A Feminist's Political Epiphany

January 10th, 2013

Did Obama Misplace His Binders Full of Women? I think NOT.

Since the nominations of Sen. John Kerry and Sen. Chuck Hagel, President Obama has come under fire over the gender make-up of his 2013 Cabinet. Many critics have argued that women are blatantly missing from Obama’s appointment. Here is the breakdown:

 

Secretary of State

In office: Hillary Clinton

Nominated: Sen. John Kerry

 

Secretary of the Treasury

In office: Timothy Geithner

To be nominated: Jack Lew

 

Secretary of Defense

In office: Leon Panetta

Nominated: Sen. Chuck Hagel

 

Attorney General

In office: Eric Holder

To be nominated: none at this time (personally I think California’s Kamala Harris would be excellent)

 

Secretary of the Interior

In office: Ken Salazar

Possible nominations: David Hayes, Sen. Byron Dorgan, Gov. Dave Freudenthal, Gov. Chris Gregoire.

 

Secretary of Agriculture

In office: Thomas Vilsack

Possible nominations: Sen. Blanche Lincoln, Sen. Kent Conrad, Sen. John Tester.

 

Secretary of Commerce

In office: Rebecca Blank

Possible nomination: Sheryl Sandberg

 

Secretary of Labor

In office: Hilda Solis

Possible nominations: None at this time

 

Secretary of Health and Human Services

In office: Kathleen Sebelius

Possible nominations: none at this time

 

Secretary of Housing and Urban Development

In office: Shaun Donovan

Possible nominations: None at this time

 

Secretary of Transportation

In office: Ray LaHood

Possible Nominations: Antonio Villaraigosa, Gov. Ed Rendell, Rep. Steve LaTourette.

 

Secretary of Energy

In office: Steven Chu

Possible nominations: Jim Rogers, Cathy Zoi, Kathleen McGinty, Louis Hay III

 

Secretary of Education

In office: Arne Duncan

Possible nominations: none at this time

 

Secretary of Veterans Affairs

In office: Eric Shinseki

Possible nominations: none at this time

 

Secretary of Homeland Security

In office: Janet Napolitano

Possible nominations: Hon. Merrick Garland, Matthew Olsen, Ray Kelly, Thad Allen, Bill Bratton.

 

White House Chief of Staff

In office: Jack Lew

Possible nominations: Ron Klain, Tom Donilon, Leon Panetta, Tom Nides, Denis McDonough.

 

Out of sixteen cabinet positions, during Obama’s first term five of which were women. While most of the nominations have yet to be formalized, given the above-mentioned possible nominations, it looks like women will loose a few seats in Obama’s second term cabinet.

What people are really pissed off about is that a male will replace Hillary Clinton. While Sen. John Kerry is well received, over the last four years Clinton has dominated the media’s attention promoting a more gender-neutral image of American politics. The image of power, strength, and success that Hillary commands will be somewhat lost to the Obama cabinet. I’m sure we have not seen the last of Hillary in the media, but the Obama administration will no longer be able to utilize her image to its benefit. Furthermore, the importance of the Secretary of State’s position being held by a woman really says something about our society, as does the Secretary of Commerce (more than likely to remain held by a woman), and the Secretary of Labor, the Secretary of Health and Human Services (Sebelius more than likely to remain in office), and Secretary of Homeland Security.

Furthermore, while his cabinet may be lacking in women this term, Obama’s judicial nominations have been somewhat gender-neutral. All this hype is just another media stunt to gain ratings. Obama should hire the most qualified candidate for each position regardless of their gender, and as more women work their way up, more women will be the most qualified candidates for office. If Sen. John Kerry was a woman, this would not be an issue. Can you think of a better replacement, that is female, as qualified as Kerry, and willing to take the job? I doubt it.

November 7th, 2012

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.

October 24th, 2012

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”.

October 17th, 2012

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.