Apparently feminism is evil.

Their motto is "extolling femininity, blasting feminism," and this group of conservative Christians is pretty angry at women, such as Hillary Rodham Clinton, who serve in leadership roles. Their also angry at women who work outside the home, choose to have no children (or maybe only just one), and serve in the military. Check out the trailer for their recent documentary on the subject. It will make your toes curl.

Here's just a clip about women in politics:



Of course, the documentary was directed and produced by two men, although there was one female writer on staff. She wrote with her husband, though, which means she was likely under his creative dominion.

I understand the draw of this perspective. It is comforting to organize the world in categories, easy to say that everything is black and white. If you are male, you have one set of characteristics. If you are female, you have another set entirely. If you stick to the script, you've got it made.

The problem is that a lot of us can't stick to the script and don't want to. I know many women with the gift of leadership, courage, boldness, and self-sufficiency, all attributes that are typically ascribed to men. I also know plenty of men who are emotional, humble, empathetic, and relational, all attributes that are typically ascribed to women.

When we deny ourselves half of the characteristics available to us, we deny ourselves a fuller humanity. So while I understand where this worldview comes from, I have to opt for a more uncomfortable perspective of humanity, one that says that men and women are quite complex beings, created with incredible potential but without a clear prescription of roles or behaviors.

Of course, this means that I don't always have the quick, easy, black and white answer. That's why I keep a blog...to write my way into meaning, to explore the paradox of our lives, to embrace the gray.

Ciao, Bella.

Today is Women's Equality Day, established by former Congresswoman Bella Savitsky Abzug, who was perhaps most known for saying: This woman's place is in the house -- The House of Representatives.

Unfortunatley, Abzug passed away in 1998, nine years before Nancy Pelosi would become the first female Speaker of the House. I bet she would have been thrilled at how far women have come.

But we have a long way to go. Check out the Center for American Women and Politics maps, illustrating how often women have served on the State Legislature, in Congress, or as Governor.

We may think that we are the model nation in terms of gender equality, but new research shows the following:

One important way to measure gender equality is to see the proportion of women in a country’s legislature or parliament, according to the authors. By that measure, as of 2005 the United States ranked 61st of 128 countries, with 15.2 percent women in Congress. Rwanda leads the world with 48.8 percent women in its parliament.

Overall, the International Women's Day site states that "Although women make up 51 percent of the world’s population, they hold only 16 percent of parliamentary and congressional seats worldwide."

Bella Savitsky Abzug challenges us with a legacy of female empowerment in regard to the political representation of women. But often, we find ourselves asking, "Where do we begin?"

I find it particularly interesting (and perhaps comforting) that Abzug's feminist journey began with a small local act of resistance. In fact, it took root when Abzug was only 12 years old in the questioning of patriarchal religious tradition. When her father died, she wanted to say Kaddish at his funeral, an honor only reserved for sons in her Orthodox Jewish community. She resisted, and continued to practice these daily mourning prayers. Later she said this:

No one could have stopped me from performing the duty traditionally reserved for a son, from honoring the man who had taught me to love peace, who had educated me in Jewish values. So it was lucky that no one ever tried.

On this Women's Equality Day, may we be open to creating moments of small resistance. Maybe one day, our struggles within our individual "house" of residence or worship might become, as Abzug's did, our struggles within the national "House."

Today's story in Women's Enews that every woman in this economy needs to read

Obama's stimulus plan, while leaving out some key advances in women's health coverage, provides important employment benefits for women. Here are three of the key initiatives, as explained in today's Women's Enews:

---Benefits will now be provided to workers who must leave their jobs for compelling family reasons, such as caring for ill or disabled family members, relocating with a spouse whose job has moved to another area, or escaping domestic violence in which the abuser follows the woman to her workplace;

---The earning test now looks at the worker's most recent employment, instead of excluding the last three to six months, making it much easier for low-wage workers and new entrants to the work force (read: large numbers of women) to qualify for benefits.

---Benefits are now available to workers seeking part-time work which also includes many women.The author of the article, Mimi Abramovitz, gives an astute account of previous governmental practices that have led to the gender wage gap and how these initiatives by Obama's administration will help to correct some of them.

Here's just one way that Abramovitz explains the gender gap:
Women lost out because these rules reflected and supported male work patterns that by definition penalized women. The hidden assumption--that low earnings and fewer hours of work reflected a weak commitment to work--disadvantaged women who receive less pay and work fewer hours because they still bear the brunt of family responsibilities.

i.e. if you were a woman who worked part-time so you could care for your children, the workforce labeled you as "lazy." In addition, Abramovitz points out that if a woman quit her job to move with her family to a new location (for her spouse's job), or if she moved to escape domestic violence, she was considered to have "voluntarily" quit. Now, the current administration is asking how "voluntary" such a move really is.

It's good progress, and while many women will still face incredibly difficult choices in this economy, I'm thankful that our goverment seems to be wearing a clear set of gender lenses.

New study says a nation's stability is based on how it treats its women

I started this blog because I felt that I was continuously receiving the question, "Why does gender matter?" Now, a new study seems to be answering that question by suggesting that gender matters because peace matters.

Researchers at BYU (fascinating in itself) published a study in the Harvard journal, International Security, on the correlation between a country's overall stability and its treatment of women.

The writers conclude that the best predictor of societies' peacefulness is how well they safeguard the interests of women. To determine that, researchers looked at data on such factors as women's voice in government, access to victim services, crime statistics, maternal health, and laws and social mores regarding women's rights.

According to an article in the Salt Lake Tribune that reports on the study, From the overall data, it's clear that where there is devaluation of females in the society, there is a greater tendency for conflict, both inter- and intrastate conflict," says Ballif-Spanvill, a psychology professor who directs BYU's Women's Research Institute. "We want people to study these issues through the lens of gender.

The other incredible result of this study is the creation of a comprehensive database of qualitative statistics about women thoughout the world. Instead of relying on statistics about domestic violence and abuse, these researchers interviewed women about the nuances of their conditions.

It seems that gender not only matters to this individual blogger, but to the stability of nations themselves. Who knew?

European Union bans gendered language...and the men complain

Ok, so the news itself is interesting: The European Parliament has issued a pamphlet that prohibits the use of terms like "Mrs." and "Miss." (See my post last year on why these terms are discriminatory.)

Yay! Are you cheering yet? I mean, this is great news. This is FANTASTIC news. This is the kind of thing that feminist theorists have PRAYED for all these years (even the agnostic ones). How long have we talked about the ways that language creates reality?

A long time, ladies. A long time.

But, wait, oh eager feminists, because it doesn't stop there. The pamphlet also offers alternatives for gender-specific language besides just personal prefixes:

Sportsmen' should be called 'athletes', 'statesmen' should be referred to as 'political leaders' , and terms like 'synthetic' or 'artificial' should be used in place of 'man-made'.

Finally! A language that reflects the reality that women can be athletes and political leaders. Finally, Simone De Beauvoir, a sentiment that every "thing" is not generically male.

But before you get too excited, let me say that what strikes me as truly intriguing (and not a little bit upsetting) about this groundbreaking development is the fact that so many people are just plain up in arms about the whole thing. If you Google this news story, you'll find lots and lots of anger.

Oh, and did I mention that all of that vitriol (that I found, anyway) is generated by men?

For instance, West Midlands Conservative MEP Philip Bradbourn says in response to the pamphlet: I will have no part of it. I will continue to use my own language and expressions, which I have used all my life, and will not be instructed by this institution or anyone else in these matters.

One politician actually declared the pamphlet a "waste of taxpayers money."

Right. Well, Mr. Bradbourn and friends, here's how I see it: You like your language because it gives YOU power and agency. As a male, you grew up thinking you could be just about anything (sportsman, statesman etc.). The other half of our world grew up being told through our language that we only fit into certain gendered professions. I can be waitress and maid but not fireman or policeman.

If we don't change our language itself, how will we ever change our reality?

Way to go, EU! Here's one feminist who hopes the U.S. will soon follow suit

...or dress...

Obama really is starting to look like a feminist!

Today, the Press Secretary announced that President Obama will be creating a White House Council on Women and Girls.

Here's what the President himself had to say about the matter:
"The purpose of this Council is to ensure that American women and girls are treated fairly in all matters of public policy," said President Obama. "My Administration has already made important progress toward that goal. I am proud that the first bill I signed into law was the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Restoration Act. But I want to be clear that issues like equal pay, family leave, child care and others are not just women’s issues, they are family issues and economic issues. Our progress in these areas is an important measure of whether we are truly fulfilling the promise of our democracy for all our people."

Things I love about this statement:
-An admittance that women's lives are directly affected by public policy and vice versa
-A recognition that issues of equality and family are everyone's problem, not just women's
-A sense of democracy that seems to suggest that all men and women are created equal (sounds an awful lot like the Equal Rights Amendment!)

And this wonderful list of concrete goals for the Council's first year:

• Improving women’s economic security by ensuring that each of the agencies is working to directly improve the economic status of women.
• Working with each agency to ensure that the administration evaluates and develops policies that establish a balance between work and family.
• Working hand-in-hand with the Vice President, the Justice Department’s Office of Violence Against Women and other government officials to find new ways to prevent violence against women, at home and abroad.
• Finally, the critical work of the Council will be to help build healthy families and improve women’s health care.

International Gender Lens: QUEBEC

For many of the last few posts, I've focused on gender issues in the United States, particularly in regard to politics. Now, however, I'd like to introduce a new feature of this blog: the International Gender Lens.

Every few months, I'll be interviewing folks who live in other parts of the world, asking them what their noticing about gender constraints in their neck of the woods. My hope is that this will help us as feminists see things a bit more globally, allowing us to widen our sense of "women's issues" to include more than just an American agenda.

Granted, I haven't traveled very far for this first entry. I mean, for goodness' sake, we share a border with Canada already. However, Quebec is a place with a unique identity, one that doesn't always conform to those of its geographic neighbors.

Enter my best friend since first grade, Sarah. After college, Sarah moved north to Quebec City and has lived their ever since. She's married to a Quebecois and teaches English as a second language. She's also studying literature.

First, a little explanation of this picture. After a 12 hour train ride to visit Sar, I looked across the station in Montreal to discover...well...my twin. As you can see, Sarah and I are wearing pretty much the exact same pink and brown striped sweater. This is a pretty good example of how in sync we are, even from many miles away.

Not to stretch this metaphor too far, but this is the kind of thing I'm hoping for in the International Gender Lens: the experience of traveling all over the world only to find that women have more in common with one another than we might think. While recognizing our different struggles, we can find allies in each other. This is my hope.

RL: What's one negative gender issue that you notice in Quebec that you didn't notice in the U.S.?

SM: In Quebec, where I now live after growing up in central Pennsylvania, women must keep their maiden name at marriage. This is great…a tenet of the feminist credo. The problem is that women married in Quebec cannot choose to take their husband’s last name if they desire to do so. Even more creative solutions to the “last name dilemma,” such as a combination of the husband’s and wife’s last name are not permitted. So can this political stance be considered feministic or simply restrictive?

Freedom of choice is one of the core values of our post-modern society. So Quebec’s supposedly-feminist stance forcing women to keep their maiden names is in fact as limiting as laws obliging women to take their husbands’ names. Some women, even self-identified feminists, would choose to take their husbands’ names. One reason is so that their families can be identified as a unit, each member having the same last name.

Since married couples cannot share the same last name, this law complicates choosing last names for children. If given a name combining the last names of both parents, the children now have different last names than both their parents. It becomes even more complicated when children with hyphenated last names marry other children with hyphenated names. What names do they choose for their children? Will their children have four last names? Most likely not; so a choice will have to be made. In most cases in Quebec, couples in this predicament choose the last names of their fathers, which is just as patriarchal as the traditional system.

This “last name debate” reminds me of Ammu’s dilemma in Arundhati Roy’s The God of Small Things. Although her twins were seven years old, she still had not given them a last name:

"For the time being they had no surname because Ammu was considering reverting to her maiden name, though she said that choosing between her husband's name and her father's name didn't give a woman much of a choice."

I want women (and men) to choose the last name that they deem the best solution for them. It bothers me that my government dictates to women that the only way to be feminist is by keeping their fathers’ names.
RL: What's one positive development in regard to women that you appreciate about Quebec?

SM: Quebec has actively promoted a gender-equal society. One way that the Quebec government has done this is by instating a public daycare system that only costs the users seven dollars a day. This means that many mothers can work without exhausting most of their income on child care. The program’s raison-d’être is, “to help parents balance their work and family responsibilities."

Another of Quebec’s policies, its Quebec Parental Insurance plan, inaugurated in 2006, has led to greater gender equality in the workplace. One year “maternity” leave now includes fathers, so men no longer have an advantage when applying for a job since the employer recognizes that a man may choose to take parental leave. Employers that had been weary of hiring women because she may take a year’s maternity leave cannot justify such a decision any longer.

Couples have taken advantage of this program. In Canada about 90% of mothers took leave from their jobs. In Quebec, 80% of men choose to take parental leave. (2006 figures).

One reason that so many Quebecers have used the program is that the policy is very flexible. The parents can choose to split or even share the year. The government provides seventy-five percent of the salary and employers are required to retain the same position for when the worker returns to work. The government pays up to 75% of the salary the person is missing during the leave.

3. Can you share a moment this very week where you personally encountered a gender issue?

Well, I've spent most of this week studying, so I guess I'd say that when I think of education, I'm grateful that I live today and not even 100 years ago. Also, I know that even if I do have kids, I can continue my education as a mom. I don't know if it's the same in the States, but moms can get the same grants and loans going part-time to college as those without kids get as full-time students.

Obsessed with the dress

She has degrees from Princeton AND Harvard. Her secret service code name is "Renaissance." But what we're most concerned about as a nation is what she's wearing.

The Guardian states that she is now the most powerful woman...
in fashion.

I was extremely disappointed with the over-coverage of Michelle's dress on Inauguration Day. I wanted to hear speculation on her participation in policy issues as First Lady, what strengths she brings to the office and what goals she hopes to accomplish. Instead, I heard a barrage of descriptions about her clothing.

I can't remember what news channel I was watching (I was switching back and forth between a few), but I remember the male commentator announcing that Barbara Walters would be joining him for insights into Michelle Obama on this monumental day. I leaned forward in my seat. This is what I'd been waiting for! The witty, intelligent, forward-thinking Barbara Walters to talk about the real Michelle.

Not so.

Barbara came on for a mere 5 minutes and talked ONLY about Michelle's dress.

Every newspaper and magazine carried detailed description of what Michelle wore, including mention of her designer, Isabel Toledo. Most also mentioned what Barack wore, in nondescript sentences like this one: President Barack Obama wore a red tie and white shirt with his suit.

Why this overemphasis on women's fashion? It hearkens back to our culture's obsession with women's appearance: our body types, what we wear, how much money we spend on our looks.

Perhaps the saddest part of this whole spectacle is that the Obama daughters, Sasha and Malia, are being socialized the same way. Yahoo News said, "Their daughters were style icons in their own right," and then proceeded to describe, in detail, what the girls wore. No one praised their intelligence or their character.

(The headline for the article containing the above picture read, "Obama women give inauguration ensembles modern twist: Orange and pink is the new red, white and blue")

So after all of this news coverage, I began to feel like Michelle was yet another victim of society's obsession with fashion. But what if she used this obsession to her own benefit?

Here's my thought: Michelle's inauguration dress was made by a Cuban-born designer. What if this, in itself, was a political statement? Perhaps a response to Amercians' outcry during the campaign that Obama was a Communist? Perhaps an attempt to bring visibility to our immigrant community?

In my Gender Lens Fantasy, I picture this conversation the night before the Inauguration:

M: Ugh, I just don't know what to wear tomorrow.
B: It's just a dress. Besides, you look great in everything.
M: It's not just a dress. Every news outlet everywhere will be scrutinizing it down to the last thread. You just wait.
B: It will be OK.
M: I just wish I could make a more lasting contribution in this role as First Lady. I don't want to comment on fashion. I want to comment on foreign policy, immigration issues, my own vision for justice.
B: But it's just a dress, honey. A dress can't do that.
M: What if it could? Everyone will be talking about it anyway. What if I wear a dress that forces them to talk about political issues as well?
B: It's just a dress.

And maybe it is just a dress. But maybe not. Maybe Michelle Obama is finding a way to talk back to the system of gender oppression while still working within it. Maybe she's pretending to acquiesce to the gender expectations she's given while simultaneously transforming them. Maybe.

Our New Superhero!

Love it.

Thanks go to Ms. Magazine for offering a free Inauguration poster with a year's subscription. Too tempting for this feminist to pass up!

And yet, a friend of mine on Facebook just joined the group "My Father's last day," which is meant to celebrate George W. Bush's final day in office. The group description reads, "Say goodbye to 8 years of my father doing everything he could to try and make America a better place every day."

Instead of attending another celebration of yet another patriarch who's done very little for women, I'm going to join Ms. Magazine in welcoming the antithesis of a patriarch, and dare I say, a FEMINIST.

So polish your gender lenses, ladies and gentlemen. This superhero is sure to bring new sight for sore eyes.

The West Wing and art as prophecy

Several years ago, the brilliant writers of the TV show The West Wing envisioned a relatively unknown Congressman's rise to the presidency. A Congressman of color.

At the time, it seemed mere fiction. We all knew that only white men who were entrenched in the political system were eligible for the presidency, or at least it seemed that way.

But The West Wing artists must have known that things could be different. They dared to create a picture of a different future.

My partner and I have been noting the distinct similarities between the West Wing seasons and the current election, and Brian Stelter of the NY Times just articulated them in a brilliant article this week:

"When Eli Attie, a writer for “The West Wing,” prepared to plot some episodes about a young Democratic congressman’s unlikely presidential bid, he picked up the phone and called David Axelrod...

Days after Mr. Obama, then an Illinois state senator, delivered an address to the 2004 Democratic National Convention, the two men [Attie and Axelrod] held several long conversations about his refusal to be defined by his race and his aspirations to bridge the partisan divide. Mr. Axelrod was then working on Mr. Obama’s campaign for the United States Senate; he is now Mr. Obama’a chief strategist.

Four years later, the writers of “The West Wing” are watching in amazement as the election plays out. The parallels between the final two seasons of the series (it ended its run on NBC in May 2006) and the current political season are unmistakable. Fiction has, once again, foreshadowed reality."

Consider this clip from The West Wing where Matt Santos begins his run for the presidency. Sound familiar?

If you're a West Wing fan, then these similarities might further confirm your suspicions that The West Wing is the best show to ever hit television. But I think this scenario teaches us a lot more than that.

As I sit here at my laptop with CNN computing exist polls in the background, I'm realizing that the visions of the West Wing's creative staff members are becoming reality. Not that I'm giving The West Wing sole credit for Obama's projected win in this election, but I do believe that in order to create a reality, we first have to be able to imagine that it could be so.

The West Wing did that for us as a nation. For the years that it was on TV, I heard people say things like, "Man, I wish Martin Sheen or Jimmy Smits could run for President." The truth is, we didn't want Martin Sheen the actor to run for office; we just wanted someone who wasn't afraid of their own humanity (think President Bartlet's MS), someone who knew a little bit about real life (think Jimmy Smits' character and his desire to send his kids to a public school), someone who talked about justice and meant it (think the entire West Wing staff).

We wanted the possibility of the dream becoming a reality.

As a poet, people often ask me why I write. It certainly doesn't earn me any money or fame. It doesn't carry with it any tangible results. In fact, most times, I write without knowing if anyone will ever read it.

It's times like these that make me remember why we continue to persist as artists -- because it's about creating a vision. I write because I want to make sense of my world and imagine new ways of being within it.

Shows like The West Wing did that for us as a nation.

As we watch tonight as our first African American president takes office, let's remember that it all starts with a vision. It should make us ask, "What can we conceptualize for women? How can we imagine new realities for our gender?" We begin with a small figment of our imagination that, with a little culling, becomes a reality. This is our path to equality.

Mamas, Llamas, and Votes

Today, our politically active church did not let us forget the fact that next week is election week. In fact, even the children's sermon was full of non-partisan political initiative.

Now, I'm used to children's sermons that consist of a brief object lesson involving a shoebox or a light bulb or a candy cane. In each case, all I knew as a kid was that the correct answer to any question was "Jesus."

But not so at my current church. Here, the children's sermon is usually one of the most moving portions of the service. These kids make you think. They make you reconsider the seeming simplicity of your faith.

So today, instead of the Ten Commandments or why we shouldn't tell a lie, the children's talk was about the complex history of women's suffrage.

There were several powerful moments in this short little conversation with the kids.

The first came when our pastor asked how many people in the congregation had a mother who was of voting age pre-1920 and consequently encountered a time in her life when she wasn't able to vote. Several hands shot up. Then, she asked how many people had a grandmother who was unable to vote. Nearly 3/4 of the hands went up.

It had never occurred to me how recent the suffrage movement really was until that moment. Suddenly, it became no longer some removed historical fact.

We're talking only a couple of generations ago. It's hard to imagine.

The second great moment of the children's sermon occurred when our pastor asked the kids why they thought women weren't allowed to vote back then. Our usually precocious kids didn't raise their hands. They had no guesses. They were stumped.

"Actually," Pastor Laurie said, "I'm glad you don't have an answer to that one. There were no good reasons that women weren't allowed to vote."

The congregation chuckled. We were proud of our kids. We realized that they've grown up in a world that has never told them that their gender is too uneducated, too weak, or too frivolous to vote.

I left church feeling even more driven to exercise my right to vote this election. And this led to an embarrassingly obsessive t-shirt buying frenzy. (Perhaps not the most politically-transformative way to get the word out, but nonetheless, it was fun.)

First, I got the following shirts for my mom and mother-in-law:


Then, I had to treat myself to the following:

The latter really has nothing to do with gender issues, but I've been trying to figure out how to incorporate llamas onto this blog for some time, and this is the best I can do. I mean, honestly, how could you refuse to vote for Obama when you've got this fuzzy, weird-looking creature egging you on?

Plus, who could resist the llama song?


In fact, with a few minor alterations, this could end up being our new National Anthem:


Regardless of whom you vote for, may we all remember that, unlike llamas, we as women do have the right to vote. And that's a relatively new and wonderful freedom.

Why I'm Anti-Abortion and Pro-Choice

I've tried to keep political commentary on this blog to a minimum, not because I don't think politics are important, but more because I DO think politics are important. As you can tell from my earlier post, our participation in selecting our government leaders is a right that is to be taken seriously.

Yet as we near Election Day, partisanship causes us to become more divided and, well, more ruthless to one another.

We become polarized on many issues because they are beliefs held close to our hearts. Yet despite the negative campaign ads and political bickering, there's one issue that we just might be less divided on than usual -- abortion.

As a person of faith and a feminist, this issue has threatened to polarize me against myself. Yet both of these aspects of my identity offer me gifts of wisdom and justice.

My faith encourages me to work for life during my time on this earth -- life for unborn children, Iraqi civilians, men and women with AIDS, malnourished kids, etc. My identity as a feminist
offers me the opportunity to fight for choice -- the choice to have children or not have children, the choice to get an education, the choice to receive equal pay for equal work, the choice to live my dreams.

So for a long time now, I've been uncertain as to which camp I fall under: Pro-life or Pro-choice. I'm both.

This year, I began to say it this way: I'm anti-abortion and pro-choice.

At the debate last night, Obama echoed my sentiments, saying that no one was pro-abortion, and I think this is definitely getting closer to the mindset that many of us hold.

In a recent blog from the progressive Christian magazine Sojourners, Jim Wallis agrees:

Last evening, both Barack Obama and John McCain took steps toward finding some possible common ground.

Both said that they would not use Roe v. Wade as a litmus test for appointing Supreme Court Justices in the future.

And both suggested some cultural commitments and policy directions that could be most effective in dramatically reducing abortion. Last night’s debate got that conversation started.

Americans are for life. Americans are for choice. The challenge for our political leaders, our religious leaders, and every American is to hold freedom and life together even when they seem to collide. We should do all we can to make sure we have as much of both as possible. And we can start by having a better conversation about abortion in this election and beyond. Thankfully, the first steps toward that conversation were taken last evening.

We still have a long way to go on both sides of this issue, but last night gave me hope that we will realize that polarization doesn't solve anything. Listening does. Dialogue does. Understanding and compassion certainly do.

I've often commented to my partner that the political system in this country would be so much easier if we continued to follow the election principles that the U.S. was founded upon. Remember from elementary school history class? Whoever received the most votes became President. Whoever received the second-most votes became Vice President.

Call me a forever optimist, but can you even imagine the reconciliation that might take place in this country if we worked together? Instead of a battle of rhetoric between Pro-choice and Pro-life camps, we might actually put our heads together and think of a better way to help women with unwanted pregnancies.

Unfortunately, the two-party system seems here to stay. The best we can do now is put aside our own binaries and instead try to live in paradox.

VOTE!

Ok, so while my latest post on Barack Obama might slightly influence your decision, I'm curious to see what my readers think about the presidential candidates and their feminism (or lack thereof). So let me know your thoughts by taking my little quiz.

Feel free to also leave comments here as to why you chose what you chose.

And don't forget that regardless of your party affinity, it's important to actualize your right to VOTE on November 4th.

Time to change the lawn signs, Mom

It's hard to believe, but in 2004, my mother (think: church-going feminist matriarch in small town) was a staunch George W. Bush advocate.

I couldn't believe it myself, but when I returned home to visit the fam one weekend that year, I was bowled over by a collection of what I've not-so-affectionately begun to call "Bushy" lawn signs in my parents' front yard.

Her affinity for the Republican party didn't stop there. She also became an official "Bushy" representative for her church, and she's received a Christmas card from the Bushies ever since.

But this was all before Barack Obama's inspired speech this week, in which he accepted the Democratic party's nomination for president. Here is a selection of the furtive text messages I received from my mother throughout his 42 minute speech (which, honestly, was so gripping that it felt like 5 minutes):

are you watching. You are making a democrat out of me
You have to admit that i can keep an open mind. I am loving this! I love that he is young and enthusiastic! I adore his wife. Love that his mom made him study at early hours of am. Sound familiar? I even like joe biden and his wife. Am I turning into a liberal? Love this!!!

So my dear Republican mother is a convert, as are many previously-Republican women this election. Some of the reasons are those my mother stated in her texts: Obama is visionary, easy to relate to, and dedicated to social change.

But I also wonder if women are supporting him this election because, like many previous candidates, he doesn't just sweep women's issues under the rug. Consider his recent speech. In 42 minutes, he mentioned the following key issues for women:
1. Equal pay for equal work. The glass ceiling is still a reality for many women today. Women still make 76.5% of what men make.
2. Women's reproductive decisions. Many feminists believe that a woman's right to choose what to do with an unplanned pregnancy is an important right for women to possess. I happen to be pro-choice but anti-abortion, meaning that I believe that women should have the right to make their own decisions in regard to their pregnancies, but I personally believe that abortion is not often the best moral/physical/emotional decision. Obama's commentary on this issue was great because he acknowledged that both sides of the debate can come together and work towards preventing unwanted pregnancies in the first place. While some feminists might say that he didn't go far enough, I'd commend him for bringing up such an important topic in such a vital and visible speech.
3. Rights for gay and lesbian couples. While skirting the issue of gay marriage, Obama had this to say: "I know there are differences on same-sex marriage, but surely we can agree that our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters deserve to visit the person they love in the hospital and to live lives free of discrimination." Again, while some feminists would have liked to have seen him articulate a clearer stance on the issue, it's certainly groundbreaking for a candidate to so confidently mention gay and lesbian issues in his nationally-televised nomination speech.

What's refreshingly encouraging to me about Obama is that he's made women's issues visible to America. In fact, he's taken them out of the realm of "women's issues" and made them American issues. Finally, we have a candidate who isn't afraid to acknowledge that gender discrimination is still a reality in the U.S.

So, Mom, I guess it's finally time for you to change your lawn signs. :)

Keep going

If you missed Hillary Clinton's speech last night at the Democratic National Convention, you should thank your lucky stars for YouTube. These words that will most certainly go down in history brought Bill Clinton, myself, and countless others to tears. OK, I know you're thinking that Bill and I are just saps when it comes to this kind of thing, but take a look for yourself at my favorite 3 minutes of Hillary Clinton's moving speech:



You can read the text here. Even if you're not a Clinton supporter, Hillary has become a symbol of women's progress in this country. Granted, it seems a little crazy that it took us until the 2000's to have a female presidential candidate, but here we are...finally.

I'll leave you with some of her prophetic words. (Don't worry. Bill and I won't tell anyone if you shed a tear):

I'm a United States Senator because in 1848 a group of courageous women and a few brave men gathered in Seneca Falls, New York, many traveling for days and nights, to participate in the first convention on women's rights in our history.

[By the way, for a brilliant account of this fight for the vote, check out the film Iron-Jawed Angels, starring another Hilary (Swank).]

And so dawned a struggle for the right to vote that would last 72 years, handed down by mother to daughter to granddaughter -- and a few sons and grandsons along the way.

These women and men looked into their daughters' eyes and imagined a fairer and freer world, and found the strength to fight. To rally and picket. To endure ridicule and harassment and brave violence and jail.

And after so many decades -- 88 years ago on this very day -- the 19th amendment giving women the right to vote became enshrined in our Constitution.

My mother was born before women could vote. My daughter got to vote for her mother for president.

This is the story of women and men who defy the odds and never give up. How do we give this country back to them?

By following the example of a brave New Yorker , a woman who risked her life to bring slaves along the Underground Railroad.

On that path to freedom, Harriet Tubman had one piece of advice.

If you hear the dogs, keep going. If you see the torches in the woods, keep going.

If they're shouting after you, keep going.

Don't ever stop. Keep going.

If you want a taste of freedom, keep going.

And even in the darkest of moments, that is what Americans have done. We have found the faith to keep going.

Paris fights back

***Thanks to my two slinking commentators who pointed out that the singer/songwriter of the tune, "Bitch," was Meredith Brooks and NOT Alanis Morisette. Here's an interesting wiki about how so many people (me included) mixed this up! I've corrected my post below...***

Well, I never thought there would come a day when I would praise the actions of Paris Hilton in a feminist blog.

But, truly, that day has come.

The recent John McCain television ad was meant to mock Barack Obama's supposed celebrity. However, in doing so, it mocked the lifestyles of Brittany Spears and Paris Hilton as well.

Now, I'll be the last to defend the lifestyles of said Spears and Hilton, but the truth remains that only female celebrities were mocked in this ad. In addition, this is quite different from the banter that occurs in People and Seventeen. At least entertainment magazines deal with the field of entertainment.

McCain's campaign, however, implies an even political playing field with, um, "candidates" Spears and Hilton, with the juxtaposition of their images with Obama's.

Enter Paris Hilton's response video, now widely circulated on YouTube. (In fact, I saw her response video before I'd even seen the original commercial.) Here, Paris uses humor, an important feminist tool in subverting patriarchy, in order to point out the audacity of McCain's approach. Is she running for president? No. Is she the face of ditzy celebs? Yes. Does this make her entirely unintelligent? No. Does this mean it's possible for female celebrities to be thinking human beings as well as famous? Maybe. Just maybe.

See more Paris Hilton videos at Funny or Die

Either way, I think it's hilarious.

More importantly, it's great that Hilton found the resources to talk back to the male powers that tried to silence her. McCain's ad intended to box her in, to limit her to the singular role of dumb blonde.

Hilton's response is intriguing, not because she wholly denies this role, but because she expresses herself as a complex person: one who is both frivolous and grounded, articulate yet ditzy, fun-loving yet serious. Too often, women accept the labels given to them instead of embodying their complexity.

I'm reminded of Meredith Brooks' lyrics that illustrate women's multifaceted natures:
I'm a bitch. I'm a lover. I'm a child. I'm a mother. I'm a sinner. I'm a saint. I do not feel ashamed. I'm your hell. I'm your dream. I'm nothing in between. You know I wouldn't have it any other way.

Hilton's response is empowering because it subverts our expectations, reclaiming language like "bitches" and reversing the hierarchy of power that McCain intends.

As a result, at least at my water cooler, we're all talking more about Hilton's political "campaign" than McCain's.

And as Brooks so wisely sings,
You know I wouldn't have it any other way...