Thursday, August 21, 2008 - Posts
-
sponsorship
In an op-ed in the Guardian this morning, Jessica Valenti, founder of the blog Feministing and author of the book Full Frontal Feminism, discusses what she believes has been the media's unfair treatment of Michelle Obama, wife of Barack. Valenti writes, "Media coverage of [Michelle] Obama has packed a nasty racism-sexism combo that is quickly becoming a national disgrace." She cites unflattering depictions of Michelle in Fox News and the National Review, and claims that some right-wing commentators (she doesn't name any specifically) have said downright racist things about the prospective first lady. She also appears to be very strung out by the now-infamous New Yorker cover of some weeks back.
Unfortunately, Valenti goes too far in her claims, mistaking lack of pundit love for Michelle for racism. Of course anyone can find examples of crazed right-wingers who say racist, offensive things about the Obamas, just as any McCainiac could look to the far left in drumming up outrageous examples of McCain hate. There has not been widespread racism toward Michelle Obama in the mainstream media. In fact, I would dare to say she's gotten away with a lot precisely because the media are afraid of being accused of racism—for instance, her rather bold assertion that this was the first time in her adult life that she was "really proud of [her] country."
In getting hung up on the race point, Valenti undermines the more important aspect of this issue, which is what constitutes the image of the American "political wife." The very term itself points to the sexism associated with the way we judge most (male) candidates' wives. There is a definite image of the political wife that these ladies are encouraged to follow, and someone like Laura Bush epitomizes this character. She's meek and well-mannered, and she has completely worthy yet completely innocuous pet causes like literacy rates. Lovely, worthy, but not exactly a firebrand. Like Teresa Heinz Kerry, who took flak in 2004 for being strong-willed and for rubbing people the wrong way, Michelle Obama defies that stereotype.
I don't particularly like Michelle Obama, because I think a lot of what she's said in this election cycle has been in poor taste (I agreed with Maureen Dowd about the butter-and-toast shtick being tiresome back in 2007). Still, if there's anything we can take away from Valenti's confused rant, it is this sense that we've been late to modernize our conception of what a candidate's wife looks like. Valenti and friends would do well to focus their energies on that important discussion as opposed to the race-card fallback.
-
sponsorship
Dahlia, when you're right, you're right; just walking around with a uterus is enough to get you committed in the court of public opinion, so why perpetuate the whole woman-scorned stereotype with self-destructive, Bat-lady behavior? Yes, rage is its own (and only) reward. But Medea never gets a night off; crazy is a full-time job.
I do not agree, however, that "a vote for McCain is a vote to overturn Roe.'' Or assume, as you say you do, that the Hillary Holdouts "don't care'' if Roe is overturned. Of course they worry about that possibility—and in the end will probably be frightened into returning to the Democratic fold on that basis. But though an entire industry exists to argue otherwise, to keep us afraid and divided and donating, Roe is not going to be overturned. And putting all our energy into either warding off that constant threat or keeping alive that constant hope is not just fighting the last war; it's fighting a phony war, one that continues to distract and drain us but effectively became theater a long, long time ago.
Case in point: In Evansville, Ind., where my parents live, there have been banner headlines this week about the latest local abortion fight—in a county where (in theory, anyway) no abortions are performed. Under cover of darkness, i.e., without any public input, the Vanderburgh County Commissioners passed an ordinance that would force abortion providers, if there were any, to have hospital-admitting privileges in case something went wrong and to give patients info about where to get follow-up care in case of complications. Indiana Planned Parenthood strongly protested and put out this statement: "No abortions are performed in Vanderburgh County. There are no facilities and there are no providers ... it appears as if the commissioners took action to fix a problem that does not exist ... This type of regulation does nothing to improve health care in our state. It just further restricts a woman's ability to make decisions about her own future.'' An editorial in today's Evansville Courier & Press suggested that the real goal was purely political; one of the Republican commissioners, who is up for re-election, was trying to look like a hero to his peeps in his race against a pro-life Democrat.
On the national level, do you think John McCain meant it back in 1999 when he said he wouldn't bother trying to overturn Roe? ("In the short term, or even the long term,'' he said then, "I would not support repeal of Roe v. Wade, which would then force X number of women in America to [undergo] illegal and dangerous operations.") Or does he mean it when he says now that overturning Roe will be a priority in a McCain White House? The moment I wrote about last week, describing McCain in the fall of 2000 looking out the window in embarrassment as Lindsey Graham and I got into a whole big discussion about when life begins, convinced me that he would rather eat worms than hear the word abortion. Bush v. Gore made plain that the Supreme Court IS a political body, and politically, the Republican Party has no, I repeat, no interest in overturning Roe.
The perceived enemy of choice has changed, too, when a lot of you either weren't looking or didn't want to see: Even many self-described pro-lifers—and that term means different things to different people, believe me—have shifted the focus away from changing the law to changing the moral consensus and addressing material needs. When the conservative but pro-Obama jurist Doug Kmiec says that "merely reversing a single court decision such as Roe ... as best I can tell, would directly save no unborn life,'' he speaks for a lot of us who see the conversation we've been stuck having as an incredibly narrow way to look at "life issues.''
I think we can probably agree that criminalizing abortion would not stop it but would radically alter the political terrain to the benefit of the, to my mind, often anti-life GOP. And as a Colorado pro-life Democrat named Chris Rose told me for my book on women voters, the Republican Party can't end abortion: "Ending abortion isn't something they know how to do, because that would require an enormous change in our country and in our government,'' including programs to help women provide for their children and avoid unwanted pregnancies. "If you believe government can't do anything right, then you can't end abortion.''
So Hillary fans: It's your party, you can cry if you want to. But don't cry to me if, for thousands of reasons other than Roe, the result is not quite as satisfying as you'd hoped. For the lady in the attic, there is never a happy ending.
-
sponsorship
Except for a bit of mostly innocuous fun-poking, the Beijing Olympics have pretty much steered clear of any sexist slip-ups. Until yesterday, when reports surfaced of the International Table Tennis Federation’s latest strategy for reversing low attendance to its matches. Now that gymnastics and beach volleyball are over, the ITTF is looking to draw attention to the sexier side of table tennis, urging lady players to adjust their competition outfits to flaunt more “curves.”
Real considerate, ITTF. Being Olympians and all, I’m sure the lady table tennis players don’t have any more important things to worry about or stress over than their appearances! This scenario reminds me of a scene from A League of Their Own, in which Geena Davis’ character, Dottie Hinson, sees the All-American Girls Professional Baseball League uniform for the first time. Recognizing its counterintuitive design, Dottie points out that (beyond being exploitive of her body) the garment stands to significantly hinder her athletic performance exclaiming, “I have to squat in that?”
What would Dottie Hinson say to the ITTF if she knew that so little has changed for female athletes since the AAGPBL forced her to bunt and slide in a poorly disguised cocktail dress?
One of the most inspiring aspects of seeing women compete in the Olympics is watching the stereotypically separate spheres of femininity and athleticism collide. From Dara Torres to Natalie du Toit, the lady Olympians’ blend of determination, strength, and elegance consistently rises above public preconceptions, continually redefining the archetype of an athletic woman. Requiring female athletes to look hot for their onlookers would detract from the athletic and social advancements these women are making.
Don’t get me wrong. I see nothing wrong with Olympians, male or female, choosing to flaunt their flawless bodies for my viewing pleasure. Props to Japan’s Naomi Yotsumoto for vamping it up of her own volition. Michael Phelps also seems to love the glint of his hairless body in the spotlight, and you won’t hear me complaining. But the ITTF’s request for skimpier female uniforms is pretty sexist, particularly when the request admittedly serves no functional purpose. These athletes are in Beijing to compete in the name of national pride and international community, for a shot at distinction in their impossibly competitive field. We shouldn’t be concerned about what they wear. (And frankly, if they want to make the case for shock value, perhaps the ITTF would prefer to revert back to the uniform worn by the original Olympians.)
Join the Fray: our reader discussion forum
What did you think of this article?