra to have during the times of trouble that we all face in a lifetime.

13.  “Just a Girl” by No Doubt (Gwen Stefani)

So, the casual listener might think this song is actually about submission, but it is completely sarcastic and ironic. I love the lyrics to this song: “Oh I’m just a girl, pretty and petite, so don’t let me have any rights.” The lyrics also slyly get at victim/slut shaming: “The moment that I step outside, so many reasons for me to run and hide. I can’t do the little things I hold so dear, ‘cause it’s all those little things that I fear.” Make sure you point out the sarcasm to your kids—if not heard that way, it is actually a terrible song!

14.  “No” by Meghan Trainor

What better antidote to “Blurred Lines” and “Fifty Shades of Gray” than Meghan Trainor’s new pop tune? Basically this song is about a woman repeating “no” over and over again to a guy who is trying to hit on her. It’s such a simple word and yet there is no word more empowering for girls and women. Really, just one “no” should suffice but Meghan has to say “no” to a number of come-ons because of some boys/men who have now been conditioned to think that maybe, just maybe, “no” means “yes.”   “My name’s ‘no,’ my sign’s ‘no,’ my number’s ‘no,’ you need to let it go.” Yes!

15.  “I’m Coming Out” by Diana Ross

A song from the early 80s from the great Diana Ross, “I’m Coming Out” has a message similar to the one in “Let It Go”—I’m free to be me!

16.  “Brave” by Sara Bareilles

Saturday Night Life satirized this song, and it was pretty funny, but really if you listen to the lyrics, they’re not about saying everything that’s on your mind with no filter, like your great-aunt Bertha. One big problem girls and women have is that over time we become increasingly silent. We are afraid of what others might think of us. We are afraid that our points of view will be belittled or worse. Sara Bareilles tells us we should be brave “and let the words fall out.”

 

So there you have it:  16 empowering songs that help counter the damage done by songs like “Blurred Lines.”  Can you think of others?  Are there any feminist songs that have been recorded by men?

 

With Love and Kindness,

The FeMOMist

 

 

 

 

 

About Those Tired Old GOP Tropes Against Hillary Clinton: It’s Time for a Reality Check.

May 26, 2016

My 14-year-old, apolitical daughter came home from school about a month ago and said at the dinner table to me, my husband, and her 15 year-old brother: “[Insert name of classmate] said that Hillary Clinton is a liar.”

Drop the mic.

We all looked at each other. My husband and I are Democrats, live in a blue state, and an ultra-blue county and I have been a Hillary Clinton supporter for years. My husband is not as die-hard as I am but voted for her in the primaries. Deep breath. . . . How to handle this. . . .

“Did your friend say why she thinks Hillary Clinton is a liar?” My daughter’s response, “No.”

“Well, what did you say?” My daughter: “Nothing.”

What could she say to that? It’s a deeply engrained trope that was started by Republicans against Bill and Hillary Clinton back when they were the quintessential power couple and the GOP were still mourning the end of the Reagan/Bush administrations and their position of power beginning in the early 1990s.   I found it troubling in part because I am pretty sure the classmate’s parents are Democrats. But moreover, it bothered me that my apolitical daughter had no idea what to say in response to a slanderous label that finds no support in fact. My daughter did seem to know though that her parents weren’t going to be supporting a liar for President and she wanted to see our reaction. It made me realize that there is probably a lot of people out there—a lot of young (and maybe even older) women—who don’t know what to make of it when they hear the distortions that come out about Hillary Clinton.  Thus, I wrote this blog post. I hope it helps women and girls feel more secure in challenging or dismissing these tropes when they hear them. Far from being the demon claimed by the right (and some Bernie supporters too), Hillary Clinton has the opportunity to become our first woman president and continue the progress made under the Obama Administration.

Indeed, she undoubtedly will have the opportunity to appoint at least one if not more progressive Supreme Court justices who will aim to overturn Citizens United (which will pave the way for campaign finance reform), as well as return to minorities voting rights that were wrongly taken away by a conservative majority of justices; who will make sure that we do not go back to the days before Roe v. Wade;  and who will overturn Heller, the decision whose strained interpretation of the Second Amendment gave virtually unfettered rights to individual gun owners.  On the other hand,  Donald Trump threatens to nominate very conservative jurists to the Supreme Court who would decide these cases the opposite way, sending us further down the primrose path and back into the dark ages.  That is why it is essential for all progressive thinking women and men to rally behind Hillary Clinton and dismiss these old tired GOP tropes for what they are.

Tired Old GOP Trope #1: Hillary Clinton is not likable. Even women don’t like her.

How It Continues to Arise: Commentators continue to observe this casually without any real evidence.  The likability factor is a very nebulous one that is hard to pin down. If someone doesn’t “like” a person running for public office, then all of the accomplishments, achievements, and solid policy experience and goals are somehow beside the point. Americans vote for someone they think they would want to sit down and have a beer with, right?

The Counterargument: Hillary Clinton has been voted the most admired woman in America 17 times in 18 years.   Plenty of Democrats—women, minorities in particular—presumably “like” her as she does particularly well with those groups.   She also has millions more votes in the primaries than her opponent, Bernie Sanders.

Rather than debating whether Hillary Clinton is in fact liked or not liked, let’s get to the crux of the issue: Why wouldn’t she be liked and why do we have to like a person for him or her to be our President in the first place? David Brooks recently surmised in a New York Times editorial that Hillary isn’t liked because we don’t know anything about what she likes to do with her free time.  In essence: does she have hobbies or does she just want to be the leader of the free world, dammit?   As if playing basketball like President Obama or golf like many professional men would make all the difference.

There is a throwaway line in Brooks’ editorial, about Clinton being a grandmother. Aha! There it is! It’s not that she doesn’t have other interests—she is very outspoken about how much she loves being a grandmother, how she enjoys spending quality time with her daughter and granddaughter, and enjoys reading to little Charlotte, etc.   So it’s not that she doesn’t have other interests outside of public life—clearly she does—it’s just not the right interests (Basketball? Golf? Drinking with the guys?). Believe me, if Hillary Clinton took up a hobby (and who’s to say she doesn’t have a hobby by the way—maybe she just doesn’t talk about it), this would not make anyone like her any better. People would then be saying—why doesn’t she care about her family more? Nobody ever asks that question of a male politician. Ever.

Could it be that no woman running for public office is ultimately “likable”? Put differently, is it possible for a woman politician to be both likeable and capable? That’s hard to say, although if likeability is in fact tied to how one spends their leisure time, it’s hard to imagine a woman who is doing an excellent job juggling a career and a family having the time to get her likeability badge. Sarah Palin seemed to have some interests outside of politics and family, but then again she famously failed the capability test during her run for vice presidency.  I personally would rather have a surgeon operate on me who I know is smart and capable, rather than one that I hear is an awesome basketball player. Hopefully I’m not the minority view on that one.

The Tired Old GOP Trope #2: Hillary Clinton is a liar. She is dishonest and can’t be trusted.

How It Continues to Arise: Donald Trump has taken to calling Clinton “Crooked Hillary,” as if that makes it true.   Bernie Sanders has repeatedly made reference to Clinton’s speaking engagements to Wall Street firms, and the large fees she received as a result.  The point he is trying to make—often indirectly—is that by accepting these fees, she is corrupt, beholden to Wall Street interests, and part of a bigger problem in the U.S.

The Counterargument: Hillary Clinton—unlike Donald Trump—came from a middle class upbringing.  She actually made the lion’s share of her “fortune” after she was First Lady for eight years. As recently as 2001, the Clintons were “dead broke.”   Donald Trump’s sole purpose in life until very recently was to make huge amounts of money. He has bragged that despite being a billionaire, he takes advantage of tax loopholes and looked forward to the real estate bubble bursting so that he could swoop in and get some bargains. He has filed for bankruptcy multiple times.  The common denominator here is that he clearly relishes taking advantage of the system in a way that enriches himself and hurts others.   Trump also refuses to release his tax returns despite it being the standard course of events for presidential candidates to do so, prompting speculation about what could be in those returns.

Finally, according to the political fact-checking website, PolitiFact.com, Hillary Clinton has made statements that are at least partially true 71% of the time.  By means of comparison, Bernie Sanders made statements that were at least partially true 69% of the time.  Her statements were completely true 23% of the time, while Bernie’s statements were completely true 14% of the time.  But the big story is Donald Trump.  Trump has made completely true statements only 3% of the time, and has received the aptly titled “pants on fire” designation a whopping 19% of the time, while Clinton received that designation a mere 1% of the time.

Crooked Hillary?! How about Crooked Donald?

Regarding speaking engagements, former presidents and other leaders command huge sums for speaking to groups who can afford to pay them.   That is even when there is no prospect for them to run for office again. Get it? Bill Clinton and George W. Bush don’t make a fortune every time they speak to a crowd because they are running for the White House or Congress and the audience hopes to influence them in some way.   Likewise, no one accuses Barack Obama of being in the pocket of Wall Street bankers despite his acceptance of large contributions from the banks when he was running for president in 2008.    This is another red herring issue—despite all that Wall Street money, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton were both in favor of the landmark banking law—the Dodd-Frank Act—which gives the power to break up banks if they become too powerful.   Hillary has made clear during her campaign that she wants to enforce the law and give it teeth through additional regulations and rules.

Further, even saintly Bernie Sanders has taken advantage of support from special interest groups. The powerful gun lobby, National Rifle Association (NRA) helped him get elected to Congress, and then he turned around and voted in favor of their positions multiple times.  Donald Trump likewise recently climbed into bed with the NRA and cozied up. In the meantime, Hillary Clinton has met multiple times with the mothers of victims of shooting incidents.   She promises to make gun violence prevention a priority of a Clinton administration.  I know who I trust most on the issue of gun violence prevention and it isn’t Donald Trump or Bernie Sanders.

Finally, I would submit that there are tinges of sexism lurking within this slanderous trope.  Is it possible that we hold women to a higher ethical standard than we do men?   That we expect a woman politician to be more or even far more honest than her male counterparts?  One study found this to be the case.

The Tired Old GOP Trope #3: Hillary Clinton is too ambitious. All she cares about is her own success.

How It Continues to Arise: She dares to—gasp—run for the presidency. Not once, but twice!   Even though a lot of people (especially a lot of white males) wanted a man to win the Democratic nomination, she is persisting in her goal of becoming the leader of the free world.

The Counterargument: This one is so obviously sexist, even the mainstream media can’t deny it.  For comic relief, check out the Onion’s spoof of this sexist trope.   But it’s become increasingly unfunny as time passes and it continues to be recycled. Interestingly, as early as March 2008 there were calls for Hillary to step aside when she was battling against Barack Obama for the nomination and she was doing better at that time in the race than Bernie Sanders is today—over two months further into the primary season.  Why is it ok to push the female candidate to withdraw but not the male candidate? Short answer: it’s not.

What person running for president isn’t ambitious? Doesn’t it go with the territory—almost like a prerequisite character trait? Yet, a woman running for president is overly ambitious and even selfish (say some Bernie Sanders’ supporters, as anyone who reads comments on social media well knows). Beyond that, let’s go back in time to when a young Hillary was setting forth her vision for America. She actually entered a life of public service because she cared about the downtrodden in our society—women, minorities, children, etc.    As a young law student in the early 1970s, she traveled to the Deep South to work on school desegregation.  She was for universal health care long before President Obama was – in fact she was ahead of her time on this issue and faced criticism from many corners — but nevertheless passionately pushed for it as head of a task force while First Lady.   Faced with defeat over universal health care, she turned her attention to enacting the State Children’s Health Insurance Program, which today provides insurance to millions of children who otherwise would be ineligible.

So, it’s unfair to say Hillary only cares about her own success. First off, it’s not true. And secondly, it’s unfair and unrealistic to expect that anyone running for the highest office in the land—male or female—does not care at all about personal success. Ambition is not the sole domain of men and we need to get past that notion as a society.

The Tired Old GOP Trope #4: Hillary Clinton is inauthentic. She seems a bit too perfect, too packaged to be for real.

How It Continues to Arise: Progressive funnyman Jon Stewart came out of his post-Daily Show hibernation and declared her as much.  To be fair, she has been in the national spotlight for 25 years and who stays exactly the same over time?

The Counterargument: There is a genuinely sexist underpinning to this trope, which I will get to in a minute but first, read what Hillary Rodham had to say in the graduation commencement speech she gave at Wellesley College in 1969, the first student to be asked to make such a speech.   Sounds pretty thoughtful and genuine to me. What about when she said—infamously—that she wasn’t going to stand by her man like Tammy Wynette or stay home and bake cookies.  Was that not a genuine (and indignant) Hillary? Or when she spoke passionately as First Lady about this country needing more love and kindness?  Hillary has always had the same values, and underpinnings, and convictions but, for better or worse, became caught up in the realities of being a woman in politics in this country.

Following each of these moments there was a tremendous backlash against her. She was mocked as First Lady for preaching emotions such as “love and kindness” and viewed as harsh and cynical after explaining why she continued a professional life after marrying her husband.  Should she not have tried to package her views in a way that would be received better? Should she have just gone home after Bill’s second term, never to be heard from again? We as a country and as women are better off because she tried to package her views in a more “acceptable” way and continued her life of public service.

The irony is that by doing so, things got twisted around and now a sizable number of people—men and women—view her as “inauthentic.” This is a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don’t double bind that all professional women face. Be too soft and you won’t be taken seriously; be too strong, and you’re cold and calculating.  Smile, and don’t shout, or be shrill, or be a “bitch.”

Men simply do not have to keep all these balls up in the air simultaneously. And even progressive men (such as Jon Stewart) and likely many young people have fallen into the trap of thinking Hillary is “inauthentic” and somehow lacks the courage of her convictions.  The history of her life and career just doesn’t bare out that conclusion, however.

The Tired Old GOP Trope #5: Hillary Clinton is an enabler. Her husband had multiple affairs during their marriage and yet she continues to stand by him.

How It Continues to Arise: The GOP likes to raise this as a reason why we should not trust Hillary on women’s issues. If she can’t even put her own husband in his place, the tired old argument goes, and even “went after” and “ruined” the women who accused him of wrongdoing, how can she be seen as good for women? Donald Trump recently resurrected this “argument,” though he didn’t provide any support.

The Counterargument: Let’s get one thing clear, straight off the bat: there is NO WAY that Donald Trump as president would be better for women than Hillary Clinton.   It’s just not the case.  Donald Trump objectifies women and always has—even his own baby daughter, Tiffany,  as well as his adult daughter, Ivanka. He has admitted that he does not respect women.   He doesn’t think twice about demeaning women and calling them horrific names, often zeroing in on irrelevant factors like appearance.  The examples go on and on.

In a contrast so stark it’s on another galaxy, Hillary Clinton has been fighting for women’s issues, such the right of a woman to choose when she bears children and thus have control over her own body, her entire adult life.  Watch this watershed moment in women’s rights where she traveled to Beijing in 1995 and announced to the entire world, “women’s rights are human rights.”  Clinton has been at the forefront of issues of importance to women and children such as universal health care, equal pay for equal work, paid family leave,  etc., etc., etc.

Beyond that, there’s Bill Clinton and his treatment of women. It turns out that Bill did have sex with an adult White House intern by the name of Monica Lewinsky and lied about it under oath. That is true. It is possible that he has had other affairs or sexual dalliances during their marriage. Blaming Hillary for the indiscretions of her husband, however, is akin to blaming the victim. She was the spouse he cheated on, people!  He lied to her like he lied to the rest of the country and in her own words, it couldn’t have been clearer how hurt and betrayed she felt when she learned the truth within days of the rest of us. Yes, she ultimately decided to stay with him. It was her personal decision, however, just like countless other women who have discovered marital infidelity and decided that the good in the marriage outweighed the bad.   The difference is that she had to make this decision under the glare of public scrutiny and the decision became politicized by her opponents and enemies. She enabled nothing—Bill was a big boy who made bad choices and was humiliated and even impeached for it, although he was ultimately acquitted. GOP leaders have nonetheless attempted to make hay out of decades old allegations that were never proven and have exaggerated the claims and number of women involved.

There is simply no evidence that Hillary Clinton “went after” anyone. And even if she had called anyone a “bimbo,” or similar names, let’s say, these women either knowingly engaged in sexual activity with a married man—her own husband—or did not but were lying about it to bring him down. Who wouldn’t be upset with them in either case?  In fact, it only demonstrates that she IS human, with human feelings—so why crucify her for it? In the end, despite his personal indiscretions, countless Democrats still view Bill Clinton as a great president who balanced the budget, created tons of jobs, raised the standard of living for all Americans, and unlike his successor, did not lead us into an unnecessary war in the Middle East, with a huge cost both in dollars and American lives. Indeed, even Donald Trump himself has spoken in glowing terms about the Clinton administration (at least when he wasn’t running for office against Hillary)!

The Tired Old GOP Trope #6: Hillary Clinton is a serial criminal.

How It Continues to Arise: This one is so clever and diabolical! The GOP has alleged claim after claim over the years against Hillary Clinton—from Whitewater, to Benghazi, to E-Mails. Much to Republicans’ chagrin, she has never been charged with a crime, but the unsupported allegations continue to be raised against her like a blood libel, as if they are true. They then accuse her of being a scandal magnet—when they are the ones who created the scandals out of whole cloth in the first place.  Donald Trump has recently picked up this line of attack.

The Counterargument: After all these years of GOP machinations attempting to get the Clintons generally and, more recently, Hillary Clinton, one would think that if there was anything there, they would have uncovered it by now, no? Yet Hillary has never been charged with a crime. Never.   President Obama pointed out that her e-mail fracas was evidence of carelessness but nothing more.  Another (male) secretary of state, Colin Powell,  did similar things like commingling personal and official e-mail accounts. Benghazi is an even better example of much ado about nothing. You would think she had personally and purposefully led Americans into harm’s way for no good reason. Oh wait, that was George W. Bush and Dick Chaney, and the Iraq War.   After 11 hours of questioning, and multiple GOP launched investigations, there has been nothing uncovered to suggest that Clinton was at fault for what very unfortunately happened at Benghazi.

 

So what to make of all of this? Politics is a dirty game and we are in unchartered waters with our first female candidate poised to win a major party nomination for President. It is important, therefore, for women (and moms) to be vigilant. When your child (or friend, or neighbor, or colleague, or relative) parrots one of these old and tired GOP tropes as if they are the gospel truth, don’t let them get away with it without challenging the basic assumptions. Make sure they see the sexist overtones, the hypocrisy from various GOP politicians who used to sing Clinton’s praises but now that she’s running for the presidency have changed their tune (Donald Trump is but one example. For others, see this article), the fallacies, and more. If they continue to press their case, perhaps it is a lost cause. Psychologists say that people believe what they want to believe and have a way of looking askance at evidence supporting the opposing view. Our children though have not yet hardened in their views and as parents it is our job to teach them that, while they should come to their own conclusions, they should at least be privy to all the facts.

With Love & Kindness,

The FeMOMist

The FeMOMist is a civil litigation attorney by background and training, middle-aged mother of two teenagers, stage III colorectal cancer survivor, blogger, runs a small business, and is a concerned American citizen.  She maintains a pseudonym due to the pervasive misogyny and hate directed at feminists on the Internet, and admits that as a Gen X’er she is not as open online as her Gen Z kids.  

 

The Feminist Mindset (A Mom’s Perspective)

May 24, 2016

Welcome to my new blog!  The purpose of this blog is to explore issues of vital importance to girls and women, and thus all humans, from my personal perspective.  I feel as though the blogosphere while massive with millions of contributors only has limited voices coming from women like me–well-educated, middle-aged, with teenagers.   Instead, we moms are faced with an endless stream of media that speaks primarily to male dominated viewpoints.  The voices we do hear that are from women largely come from younger women.  While the voices of all women are important and valuable (we do make up about half of the population after all), much of what I hear from younger women and girls is very troubling to me as a middle-aged mom and feminist.

Since I have a background as an attorney and have always been a political junkie and history buff, was a psychology major in college, am a stage III colorectal cancer survivor, and am an avid reader of a wide array of Internet content, I have felt a growing urge develop inside me.  First, I want to speak out on behalf of women who in many ways are like me yet for whatever reason have not been able or willing to do so in a public way. Secondly, I want to inform women and give them the tools they need to understand that they have political power and interests that do not coincide completely with the men in their lives–fathers, brothers, boyfriends, husbands, and sons–as much as they may love and respect them.

My name says it all.  First and foremost, I am a mom. I take that job and responsibility very seriously.  Not only am I a mom, but I also have both a girl and a boy.  I feel strongly that it is part of my job to teach both of my kids right from wrong, how to have a strong work ethic, that they should care about others and the world around them, that they should value people as individuals even if they are “different” in some way, etc.  What I have discovered is that while I have no doubt that moms have the best of intentions towards their children, they perhaps too often assume that their kids will know these things instinctively, and that of course they are “good” kids.  One needs only read what the moms of teens who have committed murder, such as the Columbine shootings or the Slender Man stabbing case, thought about their kids prior to these horrific, unimaginable killings–to realize that we may not know our kids as well as we think we do.  These are extreme examples, but ask yourself–do you monitor your teen’s online life–their Instagram or Snapchat accounts, for instance?  If someone complains to you about your child’s conduct, do you rationalize it away or do you explain to your child why his or her behavior is wrong and make sure there are consequences?

The rest of my name reflects that I am not here to focus on all issues that impact women as mothers.  Instead, I want to explore and educate others about issues relating to feminism.  For many reasons, feminism is an emotionally and politically charged term, but that is all the more reason to examine it.  Just because we don’t discuss sexism in this country in any meaningful way, hardly ever, doesn’t mean it does not exist.  When women ignore sexism, it is a problem for everybody because men certainly aren’t going to raise it as an issue–why should they?  So, it is dangerous for women to ignore their own needs (don’t we always have a way of doing that anyway?) but when a mom ignores sexism, she is sending all sorts of ambiguous messages to not only her daughters but also her sons.  Silence is golden but it does not effect change in a meaningful way and leaves the messages received by our kids to a warped culture and what they see and hear on TV, in movies, and yes, on the Internet.  This blog will hopefully not only get at the reasons why we are a sexist society even in 2016 but also how women–moms–can start to turn things around.

Now you may be thinking to yourself–what can I do, really?  Or you might be thinking–why should I go out on a limb and speak out when so many others are not?  This brings me to the third thing you should notice about my name–it’s not a name at all, it’s a pseudonym.  After years of writing posts about feminist issues, such as the importance of exercising our right to vote for candidates who care about women’s rights, tackling issues such as equal pay for equal work, and combating the appalling rape culture in this country, to a relatively small audience of men and women–my Facebook friends–I have decided with the support of many of them to expand my reach by going public.  But because I am a woman in 2016, I do not feel comfortable disclosing my identity.  Why?  I am genuinely concerned about the safety of me and my family for one thing.  Between Bernie Bros and die-hard Trump supporters, ultra-conservative religious men and women, misogynists, and more, I want to get my voice out there to the people who need it most–other women–and not be intimidated myself.

There are a lot of bullies out there–mostly men but women as well–who troll around on the Internet.  Supposedly progressive white males can be surprisingly misogynistic as one recent article made clear.  And as Samantha Bee pointed out on her outstanding show, Full Frontal on TBS, attacks on female elected officials (in that case the Seattle city council) can be particularly ruthless.  Let’s be honest about what these Internet bullies do:  they have a chilling effect on one of the most basic of American rights–the freedom of speech.  When (mostly) men rail against women who deign to be feminists and vocal about their opinions, calling them the worst possible names, and threatening them with rape and other bodily harm, this makes our country a less safe place to have our own opinions and to share those opinions with others.

So this blog is going to be a safe place–a place where you can come to listen to a feminist mom/attorney talk about articles I have read and synthesized, to discover videos and explore current events that expose hypocrisy from within the broader progressive movement, and the danger of electing many members of the Republican party (such as Donald Trump) to public office vis-a-vis the rights of women and girls.  Moreover, if we can all speak in a calm, rational and respectful manner, perhaps we can even discuss and debate these things.   I hope you will join me and spread the word about this blog.  The future of our children, and grandchildren, and beyond depends on us moms.  They need us for more than just cooking, and driving carpool.

With love and kindness,

The FeMOMist