A particularly sassy takedown by Salon’s Cintra Wilson: “Pissed about Palin.”

A thoughtful (yes, thoughtful) analysis by Camille Paglia of Palin as a muscular, pioneer-inspired “feminist” force: “Fresh Blood for the Vampire.”

Kaye S. Hymowitz at City Journal on “Red State Feminism.”

Dahlia Litwick in Newsweek on how “Palin Signals Fewer Choices for Women.”

The LA Times on “Hiding Sarah Palin Behind ‘Deference.'”

HuffPo on how “Sex Sells in the GOP.”

A NYTimes article on how the second mixed-sex major-party presidential ticket in American history has nonetheless raised 21st-century questions about etiquette, body language and who hugs first: “To Have (as a Running Mate), and Hold (Politely).”

And an amusing comparison of Palin (who is now, yes, an action figure) to a minor character in Star Wars named Boba Fett by my very clever husband dude Marco.

Other recs of what we should be reading? Please post links in comments.

And now for our monthly contribution from Jacqueline Hudak, who writes the Family Stories column here at GWP. Here’s Jacqueline!

Heteroflexibility

Sexual politics are in a time of huge transition – think Ellen and Portia – and still, there is simply no public cultural consciousness about the concept of “sexual fluidity.” A well-crafted recent book by Lisa Diamond, Sexual Fluidity: Understanding Women’s Love and Desire (Harvard University Press), takes another step toward putting it on the map.

While perhaps not yet a public story, the notion of women’s sexual fluidity is certainly coursing through the zeitgeist. I was in the midst of writing this post on Diamond’s book when I decided to take a break and see Woody Allen’s new film, Vicky Cristina Barcelona. And there it was, right there on the big screen: sexual fluidity, and all the attendant complexities.

In one scene, Scarlet Johanssen’s character Cristina, is relating the complicated story of her relationship with Maria Elena, who happens to be her lover’s ex-wife. Her friends Vicky and Doug listen intently. As Cristina pauses, Doug rushes to ask, “So, what, you mean you’re a bisexual?” To which Christina replies, with some discomfort, “Oh, I’m not really into those categories.”

Not into those categories indeed.

Diamond, a Professor of Psychology and Gender Studies at the University of Utah, has conducted, to date, the only detailed longitudinal study of women’s same gender attractions. She interviewed nearly one hundred young women at two year intervals over a period of ten years about their relationships and desires and found that, for women, love and desire are not rigidly lesbian or heterosexual. By the 10th year of her study, two-thirds of the women had changed their identity label at least once.

The notion of “sexual fluidity” contradicts the dominant cultural story about sexuality—the idea that you are one thing or another, but rarely both. That story shapes our ideas about sexual orientation as fixed in early adulthood and remaining static throughout a lifetime. But as Diamond so eloquently points out, for women, this has not been the case.

One of the many things I loved about this book was the depth and analysis of research that Diamond amassed. Having done research on this topic myself, I was aware that there was a lot of data around that supported a more fluid conception of sexuality for women – Kinsey, Adrienne Rich, and the ‘erotic plasticity’ model in 2000, to name a few. The only problem was, it didn’t conform to the (male) sexual standard. Since genital sex is not necessarily how women construct their sexual identities, the sexual experiences of women have been invisible, or somehow deviant from the (male) norm. My friends, we have been called ‘outliers.’

My only disappointment with the book was that I wanted the conversation to continue. Just as it ended I felt like I had arrived at the good part: the implications of women’s sexual fluidity, for us as researchers and clinicians, and more importantly, as partners and mothers. As a family therapist and mom who went through such a transition, I know it was not a solitary process; it entailed numerous and ongoing conversations with my children, family and extended community. Suddenly I found myself in the midst of a story that was totally unfamiliar: Married woman with two kids falls in love with a woman. I mean, wasn’t I supposed to know which team I played for before I turned 45?

I remain curious and perplexed about our need to hold on to these rigid and discrete categories when they obviously do not fit for women. I am heartened by the youth who do not seem to have the same attachment to the labels, and instead are ‘questioning’ ‘spectrum’ and ‘heteroflexible.’ Perhaps my children’s generation will focus on the quality of a relationship rather than the sex of their partner. In the meantime, perhaps movies such as Barcelona books such as Lisa Diamond’s, and real life family stories like ours will help inch the conversation along just a little bit more.

For previous posts by Jacqueline, click here.

Thanks to Caroline for these two links over at Literary Mama: “The Sarah Myth” by Nicole Stellon O’Donnell, and “Sarah Palin’s Kids, Our Kids” by Rebecca Steinitz.

And heads up on an interesting convo going on over at Work It, Mom! spearheaded by Veronica Arreola and provocatively titled “Why Sarah Palin is Good for Feminism.”

Hmm…

Six new articles of interest, courtesy of Rebekkah of course over at the WMC:

McCain and Palin Want Women’s Votes But Do Women Want Them?
9/8/08
RH Reality Check: Instead of clear policy stances on these issues at the GOP convention or in the surrounding media attention what we have been privy to are endless distractions about Sarah Palin’s family, the personal matters and private choices Ms. Palin and her family have made over the last few months and a religious right bloc that has firmly cemented their support for said choices – support that falls in direct conflict with the rhetoric, agenda and policies they promote for the rest of American families.

Fusing Politics and Motherhood in New Way
9/7/08
NY Times: Sarah Palin’s baby shower included a surprise guest: her own baby. He had arrived in the world a month early, so on a sunny May day, Ms. Palin, the governor of Alaska, rocked her newborn as her closest friends, sisters, even her obstetrician presented her with a potluck meal, presents and blue-and-white cake.

Parents of Special-Needs Children Divided Over Palin’s Promise to Help
9/6/08
NY Times: Gov. Sarah Palin directed an emotional appeal to the hearts of millions of parents with children who have special needs, promising they would “have a friend and advocate in the White House.” Ms. Palin’s offer of friendship sparked hope in many parents, advocates and lawyers as the often-marginalized subject of disabilities rights took center stage.

Bristol’s Choice
9/5/08
Slate.com: Pundits were quick to point out that Bristol Palin’s “decision” to have her baby must have been at least somewhat constrained by her mom’s position-as articulated in November 2006-that she would oppose an abortion for her daughters, even if they had been raped. Palin is an outspoken advocate of parental veto; she called the Alaska Supreme Court’s recent decision to strike down that state’s parental-consent statute “outrageous.” So what exactly, one wonders, was young Bristol permitted to decide?

Sex Ed In Schools: Little Connection Between What’s Taught, Teen Behavior
9/8/08
USA Today: The 17-year-old daughter of Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin, and the pregnancy has reignited the national debate over two different approaches to sex education: abstinence-only vs. comprehensive.

Palin & Press: A Testy Start
9/8/08
Washington Post: From the moment Sarah Palin stepped onto the national stage, she was mauled, minimized and manhandled by an openly skeptical media establishment. But By six days later, after a speech in which she chided the journalistic elite, the previously obscure governor of Alaska was being hailed by many of the same media gurus.

Image cred

I’m back in action. I mean, rather, back at work.

A piece I wrote, “Sex and the Single Guys, For Real,” is up today over at the Women’s Media Center. The piece has nothing to do with Grandma of course, unless you count the fact that Marge volunteered at a center that offered counseling and contraception to teens, for which I will always remain extremely proud of her.

My WMC commentary features Michael Kimmel’s new book, which was also reviewed, btw, by Wesley Yang in yesterday’s NYTimes (see “Nasty Boys”). Here’s the teaser:

With all the excitement of the summer games, you may have missed this juicy bit of “news” from Olympic Village: as soon as their competition ended, the athletes apparently got rather busy themselves.

They had sex. Lots of it. So much that organizers in Beijing handed out free condoms, says former Olympian Matthew Syed of the UK’s Times Online. And this year, Syed tells us, the female athletes were as horny as the men.

We’ve long been inundated with images of young men with libido flowing unchecked. But with sexual insatiability now cast as an equal-opportunity calling, the guys are no longer portrayed as alone. If all the hook-up hoopla about kids on U.S. campuses is true—the girls have gone wild! the boys can’t get enough!—then the athletes in Beijing were hardly the only modern young men and women engaged in an Olympic-size orgy of never-ending desire.

But wait! New research…Read the rest.

And for those here in NYC, Kimmel will be reading from and discussing his book, Guyland, on Sept. 9 at 7pm, at Borders Columbus Circle. I may see you there….

Thank you to Kristen and Virginia for keeping us posted on the latest in Palinography! I’ve been in another zone here in Chicago, mourning my grandmother, though I have watched The Speeches and pretty much want to PUKE.

Anyway, thought I’d share some of where my head has been these past few days by posting a letter I wrote to my grandmother and read at her funeral. I’m back in action next week.

Dear Grandma,

Because death is like that, I can’t quite absorb the fact that you’re no longer here so I’m writing you this letter as if I’m off at camp and you’re simply back home, knitting. I remember all the letters you wrote me at camp, and later at college and into adulthood–with their beautiful script and news about the weather in Chicago and lines like “not much going on here” and “counting the days until I see you again.”

You were a fixture in my life, as were your brisket made with onion soup mix and our visits to Indian Trail restaurant to see our favorite waitress Inga, our travels to England, and later our shared high teas at The Drake.

I remember eclaires and truffles and sleepovers and talking back to the evening news. I remember Tonelli’s and your neighbor Shirley with the funny last name and the way you would take me around to your “beauty operator” and the salesladies at Loehmans.

“This is my granddaughter,” you’d say, beaming.

“Oh,” they’d say. “Your grandmother is always talking about you.”

As a teenager, I remember talking to my friends about you. I’d tell them how stylish my grandmother was and how cool you were because you volunteered at LINKS, a clinic that provided counseling and contraception to teens.

In college, our conversations turned to love and politics and I grew interested in the YOU of you. As an adult, I learned that you weren’t always easy, and that it must have been hard, sometimes, to be you.

As you grew older, and friends and loved ones died or moved away and you grew more isolated, I felt your sadness and your loneliness and wished I could help fill your longing. But I couldn’t, and we couldn’t, and I learned to cultivate compassion. I tried to wrap my love around you from afar the way your afghans always warmed me.

And now, I have your afghans and hats and scarves to remember you by, and your letters to me, which I have kept. The last one you wrote just a month ago, in slightly shakey hand but with a beaming heart. You had just returned from my wedding, and I was so glad to have had you there, as was Marco, who I am so glad you had a chance to love.

“Dearest Debbie,” you wrote. “No one has ever been to such a wonderful wedding. There are no ways to tell you how wonderful we felt just to be together and watch the simcha and feel so much a part of it. Needless to say you were all gorgeous. I’ll never forget how you all looked and shared your warmth and love. I hope that happiness and all good things will always come to you. Accept my wedding gift to you and my hope for a great and glorious life.”

I don’t really believe in an afterlife, but I believe that spirits live on in our heart. And so my wish for you Grandma is that your spirit finds peace and rest after this too quick and sometimes painful journey called life. I will carry you forward in my heart, and hopefully, with some help, in my genes. And if one day I am lucky enough to become a grandmother, I hope that I can be one like you — generous, reassuring, kind, warm as a just-baked roll at Indian Trail or a cup of high tea at The Drake. And one who lets her granddaughter know daily how very deeply and thoroughly she is loved.

Always,
Debbie

From the great Gloria Steinem, an op-ed in the LA Times today and also posted at the Women’s Media Center on Sarah Palin’s vice-president candidacy. She makes an interesting point about what this says about women’s political power:

Here’s the good news: Women have become so politically powerful that even the anti-feminist right wing—the folks with a headlock on the Republican Party—are trying to appease the gender gap with a first-ever female vice president.

But of course, Sarah Palin is a decidedly anti-feminist candidate. As Steinem writes, if McCain hoped bringing a female vice president onto his campaign was going to bring the women to him in droves, it’s not going to work:

Palin’s value to those patriarchs is clear: She opposes just about every issue that women support by a majority or plurality. She believes that creationism should be taught in public schools but disbelieves global warming; she opposes gun control but supports government control of women’s wombs; she opposes stem cell research but approves “abstinence–only” programs, which increase unwanted births, sexually transmitted diseases and abortions; she tried to use taxpayers’ millions for a state program to shoot wolves from the air but didn’t spend enough money to fix a state school system with the lowest high–school graduation rate in the nation; she runs with a candidate who opposes the Fair Pay Act but she supports $500 million in subsidies for a natural gas pipeline across Alaska; she supports drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve, though even McCain has opted for the lesser evil of offshore drilling. She is Phyllis Schlafly, only younger.

For one of the most powerful denunciations of McCain’s pick, go here.

Image credit.

Two new books on men have captured my attention this month: Michael Kimmel’s Guyland: The Perilous World Where Boys Become Men and Kathleen Parker’s Save the Males: Why Men Matter and Why Women Should Care. The first, by a well-known sociologist and gender scholar, I recommend. The second, by a so-called “cultural provocateur,” not so much.

Kimmel’s is an Ophelia-like look at what’s going on inside the minds of 16-26 year old young men. Parker’s is a wry and shoddily researched look at men under seige by guess who. Check out this Q&A with Kimmel in Inside Higher Ed and this review of Parker’s over at About Fathers. I wrote a commentary hooked on Kimmel’s findings that will be up at the Women’s Media Center next week. Will post when it goes live 🙂

(Thanks to Paul Raeburn for the link!)

And while I’m at it, two interesting reports from the Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement (CIRCLE), a nonpartisan research center studying youth civic engagement. I drew on these in putting together the talk I’m giving here at the University of South Carolina Upstate tonight and wanted to share them with ya’ll too.