Seven Villages, Janet Joakim

Regardless of your politcal persuation  - this is something to consider ….

From today’s New York Times:

 (please read this and print it out to share with the women in your life who don’t read emails  …..and pass it along ….. regardless of your political persuasion the contents are worth consideration)

Published: January 8, 2008

THE woman in question became a lawyer after some years as a community organizer,
married a corporate lawyer and is the mother of two little girls, ages 9 and 6.
Herself the daughter of a white American mother and a black African father - in
this race-conscious country, she is considered black - she served as a state
legislator for eight years, and became an inspirational voice for national
unity.

Be honest: Do you think this is the biography of someone who could be elected to
the United States Senate? After less than one term there, do you believe she
could be a viable candidate to head the most powerful nation on earth?

If you answered no to either question, you’re not alone. Gender is probably the
most restricting force in American life, whether the question is who must be in
the kitchen or who could be in the White House. This country is way down the
list of countries electing women and, according to one study, it polarizes
gender roles more than the average democracy.

That’s why the Iowa primary was following our historical pattern of making
change. Black men were given the vote a half-century before women of any race
were allowed to mark a ballot, and generally have ascended to positions of
power, from the military to the boardroom, before any women (with the possible
exception of obedient family members in the latter).

If the lawyer described above had been just as charismatic but named, say,
Achola Obama instead of Barack Obama, her goose would have been cooked long ago.
Indeed, neither she nor Hillary Clinton could have used Mr. Obama’s public style
- or Bill Clinton’s either - without being considered too emotional by
Washington pundits.

So why is the sex barrier not taken as seriously as the racial one? The reasons
are as pervasive as the air we breathe: because sexism is still confused with
nature as racism once was; because anything that affects males is seen as more
serious than anything that affects “only” the female half of the human race;
because children are still raised mostly by women (to put it mildly) so men
especially tend to feel they are regressing to childhood when dealing with a
powerful woman; because racism stereotyped black men as more “masculine” for so
long that some white men find their presence to be masculinity-affirming (as
long as there aren’t too many of them); and because there is still no “right”
way to be a woman in public power without being considered a you-know-what.

I’m not advocating a competition for who has it toughest. The caste systems of
sex and race are interdependent and can only be uprooted together. That’s why
Senators Clinton and Obama have to be careful not to let a healthy debate turn
into the kind of hostility that the news media love. Both will need a coalition
of outsiders to win a general election. The abolition and suffrage movements
progressed when united and were damaged by division; we should remember that.

I’m supporting Senator Clinton because like Senator Obama she has community
organizing experience, but she also has more years in the Senate, an
unprecedented eight years of on-the-job training in the White House, no
masculinity to prove, the potential to tap a huge reservoir of this country’s
talent by her example, and now even the courage to break the no-tears rule. I’m
not opposing Mr. Obama; if he’s the nominee, I’ll volunteer. Indeed, if you look
at votes during their two-year overlap in the Senate, they were the same more
than 90 percent of the time. Besides, to clean up the mess left by President
Bush, we may need two terms of President Clinton and two of President Obama.

But what worries me is that he is seen as unifying by his race while she is seen
as divisive by her sex.

What worries me is that she is accused of “playing the gender card” when citing
the old boys’ club, while he is seen as unifying by citing civil rights
confrontations.

What worries me is that male Iowa voters were seen as gender-free when
supporting their own, while female voters were seen as biased if they did and
disloyal if they didn’t.

What worries me is that reporters ignore Mr. Obama’s dependence on the old - for
instance, the frequent campaign comparisons to John F. Kennedy, though Senator
Edward Kennedy is supporting Senator Clinton - while not challenging the slander
that her progressive policies are part of the Washington status quo.

What worries me is that some women, perhaps especially younger ones, hope to
deny or escape the sexual caste system; thus Iowa women over 50 and 60, who
disproportionately supported Senator Clinton, proved once again that women are
the one group that grows more radical with age.

This country can no longer afford to choose our leaders from a talent pool
limited by sex, race, money, powerful fathers and paper degrees. It’s time to
take equal pride in breaking all the barriers. We have to be able to say: “I’m
supporting her because she’ll be a great president and because she’s a woman.”

Women Are Never Front-Runners

New York Times-

Gloria Steinem 

Op-Ed Contributor

“Permalink” to article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/08/opinion/08steinem.html?ex=1357534800&en=9f6d8783ff1b15c9&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink

A thought:

I saw a family friend over Christmas who has been invloved in state politics for a while.

He got my daughters’ attention by spouting off about why they shouldn’t vote for Hillary Clinton …

“She reminds too many of us of our ex-wives….’pick up the kids! pick up your socks!’”

“She is over-weight, her daughter looks like a horse … ” “Her husband did a good job, but she couldn’t keep him from looking elsewhere” 

I was horrified as my daughter’s bought into this.

 Then we lost Benaizr Bhutto - an event I have written so much about and will publish some of that here. What is happening in Pakistan is so important to this country’s safety.  Obama’s response and discussion about this issue made it clear that he really doesn’t have a grasp on the situation, nor does he have a plan.   Our worst enemies are hiding in the hills of Pakistan, a good country with bad leadership.  The mountains and caves that include Afganistan and Pakistan are where we will find Osama Bin Ladin and where new and more dangerous terriost groups are being cultivated.  Our government has given Pakistan millions of dollars with no accountablilty - to erradicate the growing camps and terrorists groups, but nothing has happened.  Bhutto was there because our government had negotiated her return - she was the next step in getting that country to work with us to fight the organizations that have been killing and terrorizing the world.  But we did not follow through on protection, and President Pervez Musharraf did nothing, he refused her requests for protection.

Now What?

Ask your political candidate what they are going to do about Pakistan and Afghanistan.

At least one has answers, answers that are based on experience, and an understanding of the whole picture.