It was revealed this week that McCain’s campaign spent $150,000 to outfit Sarah Palin for the campaign. Given the fury of feminists over the attention paid to Hillary’s outfit, and that little hint of cleavage she once showed, should any attention be focused on how much Palin’s wardrobe has cost?

You could say that the price tag doesn’t matter–that campaigns are all about image, that Obama spends millions on TV commercials, so what’s the difference? I would say that the wardrobe expenditures are significant because they reveal the bankruptcy with which the campaign approached Palin from the get go: All image, no substance. TV commercials may be all gloss, but they purport to represent larger ideas in a campaign, which are then backed up in interviews, speeches, and debates. With one debate, very few interviews, and speeches meant to rally rather than inform, it’s hard to understand how Palin’s wardrobe might connect to a larger vision. Except it does tell us one thing: For all the cries (sometimes deserved) about sexism against Palin, her own campaign was treating her like a dress-up doll from the beginning.

Image Credit

We had an interesting inquiry from a reader about recommendations for female-friendly MFA programs. We were wondering what our readers thought–have any of you been in MFA programs that you would especially recommend?

Also–on a larger point, it’d be interesting to hear what our readers think constitutes a “female-friendly” program? The students, the teachers, the training itself?

I know my viewpoint: no Philip Roth. But maybe that’s just me. 🙂

Here to bring you your monthly insight into the youth perspective is Courtney Martin with a post on how young people are getting involved in politics…by targeting their grandparents for the Obama vote. Courtney’s awesome column, Generation Next, appears the third Monday of every month. –Kristen

One of my favorite get out the vote efforts by youth this fall is, hands down, The Great Schlep. The young, civic-minded, and Jewish recognized that they had a profound power to influence a very special population in a very special swing state: grandparents in Florida. And thus the Great Schlep was born.

Here’s the always controversial Sarah Silverman on the basic concept:

There are a few things that I deeply admire about this project. First and foremost, I love that a bunch of young people took stock of the power they already possessed (being beloved by their well-intentioned, if not a bit conservative grandparents) and figured out a way to use that power for political leverage. This is the best of youth activism at work—a homegrown, grassroots exercise of power in innovative ways.

I also appreciate that, while it springs from a place of cultural and religious identity, it serves a much broader cause. Jewish youth didn’t wait until there was a fantastic Jewish candidate to start organizing, schlepping, and registering/influencing voters; they participated in a long, beautiful tradition of Jewish activists promoting the best interest of a “minority” and, in turn, their own vision of a more just society.

And finally, they used shocking humor and a sort of wonderful sarcasm about their own culture to get the word out. Some have found the racial implications offensive, which I totally understand. I happen to think it’s pretty amazing social commentary. In any case, they got your attention didn’t they?

–Courtney Martin

Is there any way in which Palin’s dude appeal might ultimately be a good thing for future female candidates? An article in today’s NYTimes points to Palin’s appeal among “the dudes” and notes two contradictory impulses:

Yes, some men come to ogle the candidate, too. “She’s beautiful,” said a man wearing a John Deere T-shirt in Weirs Beach. “I came here to look at her,” he said, and his admiration for Ms. Palin’s appearance became more and more animated. Sheepish over his ogling, he declined to give his real name (“Just call me ‘John Deere’ ”).

But some male fans do seem to feel a deeper connection to Ms. Palin. To a surprising degree, they mention the unusual nature of her candidacy, the chance to make history, break the glass ceiling. (Read the rest here.)

Just as I’m starting to wonder, yet again, whether there might be a small leap forward for womankind embedded in Palin’s run, Michelle Goldberg sets me straight. Goldberg reminds us that by trying to “flirt her way to victory” (aka the Vice-Presidential debate), her farcical performance lowers the standards for both female candidates and US political discourse. Goldberg concludes,

In her only vice-presidential debate, she was shallow, mendacious and phoney. What kind of maverick, after all, keeps harping on what a maverick she is? That her performance was considered anything but a farce doesn’t show how high Palin has risen, but how low we all have sunk.

I wholeheartedly agree. But I still want to be convinced. Is there any way, do you think, that Palin’s run will make things better for future female candidates? Any way…at all?

(Thanks to Jackie for the heads up.)

While each candidate in Wednesday night’s debate gave his stump speech on Roe v. Wade, only Obama mentioned the need for better sex education in the school system, and that was quickly skedaddled by a change in topic. Put another way, as politicians are such fans of doing, the two candidates spent more time discussing whether Obama did or did not launch his campaign in Bill Ayers’ living room than discussing how they plan to battle rising teen pregnancy and STD rates. As Amy Schalet pointed out in a Washington Post article last week, “High teen pregnancy rates result in part from our inability to talk honestly and wisely about teen sexuality.” So where are we left if our two presidential candidates are never asked to talk about it at all?

Of course, part of the problem is that very few people besides the Religious Right, NARAL Pro-Choicers, and well, those who read this blog, are asking these questions. Sure, there are other things on our mind: the economy, Iraq, etc. But our general populace’s inability to ask basic, rational questions about the way their children are taught about sex in schools, and therefore their ceding of these decisions to a minority base, speaks to larger problems in our culture: an inability to approach sex in an individualized and normalized way.

Dagmar Herzog talks in Sex in Crisis about the anxiety with which America adults in the twenty-first century approach sex. In the nineties, most Americans seemed relatively satisfied with their sex lives. Sure it wasn’t always the best sex ever; sometimes there was boredom, or lack or desire, or lack of orgasm, or any of the other minor dissatisfactions that are normal in a human sexuality that can only be as perfect as the person experiencing it. Sometimes there were fears about love and emotional connection. But of course, again, why wouldn’t there be? Now, with articles and drug campaigns asking you whether you are experiencing a tepid orgasm, erectile dysfunction, porn addiction, you name it, American adults are constantly told to compare their sexuality to others and ask themselves, “Is there something wrong with my sex life?” As Herzog writes:

What is going on is an ideological assault on something pretty fundamental: the most intimate and personal aspects of sex. It worms its way into the core of the psyche by playing on the imperfections and emotional confusion that so often accompany sex. Rather than helping people get comfortable with the unruliness of desire, the current trendy idea is to freak people out.

Now, if adults are experiencing this level of anxiety about their own sexual lives, imagine how such over-scrutiny and neuroticism is translated to a population who has long been subject to excessive sexual observation in America. If sex can is psychologically and emotionally damaging for adults, given the especial “unruliness” of the teenage sex drive and a whole life during which this psychological damage can manifest itself, it must be doubly so for teens.

But what if we began to treat not only adult sexuality, but teenage sexuality, as normal? In a qualitative study comparing conceptions of teenage sexuality in the Netherlands and the United States, Amy Schalet documents how American adults dramatize teenage sexuality as hormone-raging, out-of-control, and irrational. (Part of the study is published as “Must We Fear Adolescent Sexuality? at Medscape General Medicine.) Dutch parents, on the other hand, recognize teenage relationships as legitimate and work to normalize sexuality.

Guess which country has the lower teenager pregnancy and STD rates.

A key part of normalization as Schalet describes it is self-regulation—that is, trusting that teenagers have been given the right tools (Sex education! Respect for one’s self and body! Idealizing love over marriage!) to make their own decisions about how far to go and when. It’s something we don’t see enough in our culture. Schalet went around asking Dutch and American parents whether they would let their son or daughter have a girlfriend/boyfriend sleep over in their house. 9 our of 10 American adults said No; 9 out of 10 Dutch adults said Yes.

Now, I have to admit, even I initially balked when I first read the question—and said son/daughter is purely imaginary and in the very far future for me. I balked even though I am close enough to my teenage years to know that plenty of teenagers, instead of being taken over by “raging hormones,” are just pretty damned scared and will take their own sweet time about it. I mulled over this even though in college many guy and girl friends, given free rein to each other’s dorm rooms and beds, had hookups and sleepovers which never went near intercourse. I hesitated even though I know that teenagers will find a way to have sex no matter what if they really want to, and instead of making sex a sneaky, shady thing, it might be a good idea to normalize it as an inherent, but inherently individualistic, part of a person’s romantic relationships.

In the end, normalization of teenage sexuality makes a lot more sense than dramatization. After all, teenage sexuality is just a lead-in to adult sexuality, so why paint it as anything else besides a human being embarking on relationships that involve some form of sexual behavior? But here’s the question: would you let your son or daughter have their girlfriend or boyfriend sleep over? Take a moment to really think about it, and then ask yourself why not.

Three Things:

1. Barack Obama appeared as ever very cool, very collected, very smart. McCain appeared, just like his campaign, rather erratic, all-over-the-place, and definitely a stream-of-consciousness man.

2. Both gave their stock answers on the Roe v. Wade question; though it is worthwhile to take a close look at McCain’s answer:

SCHIEFFER: But even if it was someone — even someone who had a history of being for abortion rights, you would consider them?

MCCAIN: I would consider anyone in their qualifications. I do not believe that someone who has supported Roe v. Wade that would be part of those qualifications. But I certainly would not impose any litmus test.

That’s my bolding, call it the bolding of shock. McCain directly contradicts himself within two sentences. Deciding whether a candidate is qualified for the bench by looking at whether he/she supported Roe v. Wade is a litmus test.

3. Sex Ed, anyone?

It got a brief mention by Obama:

But there surely is some common ground when both those who believe in choice and those who are opposed to abortion can come together and say, “We should try to prevent unintended pregnancies by providing appropriate education to our youth, communicating that sexuality is sacred and that they should not be engaged in cavalier activity, and providing options for adoption, and helping single mothers if they want to choose to keep the baby.”

And… that was it. I’ll have more to say on this tomorrow. Sex and Sensibility is, per usual, running a bit late but will be up tomorrow.

And a quick PSA from me: Dagmar Herzog, a historian of sexuality based at CUNY who has done revolutionary work on post-World War II German memory and sexuality, will be speaking in conversation with Richard Goldstein, who writes on pop culture and sexuality at The Nation, at Book Culture tomorrow. Dagmar Herzog just published a new book, Sex in Crisis: The New Sexual Revolution and the Future of American Politics. The book explores how the Religious Right has taken control of and subsequently manhandled the way sex is talked about in contemporary America. In three words: married, monogamous, heterosexual. This should be a great talk. I’ll be there and I hope to see some of you there too!

Girl with Pen is extremely pleased to bring you the inaugural post from Allison Kimmich, Executive Director of the National Women’s Studies Association. Allison will be posting her column, Girl Talk, which explores truths and fictions about girls, the third Wednesday of every month. -Kristen

As a feminist, and as a professional advocate for feminist education in my work at the National Women’s Studies Association, I felt faint one day three years ago when my then-five-year-old daughter told me that “girls don’t do math.”

Well, it turns out that my daughter was right. Last week the New York Times reported on a study that points to U.S. failures in math education. The article notes that the United States does a poor job of educating both boys and girls in math, but that we especially miss opportunities to encourage girls who could be excellent mathematicians unless they are immigrants or daughters of immigrants from countries where math is valued.

Or as one of the study’s lead author Janet E. Mertz puts it, “We’re living in a culture that is telling girls you can’t do math—that is telling everybody that only Asians and nerds do math.” Neither the study nor the article explores in detail what it is about American culture that undervalues math education, but the American Psychological Association Task Force on the Sexualization of Girls produced a report last year that offers some insights. The report notes that self-objectification (buying sexy clothes or asking parents to do so, and identifying with sexy celebrities) can “detract from the ability to concentrate and focus one’s attention, thus leading to impaired performance on mental activities such as mathematical computations or logical reasoning.”

My daughter is now seven, and I can confirm that she is bombarded with media images (see Montana, Hannah) and consumer products—spaghetti strap tank tops for a seven-year old?—that encourage her to think a lot about her appearance and image in others’ eyes.

For now, my daughter insists that she is not a “fancy girl,” and she happens to be proud of her math skills. I suspect she has forgotten that kindergarten-era conversation. I mentioned the Times article to her feigning disbelief—can you imagine that some children and parents think that math is not important or fun? I asked. She did a double take and wrinkled her forehead: “No way, Mom!”

So schools can do a better job at teaching girls (and boys) math, and our culture sexualizes girls in unhealthy ways. You’re probably not surprised by either of these findings. But I’m still aghast, and I’m not feigning this time.

I’m aghast because it doesn’t take a genius to see that our country needs everyone in the game to find solutions as we face most serious economic crisis of my lifetime, one that my daughter’s generation will inherit.

Taken together, these reports raise a provocative question: How do immigrant girls and their families tune out dominant cultural images and messages about what girls can or should do? How and why do they succeed where many other girls do not? I really want to know. Tell me, what do you think?

Allison Kimmich

Image Credit