Some levity for ya’ll this morning, in the midst of all the seriosity. My friend Steve Doppelt had a great piece in the Chicago Tribune the other week, urging us to vote for the candidate we’d prefer to sit down with at lunch in the high school cafeteria. Read it, and get your funny on.
(For the record, Steve and I went to high school together. He was the Artsy Shy Guy. I was the Folksy Pom Pom Girl. Don’t ask!)
Having written a book on feminism and the age gap, it’s ENDLESSLY interesting to me the way younger women’s votes are being taken as a barometer of the state of feminism. To wit, Michael Barone begins his U.S. News article, “Young Women, Feminism, and Hillary Clinton,” like so:
“It’s interesting that in Iowa, Hillary Clinton lost to Barack Obama by a wide margin among younger women. The idea of a first woman president evidently is not of great appeal to them. I think this is part of a larger story about the decline, or perhaps the maturation, of American feminism.”
As Ann over at feministing notes, the reasons one chooses one’s candidate are often much more complicated than that.
Regardless, anyone seen the breakdown of women voters by age in New Hampshire yet? Just curious. I know I gotta write more about this somewhere…so many things to write, so little time! Alas.
Meanwhile, be sure to check out the February issue of More for a forum I coordinated in which women in the public eye weigh in with their thoughts on Hillary. Their responses may surprise you.
Back in September, I posted on those Gallup polls that found younger women supporting Hillary in greater numbers than older women. Remember those polls? Dana Goldstein at The American Prospect did a nice report on younger women’s Hillary enthusiasm a while ago too. In Iowa, things went the other way. Whether this trend play out nationally remains to be seen. But folks are already talking that way. Writes Gloria Steinem in today’s NYTimes op-ed:
“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.”
That older women are more radical argument–I just don’t want to believe it! And today, this young(ish) woman is coming out with an announcement: I’m supporting Hillary. I join Veronica–see comments in post below. Yesterday’s “iron my shirt” assholes being one–but just one–of the things that pushed me over the edge. (Addendum: And if you think those hecklers were isolates, see comments, below.)
Gloria is supporting Hillary too. Says she:
“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.”
Here’s to two terms for Hillary, two for Obama. And hell, if Edwards is man enough to take back his real-politicians-don’t-cry comment, two for him then too.
Yes, folks, she’s a human. DUH. I was actually touched by Hillary’s choked up moment yesterday (see clip above), and impressed by Obama’s response: “I didn’t see what happened … [but] I know this process is a grind, so that’s not something I care to comment on.” And I’m so down with Rebecca Traister on John Edwards’ response. Said Edwards, “I think what we need in a commander-in-chief is strength and resolve, and presidential campaigns are tough business, but being president of the United States is also tough business.” Unclassy, tough guy.
Once again, to cite research from Catalyst, if you’re a woman in leadership, you’re damned if you do, doomed if you don’t. Def don’t miss Gloria Steinem’s op-ed on it all in today’s New York Times, which my mother called to tell me about this morning (thanks, Mom!) and which I am now off to read.
Meanwhile, back in the land of actual issues,
Marc at Feminist Dad notes that when Take Care Net issued a survey to all the presidential candidates with questions about policy support on issues like FMLA, child care, child care workers, other paid and unpaid family caregivers, and victims of domestic violence, only the Dems responded. The Republican candidates didn’t even bother. Say wha? Survey results are here.
Don’t miss Kerry Howly’s op-ed in today’s New York Times, titled “It Takes a Family to Break a Glass Ceiling.” Howly brings an important historical perspective to the issue of Hillary being a politician’s wife–the best I’ve read on this aspect yet.
And while we’re on it, some smart and timely gender – and – election commentary from a few of my favorite bloggers:
Gloria Feldt on Hillary: “You know Hillary is no longer seen as the inevitable front runner in Iowa when Maureen Dowd (almost, at least till she gets to her punch line) writes something positive about her.” Read more. Be sure to check out Gloria’s “memos to Hillary” over at HuffPo.
Carol Lloyd at Broadsheet: “Obama and his mama.” Read more.
And of course, Virginia Rutter here at Girl with Pen: “Mind you, seeing Barack Obama win is great for the election, because it keeps the pressure on all around. But there is something else going on, and commentators keep acting like concerns about gender are baloney.” Read more. (Thank you to all who are linking to Virginia Rutter’s post and helping spread the word. And thank you to those who commented–Virginia will likely be weighing in soon, with her thoughts!)
For anyone near San Diego on February 29, do check out the Eighth Annual Women and the Law Conference and Ruth Bader Ginsburg Lecture at Thomas Jefferson School of Law in San Diego (via Feminist Law Professors). The topic is, guess what, “Women in Politics: The Role of Gender in Political Decision Making.†I’d be more than happy to have someone who attends guest blog about it here. Any takers?
I’m back in the city after a few delicious days away (thank you, Woodhull!) and, in the spirit of catching up, wanted to share a link, courtesy of Marci Alboher at Hey Marci:
The New York Writers Workshop is hosting a two-day pitch conference for writers working on nonfiction book proposals, Friday through Sunday, February 22, 23 & 24, 2008.
PLACE: JCC of Manhattan, 334 Amsterdam Avenue (between 75th & 76th Streets)
COST: $300 for three-day workshop
At this unique conference, participants meet with and pitch book proposals to three different editors from major New York publishing houses (houses including Viking, Penguin, Random House, Scribners, Simon and Schuster, and others). Click here for more details, and how to apply.
The answer, writes sociologist Virginia Rutter (pictured left), author of The Gender of Sexuality, may surprise you. Here’s Virginia:
I’m pondering the results in Iowa, thinking about numbers, and continue to feel so troubled by the misogynistic responses to Hillary Clinton. When I got the idea–just recently, listening to Bill Moyers interview Kathleen Hall Jamieson on politics and the blogosphere–of how aggressive the remarks about Clinton are, I had this duh moment that reminded me (not to be too dramatic) of when my husband died.
See, my husband died 9 years ago, but my brother had died 14 years before. When my husband died, I was like, “shit I forgot that people you love can die.” And when I started figuring out what was going on with Clinton, I was like, “duh I forgot just how much people hate women who lead and take charge.” It is that fundamental, I am afraid to say.
The issue is gender identity politics. Not gender politics, like whether a candidate is concerned with family leave, which continues to be a concern of women more than men, for example, but gender identity politics, the politics of feeling like a man or a woman is in a role or status that we’re comfortable with. When Clinton is called “that bitch” that is a good signal that it isn’t about policy, but about identity politics.
Mind you, seeing Barack Obama win is great for the election, because it keeps the pressure on all around. But there is something else going on, and commentators keep acting like concerns about gender are baloney. “Get over it. 35% of women voted for Obama versus 30% for Clinton.” But those numbers do not tell us anything about how voters are responding to gender. They just tell us that the people of Iowa like Obama more than Clinton. What I want to know is what are men doing. Men have gender too, you see.
So the question is this: are men (or women) more likely to vote their gender? The NYTimes provides a profile of caucus voters. I’m a quantitatively oriented sociologist who studies gender, and before I looked in detail at the numbers I thought what I was hearing was that men were voting their gender, and women were voting neutrally–that we women were as likely to vote our gender as not. But the results are a little different: men are more likely to vote their gender, and women vote their gender, too, but less so than do men.
Here’s how it works. First, of course in Iowa men had more opportunity to vote their gender than women did, what with 6 men on the ballot. But if we just compare Obama and Clinton, we see that men and women voted for Obama about 55% of the time and that they both voted for Clinton about 45% of the time. (How did I get this? 34% is what Obama got and 27% is what Clinton got; if you add those two together, 55% is the share that belongs to Obama, and 45% is the share that belongs to Clinton.)
Given that distribution, here’s what we know about “voting one’s gender” in Iowa: Out of all the men who voted for either Obama or Clinton, 60% of those were for Obama–that is men voting for a man. Men voted their gender 5 percentage points more than we would expect if their voting weren’t influenced by their gender. Meanwhile, out of the women who voted for either Obama or Clinton, 46% of those were Clinton supporters–that is women voting for a woman. This means that women voted their gender more than we would expect—but only by 1 or 2 percentage points.
What does this mean? Well these are not dramatic differences, but they are a trend. Gender identity is a factor in this election–and I believe men’s hidden biases (and not so hidden in the crassly expressed attacks on Clinton) against women are playing a role. This doesn’t mean that women are morally superior; it doesn’t mean that Clinton is secretly the better candidate because she is a woman. It means that you should pay attention to what men are doing not just what women are doing. It means that you should speak up and say “not so fast” when commentators or your colleagues or your dinner companions dismiss gender identity politics as a meaningful factor in the democratic primaries. Because it is.
-Virginia Rutter is a sociology professor at Framingham State College (MA). vrutter@frc.mass.edu.
Damn. There’s wireless at this here writing retreat. For the most part, though, I’m being “good.” Meaning, staying offline. But I couldn’t help but post this cool button below, once I signed up for Blog for Choice Day, which will take place on January 22, 2008–the 35th anniversary of Roe v. Wade. Which, as I’m watching the caucuses and primaries, seems to be a pretty important thing to continue making tons of noise about, if you know what I mean.
I remain slightly stunned that Hillary came in not second but third in Iowa last night. And at the way she is painted the establishment candidate. And at the strength of the venom against her. More election commentary coming soon from guest poster, sociologist Virginia Rutter. In the meantime, a quick bit on two books, just out:
Men Speak Out: Views on Gender, Sex and Power–a new anthology edited by Shira Tarrant–compiles the voices of 40 men who explore issues of masculinity, sexuality, identity, and positive change. The book lays issues on the table that are sure to stimulate a lively debate. It’s starting already at myspace and facebook. Check it.
Next up, Making Love, Playing Power: Men, Women, & the Rewards of Intimate Justice, by family therapist and organizational consultant Ken Dolan-Del Vecchio, debunks superficial theories about communication styles and geder roles and, according to the book’s description, “gets to the real reason so many relationships are in trouble — misuse of power.” The book reveals how gender, race, sexual orientation, and money set the foundation for personal power, and how power as domination drives most conflicts whether between nations, interest groups, or individuals. Join Ken at Bluestockings Bookstore in Manhattan on February 13 for a reading…!
I’m starting 2008 by taking myself on a mini writing retreat upstate. So during the next few days, I’ll likely be posting on process–as I continue to tweak my own!
Having trained in lit crit, rather than as a journalist, interviewing people–you know, the live ones–is a new skill for me. While the best way to learn is by doing, for those of you who, like me, obsess by reading about it first, here’s some wisdom gleaned from those who’ve been at it for a while (mostly culled from Telling True Stories):
• Find examples of unfolding action; try to experience something interesting with your subject. Try drafting scenes immediately after reporting.
• Don’t ever lead your sources by thinking that you already know what the story is.
• Trust your material – what people actually do, what people say can be quirky, dramatic, humorous, painful.
• “People’s voices are like found poetry—raw, uncrafted, imperfect. Still, we do them the greatest justice when we choose carefully and get out of the way.†–Debra Dickerson, TTS
• “The overall interaction is more important than the particular questions. I try to make the interaction as enjoyable as possible. No one wants to be grilled for hours on end. A formal interview isn’t conducive to soul baring.†– Isabel Wilkerson, TTS
• Think “guided conversation,†where the overall interaction is more important than the particular questions
• “The natural impulse is to ask questions. Sometimes that is wrong. It makes the reporter the focus of attention. Be humble. It honors the person you’re trying to observe.†– Anne Hull, TTS
• “Journalists tend to be very self-centered: our questions, our answers, our timetable. Field reporting isn’t about that.†– Louise Kiernan, TTS
• “Ask people what they worry about most or who matters most to them or what makes them most afraid. Always follow these abstract questions with concrete ones to elicit specific anecdotes. . . . Your job as an interviewer is to turn the subject into a storyteller. Ask questions so layered, so deep, and so odd that they elicit unusual responses. Take the person to places she wouldn’t normally go. Ask questions that require descriptive answers. If your profile hinges on an important decision the subject had to make, ask her everything about the day of the decision. What kind of day was it? What was the first thing you did when you woke up in the morning? Do you remember what you had for breakfast? What were you wearing What did you think about that day? Walk me through the first two hours of your day. These things might not seem relevant to the story, but they serve to put the person back in the moment. Push a bit. Make some assumptions that require the person to validate what you say or to argue with you.†– Jacqui Banaszynski, TTS
• “One way to get people to say interesting things is to ask dumb questions….If they don’t talk, I sometimes remain silent. Silence makes people uncomfortable and people keep talking to fill the space.†–Debra Dickerson, TTS
• “Don’t worry about your list of questions, your editor, and your story lede. Worry only about the person in front of you. A friend of mine calls this full-body reporting. If you do it right, you will feel exhausted when you leave the interview.†TTS
