Entering a new age of political correctness

Few people will argue that the Saturday Night Live sketches done by Tina Fey and Amy Palmer had an effect on public opinion. While I do not believe it was a deciding factor in the election, I think that it was an important step for the media. These sketches allowed the stigma surrounding women and feminism to fall. Fey and Palmer were quick to note that while sexism runs rampant in our media, we try to pretend that it does not. My attention was recently brought to a piece done by Onion News, entitled: "First Female Dictator Hailed as Step Forward for Women." I noted this because I feel that a dictatorship is a very masculine concept. I am not promoting a dictatorship in any way, shape, or form, but I do feel that it is a very interesting concept.

Why is it the women are not dictators? Is it because there has not been a women with a strong enough following to create such a senario, or is it because we simply laugh the thought off. Society tells us that a women is not strong or aggressive enough to rule a country in such a way.
These views are prevalent enough that The Onion felt that they could mock them. However, I do not believe that, (despite how forward The Onion tends to be) they would have produced this video prior to the SNL skits.
I have thought a lot about why these sketches were acceptable, and I believe it comes back to the two women behind it. Men would not take on sexist issues for fear of being called sexist. However, because Tina Fey and Amy Palmer are represented as strong and self-assured women by the media, they were able to highlight sexism as it presently exists in the media and society at large.
By doing so, Fey and Palmer have brought sexism out from behind the curtain, and I feel that we can only go forward from here.

Politically Incorrect: One man’s joke is another’s racial slur

New York Post's page six cartoon, caricaturing Monday's police shooting of a chimpanzee in Connecticut, has created considerable controversy. The actual cartoon depicts two befuddled looking police officers holding guns looking over the dead body of a chimpanzee they just shot. The famed cartoonist, Sean Delonas, was referencing the mauling of a woman by the chimpanzee in question. In the cartoon, one of the police officers says to the other, "They'll have to find someone else to write the next stimulus bill". the drawing and the caption are replete with violent imagery as well as what may be construed as racist comments, which sparked a fiery rampage from critics. Many people who are critical of the cartoon view the drawing as a comparison of President Obama to a chimpanzee in a commentary on his recently approved economic stimulus package. Contrary to critic's opinions, the post described their cartoon as solely a mockery of what they called an "ineptly written" stimulus bill. The post recognized that the cartoon appeared to be a " depiction of President Obama, as a thinly veiled expression of racism".

A day after the publication of the cartoon the New York Post apologized as well as defended its action and even attacked detractors. Their statement read, " this most certainly was not its intent, to those who were offended by the image we apologize", "However, there are some i the media and in public life who have had differences with The Post in the past --and they see the incident as an opportunity for payback," the statement says. "To them, no apology is due. Sometimes a cartoon is just a cartoon -- even as the opportunities seek to make it something else."

At its most benign, the cartoon suggests that the stimulus was composed so poorly, that monkeys may as well have written it. Others believe it compares the President to a rabid chimp. Either way, the incorporation of violence and race into politics is bound to cause controversy. Critics that linked Obama as the author f the stimulus bill may need to review the structure of our government. the Prwesident is not generally in charge of such economic responsibilities, and although President Obama oversaw the process, Nancy Pelosi and Henry Reid as well as other members of the House of Representatives/Senate were the prime instigators. The cartoon was intended to mock the poor structure of how the bill was written, and not to target Obama, though critics would like us to think otherwise. 

If we truly want to get pat racism we must not interpret everything and anything within an overarching perspective: not very every comment is intended, nor is it. Furthermore Obama is President, not the black president, of this country. Once we reduce him to the color of his skin we fall into the rut of small-minded people, demean the transcendent aspect of his presidency, and perpetuate the very "disease" which the protestors attempt to eradicate. There is a fine line between satire and plain un-American, unethical behavior. There are some jokes that are better left unsaid, but our media is charged with adherence to a degree of social behavior that instills in us a sense of Americanism, which does not insult our moral social fabric. However, one would expect people within our society to maintain a dialogue and to bring enlightenment to our causes without such a harsh display of separatism. 

Michelle Obama: The Popular New Girl at the First Ladies' Lunch Table

A recent article published by Dalia Sussman in the New York Times reported that Michelle Obama has thus far received the highest ratings of any first lady in the past 28 years. The poll, taken by the New York Times and CBS News, indicates that currently, about half of Americans polled (49%) view Ms. Obama favorably, 44% have not yet formulated an opinion, and only 5% view her unfavorably. 

The article mentions that the other first ladies of the past quarter century have generally received approval ratings of about 30% with the exception of Hillary Rodham Clinton, of whom 44% approved. These polls were all taken within the preliminary months of their husbands' terms in office. 

What I found most interesting was that women are, at this point, more likely than men to rate Michelle Obama positively; 56% of females polled approved of Ms. Obama as opposed to only 41% of men. We've recently been commenting a great deal on our first lady's representation in the media, particularly with respect to her role as a mother. Is Michelle Obama's crafted image as a doting mother and wife significantly changing the way the public sees her? Do American women find Michelle Obama's relatively new sense of femininity and style relatable and appealing? It seems that the womanhood portrayed so publicly by Michelle Obama does strike a chord with females, and although men generally do approve of her role as first lady as well, they find her image less admirable or respectable than do American women. But has she always been seen so positively, or are her ratings actually improving with time?

The answer is that no, Michelle Obama hasn't always been so universally admired. Sussman notes that "during the presidential campaign last year, Mrs. Obama's opponents cast her as unpatriotic and carrying racial anger, prompting questions about whether she might be a political liability for her husband." Another article published in the Telegraph by Alex Spillius back in January points out that Michelle Obama was harshly criticized for her infamous comment that her husband's election marked the first time that she was "really proud" of her country. At the time, Michelle Obama was widely seen as detrimental to the Obama campaign. Now the beaming, composed first lady, often clad in pastels and pearls and constantly attending to her young daughters, is hardly a controversial character. 

It seems that many of us have picked up on the conscious shaping of Michelle Obama as the next most popular first lady and "first mother." How does her embrace of the role compare to first ladies of the past? Who is most responsible for this change in portrayal? And how will we continue to view her as her husband's term advances?

Who'd run the best daycare?

As I was browsing the internet last night, all of a sudden, a poll on the U.S. News & World Report website caught my eye. "Who'd Run the Best Daycare?" The poll went on to ask, "If you had a choice of four daycare centers run separately by Michelle Obama, Sarah Palin, Hillary Clinton, and Nancy Pelosi, which would you choose for your kids?" http://www.usnews.com/polls/whod-run-the-best-daycare/results.html Had this poll not proceeded the 2008 Presidential Election, I would have been utterly shocked that a major news publisher would have the audacity to allow such a blatantly sexist question to be posted all over their website. Unfortunately, this election seemed to pave the way for the acceptance of sexism as a form of discrimination which was no longer seen as very offensive.

Rather than looking at these four women as serious politicians, the media is once again shedding light on the fact that they are just that, women, and more specifically, mothers. Although this poll may seem like a very minute example, almost a joke, it's small things like this one that are looked upon as the building blocks for the perception of gender roles in America. Setting the tone that women, even those in high positions such as the four in this poll, should be looked upon as women and caretakers, seems to overshadow all the accomplishments they may have in the political world. Throughout the election, this same perspective pervaded media articles around the nation. Rather than being looked at as politicians first and foremost, the media began focusing more attention on personal lives of the female candidates, and on various occasions, the women vying for office were looked down upon for leaving their families behind in order to pursue political recognition, especially in the cases of Sarah Palin and Michelle Obama.

But putting all the criticism and gender stereotyping aside, I fell into the trap that this poll was setting up. I gave in, and soon found myself clicking the "View Results" button. Ironically, and much to my surprise, after all the mocking and harsh words of disapproval, Sarah Palin was winning overwhelmingly.

1. 36.38% First lady Michelle Obama's
2. 58.83% Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin's
3. 2.58% Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's
4. 2.21% House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's

Strategically Taking The Beaten Path

In the latest episode of The Secret Life of the American Teenager, the mother of the pregnant teenager, Anne, is dressed in business attire preparing breakfast for the family when her husband, George, saunters in. George gives her the one-over and scoffs something along the lines of: "What, just because you're the mother of a pregnant teenager you think you can be mayor now?" Whether this was an innocent remark or a sly dig at Sarah Palin, I drew a connection and later decided to check in with the "First Mother" of the United States.

In an article titled "Michelle Obama takes well-trod path in first lady role", the Chicago Tribune discusses how Michelle seems to have taken the position of "First Mom" over that of "First Lady" in the beginning days of the new presidency. Apparently Michelle Obama has been reading books, scheduling games, meeting with chefs, and getting to know the neighborhood.

There is doubt expressed over the fact that "First Mom" is the largest role such a high-powered woman will take. Hillary Clinton is discussed and the journalist writes that Michelle is probably trying to avoid Hillary's mistakes as First Lady:

First Lady Hillary Clinton suffered a backlash for barreling straight to the role once termed "co-president" after joking that she had chosen professional fulfillment instead of cookie-baking and tea-hosting.

Michelle Obama is clearly taking the opposite approach, starting with hearth and home and venturing outward. It's a more familiar route for the experienced six-figure professional with a reputation for sizing up the waters before diving in.

In that quote the journalist claims the "First Mom" strategy is just a way for Michelle to ease into the role of First Lady, but I have to wonder: Is Michelle truly going about this in a "professional" manner, or is she just doing her best to conform to the "undefined role of the first lady?" Michelle is an advocate of the "work-life balance." Is it a true lifestyle or just a way to sooth the Social Conservatives?

"She is looking and learning and isn't going to make the same mistakes because she's aware of what the mistakes were," said Letitia Baldridge, the author who served as social secretary to Jacqueline Kennedy when she was first lady.

Isn't it possible that Michelle is just making sure her husband's transfer into office is as smoothe as possible by giving the public what they expect and desire?

While I don't necessarily fault her for it, I have to question whether I, as a feminist, would rather have had a First Lady who barrels straight for co-president, or a First Lady who will "help women realize that a woman can juggle the two, that she can find that division between family and job, and experience joy in both places."

What do you think?

"Gender Affinity Affect", Major or Minor Play in the 2008 Election?

Gender was one of the play cards used in the 2008 election; however, to what extent did it work? According to a scholarly research article, the gender affinity affect is when women voters are most likely in support for female candidates. This article found women do actually feel positively towards a female candidate because of the "shared sex identity".

In this past election Hillary Clinton was a female candidate up for running as president. The Washington Post conducted a survey and found that 51 percent of women supported Hillary while 24 percent supported Obama and 11 percent supported John Edwards. Here is a clear example to the gender affinity affect. However how far does this affect go? Far enough for women to cross over parties? Interestingly, John McCain was the main candidate that tried to used this phenomenon for his advantage, and it somewhat worked. He felt as though having Sarah Palin as his vice president nominee would switch women supporters of Hillary Clinton over to support his campaign. However this article states otherwise:

......women often evaluate female candidates through the lens of political party. That women respondents feel more positively toward female Democratic candidates than do men, but do not have the same affective feelings for female Republican candidates, suggests that any gender gap in evaluations of female candidates should take into account partisan differences as well as sex-based identity.

Overall John McCain's pick for Sarah Palin as his running mate made a difference, but not a drastic difference. A poll conducted by Newsweek found that only 14 percent of female Hillary Clinton supporters wanted to switch and support McCain. This was an affect on McCain's campaign, but not substantial change enough to help him win the election.

The gender affinity affect, in my opinion, played a major role for Hillary Clinton. There were huge numbers of Hillary Clinton supporters that were female and this did help her in the election. On the other hand, McCain thought he could use this affect to his advantage, but it ended up only playing a minor role and not helping out as much as McCain wanted. The gender affinity affect did exist in this election as much as we did not want it to. This article has found that with the number of women increasing in office, we as women are getting a greater understanding and becoming more complex in our thought patterns, when choosing a candidate to support. To some this affect may play a minor role, but the gender affinity affect does exist sometimes for the better and sometimes for the worst.

Rationalizing the Democratic Primaries

  I did not decided who I was going to vote for in the democratic primary election until I got into the voting booth.  I researched both Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama thoroughly, comparing their stances on many issues, ranging from education to the environment, to the war on terror.  However, when I prioritized my views, it all came down to classic women's issue, such as abortion, equal pay for men and women, and gay marriage.

  Both Obama and Clinton both supported me views, and as I realized that all other issue paled in comparison to these, I felt both ashamed and confused.  I was ashamed because I knew that there were many other issues that these two candidates differed on that were very important for the whole country as well as the rest of the world and confused because I still had no idea which candidate I preferred.

I worked as a poll worker during the 2007 and 2008 elections, so I was very closely tied them, having experienced them from both sides.     Photo: http://www.pollingplaceproject.org/

While I was not present during the presidential election because I was here at school, I spoke to my mother about her experience late that November night.  She told me that when we opened our garage to allow voting to begin at seven, there was already a line forming down our street.  We were not alone as this was a trend all around the country.  

Being a poll worker has given me a new perspective on elections.  I remember during the primaries, watching people come into my garage to vote.  Some looked self-assured, others mirrored my own confusion, but everyone appeared to understand the implications of their decisions.  Knowing that there were others who had feelings that were just as confused and muddled as my own were gave me a feeling of unity.  Before then, I never felt, and for the most part, still do not feel that democracy is unifying, as I imagine it ought to be, but in that moment, I was proud to be an American.

Perhaps that was what stirred the memory that decided the election for me.  As I entered the voting booth, I was stuck by childhood dream.  As a child, I wanted to either be a veterinarian or the first woman president.  Deep in the throes of college applications, I knew I was already following one of those dreams and politics was not involved.  Perhaps it was the stigma of being able to see both of my dreams achieved, I took my "special" ballot marking pen and drew a line connecting the arrow next to Hillary Rodham Clinton's name and did not look back on my decision.  

I was not upset when Obama won the nomination and I eagerly voted for him in the November election from my dorm room, and was ecstatic when he won later that night. 

Looking back on it, I did not have a large preference between Obama and Clinton, and my decision came down to a childhood wish.  Would I be hypocritical and judge other people for making decisions for similar reasons? Yes.  Do I feel that this decision was rash? Probably.  Do I regret my decision? Not at all.