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 yet again today, Girl with Pen is extremely pleased to bring you the inaugural post from Veronica Arreola. Veronica will be posting her column, Science Grrl, which brings you the latest research and press on girls and women in science & engineering the second Wednesday of each month. Here’s Veronica! -Deborah

“While we were working to eliminate these pork barrel earmarks he (Senator Obama) voted for nearly $1 billion in pork barrel earmark projects. Including $3 million for an overhead projector at a planetarium in Chicago, Illinois. My friends, do we need to spend that kind of money?” –John McCain

The first project I worked on after I graduated with my bachelor’s degree in biological sciences was called “Women & Scientific Literacy.” Its goal, put simply, was to infuse humanities and social science courses with science and “warm” the cold lab projects in introductory science courses. While the project had an eye on bringing more women to science, we also kept a sharp eye on how these changes might bring more underrepresented men and women to science. Look in your bag and you most likely will find many examples of technology that permeates our world without much thought on our part – Your MP3 player, mobile phone, smart phone/PDA, age-defying lotion, lip-plumping gloss, SPF 35 sun block, and a smudge-proof pen. This was part of the underlying message of our project, that to be a true democracy, we as citizens needed to be literate in science because so many decisions were being made and we all needed to lend our voices and opinions.

The current Presidential campaigns of Barack Obama and John McCain highlight the need for scientific literacy. Well, their campaigns don’t say it too loud, but look at some of their campaign promises and you see discussion about stem-cell research, space exploration, and global warming. How can voters decide who represents their views if they don’t understand the science or even the basic need for, say, space exploration? This is why it struck me as odd that McCain, who touts space exploration on his campaign site, decided to use the Adler Planetarium’s need for updated technology as an example of earmarks gone bad. (You can read about the space program here on McCain’s campaign site.)

more...

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.”

more...

In the current issue of Demography, researchers report that U.S. child poverty rates declined in the 1990s by a bit more than 7 percent (“Child Poverty and Changes in Child Poverty“). Similar improvements occurred in the United Kingdom.

But here’s the bad news: While the UK’s decline was thanks to government programs, the US’s decline was due to economic expansion. In other words, the US economy did well in the 1990s, so child poverty declined. In fact, when researchers looked more closely, they found that US government support for children in poverty had actually declined. Without economic growth, there would have been more, not less, child poverty.

So where does that leave us today? Jobs are disappearing and the economy is worsening by the minute. In the absence of government programs, children will do worse in this downturn, too. Will we see some of that “equity injection” for children’s well being?

For the impact of the economic downturn on families, take a look at Stephanie Coontz and Valerie Adrian’s briefing report to the Council on Contemporary Families, “Family Stress=Economic Woes.” Warning: it’s depressing.

Virginia Rutter

What do women want from the candidates? GWPers ain’t holding back. Here’s what some of you are saying:

# Katka Says:
October 14th, 2008 at 1:06 pm e

I *definitely* spend more on daycare than food. I not only want affordable daycare, I want great daycare, with informed and well-compensated teachers, where kids are loved and taught respect of others and themselves, along with chances to explore art, music, and other languages. NOT TOO MUCH TO ASK!

# Virginia Says:
October 14th, 2008 at 4:12 pm e

This will be a great panel. Here’s what I’ve got on it: Where 3rd-wave, girlwithpenner style feminism leads us is down a path towards all kinds of equality, all kinds of social and economic justice. I want us not to destroy the planet; I want us not to do violence abroad; I want us to reduce economic inequality. These are women’s, men’s issues, family issues, too! I’m a little utopian at the moment, but if I’m leveraging identity (as a feminist) that’s what I’m thinking about when I think about our new Obama administration! (Here it comes! Here it comes!)

Keep it comin. Tell us what YOU want!

I’ve finally figured out how to post images on WordPress from my Mac (thank you Kristen!) – whohoo! So here’s the one I’ve been wanting to post, here 🙂