The Republican primary is getting nasty. Well, I guess it has been since Iowa. As Governor Romney and Speaker Gingrich call each other, “despicable, unhinged, and dishonest,” President Obama will continue to dig us out of this ditch and turn the economy around. While independent voters continue to learn that Governor Romney doesn’t have their best interest at heart.
A cornucopia of topics: Twitter censorship, Alaska Airlines’ prayer cards, breaking up with toxic friends, and a 6 year old accused of sexual assault while playing tag.
The good folks at Loop 21 asked “10 leading young voices,” what we would like to hear from the President in his jobs speech that would make a huge difference in the lives of young people in America? Never one to shy away from giving advice, my two cents:
“As conservatives have succeeded at demonizing public servants — especially overworked and underpaid teachers — the economic crisis has forced state and local governments to lay off thousands of teachers, first responders, and social service workers. I hope to hear President Obama speak about restoring the public’s faith in the role of government as an integral part of the solution, starting with challenging Congress to pass Rep. Jan Schakowsky’s Emergency Jobs to Restore the American Dream bill that would help create more than two million jobs for teachers, police officers, firefighters, health care workers and education workers.”
Feminist trailblazers, Tiffany Dufu, L.Joy Williams, and Keli Goff also weighed in:
Tiffany Dufu, President of The White House Project:
“For a lasting solution, we need to create a pipeline of strong leaders. So I’d like to see the President allocate time, energy, and resources to train the next generation. President Obama built his 2008 campaign on grassroots organizing — now it’s time to harness the power of diverse groups of young women and men so that their innovations will help to bring us out of this recession into a thriving economy.”
Keli Goff, Contributing Editor for @theloop21:
“The Economic Cycle Research Institute has argued that at this point there’s very little that can be done to significantly move the needle on jobs before 2012. If that’s true, I think it would be really bold of the President to simply be upfront about it, and to position himself as the only grownup in the room. He could legitimately argue that he’ll leave it to Congress and the GOP presidential field to politicize the issue while saying that he’s going to shoot straight with us — no matter how much it hurts — and then focus on some of the other economic policy issues the fed has greater control of. While he’s at it, he can announce a tax credit for businesses that hire those from particularly disenfranchised groups, in addition to the tax credit he recently launched to spur greater hiring of veterans. Of course, neither scenario I laid out above will probably happen in this lifetime. But a girl can dream.”
L. Joy Williams, principal consultant at LJW Community Strategies, and co-host of “Blacking it Up!”
“Amidst the President’s speech, Americans need to hear the word ‘JOB.’ While arguably tax breaks and spending cuts are necessary elements in the overall plan to fix our economy, the 14 million Americans unemployed need to know how his plan will result in a job directly for them.”
How is it that the old boys network predominates on Sunday morning talk shows while just last week, the media mused about the “year of the woman” as conservative women prevailed at the polls?
“Women are still scarce on Sunday morning news shows,” wrote Erika Lovely for Politico, who cites soon-to-be-published research from American University’s Women & Politics Institute that found just under 14% of lawmaker guests on Sunday morning talk shows have been women. However, unlike NPR’s earlier piece this year called “Where Are the Women?” the Sunday show producers appear to have no intention of remedying the disparity. In fact, their reactionary responses remained defensive as they justified structural sexism.
It’s high time for Sunday morning news shows to take responsibility for their “men-in-suits mind-set” rather than blaming women who have been underrepresented and disregarded for decades. Still, producers continue to reject accountability for the lack of diversity, resorting to a laundry list of meaningless justifications, including our underrepresentation in Congress, time zone issues, and even diva-baiting Speaker Pelosi.
It’s disappointing to hear those sentiments echoed by Washington Post columnist Howard Kurtz. It is contradictory for him to say “I’m not in the business of inviting female politicians on the air” but then support “a bigger pool of female columnists, bloggers and talk show hosts.” Perhaps Howard Kurtz did not mean to privilege female columnists while disenfranchising female politicians — but the impact may override the intent.
Enough with the excuses. The mindset that “there are no good women” is too common and too casually accepted. While we celebrate when a woman triumphs over sexism, last week’s primaries did not signal equal representation for women in Congress, any more than today’s piece in Politico represents a tide turning on Sunday morning. These stats are not new.
While it’s a positive step forward that media outlets recognize the gender disparity on Sunday morning, there are qualified women available, and producers need to book them. The Women’s Media Center represents hundreds of experts available on every issue from beltway politics to foreign policy to financial reform. The solution is clear.
There will always be those who make excuses and point to the one woman on the four person panel as progress. View the Women’s Media Center award-winning video highlighting the gender disparity still widely prevalent in media:
Female candidates won big last night, reshaping the political landscape. But what does it really mean for women?
From Meg Whitman and Carly Fiorina in California, to Tea Party survivor Nikki Haley in South Carolina, and Senator Blanche Lambert Lincoln’s surprise victory in Arkansas, today’s hot political topic is all about the rise of conservative women at the ballot box and their success in last night’s primaries. MSNBC celebrated the “Ladies Night” results, and today the women of America are left with a chance to reflect on how these races will affect our future.
Women currently hold a pathetically small fraction of elective offices — only 17% of seats in Congress. The good news is that a woman running for office is becoming more normalized (with the help of Women’s Campaign Forum, EMILY’s List, Emerge, Eleanor Roosevelt’s Legacy, Annie’s List, and others), but we still have a ways to go before it becomes “the norm.” But following a night where women comprised a mere 23% of winning candidates (47 of 204 winners), some of the media coverage is not in line with reality. As NPR notes in “A Super Tuesday for Women”, 1984 was the year of the woman — till they all lost in the general election.
While increasing the number of women in political leadership positions is good and necessary, the bottom line is that issues matter most. My feminist friends and colleagues will ultimately vote for what a candidate stands for, not their reproductive organs. Are these candidates representing the interests of young mothers, working women, and the growing number of senior women? If the result of “Ladies Night” is a new crop of women elects pushing a conservative agenda that would allow the government to interfere in medical and family planning decisions, refuse to reign in corporations, and even stop me from drinking a glass of wine when visiting Las Vegas — last night’s results do little to move me. We need more pro-equality leaders who aren’t afraid to stand up for our values. Sarah Palin is not Hillary Clinton, Jan Brewer is not Janet Napolitano, and last night’s winners still need to prove how they will represent the sentiment, values, and rights of women.
At the same time, while the policies and performance of all political figures should be subject to rigorous media critique, we cannot ignore that more women candidates ultimately still means more opportunities for sexist media coverage and political maneuverings. Sexism against any woman candidate adds an additional barrier for all women and girls who aspire to political leadership. I look forward to the day it will not be remarkable to have a woman running against another woman — for now, I cringe at the “cat fight” statements likely to come in the coverage of Senator Boxer vs. Fiorina. Last night, a guest on Chris Matthews’ show commented that it’s not easy to attack a woman. Not sure what planet he’s living on, but not only is it easy, it’s often accepted. No more. Sexism may sell, but we’re still not buying it.
The Women’s Media Center will continue to serve as a watchdog for sexist and biased attacks directed towards women candidates. In the midst of all the hype, some journalists and commentators are already using this opportunity to reach for their misogynist bag of comments.
We want to know: What have you seen or heard? Keep us on the loop as the midterm election season heats up.
