Miley Cirus and teen hypersexualization

When I first saw the photo of Miley Cirus (age 15) in a silk sheet circulating around the Internet, I wasn't sure what to think. As it turns out, millions of teenage girls in the country must have been just as puzzled as I was. While we hear messages from politicians telling us that being sexual is 'bad' and that abstinence is the only way to go, the media's capitalizing on bare skin and shock value is sending our young culture some very mixed signals.

Jessica from Feministing.com comments on what she calls the Stockholm Syndrome in Media. The media's portrayal of young women as sexual objects, Jessica believes, acts like a subtle version of verbal and physical harassment and is always present in the background. Subconsciously, girls absorb these messages and try to weigh them against the voices that are telling them (in their schools) that acting/dressing sexy and being interested in sex before marriage is bad. 

The real message, according to Jessica: girls shouldn't want to be powerful. The result: serious barriers between us and full equality.

Pay Equity

Senate democrats tried to overturn the recent supreme court ruling regarding pay equity. A woman working for goodyear found out she was making at least $6,000 less than the lowest paid male doing work equal to her. She sewed the company and won, but lost the appeal at the supreme court because she did not take action within six months of hte discrimination. But, she never knew it was going on, so how could she take action? Goodyear managers were forbidden from discussing pay.

Senate democrats' bill would give the employee 6 months after each paycheck to take action, instead of 6 months from the time of discrimination. Ted Kennedy gave a great speech about the measure, shaming the supreme court for ignoring civil rights and siding with discrimination. Republicans are against it because they think it would encourage law suits. I think they're against it because they don't support pay equity.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=89886016

FLDSA mothers and children separated in Texas

The Times posted an article from the AP about the latest update on the FLDSA compound in Texas. Texas officials raided the Yearning for Zion compound in Eldorado on April 3rd. The compound is owned by an unrecognized faction of the Mormon Church, the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. The raid came after officials received an anonymous call from a woman claiming to be a 16 year old girl from the compound who was being physically and seuxally abused by her husband. While authorities have still not identified the caller they did remove all the children from the compound and place them in temporary facilities. The sate separated mothers from their children last week except in the cases of children 5 or under. Today, however, the mothers were told that any child over 1 years old would be removed to Child Protective Custody and placed in the foster care system until individual custody cases could be heard. The women had also been removed from the ranch and were given a choice to go back or go to a "safe" location. More than 400 children in total had been removed from the compound.

The Times article followed the analysis of many other media sources I have heard covering the raid on this compound. Instead of offering a full analysis of the situation, the author conflated women and children to the same status and removed much of the women's agency. The article did not report the number of women or children speaking in favor of the compound or possible scenarios besides the claims of abuse and brain washing. While the women and children appear to have lived in a limited sphere of agency, this article and others like it, only serves to victimize them further and not allow them to assess their own choices and situation. The raid also did not lead to men leaving the compound to stay with their children, but focused only on women and children. This ignores the possibility that any of the adults could have been involved in the abuse and assumes the guilt of the men alone. While the situation seems very tragic, I wish the Times had offered more comprehensive analysis and multiple understandings of the scenario.

Republicans Block Vote on Fair Pay

Both the New York Times and the Feminist Daily News posted stories on Senate Republicans' filibuster of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. With a vote of 56-42, the Senate did not reach the 60 votes needed to override the filibuste. The legislation would overturn last summer's Supreme Court ruling in Lebdbetter v. Goodyear Tire Company which made it harder for women workers to sue for wage discrimination. Shortly before retiring after working at Goodyear for more than 20 years, Ledbetter found out that she had persistently been paid less than her male coworkers throughout her career; at some points she made 40% less than an equivalent male employee. The Supreme Court, however, ruled that Ledbetter could not sue for discrimination because she had not filed her claim within 180 days of the discriminatory act.

The Times spoke about the political aspects of today's vote, noting that the Democrats waited until the last moment in order to try and gain more Republican votes. Both articles also wrote about the return of the two democratic presidential nominees to vote in favor of the bill and Senator McCain's absence from the vote, but his statement against the act. The Feminist Daily News highlighted Ledbetter's presence in the Senate chamber, as well as the lobbying of a numerous women's groups. The Times also wrote about Ledbetter including a quote from her and noting that the wage discrimination did not end when she retired as her pay rate affects her pension and social security.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/24/washington/24cong.html?_r=1&ref=us&oref=slogin
http://www.feminist.org/news/newsbyte/uswirestory.asp?id=10960

Women Superdelegates

The AP published an article by Laurie Kellman last Friday about female super-delegates' struggle in endorsing Barack Obama without having their "sisterhood" questioned, quite the same way that black Democrats have received criticism for endorsing Hillary Clinton. Many women believe that if Clinton doesn't win the White House this year, no woman will reach this goal in their lifetime (although it seems that this belief faces a bit of a generational divide, with younger female voters more eagerly and less guiltily voicing their support for the youthful Senator Obama). Some super-delegates fear the possibility of losing their seats over these endorsements. As Ellen R. Malcolm, founder of EMILY's list, states, "They feel that they elected the women and have gone to bat for them, so they want every single woman [super-delegate] to vote for the woman candidate." In the midst of such strong sentiments, some female delegates have decided to remain neutral until a clear winner emerges; Rep. Carolyn Kilpatrick of Michigan, who is black and a woman, is one such delegate. Sen. Barbara Boxer of California is another.

In the absence of major differences between the two Democratic contestants, race and gender loyalty can become pivotal factors. Former lawmaker Pat Schroeder points to the media's portrayal of Hillary Clinton as a sort of "female legend." "There's a feeling, you know, of sisterhood," she explains. "There's really a general consensus that Clinton's gotten the short end of the stick when it comes to the media, and you have women knowing all along that women have had a tough go in politics." 

Defining "women's issues"

Women's eNews published an article last Friday compiling a list of issues that women have been paying particular attention to this election. The list was based on reader correspondence, and helps to outline some of the main issues women are interested in hearing more about (Keep in mind that 60% of voters in the 2004 election were women!):

1. Reproductive rights

• Federal insurance for birth control

• Comprehensive sexual education/condoms available at public school infirmaries

• Funds for abstinence-free education

• Federal law guaranteeing a woman's right to choose

2. Cervical cancer prevention

• Federal law requiring the immunization of girls with HPV vaccine

• Funding for HPV vaccine

3. Equal Rights Amendment (ERA)

• Finally get bill ratified?

• Madison stratey (3 more states) or Maloney (would begin process all over again)

4. CEDAW treaty

• Would eliminate all forms of discrimination against women. Ratified by 180 countries except for the U.S. 

5. Social Security

• Women more dependent on social security because live longer than men

• Prevent privatization of Social Security Trust Fund

• Increase tax cap above $97,500

6. Taxes

• Second-earner bias in tax code injected in 1948 discourages women from employment

7. Welfare Assistance

• Opposition to continuing Temporary Assistance to Needy Families, because of 40-hour work requirement component. A disaster for poor women

• Increase income assistance for women and their dependents

• Increase funding for food stamp program

8. Violence Against Women Act

• Funding cuts proposed by President Bush, by roughly 1/3 in 2009

• Victim assistance grants reduced by 40% since 2006

9. Breast Cancer

• 40,000 women die of breast cancer annually

• Research funds $700 million each year; must be increased

10. Rape

• Every 2 minutes, a sexual assault takes place in America. 1/6 women will be assaulted in her lifetime

• Only 6% of rapists get jail sentence. Need better victims' rights, unbiased police work, consistent prosecution, higher conviction rates, help for survivors

11. Immigration and deportation

• Last year, over 870,000 undocumented immigrants, many of who had children living in the U.S., were deported. Support for immigrant law reforms to stop breaking apart families

• Department of Homeland Security must issue visas to immigrant women who were battered and abused by their spouses

12. Equal pay

• Women earn 77 cents to each man's dollar for equal work

• Support Paycheck Fairness Act, stepping up federal enforcement of equal-pay mandates

Early First Ladies

Cokie Roberts wrote a book about the early first ladies and their enormous impact on American political history. She jokes about how they all would have done a better job as president than their husbands did. Her favorite is Dolly Madison. Candidates running against James Madison claimed that they would have been able to beat him had he not been married to Dolly. During the fire while she was first lady, she saved the portrait of George Washington.

Jon Stewart tried to bring up the issue of how far a first lady's power can go. Even today, there are certain things first ladies can do and certain things that our looked at. He used Hillary Clinton as an example of people thinking she was too active. Roberts responded that she didn't think it was true and the reason she wrote the book was to show the power and contributions of first ladies.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=165753&title=cokie-roberts

Stds and girls

25% of girls have an STD. In the past they have had similar data, but in this survey they grouped the four main STDs together, so the total percentage became higher. The doctor calls for better sex education because he thinks the study shows that teens are not using condoms.

This story specifically addresses the issue of girls vs. boys. The study did not survey boys, though in the past they have.This doctor says that more girls have stds than boys because
girls have sex with older guys, and boys have sex with girls their age. He says this affects transmission. (I don't know if I really agree with this...)

NPR interviewed some teen about the findings and they did not seem surprised. All of them said that they have friends (who are girls) that make poor decisions sexually. But why is it they don't point to the boys who make bad decisions? Is there a double standard in health politics? Also, one student made an interesting point: girls are taught more about the dangers of getting pregnant than STDs.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88140117

Single Mother by War

Over 3,000 children have lost a parent in the Iraq War. NPR profiled a woman who found out her finacee died in a helicopter crash just weeks before she was going to have their son. Now, the boy is six months old and the mother is thinking about how she is going to explain his father's death to him. The story focuses on the politics of the war and how it has affected communities.

In the end, the mother said she would love to know why her fiancee had to die for this war. I got very sad listening to her speak because I realized how many other widows had to raise a child on their own. The personal toll the war takes is always the hardest to deal with.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=89573805

Clinton takes a shot of whiskey

Hah- I open CNN's front page to find that there is a video of Senator Clinton having a shot of whiskey, which is known to be a "man's drink." How fascinating that 1:12 was entirely devoted to this act! Is it really worth CNN's and our time?

Female bloggers- an article related to last class' topic

Female Bloggers Make Campaign History Too (4/10/08) by Sheila Gibbons, posted on Women's e-News website.

Interesting points:

• Women consistently express more interest in stories about weather, health and safely, natural disasters, crime and celebrity news

• Men tend to be more interested in international affairs, Washington news and sports

• In five weekly news interest surveys in 2008, 37% of men and 32% of women say they have followed campaign news very closely

• While women continue to show more interest in local and community news - where they comprise 58% of the audience - plenty are also focused in global events

• Women's interest is heightened if key figures were also women (ex: Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto's assassination)

• 24% of men and 19% of women say they read political blogs regularly

• Women and men post comments to blogs in similar proportions

• "In many ways the blogosphere is a place where a woman's voice is equal to a man's. A Google search doesn't discriminate between a blog by Catherine or by Joe" - Catherine Morgan

• Women have generally expressed less interest in politics and don't run for office as often as men do

• But there is a paradox: there is a high correlation between education and political literacy and interest in politics, and women have outnumbered men as college students for quite a while. Women are also more likely to be political science majors than men. And women vote more than men! So is there a gap in our understanding of women and political engagement?

• The author suggests that, to close this gap, perhaps women should continue to expand their media choices beyond the traditional attachment to network TV programming. Her solution therefore is not looking to the media to create change but for the women themselves to make that change by becoming a part of the blogging world.

This article was a good recap of what we read last week, with an interesting conclusion about the significance and potential of the so-called blogosphere.

TV ads and the FCC

I was checking out feministing.com's website today, and was struck to see that Carl's Jr., the fast food chain, has put out another provocative ad displaying a woman gyrating on an electric bull while seductively eating a hamburger. I thought that the outrage at the Paris Hilton ad, which came out in 2005, would have either forced the company to revise its campaign strategy, or would have prompted the FCC to request that it be pulled off the air. "Edgy" and "tasteless" is how this article by FoxNews.com described the Hilton ad back in 2006. Unfortunately, it seems that commercials continue to escape regulation. The Parents Television Council has been fighting to keep ads such as Carl's Jr.'s off of primetime television; "This is the ultimate example of corporate irresponsibility," the Council is quoted as saying. According to the FCC, "indecent" or "profane" programming is illegal between the hours of 6 am and 10 pm, when there is a reasonable chance that children are watching. This leaves me to wonder: where does one draw the line? What is considered "profane" and "indecent," and who decides? Carl's Jr. seems to have its own opinion on what it broadcasts, stating that, "[the ad] was designed to be racy, but we don't consider it pornographic. Let's not be too serious about our hamburgers, shall we?" To which I must respond, it's not the hamburgers I'm worried about.

Go cry about it

Ok, this post is just to vent some cynicism. Curious to see how the media had reporter President Bush's tearing up during the ceremony on Tuesday in which he presented Navy Seal Petty Officer Michael Monsoor with a posthumous medal, I googled the keywords "bush tears up." Here at the top hits:

1. A video clip of the President shedding a tear, with no commentary

2. An AOL video clip, again, with no commentary

3. A HuffingtonPost post entitled, "Bush Tears Up: US Should Have Bombed Auschwitz" (are you feeling the testosterone yet?). The article was actually about the January memorial of the Hollocaust, which took place in Jerusalem's Holocaust memorial. One reader kindly comments, "Pulling a Hillary won't save your presidency."

4. The next couple of links take you to an uncommented photograph of President Bush in tears

5. Ah-hah! Here we are: finally, Google hits back with some videos of Hillary (mind you, her name was not in my search). The first: a YouTube video entitled "Hillary Tears up on Campaign Trail.

6. Followed with an article from The Swamp: "Hillary Clinton Cries in Connecticut." Cries? Oh please. Contrast video at #5 with photo at #4 and tell me that Clinton's emotions were not blown out of proportion.

I realize I'm probably making a bigger deal out of this than necessary...but it just irks me. Why MUST they attack Hillary for a crack in her voice ('women are too emotional') while silently praising Bush for his compassion? At the same time, Hillary is considered to be a cold-hearted, insensitive bitch. How must a woman portray herself in order to be both feminine and taken seriously?

"Clinton's Persistence Could Help Obama"

Following up on Karina's report about democratic leaders pressuring Senator Clinton to drop out of the presidential race, I found this story in the New York Times saying her persistence may help the democratic party in the long run: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/02/us/politics/02web-seelye.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin. The article mentions the many critics of Clinton's campaign but continues on to analyze its potential benefits. Clinton has largely responded to attacks on her campaign with cries of voter disenfranchisement. These calls have garnered her a lot of support from Democrats, especially those in the upcoming primary states, who usually have no voice in the primary race. Some think this increase in voter turnout and support could continue into the November election helping either Clinton or Senator Obama. The article also noted that Clinton and Obama both seem to have turned away from negative attacks on each other. They seem to be focusing on the problems with President Bush and Senator McCain, rather than squabbling over their minor policy differences.

So while Karina is right that many pundits and political leaders have attacked Clinton for continuing her campaign, some media outlets are offering alternative views as well. However, while this article did not focus on the pitfalls of Clinton's campaign, it did not paint her in a completely positive light either. The media still seems to be offering more favorable coverage for Obama and scattering even its supportive articles for Clinton with subtle or not-so-subtle bits of criticism.

"Too much democracy is killing democratic party"

Important democratic party leaders are publicly telling Hillary Clinton to drop out of the race. Dean, Dodd, Leahy and all sorts of pundits are saying she should drop out by all different dates. Some say May, others June or July. The interesting part about this is that the media is portraying her as "tearing" apart the democratic party. It's not her fault that this is such a tight election. Why should she drop out because it's close?

Why is there so much pressure for Clinton to drop out when Obama hasn't won the number of delegates needed yet? Even Obama has said that she can stay in the race as long as she wants. So, why are so many people in the media nad politicians asking her to leave? If it were the other way around, and Obama were behind Clinton, would everyone be asking him to drop out "for the sake of the party"? I don't think so.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=165227&title=hillary-drop-out