ProgressWomen

courtesy of holidayathesea.com

by Diana Bartelli Carlin, Nichola D. Gutgold and Theodore F. Sheckels, Women’s Media Center  

Hillary Clinton proved that a woman can be a top presidential contender, but 2012 will not be the year that particular glass ceiling is broken. The authors of a forthcoming book, Gender and the American Presidency: Nine Presidential Women and the Barriers They Faced, explore why.

As the list of presidential contenders thins, it is likely that the 2012 U.S. presidential final will be an all-male affair. Our forthcoming book invites the audience to consider women with qualifications to serve as president and explores reasons, few of them reasonable, why they have been dismissed as presidential contenders.

We identify the Top Ten “Must Haves” for women who want to be president—qualities that draw voters to women candidates, even those who might not be demanding in the same way of men seeking the highest office.

1. Credentials
Women not only have to have government experience but successful campaigning experience. And, as the case of Elizabeth Dole suggests, that campaigning experience must be on your own behalf, not for your spouse. A future female president should have foreign policy experience. Despite the presence of numerous women leaders internationally, such as Margaret Thatcher in the 1980s or Angela Merkel today, the U.S. electorate still tends to see the conduct of foreign affairs as male-defined.

2. Fundraising
Women who are being considered for the presidency must have the ability to raise the money necessary for a long, expensive campaign. Historically women have found it difficult to garner the financial support men have. Hillary Clinton in 2008 certainly raised a significant sum as has Michelle Bachmann for the 2012 campaign. No one doubts Sarah Palin’s ability to garner financial support. So, perhaps, this “barrier” is coming down.

3. Charisma
Women who are being considered for the presidency must be charismatic or, at least, dynamic. Lack of charisma is more of a disqualifying trait for women, such as Washington Governor Christine Gregoire and HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, than it has been for men, such as Michael Dukakis and George H.W. Bush. A restrained style may well be highly effective if one is trying to either court business or work with the opposition, but that style does not attract media beyond state lines. Women without the requisite panache fall below the radar.

4. Assertiveness
A woman, however, cannot push that dynamism too far, for, fourth, women who are being considered for the presidency must not be overly assertive or aggressive. Should they do so, they run the risk of being dismissed with the b____ word. That has been a fate suffered by Barbara Mikulski and Nancy Pelosi. That was the fate that Hillary Clinton constantly back-pedaled from in her 2008 campaign. There’s a marked difference in perspective between how male and female aspirants are viewed: aggressive males are said to be in need of reining in their style when it truly becomes uncivil; aggressive females are said to be inherently nasty should they state their views strongly too often.

5. An Attractive Appearance
Women who are being considered for the presidency must be attractive and, furthermore, must expect their appearance to be front-and-center in the media coverage of a campaign. Dianne Feinstein’s expensive attire and “Snow White” hairstyle; Barbara Mikulski’s short stature and “roly-poly” physique; Kathleen’s Sebelius’ dress color and toenail polish; Nancy Pelosi’s mauve designer suits and cosmetic surgery—commentators will focus on all such attributes. Men running for the presidency will not draw comparable attention; furthermore, physical traits will rarely disqualify them. Some might note their height (Jimmy Carter, Michael Dukakis), their weight (Chris Christie), and their suit color (Al Gore), but these traits will not be what media coverage notes first and, then, dwells upon.

Read more of the story here.

Courtesy of NameitChangeit.org

From Name It Change It…”Sexism and Equality Don’t Mix”

Every year we like to evaluate the trends we’ve seen in political media coverage of women politicians and candidates. Sadly, in the year 2011 we found no limit to how demeaning or insulting some media outlets and personalities felt they needed to be towards women. No one says media pundits have to like the policies or actions of every female politician, but the Name It. Change It. project is about pointing out sheer misogyny disguised as mere criticism.

Throughout 2011 former Governor Sarah Palin flirted with the idea of running for president. She ultimately decided not to, making her no different than many other candidates, but some pundits and comedians, in expressing their hostility towards Palin, seem to project hostility towards women in general.

In January on the TNT program “Inside The NBA,” host Kenny Smith asked comedian Tracy Morgan, “Tina Fey or Sarah Palin?”

Of course the unspoken question was “Who would you have sex with;” one woman was Morgan’s boss and the other was a prominent national figure. The question was outrageous and demeaning to all women, but Morgan’s answer, “I think Sarah Palin is good masturbation material! The glasses and all of that … great masturbation material,” was also terrible.

As we said at the time: “When female politicians [or women in power] are constantly reduced to sexual objects, it strikes a blow against all women in positions of power and deters other women from seeking public office…. We’re not laughing.”

The sexualizing of women politicians is a not a new problem. In November men’s magazine Complex, compiled a list of the “50 Hottest Women in Politics.” Of course you’d expect a men’s magazine to provide tasteful descriptions of women they find attractive. Just kidding! Complex was looking for the “slutty,” “big-boobed,” and “uber babe” women in politics. And yes, Sarah Palin was on that list as “the most tappable veep candidate in history.” Charming.

Combining both sexualization and repugnance, in March Bill Maher felt it was perfectly fine to call Sarah Palin a “dumb twat” and said she and Michele Bachmann would split the “MILF” vote. Later in the year Maher essentially excused himself from charges of misogyny because he doesn’t think Palin is representing women, so anything he says about her as a woman isn’t sexist. Really,Bill? Because the more acceptable you make unacceptable terms, the more likely such terms will be used on other women politicians—even some of the ones you like.

You can criticize women politicians all you want (even make jokes at their expense!) but Name It. Change It. thinks it’s not too much to ask that it not be seeped it in misogyny.

Read more here at www.NameItChangeIt.org.

Image via Reuters

The repeal of the military’s discriminatory “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy means that LGBT sailors can celebrate returning home just like everyone else – without hiding who they are.

Finally.

Matthew A. Ward – Reuters

History was made on a Virginia Beach pier on Wednesday when two women sailors, one just home from 80 days at sea, became what was believed to be the first same-sex couple to share the Navy’s traditional first kiss.

At Joint Expeditionary Base Little Creek-Fort Story, where a crowd had gathered to welcome home loved ones, Petty Officer 2nd Class Marissa Gaeta, 23, stepped off amphibious dock landing ship USS Oak Hill and planted a kiss on the lips of her partner, Petty Officer 3rd Class Citalic Snell, Navy spokeswoman Ensign Sylvia Landis confirmed…

Landis said that, “To the navy, (it was) really just a normal homecoming.”

READ MORE HERE

courtesy - Moberlymonitor.com

We are absolutely thrilled  that Rep. Mary Still (D-Columbia) is running for State Senate.  Mary is known for her passionate and vocal support on behalf of women, fighting attacks on women’s reproductive health and across the state against pay day loan sharks.

Still for Senate Press Release – December 9, 2011

Fayette, MO.- State Representative Mary Still announced last week her candidacy for State Senate in the newly created Boone/Howard counties Senate District 19. Still hit the campaign trail this morning introducing
herself to citizens and officials in Howard County and says she plans to run an active grassroots campaign throughout Boone and Howard counties.

Still, a Democrat, was elected state representative in 2008 with 64.7 percent of the vote and is currently serving as the Ranking Member of
the Higher Education Committee. She also serves as a member of the Health Insurance Committee, the Education Appropriations Committee and the Ways and Means Committee.

“What we value most in Mid-Missouri; education, affordable healthcare and support for working families, is under attack in Jefferson City,”
Still said. “This attack is from right-wing Republicans, wealthy 
special interests and their lobbyists and unfortunately from timid representation from both parties.”

“My fight is for working families. I am not afraid to stand up for my district and the values we share,” Still said. “Jefferson City is no place for the timid.”

Prior to serving as a State Representative, Still worked 12 years for 
then Attorney General Jay Nixon and two years as Communications Director for Gov. Bob Holden. A former newspaper reporter, she also served as Director of the MU News Bureau and Director of Communications for the Department of Natural Resources.

courtesy of drpinna.com

by Amanda Terkel, Huffington Post

Fourteen Democratic senators, led by Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), sent the Obama administration a letter  on Tuesday asking for the scientific basis behind its decision to limit access to emergency contraception.

Last week, Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Kathleen Sebelius rejected  the Food and Drug Administration’s conclusion that the Plan B One-Step pill was safe enough to be placed on pharmacy shelves without an age limit. The decision raised eyebrows because HHS has never before overruled the FDA on a drug recommendation. Many reproductive rights groups openly questioned whether the Obama administration was putting electoral politics above sound science ahead of next year’s election.

“We are writing to express our disappointment with your December 7, 2011 decision to block the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) recommendation to make Plan B One-Step available over-the-counter,” wrote the senators in their letter to Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Kathleen Sebelius. “We feel strongly that FDA regulations should be based on science. We write to you today to ask that you provide us with the rationale for this decision.”

The senators asked Sebelius to share the “specific rationale and the scientific data” she relied upon when overruling FDA experts.

“On behalf of the millions of women we represent, we want to be assured that this and future decisions affecting women’s health will be based on medical and scientific evidence,” they concluded.

Besides Murray, the Senate Demorats who signed the letter were Kirsten Gillibrand (N.Y.), Barbara Boxer (Calif.), Richard Blumenthal (Conn.), Daniel Akaka (Hawaii), Carl Levin (Mich.), John Kerry (Mass.), Tom Harkin (Iowa), Al Franken (Minn.), Frank Lautenberg (N.J.), Ron Wyden (Ore.), Maria Cantwell (Wash.) and Jeff Merkley (Ore.). Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) also signed on.

HHS did not return a request for comment on the letter.

Sebelius has stated that she rejected the FDA’s conclusion because she believed the pill’s effect  on girls in the 11-12 age range needed to be studied further.

Yet as Susan Wood, a former FDA official who resigned in 2005 to protest what she saw as the Bush administration’s politicization of Plan B, has noted, “[T]his type of age restriction, and worries about the use of medicines by teenagers, have not been applied to other products . Apparently there is no problem in allowing younger teens to purchase products such as acetaminophen, and others with known and serious risks, over the counter.”

Murray has been a leading voice on Plan B access in the Senate. In 2005, she and then-Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) announced they were blocking the nomination of Lester Crawford, President George W. Bush’s choice to head the FDA, until the agency made a decision about whether to make Plan B available over the counter without a prescription.

Credit - The Washington Times

This past week HHS Director Kathleen Sebelius disagreed with the FDA’s decision – as did President Obama –  to approve over-the-counter emergency contraception (Plan B) for girls under 17.

“The president shamefully uses his daughters to justify limiting the healthcare options of America’s young women”

by Rebecca Traister – Salon.com   

When will Barack Obama learn how to talk thoughtfully about women, women’s health and women’s rights?  Apparently, not today.

On Wednesday, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius unexpectedly overruled  the Food and Drug Administration’s recommendation that emergency contraception be sold on drugstore shelves and made available without a prescription to women under the age of 17. The move came as a surprise blow to healthcare and women’s rights activists, the kinds of people regularly counted as supporters of the Obama administration.

Today, Obama doubled down  on his disregard for the concerns of these groups, claiming that while Sebelius made her decision without his counsel, he agreed with it. Obama pooh-poohed the findings of the FDA, which had concluded that Plan B pills posed no medical hazard and supported Sebelius’ official argument, citing a lack of confidence that “a 10-year-old or 11-year-old going to a drugstore would be able to, alongside bubble gum or batteries, be able to buy a medication that potentially if not used properly can have an adverse effect.”

The logic expressed today by the president, and yesterday by Sebelius, is ludicrous: Medicines like Tylenol – which have been proven to have adverse effects in high doses – are available by the truckload on drugstore shelves, at prices far cheaper than the $30 to $50 it would cost a preteen to purchase just one dose of Plan B, let alone go wild with it.

Read more here.