A Feminist's Political Epiphany

Archive for the ‘Presidential Debates’ Category

November 7th, 2012 by kerri ryer

Rape just got a little less legitimate

This election season Republican rhetoric has jumped into a time machine and reverted back to the conservative sexist rhetoric of the 1920’s. Women this election are nothing but wombs, vaginas, house maids, and child care in the eyes of Republican candidates. Many of which, have made headlines this year with their demented statements about rape and incest. How to voters respond to such sexist and insulting lingo? Apparently, voters do not take to fondly to candidates reverting back to the dark ages in regards to women’s rights.

 

Richard Mourdock has said that pregnancies resulting from rape are “something that God intended”. In the race for Indiana Senate seat against Joseph Donnelly, Murdock lost the election, 49% to 44% of the vote.

 

Representative Steve King from Iowa has said that he’s never heard of anyone getting pregnant from statutory rape or incest. In the race for Iowa’s district 4 House seat, Steve King (the incumbent) ran against former First Lady of Iowa Christie Vilsack. While, King secured enough votes to win the election, he won the election by a small% of the vote, a very small margin for an incumbent candidate. Due to the redistricting in Iowa’s, and its loss of one seat due to the 2010 census, this election would have been extremely difficult for Vilsack to win against incumbent King.

 

Todd Akin stated that victims of “legitimate rape” rarely get pregnant. In Missouri, Akin ran against incumbent Democrat Claire McCaskill for Senate. Voter’s responded to Akin’s comments by voting for McCaskill, who supports reproductive rights for women and won the election 49% to Akin’s 44%.

 

Paul Ryan called rape a “method of contraception” and co-sponsored the Akin bill to redefine rape.  As the Republican VP running mate to presidential candidate Mitt Romney, the people also responded to Ryan’s sexist comments, and Romney’s acknowledgement of his ignorance of women’s issues, when the Republican’s were defeated in the 2012 election.

 

This election might have been a bit closer this election season given the state of the economy and a few other electoral cues. However, the extreme shift of the Republican Party’s rhetoric to the radical right on women’s issues, might have cost them these elections. Voters were clear tuesday when they responded to Republican outdated rhetoric by reelecting Democratic President Obama and securing a Democratic majority in the Senate. All the candidates stated above who made these extreme statements lost the election, except King who won by a very small margin.

 

The message Tuesday was clear: mess with women’s rights and get shown the door.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in 2012 Election, Presidential Debates, Uncategorized | 1 Comment »

October 24th, 2012 by kerri ryer

Is Katherine Fenton The New Sandra Fluke?

Katherine Fenton an undecided voter who posed the question, “In what new ways do you intend to rectify the inequalities in the workplace, specifically regarding females making only 72 percent of what their male counterparts earn?” to both presidential candidates during the second presidential debate. Fenton who posed the question that resulted in the binder blunder has now come under harsh criticism from conservatives online and offline. A registered independent, teacher, and daughter of very conservative parents, Fenton claims to have voted for McCain in the 2004 presidential election but cannot decide this time around. What she can make up her mind about is how disgusting the campaign has become this election season in its attacks on individuals for expressing themselves publicly.  Like Georgetown Graduate Sandra Fluke, who in February 2012 faced extreme criticism for giving trying to testify about the importance of an insurance contraception mandate; Katherine Fenton is now facing the same criticism for simply posing a question.  On his radio show, Rush Limbaugh commented on Flukes testimony stating, “[she] says that she must be paid to have sex. What does that make her? It makes her a slut right? Makes her a prostitute.”  Limbaugh has also been quoted calling debate moderator Candy Crowley a journalistic terrorist. After she posed the legitimate question, Katherine Fenton instantly joined the ranks of Sandra Fluke and Candy Crowley as targets of the right wing conservative media. The Washington Free Beacon instantly painted a negative image of Fenton via her twitter posts, as a drunk, slutty party girl who hates the cops and cant keep it in her pants. Matthew Vadum tweeted “Katherine Fenton, questioner, brings up the feminazi leftist lie that women don’t get paid equally”. Michelle Malkin tweeted in response to Fenton, “SOFTBALL: #ladyparts tool Katherine Fenton asks Obama how he will rectify gender pay disparities. Obama: ‘GREAT QUESTION’ #townhall”. While many other’s have questioned her uncommitted voter status. Both Vadum and Malkin are known conservative media pundits, who have been known to downplay or blatantly deny that the gender pay gap exists.

 

The problem here is the personal attacks being carried out by conservative media against people (specifically women) who speak up and ask questions. What happened to free speech? I thought conservatives were staunch supporters of the First Amendment? I guess only when its utilized to promote their own interests. But seriously, what happened to promoting a healthy debate on key issues and encouraging youth participation? Attacking young women for participating is not only disgusting, but contradicting to the very fundamentals that our political system was founded upon. If Malkin or Vadum actually had something of substance to contribute to the discussion it would not have included Fenton’s name. The real problem is that conservatives do not want to answer these questions and confront the very real issues that women face today because they are worried of loosing swing voters. It seems though, with all of the media attention on their smear campaign, their plan to dodge the real issue and attach the questioner may have backfired. The conservatives reliance on gender stereotypes to advert key policy issues is nothing new, but is becoming more highly publicized. Women’s sexuality has historically been called into question in order to discredit their speech and position of power. Due to modern technology, when this occurs today you can go from an unknown kindergarden teacher one morning to a globally known internet ‘slut’ within hours. These repeated attacks on women who speak up and ask questions sends the wrong message to our youth and will degrade our political system. We need to stop promoting a culture of “hey shut up you woman slut” to “hey lets all get this debate going”.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in 2012 Election, Presidential Debates | 7 Comments »

October 23rd, 2012 by kerri ryer

Romney Pledges to Send his Binders Full of Women to Libya

Romney made his position on women’s rights clear tonight. He is going to be sending his binders full of women to the middle east so that they can create a civil society that promotes gender equality. His position is quite confusing, given his prior comments against gender equality in his own country. If Romney’s statement was heartfelt he would have held a different position when asked about women’s issues last week. So why does he even bring it up? Each candidate has specific key words and points that they attempt to plug every debate regardless of the question posed to them. Romney did not do so well last week in regards to “women’s issues” so one of his objectives tonight is to plug women’s rights in order to paint a different picture. However, his policy decisions to promote womens rights abroad but not at home is not only contradictory, but very un presidential. Yes, women’s rights are an important global issue, but you do not point the finger at another countries atrocities when there are so many occurring within your own state and your own platform.

Tags: , , , , ,
Posted in 2012 Election, Presidential Debates | 2 Comments »

October 18th, 2012 by kerri ryer

The Mass Media’s Suppression of Female Presidential Candidates

Most people who pay attention to American popular culture would think that women candidates for executive offices are a new thing. Well, think again! Women candidates have been vying for their party’s nomination as presidential and vice presidential candidate dating back to 1872 when Victoria Woodhull became the first female presidential candidate for the Equal Rights Party. Fredrick Douglass was later nominated as her vice presidential running mate.  At the time Woodhull was supported by the National Woman Suffrage Association (NWSA).

Victoria_Woodhull However, after a few heated public debates regarding her support of free love and social freedom, resulting in a split in the feminist movement, Woodhull was ostracized from the Women’s Rights Association. However, just a year before her nomination for candidacy, Woodhull delivered a speech in Steinway hall, “There is no escaping the fact that the principle by which the male citizens of these United States assume to rule the female citizens is not that of self-government, but that of despotism; and so the fact is that poets have sung songs of freedom, and anthems of liberty have resounded for an empty shadow”.1  In addition to her various public speeches, Woodhull was the first woman to appear before the House Judiciary Committee when she argued for the passing of women’s suffrage legislation. Yet, Woodhull argued that women already had the right to vote, since the 14th and 15th Amendments granted all citizens the right to vote, and that women just needed to exercise their vote.2

Today most people don’t even know who Woodhull was and think that female candidates are a recent occurrence in history. This is not the case. Many female candidates have been nominated to run for office by third parties and many more have attempted to, but failed to, secure the nomination. Historically, all 36 female presidential candidates have been nominated by third parties. Both the Democrats and the Republicans have never nominated a female presidential candidate. The first female Democratic candidate was Geraldine Ferraro, when, in 1984 she secured the Vice Presidential nomination to run with Presidential Candidate Walter Mondale.

GeraldineFerraro

 In addition, the Republican party did not put a woman candidate on the ballot until 2008 when Sarah Palin ran for office with presidential candidate John McCain.

palin

 Throughout our political history, the United States has seen many female candidates vying for their party’s nomination, yet so few have secured the nomination, and none have been elected. Dr. Kira Sanbonmatsu of Rutgers University and Dr. Kathleen Dolan of the University of Wisconsin found that “the public perceives gender differences within both political parties”.3 Voters rely upon stereotypical shortcuts in evaluating a candidates personal and professional traits. Often the cues they are given identify party affiliation and gender. While, Sanbonmatsu and Dolan find that gender stereotypes transcend party, they also find that “gender stereotypes have somewhat different consequences for the two parties”. 4  Democrats are more likely to perceive positive stereotypes than Republicans for female candidates.5  This is due to key issue stereotypes, such as the perception of abortion as a woman’s issue. This stereotype results in the perception that women are more liberal on the issue and thus, are more likely to hold a position that is concurrent with the Democratic platform than the Republican.6

 

This past Tuesday, the Commission on Presidential Debates successfully alienated third party presidential candidates from the debate. When Green Party Presidential candidate Jill Stein showed up to participate in the debate she was arrested and handcuffed to a chair for 8 hours so that she would not “disturb” the debate.

cheri h Her vice presidential running mate Cheri Honkala was also arrested with Stein and detained. An estimated 65.6 million people watched the second debate according to the Washington Post, which has the potential to play a key role in candidate publicity. Because the debates only allow for the two major parties to participate, in effect they further alienate third parties from the electorate. Many voters who watch the debate do not even realize the alternative candidates that are being excluded, who they could potentially vote for, many of which have been women. Stein and Honkala’s names will show up on the ballot for 85% of voters, however, little of them will even know who they are. Democracy now conducted their own debates in which they asked third party candidates the same questions, it can be found here. All 36 female presidential candidates have been excluded from the debates and in effect have been alienated from the electorate. The mass media is not only owned by members of the two main parties but functions during the election seasons to maintain the two party system, often at the expense of women candidates who are more likely to be nominated by a third party.

 

Furthermore, the social construction of the gendered image plays a key role in female politics. The promotion of the ultrafeminine and over sexualization of women in the mass media promote a stereotype of emotional sensitivity, and an inability to fulfill the position of President of the USA. This may contribute to the reason why we have not yet seen a woman presidential candidate from either the Democrats or the Republicans. Due to the competitive nature of the elections, many feel that if their party choose a female candidate they would loose the election, due to the perceived negative/weak image of female candidates that the electorate utilize in casting their vote. In effect, female candidates have been around almost forever, but they will not have a chance at electoral success until the mass media stops its oppressive campaign against their image and the debates are truly democratic opened up to all presidential candidates who appear on enough ballots. The purpose of the debates originally was to inform voters, not to maintain the two party system by subordinating third party candidates. If the debates were truly democratic, we might have already had a female president.

 

 

 

1 Votes for Women: Selections from the National American Woman Suffrage Association Collection 1848-1921. http://memory.loc.gov/

2 Women in History, Victoria Woodhull, http://www.lkwdpl.org/wihohio/wood-vic.htm

3 Sanbonmatsu, Kira. and Kathleen Dolan. 2009. “Do Gender Stereotypes Transcend Party?”, Political Research Quarterly 62:3, 485-494.

4 Ibid. 490.

5 Ibid. 490.

6 Ibid. 491.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in 2012 Election, Presidential Debates, Uncategorized | 12 Comments »

October 17th, 2012 by kerri ryer

Romney: Gun’s don’t kill people, single parents and same sex parents kill people.

One key issues that was touched upon this second presidential debate was violence and gun control. President Obama argued that stricter gun control is not the only answer, thus, he argued for a comprehensive policy that promotes education and alternatives for kids who might otherwise choose a violent path. Governor Romney took it one very long step further:

“But let me mention another thing. And that is parents. We need moms and dads, helping to raise kids. Wherever possible the — the benefit of having two parents in the home, and that’s not always possible. A lot of great single moms, single dads. But gosh to tell our kids that before they have babies, they ought to think about getting married to someone, that’s a great idea.”

Wait a minute. So the reason people are using violent weapons and utilizing violence on the innocent is because they do not have two parents? Specifically, it is because they don’t have a father and a mother. Well, thats a heck of a claim! Nothing new from Romney, however, just a bunch more malarkey.

Within the last two decades there have been quite a few mass shootings/murders here are a couple examples:

1999- Columbine Eric Harris & Dylan Klebold kill 12 -both had married heterosexual parents

2007- Virginia Tech, Seung-Hui Cho kills 32 -had married heterosexual parents

2009- U.S. army Fort Hood, Major Nidal Hassan killed 13 wounds 42 – had married heterosexual parents

2011- Tuscon Arizona, Jared Lee Loughner killed 6 wounds 12- has married heterosexual parents.

2012- Dark Night Rises, James Eagan Holmes killed 12 wounds 58 – has married heterosexual parents

Maybe I’m missing something, but seems to me having married parents, specifically a mother and a father, does not seem to have much of an effect upon preventing the possibility of their child committing the worst act of violence.

Yes, violence is an important issue, and the presence of automatic weapons allows for the possibility of mass deadly violence by insane people. However, attacking the familial structure is not the answer, nor is it founded on any research or evidence. If we want to prevent crime we must find a way to work together to provide people the programs they so desperately need and want, such as education and job training. Furthermore, there will always be a few people who suffer from mental illness who may not benefit from education or job training but we might be able to prevent them from becoming this violent by listening to the signs and conducting through background checks on those who attempt to purchase guns. Please Governor Romney, stick to the topic and tell the people what your real plan is to reduce violence since your statement is completely false and off topic.

Tags: , , , , , , ,
Posted in Presidential Debates, Uncategorized | 8 Comments »

October 17th, 2012 by kerri ryer

The Real Problem with Romney’s “Binders Full of Women”

After the gaff there has been multiple jokes, blogs, face books, tumblrs etc. poking fun at Romney’s “binders full of women”. The real problem with the statement, however, is the true disconnection Romney has with ‘women’s issues’. The question posed to Governor Romney was regarding pay equity, his response: “Thank you. And important topic, and one which I learned a great deal about, particularly as I was serving as governor of my state, because I had the chance to pull together a cabinet and all the applicants seemed to be men. And I — and I went to my staff, and I said, “How come all the people for these jobs are — are all men.” They said, “Well, these are the people that have the qualifications.” And I said, “Well, gosh, can’t we — can’t we find some — some women that are also qualified?” And — and so we — we took a concerted effort to go out and find women who had backgrounds that could be qualified to become members of our cabinet. I went to a number of women’s groups and said, “Can you help us find folks,” and they brought us whole binders full of women.” Romney is so disconnected from the topic his response was not only offensive but off topic. In responding this way he is basically stating that he’s not sexist because he lets women work for him.


Furthermore, he then continued with, “But number two, because I recognized that if you’re going to have women in the workforce that sometimes you need to be more flexible. My chief of staff, for instance, had two kids that were still in school.” If this isn’t a sexist statement, I don’t know what it. Last I checked both women and men have children, so please do clarify this for me, Romney, why employers have to make exceptions for women employees?! Or are you just trying to support the old “women are not as smart as men” argument. Is that why you stated that you were not originally supplied with female applicants and then had to go looking for some who were qualified? The problem here is not that there are no qualified women, the problem is people like you perpetuate a system that suppresses women in just about every aspect of their lives. If Romney really did understand the issues, he would not have made these contradicting statements.


The issue here was/is equal pay. Pay equity is still a serious issue in the US and no matter how many women Romney lets work for him, chances are they will make less money for the same work as their male counterparts. Everyone should have realistic access to employment, and get paid irregardless of sex. However, women still do make less money then men, some studies show women make as low as .77 cents for every dollar of their male counterparts. One of the first bills President Obama signed into law was the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Restoration Act. The effects of which, we will not know until years later when research can be conducted on the effects of the act. Romney refuses to make a statement either in favor of it or against it.


For more about Pay Equity Issues

Tags: , , , , ,
Posted in 2012 Election, Presidential Debates, Uncategorized | 2 Comments »