Now, I am not one to trust the polls or to stop from knocking on wood every time a little flicker of hope rises in that maybe, just maybe, we’ll see President Obama in office come January. But in the spirit of things that may brighten up the day a bit, take a look at this analysis from the super-analyzers over at the FiveThirtyEight blog, which does some intense number-crunching and analyses of these way-too-many-too-confusing (ok, at least for me, who in studying for the GRE last night made some pretty red-faced math mistakes) poll numbers. According to their analysis, John McCain only has a 5.9% chance of winning the electoral college. Now this may seem overly optimistic even to the most glass-full of us, but take a look at their reasoning. You may find a little smile tugging at the corner of your lips.

UPDATE: Hey, is this the first time Gawker and Girl with Pen are on the same page?

To cap off your day, here’s Framingham State College’s Virginia Rutter with a great post on what exactly Sarah Palin doesn’t seem to get about “feminism” and “sexism” and how this allows her to erroneously invoke identity politics in her favor.–Kristen

Sarah Palin wasn’t the first to be confused about what is sexism—and what is feminism. Remember This is Spinal Tap, the rock mockumentary from the eighties? In an oft-quoted scene, dufus rocker Nigel Tufnel responds to the news that the next Spinal Tap album won’t be released because their cover is sexist with, “Well, so what? What’s wrong with bein’ sexy?” When, earlier this week, Palin said, “There’s a special place in hell for women who don’t support other women,” she was missing the point—and the words—sort of the way Nigel did. Her so-called feminism is really a form of sexism. She revealed just how much her candidacy is about identity politics—not issues.

In response to Palin’s misquote of Madeline Albright, Kristen asked, “Am I going to hell?”and clarified that feminism—in the sense that Albright meant it, and that many who are part of feminist movements intend—is about reducing inequality (all kinds!).

We don’t get to ask our candidates too many questions. But a friend offered a question for Palin, in light of her voicing the imperative of women for women: “If Hillary Clinton had been the Democratic nominee instead of Obama, would you, Governor Palin, be voting for a Democrat this year?”

Well, of course not. Because politics is done best when it is about ideas and interests, not passions and identities. (Thanks A.H!)

–Virginia Rutter

Here are some quick hits of issues on the Sex and Sensibility front that caught my eye this week:

1. When Sex and Politics Meet: Amy Schalet, whom Virigina referenced in her post on Juno and teenage love back in January, is at it again with a brilliant article in the Washington Post. This time she has a question for Sarah Palin:

Should public school students be taught that contraception and condoms can prevent unintended pregnancy and disease?

But beyond this, she addresses how parents should address the question of sexuality with their teenage children. A question near and dear to my heart, Schalet makes a great historical argument on the changing role of sexuality in young people’s lives:

Simply put, the circumstances and aspirations of young people have changed since the 1950s, but our society’s narratives about the place of sexuality and the nature of relationships do not reflect these changes. And we pay a price for that inability to talk realistically about teenage sexuality and love.

Of course, with all the hoopla around Sarah Palin’s daughter’s pregnancy. In my opinion, this is a topic that is off-bounds, in my opinion, in any facile understanding of Palin’s VP suitability, but totally in-bounds in questions of conservatives’ and republicans’ generally obtuse and unrealistic (read: abstinence only) approach to teenage sexuality and public sexual health education. And Schalet makes a valid point on this topic:

The Palins, of course, deserve credit for their public embrace of their eldest daughter, which shows that, ideology notwithstanding, parents still love their daughters even if they have sex. If that embrace allays fears that prompt girls to keep sex a secret from their parents, then the Republican Party may have, inadvertently, facilitated the honest conversations we need to move beyond the myth-only approach to adolescent sexuality.

Given Palin’s especial appeal for the conservative Christian base, I wonder whether Palin speaking openly and warmly about her unmarried daughter’s pregnancy does indeed represent a turning-point in public discourse on the realities of teenage sex and love.

2. And about those realities of sex and love: Part of what I love about the feminist blogosphere community is that it acts in many ways like the consciousness-raising groups of the 70s, except with a very different purpose and outcome. Instead of sharing lived experiences that make women realize we all have similar ideas and problems, what often happens is that we realize the diversity of the female experience.

This happened recently in the comments section of a post Courtney did at Feministing on whether it is feminist to demand a female orgasm. The discussion was extremely interesting, and even got a bit brutal with arguments on what a woman should or should not demand from a sexual partner, and whether we should even attempt to write such rules. I’m starting off with my comment and then a few other representative comments:

I have a slightly different take on this question. First, I have to question the extent to which we center everything around the female orgasm. There are plenty of woman I know who are unable to achieve orgasm with a partner, long term or hookup, no matter what they or their partners do. I even know women who have never been able to achieve orgasm on their own– an idea I admittedly do find distressful, because let’s be honest, orgasm can be a huge release.

That being said, the focus on the orgasm is a very male-centric notion. Some women can get plenty of pleasure from various sexual acts, which may or may not culminate in orgasm, and they will still be fulfilled and still think they had a pretty damn good hookup. Orgasming can be great– but must it be the very definition of what we label sexually “good”?

If we’re going to ask “what is feminist” I would argue that it is more feminist for a woman to decide whether she feels comfortable revealing what can be intimate information (e.g. “I have a hard time orgasming during sex” or “I’ve never orgasmed with a partner before”) to someone who may just be there for good time sex. I really agree with ottermatic.wordpress.com. It is just too simplistic to say that orgasm is something that must and can be done, and that must be made an issue of if it is not done. For a lot of women, it just isn’t that easy.
-Kristen

Here is someone with a different look:

Thanks for this, because in the 10 years I’ve been sexually active, I’ve been faking it the whole time. Every time I’m in between partners, I think to myself that it’s so stupid and the only reason I’m doing it is because my partners’ ego seems to hinge on it (one stopped going down on me because I never did orgasm and it HURT HIS FEELINGS), and I think, “I’M the one losing out here, my orgasm is for ME, not them, I need to cut this shit out.” And then I end up in that stupid trap over and over again. Honestly, I don’t even know HOW to have one with another person, for me, it’s totally a solo thing.

I think it’s definitely going to take a really good (emotionally), long-term partner for me to get there, amen to the idea that casual hookups just don’t produce good sex (mine have ALL been disappointing – good sex is almost like a language, and it doesn’t just happen). I’m going to go read the two other entries you linked, but if anyone else wants to kick my ass and offer any insight that I might benefit from, please feel free. I’m only hurting myself with my stupid behavior and really need to end it.
-Alixana

And finally, marilove on whether it actually does any good to try to communicate your needs to your partner:

And Anonymouse is right — many men, when you tell them you didn’t come or have issues coming, take it as a personal insult. They don’t really care about our feelings, but rather THEIR feelings and how are not coming effects THEM. They pout, they think something is wrong with us, they get angry. It happens even with the more progressive men I’ve slept with.

For more of the 107 perspectives on this issue, visit the post at Feministing.

For all those who’ve been working furiously on their Election 2008 book, here are a few tips on getting that book to the editor from a real insider, Laura Mazer. We’re lucky to have Laura here monthly with her column, “BookSmarts,” but she needs to hear from you: what do you want to know? -Kristen

Hi again Penners,

I’m back after a wee bit of a hiatus (read: several months during which I idiotically took on way too many books and paid for it by having to work long hours while everyone else was at the Hamptons). I’m very excited to be back now and to be writing the BookSmarts column in GWP’s new incarnation — and especially to be posting alongside the other amazing and talented GWPers here. Hi, ladies!

This month I’d like to pass on a few creative but common sense tips that I think can significantly increase your book’s chances of being considered seriously by editors or agents, and ultimately help you match up with one who wants to champion your project. Consider these strategies:

— Pitch wide. When pitching agents, go wide. Why query five agents if you can query fifteen? Why query fifteen if you can query fifty? Every agent who sees your proposal is another agent who could fall in love with it. The same goes for querying editors directly — unlike pitching newspaper or magazine stories, it’s perfectly fine to query multiple publishing houses at once. If you’re lucky, you’ll get interest from more than one editor, and if you’re really lucky, those editors will fight over you in a bidding war involving multiple zeros.

— Polish it up. I’ve said it before, but it’s worth repeating: Make your proposal look as good as it reads. A dense, single-spaced, multipage document is a slush-piler for sure. Instead, make your proposal read as efficiently as a magazine: Include a table of contents, subheads, different typefaces, sidebars, pull quotes — anything that will make it more user-friendly for the editor or agent reviewing it. And write in the tone you’ll be using within the book itself. If your editorial voice is satirical and quirky, your proposal’s should be, too.

— Be open to options. Love your book idea, but be willing to change it if it’s not selling. If your book is about a historic world event, you may be able to recast your analysis in terms of current events and give it a fresh marketing angle. If you’ve written a memoir, you could give it an editorial makeover and resubmit it as a novel. Send your new (and maybe even improved!) package to a new crop of agents or editors, and to those you’ve approached before who sounded even somewhat enthusiastic about your book, especially if your changes address specific feedback they’ve given you.

— Get out and get social. Go to book readings, launch parties, and literary events. Not only are they fun and interesting, but they’re a great place to meet editors and agents. Plus I swear it’ll bring good juju to your own projects to get out there among other authorial types.

And, finally, not a tip but a request: Will you send me your questions about the publishing industry? I want to know what you want to know, and I’ll do my very best to tell you. So write, post, comment, or query!

Cheers for now,

-Laura Mazer

At a rally on Saturday in California, Sarah Palin offered up what Nico Pitney at Huffinton Post calls a rather “jarring” comment, and which I would term as offensive and mind-boggling on a variety of levels (though given the current McCain/Palin strategy, we shouldn’t be surprised). To a cheering crowd, she claimed to be quoting former Clinton Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright when she said:

“There’s a place in Hell reserved for women who don’t support other women.”

In a GWP post last week, Virginia Rutter told us why she wouldn’t sign those “women against Palin” emails, as she believes “the ‘women against’ gambit feeds into the identity politics of Sarah Palin that make her so damn scary. Ironically, by mounting a ‘women against’ campaign, we make her a ‘woman’s candidate.'”

And how right she is. In fact she has Albright to back her up, who responded to the misquote (the right word is “help” not “support” and was a comment on society, not politics) with the following: “This is yet another example of McCain and Palin distorting the truth, and all the more reason to remember that this campaign is not about gender, it is about which candidate has an agenda that will improve the lives of all Americans, including women.”

But given that Palin has herself brought it up, I think it’s fair game to point out the significant ways in which Palin has not supported women throughout her political career. I would like to note that this is not a response by me as a woman; it is a response by me as a voter who cares deeply about issues that affect women.

1. First, the matter of rape kits. As the Associated Press reported in early September, when Palin was mayor of the town of Wasilla, Alaska, sexual assault victims were billed by the town for the cost of rape kits and forensic testing. In a state that routinely has the highest rate of sexual assault, this placed a $300 – $1200 financial burden on women who sought to report their attacks.

2. As a “Feminist for Life,” Palin is anti-choice with no exceptions. Women who choose to have abortions come from a diverse range of economic, ethnic, racial, geographical, marital, and religious circumstances. According to the Guttmacher Institute, about half of American women have had an unintended pregnancy and more than a third of women of current reproductive age will choose to have an abortion by age 45. That’s a whole lot of women Palin isn’t willing to support.

3. Lily Ledbetter, whose case went before the Supreme Court after she discovered that she was being paid $6,500 less per year than the lowest-paid male equivalent at her work, might have something to say about the efforts made on her behalf by the McCain-Palin camp. The Court ruled that an employee had only 180 days claim pay discrimination based on sex, race, religion, or nationality. Last April, McCain opposed a major Senate bill that sought to counteract this decision by seeking equal pay for women. The bill was killed 56-42 by the Republicans. And McCain has a long history of equal pay opposition. What does Palin have to say about this? Given that she hasn’t said a word, we can only assume tacit agreement.

4. Finally, given what this woman might have to say about Palin’s comment, I think we’re left with only one response: “Huh?”

Sex Politics and Sensibility: More on Morgan
by Kristen Loveland

Robin Morgan wrote an anti-Palin piece a couple of days ago entitled, “When Sisterhood is Suicide,” which initiated a debate both on Girl with Pen between Deborah and Courtney, and at Feministing between Deborah, Courtney, and the wide feminist world. Deborah loved the content of the piece, but Courtney argued that its sarcastic, snarky tone was alienating. First, let me say that tone matters. I watched the debates last night in a Brooklyn bar with nary a McCain supporter in sight. In that setting there wasn’t a doubt about it: Biden won. He was calm, substantive, and authoritative in his knowledge, and never once attacked Palin personally. The Brooklyn crowd laughed at Palin’s folksky “darn its.” “Gosh darnit gee golly joe,” mocked the guy at the end of the bar. Folksy and “nice” and not snarky, Palin’s tone may have been endearing to some crowds, but it wasn’t to mine.

So tone matters– but audience matters more. Who was Robin Morgan addressing in her piece? I didn’t get the sense that she was trying to reach across the aisle, that this was the opening salvo in a conversation that would end with some congenial beers at the local bar between Morgan and Joe Hockey Mom McSixpack. This is Robin Morgan, after all.

I don’t even think she’s talking to a younger generation of feminists, to my generation. Here’s why:

Sure, we wanted to vote for the right woman. Sure, we’ll have to wait a bit longer for her. Meanwhile, in Obama we can have a chief executive who reflects our politics, and who—especially since he may have both houses of Congress behind him—just might turn out to be one hell of a great president.

and:

Do not cut off your womb to spite the Democrats. (Also do not sit this election out or play write-in-vote games. And tempting though it may seem, do not blow a vote for the Green Party.)

Morgan sure is rabble-rousing, but she’s rabble-rousing to a generation that came of feminist age in the ’70s, when the sides were more clearly cut (“us” vs. “the patriarchy”), to whom such angry, snarky speech will hardly be unusual or unwelcome, and who embody the imagined fears of Democrats everywhere. But are these fears real? I’ve yet to meet a Hillary supporter who has said she will vote for the Green party, or God forbid, Palin, because Hillary didn’t get the nom. As a young feminist who is cocooned within a certain generational worldview, I’d really like to know if this phenomenon does exist. And if it does, please watch this.

What I found most effective about Morgan’s piece was that she destroys her mantra: Sisterhood is powerful. Sisterhood, after all, is very much a straw man that ignores the realities of how fractured the idea of “woman” is. It’s all in her title: When Sisterhood is Suicide. The 1970s idea that all could be solved through coming together and sisterhood ends up being as cynical an idea as McCain thinking he could net a bunch of Hillary supporters by choosing a Woman as VP. First, we realized that there exist racial, sexuality, and economic issues that cannot be brushed under the rug in the name of sisterhood. Now, we realize that there are ideological and policy issues–the right to our bodies, the right to an experienced Vice Presidential candidate–that cannot be ignored in the name of sisterhood.

So is Morgan’s rant destructive? Yes. But is it alienating? Well, it won’t do much for my generation of feminists, who prefer a more conciliatory and reasoned tone. Then again, there’s never been much fear that we’re heading the Palin way. And some conservative commentators might love to wave this piece around as evidence that those crazy Feminazis are at it again and don’t understand Palin’s version of “nice,” non-pay-equity, non-choice feminism. But if it does stay within its intended audience, then it could be very effective.

Of course, given the internet, the chance of it hitting only its intended crowd is… next to none.

Well if you’re not awake this morning already, this one will wake you up. Robin Morgan has a new piece just up (remember Goodbye to All That #2?) over at the Women’s Media Center. In “When Sisterhood Is Suicide and Other Late Night Thoughts,” Morgan is at her absolute best.

She begins by offering 10 nice things first, as follows:

Ten Nice Things to Say About Sarah Palin:

1. She’s a lifelong NRA member and crack rifle-woman, but hasn’t yet shot a single person in the face.
2. She’s so unafraid of power that a majority-Republican legislative committee is investigating her abuse of it.
3. She’s broad-minded, willing to have evolution taught alongside creationism.
4. She gives “the personal is political” new meaning: Axing the public-safety commissioner for not firing her ex-brother-in-law (Trooper-gate); firing “foes” suspected of “disloyalty” (Library-gate).
5. She knows how to delegate, involving “First Dude” husband Todd in more governmental decisions than any male politician’s spouse has dared since Hillary tried to give us healthcare in 1993. (First Dude’s defying a subpoena from those meanies mentioned up in #2.)
6. She has executive experience: As mayor of Wasilla, then-constituency 5,000 souls, she presided over a population almost as vast as that of some urban high-schools.
7. She’s an existentialist: Bridge-to-Nowhere-gate, Highway-to-Nowhere-gate. She never “focused much on Iraq”—after all, “the war is part of God’s plan”—and she dismisses McCain’s reluctance to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge as being like “Eastern politicians” about environment. (Check out Wasilla’s dead-Lake-Lucille-gate.)
8. She brings home the earmarked bacon—plus moose, caribou, wolf, and any other animal stumbling haplessly across her rifle-sight as she leans out of the ‘copter on another heli-hunt. But! Does she rely solely on godless government for her $500 million U.S.-subsidized natural-gas pipeline? No! Last June, at the Pentecostal Assembly of God Church, she declared, “God’s will has to be done to get that gas line built!”
9. She displays refreshing curiosity, as when she asked, “What is it exactly the VP does?” (Don’t scoff: Are you smarter than a 5th grader?)
10. She’s multi-talented—studied journalism, tried sportscasting, can slickly scan a teleprompter (unlike her running-mate). She’s a jock (Sports-Complex-gate.) She was a beauty queen (as all of McCain’s wives were; how ‘bout that?) She’s patriotic—well, except for attending that secessionist Alaska Independent Party conference during the seven years when First Dude was a party member pulling down DWI convictions on the side. Best of all, she’s a born-again feminist, a “feminist for life.” Which I guess makes me a feminist for death.

Morgan then offers “Ten Blunt-Crayon Hints for the Media”–including tips like “Do investigate Palin’s opposition to listing polar bears and other animals as endangered. Do not call her one: no chick, bird, kitten, bitch, hen, cow. Also no produce: tomato, peach, etc.” And finally shares her list of:

Ten Reasons You CANNOT Support McCain-Palin

1. Yourself. Do not cut off your womb to spite the Democrats. (Also do not sit this election out or play write-in-vote games. And tempting though it may seem, do not blow a vote for the Green Party.)
2. Iraq. McCain’s been a hawk since evolution made raptors.
3. The Economy. For years McCain chaired the Senate Banking Committee that brought us the current financial meltdown. He opposed the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which would have made it easier for women and other workers to pursue pay-discrimination claims. (Come to think of it, why the focus solely on equal pay for equal work? Whatever happened to equal pay for comparable worth?)
4. The Supreme Court. McCain vows to stack the court with “clones of Alito and Roberts.” There goes . . . well, everything.
5. Choice. McCain has lodged 125 anti-choice votes. He boasts he’ll overturn Roe v. Wade. And as for the claim that if Roe is overturned it will “merely” throw reproductive rights back to the states, understand that McCain supports a constitutional amendment that would ban abortion outright, nationwide.
6. Realism. If you’re a young feminist, do not get disillusioned by Obama’s drift to the middle—depressing but standard for winning. Do consider running for office—politics is not a spectator sport. And if you still can’t grasp why older feminists zealously backed HRC, please read Susan Faludi‘s brilliant “Second Place Citizens” for context. It’s crucial.
7. Old Wounds. Remember that McCain’s answer to a supporter asking him about Hillary, “How do we beat the bitch?” was “Good question!” Remember that at the Sturgis motorcycle rally, McCain mortified his wife by saying she should enter the Topless Miss Buffalo Chip contest. Remember that, responding to a comment Cindy made about his thinning hair, he guffawed, “At least I don’t plaster on makeup like a trollop, you c**t.”
8. Palin. McCain’s pick of Palin demonstrates contempt for American women and insults the intelligence of anyone who supported Hillary, since Palin is her (melting) polar opposite. It denigrates qualified Republican women (Senators Snow, Collins, Dole, and Hutchinson must be suffering silent apoplexy). It’s actually abuse of Palin herself, a sacrifice tossed to the ravenous fundamentalist base, now the butt of public humiliation for her abysmal lack of qualifications.
9. Feminism—remember that? McCain-Palin politics are antithetical to every feminist policy most U.S. women support. Palin is an anti-abortion-rights, pro-“abstinence only” enemy of sex education and stem-cell research who denounced as “outrageous” the state supreme court’s decision to strike down Alaska’s parental-consent statute; who believes survivors of sexual assault and incest should be forced to bear the attackers’ fetuses to term; who let Wasilla charge survivors for rape kits and forensic exams; who cut funding for teen-pregnancy services; who stated she’d oppose abortion for her daughters even if they’d been raped; who’s against same-sex marriage (because such love is “curable”) and against gun control—but apparently all for shotgun weddings (poor Bristol’s gonna marry that dork, like it or not).
10. Settling for Greatness. Sure, we wanted to vote for the right woman. Sure, we’ll have to wait a bit longer for her. Meanwhile, in Obama we can have a chief executive who reflects our politics, and who—especially since he may have both houses of Congress behind him—just might turn out to be one hell of a great president.

…and ends with “Five Ways to Still Make History.” Read the whole sassy thing, here, and pass it on!

I’ve been curious. What do GWP readers think of the term “hockey mom” as this year’s most popular way to describe a demographic of the women’s vote? If you have a sec, check out Catherine Price’s post, “I Am Not a Hockey Mom,” over at Broadsheet and let us know what you think.

Just for the record, I’m with Traister on this one, who writes over at Salon:

Is this the week that Democrats and Republicans join hands — to heap pity on poor Sarah Palin?

At the moment, all signs point to yes, as some strange bedfellows reveal that they have been feeling sorry for the vice-presidential candidate ever since she stopped speaking without the help of a teleprompter. Conservative women like Kathleen Parker and Kathryn Jean Lopez are shuddering with sympathy as they realize that the candidate who thrilled them, just weeks ago, is not in shape for the big game. They’re not alone. The New Republic’s Christopher Orr feels that Palin has been misused by the team that tapped her. In the New York Times, Judith Warner feels for Sarah, too! And over at the Atlantic, Ta-Nehisi Coates empathizes with intelligence and nuance, making clear that he’s not expressing pity. Salon’s own Glenn Greenwald watched the Katie Couric interview and “actually felt sorry for Sarah Palin.” Even Amy Poehler, impersonating Katie Couric on last week’s “Saturday Night Live,” makes the joke that Palin’s cornered-animal ineptitude makes her “increasingly adorable.”

I guess I’m one cold dame, because while Palin provokes many unpleasant emotions in me, I just can’t seem to summon pity, affection or remorse.

Read the rest here.

I’m back from the holiday and, even though the world is melting, I am SO EXCITED SO EXCITED because we are just a few DAYS away from launching GWP in group form! Can’t wait to share it with you, and I’m SO not good at secrets, but I’m sworn to keeping the new url to myself until we’re ready. So all I’ll say is, here’s to a new year, and a new Girl w/ Pen!!!!!