Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Women. Politics. Debate.
|
What is this blog for?
The 2008 election has introduced the mainstream media to a new and exciting sector of the American population: women!
Historically, mainstream news coverage of "women's issues" has been as intellectually vigorous as the third hour of the "Today Show", when Hoda and Kathie Lee talk about hot flashes, celebrity dating, fashion trends, and sometimes have adorable puppies on as guests. "Women's issues" are placed in two categories: soft news stories, and Roe v. Wade.
The candidacy of Hillary Clinton and the nomination of Sarah Palin for vice-president have opened up a third, as-yet undefined category: women and politics. Talking heads are tripping over themselves trying to figure out how to discuss these two women. Much time has been devoted to Hillary Clinton's preference for pant-suits over Sarah Palin's selection of more traditional gear: "This is a woman who wears skirts!" cheered everyone's-favorite-feminist, Pat Buchanan.
Mainstream media cannot spur an intelligent discussion about how political issues affect women differently than men for many reasons: pundits are predominantly male; network executives have decided that women are mostly interested in shopping, dating, being stylish while pregnant, and going to the gym; and, most importantly, women have been pigeonholed as consumers, and not much more.
The reality is that "women's issues" cannot be separated from issues, period. The idea that there are issues that apply only to women is ludicrous. On an issue like reproductive choice, to which women are biologically central (as the physical vessels through which reproduction happens), men should be just as concerned about the legislation of reproduction as women; pro-choice men should be just as scared by the idea that, in a few short months, this nation might be on its way to telling both egg-donor and sperm-donor that they no longer have many options when dealing with an unplanned pregnancy. From the other perspective, an anti-choice man has no reason to be less politically involved than an anti-choice woman, despite the fact he will not physically house the embryo.
We cannot expect the mainstream media, dominated as it is by male perspectives, to suddenly decide it is time to start discussing how legislation affects women's lives differently than men's; we must have this dialogue ourselves, and make the media notice.
So register, and start opining. Respond to an existing thread, or suggest a new one. Explain why you think health care legislation is the most important issue in this election, or why you find it secondary to environmental policy. Argue for school vouchers, or describe how we can fix our public schools without them. It doesn't matter if you belong to a party, or have ever voted in your life. Just be part of the dialogue, and participate in our national political debate. Don't shy away because you're young, old, didn't go to college, don't have a fancy job, or wouldn't consider yourself someone qualified to sound off on political issues. Someone once said a democracy is nothing, without a lively debate. So help demystify political discussion. Forget about big words and trendy expressions, and exercise your right to speak. Participation is power in politics.
Contributors
Blog Archive
-
▼
2008
(19)
-
▼
September
(15)
- Women at Tufts
- Be Careful What you Wish For Because It Might Not ...
- Face the Nation
- John McCain and Friends: Greatest Hits
- Sending girls to school benefits everyone!
- No More Downed Cattle Slaughter
- Join The White House Project!
- What McCain needs to learn from a kindergarten tea...
- Corporate arrogance: Carly Fiorina's Narcissus moment
- Ignorance is Strength: sex-ed, Republican style
- 8000 people in the park...
- If Bristol Palin were black
- Can a beauty queen be a feminist?
- The Beverly Hills Zoo
- Sarah Palin: is that feeling in your gut pride or ...
-
▼
September
(15)
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment