I don't send money directly to candidate's campaigns. There's something so odoriferous to me about how money = votes, and the press is always reporting on the fundraising done by this or that candidate or campaign as if the one with the most money wins (which is sometimes the case). Also, my vote can't be bought - I may vote with a sense of resignation, but not because I saw this many "convincing" TV ads; I read my ballot booklet and I try not to vote with my gut (for example, the hardest votes for me are for/against bond measures). I think about how people I know may be affected by whether the measure succeeds or fails.
About a week ago I received a forwarded email from a friend about Sarah Palin. I've received a few of these, like a letter from a Wasilla resident and from Planned Parenthood. The letter I got from my friend was a suggestion to send a donation to Planned Parenthood in the anti-choice Sarah Palin's honor, and because I trust this friend I know she's internet savvy, I made a decision. I Googled the name of the person who signed the email I got, and found her at a local college.
The email suggested sending a donation of at least $5 to Planned Parenthood in honor of Sarah Palin. As the honoree, Palin would receive a card acknowledging the donation in her name. I'm someone who believes that each person should be able to decide for herself whether she will have a baby; I'm someone who has used PP for health services (full disclosure: birth control pills and the last shot of three for the hepititus B vaccine); and I'm someone who understands that not all teens can go through their family doctors for certain kinds of health care, so I support Planned Parenthood's mission. By supporting Planned Parenthood, and by letting Gov. Palin know I support Planned Parenthood, I would a) not contribute to any presidential campaign and b) let McCain/Palin I do not support their campaign. Also, I like irony.
Then I did something I have only done once before, which was forward the email to a bunch of (selected) friends (I never send anything to my entire email address book). One of my friends wrote back that she was looking for her credit card and hoped that PP would get $1000 from this effort.
Yet another friend sent me (and others) an email following up on the Planned Parenthood Donate in Palin's Name email. The estimate of $1000 was an underestimate. As of September 30, Planned Parenthood had received over $763,000 dollars from 30,000 donors, 3/4 of whom are first-time donors.
To quote Hannibal Smith, I love it when a plan comes together.
** If you wish to participate, please go here. Gov. Palin's address is John McCain 2008, P.O. Box 16118, Arlington , VA 22215
Showing posts with label feminism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label feminism. Show all posts
Thursday, October 2, 2008
Saturday, January 19, 2008
Real Women Have Curves
I'm finding this harder than writing every day. Harder in the sense that I have to remember to do it; when I had to write every day I never forgot. This week I was going to write on Thursday but I got caught up in vacation planning until it was time for bed. I also feel that I should write more interesting things than what's going on in my head now that I shouldn't be scrambling for a topic every day.
The other night some friends and I were talking about curvy female celebrities. You know I have a thing for funny-looking Englishmen, but when I think about women I think are sexy, I have a hard time finding them in the media. Granted, I kind of suck at pop culture these days because the only TV I watch is Food Network* and SciFi^. I think Queen Latifah is sexy, bouncy, and I love her smile. But after stating that to my friends I couldn't think of anyone else. One friend mentioned America Ferrera, who plays the title character in Ugly Betty and who I've only seen in Real Women Have Curves (an unusual coming-of-age movie in that it was about a woman), and then our suggestions ran out.
Well, hooray for Google because I searched for "celebrities with curves" and found this USA Today article from a year ago talking about how larger-sized women are becoming more acceptable in Hollywood, New York, and fashion. I also found this discussion about celebrities with curves, listing sexy larger ladies. What I noticed was this: Seven of the fifteen women mentioned in the USA Today story are Latina or African-American. I don't know a lot of the women mentioned in the discussion group but of the ones I do know, it seems many of them are people of color. I wonder if the definition of beauty is being affected by racial demographics? Or maybe it is just coming back around: Marilyn Monroe and Debbie Reynolds were size 12s, and probably so were most, if not all, of these women.
Not that I necessarily think these women are sexy:
* Paula Deen, Nigella Lawson, Rachael Ray
^ Whoopi Goldberg, Marina Sirtis
The other night some friends and I were talking about curvy female celebrities. You know I have a thing for funny-looking Englishmen, but when I think about women I think are sexy, I have a hard time finding them in the media. Granted, I kind of suck at pop culture these days because the only TV I watch is Food Network* and SciFi^. I think Queen Latifah is sexy, bouncy, and I love her smile. But after stating that to my friends I couldn't think of anyone else. One friend mentioned America Ferrera, who plays the title character in Ugly Betty and who I've only seen in Real Women Have Curves (an unusual coming-of-age movie in that it was about a woman), and then our suggestions ran out.
Well, hooray for Google because I searched for "celebrities with curves" and found this USA Today article from a year ago talking about how larger-sized women are becoming more acceptable in Hollywood, New York, and fashion. I also found this discussion about celebrities with curves, listing sexy larger ladies. What I noticed was this: Seven of the fifteen women mentioned in the USA Today story are Latina or African-American. I don't know a lot of the women mentioned in the discussion group but of the ones I do know, it seems many of them are people of color. I wonder if the definition of beauty is being affected by racial demographics? Or maybe it is just coming back around: Marilyn Monroe and Debbie Reynolds were size 12s, and probably so were most, if not all, of these women.
Not that I necessarily think these women are sexy:
* Paula Deen, Nigella Lawson, Rachael Ray
^ Whoopi Goldberg, Marina Sirtis
Thursday, December 27, 2007
A Woman In Leadership
Benazir Bhutto was killed today.
I know who she is not because of her recent return to Pakistan and her opposition to Musharraf, but because when I was in college, she became president of Pakistan. I didn't know that the president in most countries that have them don't have the same kind of power that the president of the US does, and while I was aware that she wasn't in the same league exactly as Ronald Reagan, she was the president.
Of Pakistan, a country founded for Muslims, whose religion is famous for its lack of recognition of women's rights.
It seemed to me that if a Muslim country could elect a female president, then the US should be able to as well. Yet, twenty years later there has still been no female executive of the US. It seems to me that the only woman with power in front of the scenes ever has been Condoleeza Rice. The current election, which will hopefully be over about this time next year, includes a woman and people are still asking if Americans will vote for a woman, as if that is a core part of her electability. I don't know if it is - I doubt many people would admit to phone pollsters that they wouldn't vote for a woman, just because she is a woman ("She's a Clinton" they'll say).
Bhutto really made an impression on me. If a woman could make it in Karachi, a woman could make it anywhere, I thought.
An unrelated-but-related note on Bhutto is this: We don't have a lot of difference between the major parties and there's too many similarities and too much back-and-forth between the candidates, and way too few people vote, but candidates don't get killed at political rallies and voters don't get beaten when they leave the polls. This isn't a very high bar, but I think it reflects how stable our democracy is. Imperfect though it is, too.
I know who she is not because of her recent return to Pakistan and her opposition to Musharraf, but because when I was in college, she became president of Pakistan. I didn't know that the president in most countries that have them don't have the same kind of power that the president of the US does, and while I was aware that she wasn't in the same league exactly as Ronald Reagan, she was the president.
Of Pakistan, a country founded for Muslims, whose religion is famous for its lack of recognition of women's rights.
It seemed to me that if a Muslim country could elect a female president, then the US should be able to as well. Yet, twenty years later there has still been no female executive of the US. It seems to me that the only woman with power in front of the scenes ever has been Condoleeza Rice. The current election, which will hopefully be over about this time next year, includes a woman and people are still asking if Americans will vote for a woman, as if that is a core part of her electability. I don't know if it is - I doubt many people would admit to phone pollsters that they wouldn't vote for a woman, just because she is a woman ("She's a Clinton" they'll say).
Bhutto really made an impression on me. If a woman could make it in Karachi, a woman could make it anywhere, I thought.
An unrelated-but-related note on Bhutto is this: We don't have a lot of difference between the major parties and there's too many similarities and too much back-and-forth between the candidates, and way too few people vote, but candidates don't get killed at political rallies and voters don't get beaten when they leave the polls. This isn't a very high bar, but I think it reflects how stable our democracy is. Imperfect though it is, too.
Sunday, April 8, 2007
Between bad and bad...
Perhaps you've heard that there's a big stink over Don Imus calling the Rutgers University women's basketball team "some nappy-headed hos" and his apology for doing so. MSNBC, which carries the show, can't get far away enough too quickly - though so far no one at his home station, WFAN, or his distributor, Westwood One, is saying anything about canning him.
I have never listened to him as my taste in talk radio runs to NPR, PRI, and the BBC on KQED Radio. It should be said also that I do not follow college or professional basketball.
On Tuesday morning, when Rutgers' [Women] Scarlet Knights and the Tennessee Lady Volunteers would be playing in the NCAA championship game that night, Imus and his producer Bernard McGuirk, who seems to be some kind of idiot in his own right, were discussing it when:
Since then Imus has been falling all over himself to apologize for the racist remark and, I understand, will be appearing on Al Sharpton's radio program tomorrow (4/9) despite the fact that Sharpton is clear he wants Imus fired.
What I don't hear anyone pointing out is that McGuirk's remark was disrespectful toward women, in particular these women, by calling them "ho's" in the first place. It's all about Imus and "nappy-headed" and that Imus should get fired, with only one story pointing out that there were sexist remarks made as well as racist ones. Nothing I've seen says anything about McGuirk at all, except in excerpts like the one I've posted above.
I'm definitely not saying that there shouldn't be consequences for racist remarks. I just don't get why there's not even half the stink about the sexist remark by the sidekick.
Oh, wait, those last five words are probably why. . .
Update: Someone else makes the point in the SF Chronicle on 4/10.
Another update: Imus lost his job on 4/12 because advertisers were leaving in droves. Because everyone else and her brother commented on the Imus remarks (and eventually others were pointing out the sexist remarks as well) I suppose I sound like "just one more voice" that was ranting. I had no idea it would receive so much attention - and, of course, neither did Imus or NBC...
Too bad Ann Coulter doesn't have a radio program from which she could get canned.
I have never listened to him as my taste in talk radio runs to NPR, PRI, and the BBC on KQED Radio. It should be said also that I do not follow college or professional basketball.
On Tuesday morning, when Rutgers' [Women] Scarlet Knights and the Tennessee Lady Volunteers would be playing in the NCAA championship game that night, Imus and his producer Bernard McGuirk, who seems to be some kind of idiot in his own right, were discussing it when:
Imus: "That's some rough girls from Rutgers. Man, they got tattoos ..."
McGuirk: "Some hardcore ho's."
Imus: "That's some nappy-headed ho's there, I'm going to tell you that."
Since then Imus has been falling all over himself to apologize for the racist remark and, I understand, will be appearing on Al Sharpton's radio program tomorrow (4/9) despite the fact that Sharpton is clear he wants Imus fired.
What I don't hear anyone pointing out is that McGuirk's remark was disrespectful toward women, in particular these women, by calling them "ho's" in the first place. It's all about Imus and "nappy-headed" and that Imus should get fired, with only one story pointing out that there were sexist remarks made as well as racist ones. Nothing I've seen says anything about McGuirk at all, except in excerpts like the one I've posted above.
I'm definitely not saying that there shouldn't be consequences for racist remarks. I just don't get why there's not even half the stink about the sexist remark by the sidekick.
Oh, wait, those last five words are probably why. . .
Update: Someone else makes the point in the SF Chronicle on 4/10.
Another update: Imus lost his job on 4/12 because advertisers were leaving in droves. Because everyone else and her brother commented on the Imus remarks (and eventually others were pointing out the sexist remarks as well) I suppose I sound like "just one more voice" that was ranting. I had no idea it would receive so much attention - and, of course, neither did Imus or NBC...
Too bad Ann Coulter doesn't have a radio program from which she could get canned.
Monday, February 12, 2007
The Back of the Bus
As difficult as the religion question is in the US, it seems to be many times more difficult in Israel. The wall that separates church and state here is damaged, but it's still there; we have no state religion and we don't have a Secretary of Faith Outreach as described in Mick LaSalle's serial novel The Event. In Israel, an accommodation for religion was made when the country was founded by allowing religious authority, which was given to the Orthodox community.
I heard on NPR this morning a story (here is another version, less objective about the ultra-Orthodox but a little more detailed) about an Israeli High Court case regarding sex segregation on "Haredi bus lines" in Jerusalem. These lines serve what we would call ultra-Orthodox neighborhoods and, it turns out, have unwritten rules regarding where women can sit on the bus (and also what they can wear). Women who haven't gone to the back of the bus have been verbally abused and harassed by religious men, and one woman was assaulted.
Can any American hear the phrase "the back of the bus" and not think of Rosa Parks?!
It turns out that while the bus system is a private entity, not only is it a monopoly but it also receives subsidies from the Israeli government. The government doesn't want to get involved, saying that Egged Bus Cooperative is a private company, and the company ducks responsibility by saying that there are actually no "rules" (because they are unwritten) and are enforced by the people in the communities they serve (though Egged does require its drivers to enforce these unwritten rules by supporting the men who complain).
An educator at the Haredi College for Women, who I can't help but think of as an apologist, is reported as saying that the Haredi bus restrictions help men focus on their families and their wives and "not on the barely-dressed women entering the bus." It's precisely that kind of thinking that blames the victim of a rape. Men can't control themselves so they must control women.
Along the same lines, last month a committee of Haredi rabbis ruled that Haredi women should not receive an education past high school. I guess they don't care that most Haredi families are mainly supported by the women while the men study Torah, and that a high school education doesn't earn someone very much in a nation as technologically advanced as Israel, just as it doesn't in the US.
I heard on NPR this morning a story (here is another version, less objective about the ultra-Orthodox but a little more detailed) about an Israeli High Court case regarding sex segregation on "Haredi bus lines" in Jerusalem. These lines serve what we would call ultra-Orthodox neighborhoods and, it turns out, have unwritten rules regarding where women can sit on the bus (and also what they can wear). Women who haven't gone to the back of the bus have been verbally abused and harassed by religious men, and one woman was assaulted.
Can any American hear the phrase "the back of the bus" and not think of Rosa Parks?!
It turns out that while the bus system is a private entity, not only is it a monopoly but it also receives subsidies from the Israeli government. The government doesn't want to get involved, saying that Egged Bus Cooperative is a private company, and the company ducks responsibility by saying that there are actually no "rules" (because they are unwritten) and are enforced by the people in the communities they serve (though Egged does require its drivers to enforce these unwritten rules by supporting the men who complain).
An educator at the Haredi College for Women, who I can't help but think of as an apologist, is reported as saying that the Haredi bus restrictions help men focus on their families and their wives and "not on the barely-dressed women entering the bus." It's precisely that kind of thinking that blames the victim of a rape. Men can't control themselves so they must control women.
Along the same lines, last month a committee of Haredi rabbis ruled that Haredi women should not receive an education past high school. I guess they don't care that most Haredi families are mainly supported by the women while the men study Torah, and that a high school education doesn't earn someone very much in a nation as technologically advanced as Israel, just as it doesn't in the US.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
