The media love to mock women in the political world by using sexist terms that demean us and make us out to be something not worthy of serious consideration.   We saw that time and time again during the 2008 presidential election as talking heads not-so-subtly suggested that Hillary Clinton was only a viable candidate for national office because we felt sorry for her after Bill cheated on her. And instead of focusing on Sarah Palin’s qualifications, or lack thereof, as John McCain’s running mate, the media focused on her looks and questioned whether a mother of five with young children still at home was up to playing with the big boys.

There’s still plenty of that when it comes to powerful women — one of the most recent examples is an article in the Washington Post about Elizabeth Warren, where they question whether she is a “zealot” because of her passion to help middle class families in these horrible economic times.  When I see things like that, it’s hard not to wonder whether a man in that position would have been described differently — I’m betting a male counterpart would be described more positively as something like a “devoted advocate” rather than a “zealot,” which has such a negative inference.  (Not to mention the fact that the article was, yet again, another story about a politically powerful woman that got placed in the Style section.  But that’s another post for another day.)

Another increasingly common phenomenon I’ve been noticing is that some news outlets just act like we don’t exist, implying through omission that it’s just the big ol’ menfolk who are out there trying to make change, with hardly a woman to be found!

The most recent outrageous example is a Politico article entitled, More Bloggers Throwing Hats in Ring.

The article explores the “phenomenon” of political bloggers deciding to take their voices beyond the bloggy world and actually try to get elected to office.  When I learned that the piece was being written, I was excited because I know several women bloggers who are doing just that!

When I saw a call for information about the piece from someone I now know was involved in the research for the article, I e-mailed him with several names — my friend Jill Miller Zimon of Writes Like She Talks who ran and was elected to her city council last year in Pepper Pike, Ohio; my former D.C. Metro Mom blog colleague Aimee Olivo who is running for School Board in Prince George’s County, Maryland; and Ariana Kelly of MomsRising blog who has tossed her hat in the ring for a seat in the Maryland State House of Delegates.

11 men got included in the article, but only two women were mentioned, even though the reporter had at least three more names, and I’d have to bet he had more.   So I have to ask — how does that choice get made and why?  One of the men highlighted in the article is Judd Legum, who is a blogger running for the Maryland State House of Delegates.  He’s talked up in the article as a big money raiser and his head shot is prominently featured just under the headline. Yet Ariana Kelly, who is also running for that same elective body and writes for a very prominent blog and organization that has over one million members is found nowhere in the article.

If one is truly interested in writing an article that fairly represents the growing movement of bloggers running for elective office, why leave out the numerous women and pen an article that implicitly suggests it’s mostly a guy thing?  I certainly hope it’s not because these three women are moms.  Because that would tick me off even more.

When the article does get around to tossing us gals a little bone, it’s with a tone of dismissal with its offhanded reference to the recent BlogHer conference half-day session with The White House Project, that may as well have said, “Oh, isn’t it cute that those lady bloggers are starting to think about running!”

So, other than beating our heads against our computers as it becomes clear that even when we try to step up to the plate with the boys, what do we do to combat the fact that they’re just ignoring us?   I guess we keep fighting — fighting the likes of Politico, who also doesn’t seem to recognize just how many of us women pundits are out here, fighting the Sunday talk shows, fighting NPR, fighting the Washington Post and the media in general that refuses to see political women where they are.

Maybe I should send the writer and his editor each one of these hats as a little reminder?

Or I could just send them an advance copy of this little baby! As the Politico piece said in its opening line, “The blog might be the new on ramp to American politics.”  Politico is right on that one — but we “powerful blogger ladies” will try our best not to run over the menz as we accelerate past them onto the political highway!

Image of MOMocrats at BlogHer ‘10 courtesy of Stephanie Himel-Nelson

]]> http://www.punditmom.com/2010/08/whats-worse-when-the-media-mock-political-women-or-ignore-them/feed 5 http://www.punditmom.com/2010/08/are-obama-family-vacays-any-of-our-business http://www.punditmom.com/2010/08/are-obama-family-vacays-any-of-our-business#comments Mon, 09 Aug 2010 14:09:34 +0000 PunditMom http://www.punditmom.com/?p=5766 Michelle and Sasha Obama are taking a beating for their summer vacation trip to Spain.  The media are salivating, constantly dissecting what some call an inappropriate trip that sends a “let them eat cake” message to the American people.

I…

Michelle and Sasha Obama are taking a beating for their summer vacation trip to Spain.  The media are salivating, constantly dissecting what some call an inappropriate trip that sends a “let them eat cake” message to the American people.

I have two words — lay off.

Can’t we just let them enjoy what little “private” mother-daughter time they’re ever going to have, especially at this time in their relationship? Sasha will be a fourth-grader this year and I know from personal experience with my own daughter that these years — the ones where the diapers and tantrums are done but the teen hell years are still off in the distance — are especially precious.

Not to mention the obvious question — isn’t it a good thing to have the First Children see the world?

When I was a young girl growing up on a small farm in rural Pennsylvania, I dreamed of the day I’d be able to see something beyond a few of the states that surrounded the one where I lived.  Most of the people I knew were content to settle in my small hometown after high school or college, or at least not stray too far.  But I longed to break loose, move to the big city and see EVERYTHING!

Of course, that requires two things — time and money.  The time was no problem.  The money?  Well, that was a little harder to come by as I worked my way through college while pursuing a journalism career. Not to mention the cost of that law degree I have.  By the time I secured my first passport and made my maiden trip across the pond, I was 35.  I’ve made up for lost time since then, but I knew that if and when I had a family, if I could swing it, I’d want any children to travel internationally sooner than I had to be able to see first-hand how the rest of the world lives.

So I’ve been thinking a lot about the current media Michelle smack-down:

It’s not appropriate to make such a jaunt when the country’s unemployment rate is 10%!  How dare they spend some of the taxpayers money on a lavish trip?!  Why isn’t she keeping her daughters at home when so many other American families have had to scrap their more modest getaway plans?

I’m sure there are some families thinking these things, but the real reason for this trash talk isn’t difficult to figure out — it’s an easy way to fill time and create “content.”   This is a Faux News story.  If the first family of the United States can’t take their small children on trips to show them the world, who can?  For security reasons, presidential families will always have to travel in special jets and endure Secret Service companions, all at taxpayer expense.  Is that a reason to keep their children locked up in the White House with their only exposure to other cultures coming from their school classes?

No doubt these same politicos would not be calling Michelle a modern day Marie Antoinette if she had chosen something like a reprise of the Clinton vacation to Jackson Hole, Wyoming.  Comparing her to the headless French queen is just conservative crazy talk.  You can bet that if this trip was the same except you exchanged Laura Bush and one of her daughters for Michelle and Sasha, and there would be nary a peep from the naysayers.  The coverage would more likely be about what a nice mother-daughter experience they were having that both would remember for the rest of their lives.

This easy time-filling brouhaha is nothing more than the intersection of cable news spin and our country’s increasing xenophobia, as well as the conservative zeitgeist that the Obamas just don’t deserve any of this — neither the the White House nor any of the accouterments that come with being the family of the leader of the free world.

Michelle’s desire to have some special time with Sasha is normal and understandable.  What isn’t normal is that they’re the First Family, and there’s no place in the America they could go to have some quiet girl time in these last golden years of childhood.  If any of the rest of us were in Michelle’s shoes, we’d probably be doing the same thing in an effort to give our families whatever little bit of “normal” mom and daughter experiences that are possible for people who live in the biggest glass house in the world.  So why shouldn’t we let them have their time and put the politics of First Family vacations to rest?

Image courtesy BET.com.

UPDATE: I wasn’t thinking about this angle until my fellow MOMocrat Cynthia Liu posted this response on Facebook to this post.  It sort of gives a whole new meaning to the phrase ‘double standard.’

I see, the GOP can stall extension of unemployment benefits, urge the continuation of the UNPAID-for Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest 1% of the country, and dismiss 119 golf “fundraisers” attended by the GOP leader of the House in the last …365 days…but it’s Michelle and Sasha Obama’s trip to Spain that sends a “let them eat cake” message to the American people.

I’m really sick of how the press willingly repeats the most racist memes from the right wing.

]]>

If Aunt Bea was still around, I think she’d like it how things are working out with Medicare better than they did with that medicine man!

Maybe Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey experienced the challenges of feeding her children nutritious food — her official bio makes no secret of the fact that she is the first former welfare mother ever to be elected to Congress.  But as many on Capitol Hill scoff at the idea that the federal government should have a role in making sure that our children — especially the 16 million who are classified as undernourished — are served healthy meals in schools and day care facilities, there’s fortunately one high profile chef advocating for passage of the Improving Nutrition for America’s Children Act.

To that I say,  “Go Chef Tom!”

I’m talking a little more about how celebrities like Tom Colicchio and others are joining forces with lawmakers to make our country better for hungry and homeless children at my weekly column at The Stir, Speaker of the House!

Image courtesy of the House Education and Labor Committee

And thanks to Mike Kruger in Congressman George Miller’s office for the video and info on the Act!

I’m sure I’ll have a lot to share after returning from the Netroots Nation convention/conference for progressive politicos and bloggers.  But in the meantime, as I’m winging my way from the heat of Las Vegas back to the heat of the nation’s capital, here are a few great posts from some Mothers of Intention that deserve your time and attention:

My friend Corina from Down to Earth Mama is fired up about some significant changes happening in her area’s schools.  As a former teacher, she has an insight you don’t want to miss about Fighting Repeal of Diversity.

My fellow MOMocrat Melissa fires back at the latest craziness at FOX News.  Apparently it’s not okay with them to teach your young children the anatomically correct names for their body parts.

Ariana Kelly who is running for the state House of Delegates in Maryland wonders whether she just walked into the men’s locker room.

Change.org has a disturbing piece on the forced sterilization of Uzbek women.

And while not written by a woman, here’s just one of the many pieces on Shirley Sherrod. Don’t even GET me started on how the White House and Democrats keep falling for the FOX News ‘we’re only telling part of the story’ routine.

And if that’s not enough, check out all the finalists for BlogHer’s “Voices of the Year” award!  And, yes, I am exceedingly honored to have been nominated for one of my posts about how new media moms are treated by some of the mainstream media. The cool thing about this honor is that, as happened at Mom 2.0 Summit, a piece of art has been commissioned for each finalist’s essay!  They’ll be auctioned off for Gulf Coast relief.  If that isn’t a lot of mom power for a good cause, I don’t know what is!

On Twitter, Palin took to making a little fun of herself from an earlier tweet that’s already been deleted, saying:

“Refudiate,” “misunderestimate,” “wee-wee’d up.” English is a living language. Shakespeare liked to coin new words too. Got to celebrate it!

Now I certainly understand that one never wants to “misunderestimate” anyone for having a slip of the tongue, but even Palin supporters have to admit that comparing oneself to the Bard is over-the-top egotism, even for Miss Sarah!

But if this is the way to become more like William Shakespeare, then why not go for it!  So I put a call out on Twitter and Facebook for some new political malapropisms.  Here are few for your midweek pleasure!

My absolute favorite is from Suebob at Red Stapler blog.  She coined the term “bundit” — a political gadfly who talks out his or her butt! (I know I can always count on Suebob for things like this!)

The lovely Jessica Gottlieb likes “spier” — the act of using binoculars to guard Alaska from those pesky Canadians!

Nicurnmama on Twitter offers “STRAMAS” – the combination of stress and drama that defines our political world today.

And some contributions from Facebook include “politibunk” –  what comes out of Sarah Palin’s mouth most of the time.  And “twitwaffle” — I’m not sure what the definition of that one would be, but I think we could have some fun with it!

Move over Taegan Goddard-- this could be the start of a whole new political dictionary!

Image courtesy of Photobucket

So that left me wondering why almost all the women in Sarah Palin’s recent ‘embrace your inner mama grizzly’ video are white?

I hadn’t focused on it the first time I watched Palin’s self-promotional commercial.  I hate to give it more attention than it’s worth — apparently it’s not getting much traction (thankfully) in the blogosphere, so it doesn’t look like it’s going viral anytime soon.  But if a picture is worth a thousand words, is Palin trying to tell us that “common sense conservative” women are mostly Caucasian?  Or that you can’t have a “mom awakening” unless your skin tone really is pink like her lady elephants?  I haven’t scanned the video frame by frame, but I only caught one quick glimpse of a face that looked brown to me.

Even if Palin isn’t prepared to include mothers across either the political or color spectrum in her efforts, I’d think that as the highest profile representative of a political movement that’s fighting against claims that it’s got racist members would be a smidge more sensitive to how this rally-the-moms effort looks when we’re watching in technicolor.

If she wants to continue down this road, Palin needs to re-brand and adopt a “mama polar bear” theme, that is,  unless she’s ready to reach out to mothers of all skin tones who want to embrace their inner political wonks.

Photo courtesy Flickr/xinem photostream

I beg to differ.

“Sister” Sarah, I hate to break it to you, but nothing could be further from the truth. Can you say “Mothers of Intention?” Or MOMocrats? Or MomsRising?

And there are plenty of fabulous non-grizzly moms running for office, like my friend Aimee Olivo who’s running for her local school board.  And my friend Jill Miller Zimon who ran for and won a seat on her town council.  And Congressional candidate Krystal Ball, a Democratic mom of a toddler trying to make some headway in a really red part of Virginia.  And Ariana Kelly, who’s running for a seat in the Maryland House of Delegates.

You get the idea.

Sure, I’m glad that women, especially mothers, of all political persuasions are finding and exercising their political voices, especially the ones who realize they can do it without demonizing the opposition.  That’s why I’m so excited that over 50 amazing mothers of various political stripes agreed to be featured in my Mothers of Intention book that will be coming out late this fall thanks to the amazing people (especially Lucy Chambers!) at Bright Sky Press. In addition to great essays, the book explores the political revolution women and mothers are building online and through social media.

So I have to take exception to Palin trying to horn in on the political mom territory by implying through her rhetoric and advertising that her right-wing supporters are the ones who created this.   They didn’t.  We were out here shaking things up when she was still visiting the Beehive Beauty Shop to have her hair done in her pre-governor days.

As for the whole “mama grizzly” analogy?  Sure, mothers get riled up and all protective about things that impact their children, but we’re usually able to manage without rearing up and taking a swipe at someone.  After all, blood stains are just extra work when we’re doing the laundry! For the most part, moms are actually able to use their brains and verbal skills to get most things accomplished, including their “political” agendas.

Sarah, maybe if you tried to have an actual conversation with women about taking part in the process and engaging all mothers, not just the ones you think are like you in that ‘pioneer-woman-of-politics’ kind of way, you’d know that.  But I should stop there.  I don’t want to give you too many hints about reaching mothers who want in on changing the world.

As you might guess, I have a few things to say about comments like that that strike me as out of touch with reality. Not surprisingly, there are some who agree with her and they’re not holding back over at me weekly Speaker of the House column.

What do you think?  Even if you don’t believe in abortion in instances of rape or incest, are violent acts against women also a part of  “God’s plan?”

Remind me not to go by Justice Alito’s house on Halloween in case he comes to the door packing heat with his bowl of Hershey miniatures.

Seriously, though, as a recovering attorney and someone who loves the Constitution, I have to ask — have Justices Roberts, Alito, Scalia, Thomas or Kennedy ever hung out in their Supreme Court neighborhood or other Washington, D.C. inner city neighborhoods after dark?  Because if they’ve spent even the least little time doing that, their view of guns might be a little different.

Many conservatives are applauding the gun decision, claiming that the Supreme Court’s announcement in McDonald vs. The City of Chicago once and for all settles the question about what the Founding Fathers wanted when it came to citizens and firearms.  But doesn’t it make sense to look at a provision about owning and carrying guns in the light of when it was penned — in the immediate aftermath of gaining our independence as a direct result of a bloody war and the reasonable fear that the King of England just might be toying with the idea of sending troops again to take back what he believed was rightfully his.  If the same men who chimed in to create the Constitution were around today — in the time of ever-increasing senseless gun deaths that haven’t been curbed by owner registration or restrictions — I have to believe that they’d be okay with gun control laws that would keep guns away from those who have no problems with drive-by shootings or taking aim at someone over a cheap bracelet.

Maybe if we had Founding Father Zombies (like Pride and Prejudice and Zombies) or Constitutional Writer Vampires (like Little Women and vampires) they could clue us in to what they were really thinking in 1787 and whether they would still agree today that everyone ought to have a gun to ensure “ordered liberty.”  If there wasn’t more to it than that, we wouldn’t need all those other words they put in the Constitution, including the ones about preserving domestic tranquility.

The full language of the Second Amendment reads:

“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.”

Unless we’re thinking of bringing back the citizen militia, it seems to me those so-called Supreme Court “strict constructionists” were just doing a big old favor for the National Rifle Association and nothing for domestic tranquility or ordered liberty.