Monthly Archives: November 2012

Year of the Woman?

Standard

Many talking-heads in the media have been, in the aftermath of last night’s election results, referring to this election year as “The Year of the Woman.” It certainly seems as such given the number of records broken by women in this election: Elizabeth Warren is the first female senator from Massachusetts; Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin is the first openly gay person to be elected to the US Senate; for the first time in history all of the New Hampshire’s Congressional seats are being occupied by women, not one man will represent that state in DC; and there are now more women in Congress than ever before. It is certainly a year of broken records and a series of firsts, but “The Year of the Woman?” I’m not so sure I’d go that far. Not that I am not pleased to see so many women, whom I have come to respect and admire as I have watched them rise, like Warren and Baldwin, to both win their respective races but to make history while doing it, it’s just that there is still so much to do. So, so much to do.

While there are more women in Congress than ever before, the number of women Congressional members comprises only about thirty percent of all seats in Congress; of the 535 total seats (100 in the Senate and 435 in the House), thus far -some districts are still counting- women hold 20 seats in the Senate and 141 in the House. Although this is certainly a gain, it’s far from a true representation of the nation, of which women make up nearly 51%, and it has been a long time coming. The Untied States is 225 years old; it took 133 years from the year the Constitution was ratified, in 1787, to the year women were finally recognized as citizens and given the right to vote, in 1920, and another 92 years for us to reach this record breaking year….I know that progress can at times be slow, but c’mon now! It’s been 225 years, and it’s the 21st century, yet still women are not fully represented in this nation.

In the 225 years that we have been the United States of America and in the 92 years since women finally were given the vote, only thirty-five women have served as governors and there are still twenty-four state that have never had a female governor. In that same time there have only been thirty-nine women (42 if you count the new senator-elects) to serve in the senate, with 1992 marking the year that women began to be elected in number rather than one or two here and there, and only twenty-three states have been represented in the senate by women. Also, in that time, the House has had only 229 women fill it’s seats, and at present women make up about only 17% of the House.

My point here is not to downplay the successes and milestones female politicians achieved last night; to the contrary, I am both excited for them and hopeful that this is a sign of better things to come for women in this nation. Instead, my point is to merely demonstrate that this is but one more step in a very long journey toward true sexual equality in the US. While 2012 can certainly be seen as a year of firsts in which women broke records and tore down walls, it cannot rightly be called “The Year of the Woman.” Perhaps we will have that year soon and it will mark the closing of the gender gap that divides this country nearly in half, but there is much to be done before we can have that year. When women make up at least half of Congress, when women have served as governor to every state, when our bodies are no longer fought over by male politicians as if they’re public property, when we no longer make 77 cents for every dollar earned by a white male, when a woman has held the highest office in our land, when we’ve achieved at least half of this then and only then will women have finally had our year.

Nevertheless, 2012 is our year in this sense: we came out in record numbers, both as candidates and as voters, and we won a record number of seats for women. We had our hard won rights threatened by misogynists in the GOP, like Todd Akin and Tom Smith, and we stood up together and said, “Oh hell, no!” So, while I think that calling 2012, “The Year of the Woman,” is less than accurate, I think 2012 will be remembered as the year in which women truly found our voices and our strength and started fighting back; in which we finally decided that it was time to stop taking baby steps and to start making leaps and bounds; and in which we made it clear, in no uncertain terms, that we are done playing by the rules of those who would hold us back. 2012 is just the beginning, we will have our year and it will be a wondrous sight to behold!

Advertisements

Romney, He’ll Not Be My President

Standard

Well, it’s election day tomorrow and I am filled with angst and trepidation. This is a difficult thing for me to say, as it goes against everything I was raised to believe, which was to respect the President even if I did not believe in his abilities or his principles, but I loathe the man so much that the very thought of putting the two words “President” and “Romney” together makes me feel incurably ill. The idea of this “man” – this lying, conniving, flip-lopping, land polluting, job killing, 47% of America hating, ass-nugget- sitting in the oval office is a loathsome and unnerving thought. So much so that I will not utter the words “President” and “Romney” together, should it come to that, ever. I abhor the “man,” in every possible way and for a plethora of reasons, among which are, in no particular order:

1) This is a “man” who believes that single-parent homes, the majority of which are headed by women, are the biggest cause of violence in America. Never mind that the facts and figures from numerous studies show that the US is the deadliest of all post-industrial nations; there aren’t enough single-parent households in the US to account for all of that violence. And never mind the empirical evidence such as the fact that mass shooters Jared Lee Loughner and James Eagan Holmes are both from two-parent households, as were Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, because clearly such facts are irrelevant when they contradict baseless assumptions.

What Romney’s comment implies, and implications are important, is that single people, especially women, are not capable of raising children to be well-rounded human beings. This is bullshit and it is insulting to single-parents everywhere who work very hard to care for their children. It is insulting to my Dad, who, for the better part of my life, raised my sister and I almost entirely on his own. It is insulting to my best-friend, who, in addition to being raised by a single-parent, is raising three wonderful children as one herself. It is insulting to my step-mother, who raised my step-sisters, both of whom turned out to be strong, intelligent, and successful women, nearly all on her own. Not one of us has ever, nor would we ever, engage in pointless violence.

Anyone who would dare to turn single-parents into scapegoats for America’s ills is a loathsome, disgusting little turd-eater and is not fit to bear the title of President of the United States of America. A true president, a real leader, would not make a political stab at hardworking Americans, who happen to have been put in a position that contradicts his personal religious paradigm. No. A real leader, a true president, would rightly insist that we, as a nation, have a serious problem that can only be solved with careful reflection, education, and a concerted effort on a national level to address gun violence and all of its probable causes.

2) This is “man” who believes that the solution to our energy problems is to destroy our natural environment by drilling for oil and natural gas on federally protected lands and mining for coal. I don’t give a flying-monkeys ass if you “believe” in climate change or not because regardless of one’s personal beliefs on the matter, it’s happening and adding more CO2 to the atmosphere is not going to solve anything. That factoid aside, even if you’re camping in the land of denial where climate change is a myth and burning fossil fuels is all lollipops and fun, you’d have to be pretty fucking obtuse to deny that the processes of extracting oil, natural gas, coal, and uranium from the earth and turning them into usable forms of energy are not only damaging to the environment, they’re dangerous for people. That someone would insist that digging corrosive and unsafe materials out of the earth is good for America, and that people would agree with him, is dipshittery at it’s finest. Are we all really this stupid? Have we all forgotten what happened on April 20, 2010?

Sure, on the surface it seems easier to keep on this path of mindless self-destruction, doing business as usual, but just beneath that shiny surface of apparent ease and comfort is a dark and dirty truth that threatens the survival of our species and nearly everything else we know. Why risk the future of our species for the sake of simple, cheap, and comfortable solutions? How selfish, greedy, and uninformed must one be to not understand that we cannot breathe dirty air, drink chemically laden water, or grow food in parched soil? Are so many of my fellow American’s really so blinded by fear that they’ll have to sacrifice their toys and gadgets to preserve the very organism, our planet and home, that gives us life and sustains us, that they’ll vote for a “man” who wants to help big business make billions more, on top of the billions they have now, to further destroy the very thing we need to live? Please, for the love of humanity and the planet we call home, please tell me that most of us are not this hopelessly and mindbogglingly obtuse?!

A person who refuses to move forward, who refuses to make the tough choices, who refuses to help this nation change for the better, is not a person who possess the qualities needed for leadership. A real leader, a true president has the capacity to think critically and to extrapolate upon current trends and data in order to make decisions for the good of not only current generations but those to come as well. A true president, a real leader is a person who understands that what we do now will profoundly and inextricably affect the present and the future, both distant and near. The choices we make now become the legacy we leave to our children, our children’s children, and so on and so forth. I, for one, do not want to have to look my own grandchildren in they eye and explain to them that money and things were more important to us than their chance to not only survive but to thrive on the very planet that we took for granted. A real leader, a true president would understand this and would help us better ourselves.

3) This is a “man” who doesn’t care about the LGBT community. As governor of Massachusetts, Romney demonstrated disdain and an utter lack of compassion for same-sex couples. Yes, Mr. Romney, gay people have families. I know. I know. It’s a difficult thought for you to wrap your simple, bigoted little mind around…you have no love for gay people, thus it seems unfathomable to you that anyone else could love them. Well, as shocking as it is, they have mothers and fathers, brothers and sisters, sons and daughters, and significant others who love them and want the same thing for them that the families of hetero persons want…for them to be happy. Why can’t two people, whether it be two men or two women, who love each other have that love legally protected in the same way as a hetero couple? Does one stop being American because one happens to be gay? No! So why the fuck are we even entertaining the idea that, as Gov. Christie said, voters in each state should have a right to decide if same-sex couples have basic civil rights?

Anyone who would deny civil and human rights to a segment of the population on the mere grounds that said segment is different from the larger population is not fit to lead the country. This truly has become the new civil rights movement  and how we as a nation choose to address it will speak volumes about how we value the lives of living, breathing people. A true president, a real leader is not afraid to take a stand against oppression, to look  bigotry in the eye and say, “America don’t play that way.” It’s what Lincoln did, it’s what  LBJ did. A true president, a real leader concerns his/herself with the needs and rights of all the people, not just the majority but the minority as well. A real leader, a true president is a person who understands this and will not, regardless of personal belief, allow the rights of one group to override or supersede the rights of another. That’s the grand design of the American Republic, that “though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression.

4) This is “man” who sees women as having little more purpose than bearing children and keeping house. Everyone had great fun with Romney’s “binder of women,” gaffe from the second presidential debate, but in my assessment it was more than a mere gaffe, it was a very telling Freudian slip. In the mind of conservative, religious “men” like Romney, a woman’s place is first and foremost in the home; bearing and rearing the children, cooking the meals, and cleaning the house. Mitt Romney doesn’t have a binder of women, he and the GOP have a binder for us. Romney, is against the Blunt Amendment, which guarantees the right to affordable birth control to all women. He and the GOP oppose access to safe and legal abortions (see previous posts before you dare say anything to me about this), and Romney has said that the repeal of Roe vs. Wade would be a good day for America.

Really? The day on which women are denied the right to their own bodies, on which we will be forced to allow something to use our bodies against our will, on which we will be dragged back to the days of back alley clinics and wire hangers, will be a good day for America? Fuck you! Fuck you hard in an unpleasant place, you misogynistic ass! You claim to be pro-life, yet you want to put the lives of living, breathing people in jeopardy by making abortion illegal, denying women access to affordable birth control, and preventing sex-education in public schools, thus creating a situation ripe for unplanned and unwanted pregnancy and thereby putting girls and women into desperate situations in which they turn to dangerous means. If you and your party were truly pro-life, you’d support access to birth-control and comprehensive sex-education because the best means for limiting abortion is to lessen the need for them by decreasing the number of unwanted/unplanned pregnancies. What you are, instead, is anti-choice, seeing as how what you really want to do is deny women all personal autonomy and strip us of all legal protections for our rights to own our bodies.

And if his stance on reproductive health isn’t enough to bind we women to our “rightful” places behind our husbands and in our homes, then his position (which seems forever in flux, like his stance on so many things) on  the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act should provide the extra rope necessary to keep us where we belong, forever beneath men. If we’re trapped at home raising babies, we are less likely to go to college and pursue careers, and without the promise of fair pay and equal opportunities in the work place, we will be forced to either deny our own dreams and ambitions, be dragged back to a time in which we were forced to marry out of necessity, or remain trapped in the never ending cycle of poverty in which millions of hard-working women are presently trapped. Without the right to control our own reproductive system, without the ability to acquire an education, and without the right to be paid fairly for the work we do we women will be bound to the domestic sphere, returned to the status of male property, from which our mothers and grand-mothers and generations upon generations of women fought so hard to break free.

Anyone who would have the audacity to treat the bodies and livelihoods of women with such blatant disregard and disrespect is not fit to lead a nation whose demographics is nearly 51% female. A true president, a real leader would protect the bodies and lives of women, who are already living and breathing and experiencing life, and he/she would do so, not simply by making abortion safe and legal as it should be, but by also ensuring that women have access to affordable birth control and health care and by making certain that children, particularly teens, are receiving a well-round, comprehensive education about sex. A real leader, a true president would not allow the bodies of women to become public property and would instead ensure that it is legally protected as the private property that it is. A true president, a real leader would not deny the autonomy of women, he/she would respect it and protect it.

I could go on and on and on about all of the reasons why I loathe Romney and why the combination of his name and the title of President leaves a taste in my mouth that is so repugnant I want to vomit, but I think you all get the gist. This “man” is not fit to be president; hell, he’s barely fit to be called a man. I will always hold the utmost respect for the office of the presidency, but if it so happens to be occupied by Romney, he’ll not be my President. I will not call him by that title, he is unbecoming of it.