If you haven’t already, do check out this, um, response? to Obama’s “Yes I Can” video. It rocks.
(Thanks to Paul Raeburn for the heads up!)
Harvard-educated attorney and vice president at the University of Chicago Michelle Obama is appearing on Larry King Live tonight – ! CNN’s Soledad O’Brien recently sat down for a one-to-one with Michelle too.
There is just TOO much must-see election tv on these days for a girl to get any writing done around here. Ah well. At least I can blame it on good ole civic distraction.
Some quick stats on “the youth vote” on Super Tuesday, culled from various sources:
More than 3 million voters under the age of 30 flooding the polls on Super Tuesday, turning out in record numbers in more than 20 states.
Exit polls showed that in almost every state, youth voter turnout increased significantly from 2000 and 2004.
In Tennessee the number of people between the ages of 18-to-29 who voted more than quadrupled.
In Georgia, young voters tripled their turnout this year.
In California, more than 850,000 voters under 30 cast ballots.
Obama won the youth vote in 19 of the 22 states that voted on Super Tuesday.
Nationwide, Obama netted 59 percent of voters under 30 years old, while Clinton was supported by 38 percent.
Young men supported Obama by a margin of 64 to 33 percent over Clinton.
Young women supported Obama by 53 to 45 percent.
It’s this last stat I’m most interested in. But believe me, not in the young-women-who-don’t-vote-Hillary-are-traitors kind of way.
(Image cred – Rock the Vote)
In a race where two candidates share much on the policy front, we continue to be much more focused on personality and who’s reaching who than issues. To that end, I’ve heard lots of odd yet funny comparisons going around and it all makes me think of Cookie Monster’s song, from Sesame Street (video above, in case you’ve forgotten, or are up for a blast from the past this dreary Monday morning).
Now, I know we humans like to think in dichotomies, and I get that we’re seeking novel ways to compare two similar opponents. But still, I wonder a great deal about the larger purpose these descriptive divisions ultimately serve. Not that I have a clear answer yet, but just something I think about these days. Chris Lehane, a former aide to Al Gore, spoke to the apparent class divide in support by noting that Hillary’s got the “Dunkin Donuts” Democrats and Obama’s got the “Starbucks” Democrats. And I’m sure you’ve also heard the one by now about how Obama’s a Mac, and Hillary’s a PC. Have you heard others? Would love to hear them in comments! As well as your thoughts about the ultimate consequences of labeling our candidates in these ways.
I’m crushing on Nicholas Kristof this morning. Just read his NYTimes oped, “When Women Lead,” in which he notes that “modern democracies may empower deep prejudices and thus constrain female leaders in ways that ancient monarchies did not.” He cites all sorts of great research and shares his “pet” theory about why a queen might have had an easier time that a democratically-elected woman president:
In monarchies, women who rose to the top dealt mostly with a narrow elite, so they could prove themselves and get on with governing. But in democracies in the television age, female leaders also have to navigate public prejudices — and these make democratic politics far more challenging for a woman than for a man….Women have often quipped that they have to be twice as good as men to get anywhere — but that, fortunately, is not difficult. In fact, it appears that it may be difficult after all. Modern democracies may empower deep prejudices and thus constrain female leaders in ways that ancient monarchies did not.
A sidenote: Last week women leaders released statements praising the “historic, inspirational candidacy” of Hillary Clinton.
But back at the NYTimes, let me also point you to Peggy Orenstein on The Daring Book for Girls in “Girls Will Be Girls” and my friend Annie Murphy Paul on “The First Ache,” in case you haven’t yet read…And happy weekend!
Folks have been asking where I’ll be speaking next, so I thought I’d post some places and dates for coming months. Thanks so much for spreading word to any friends in these places. And if you live there, I hope you’ll come out and say hi!
Feb 12 – Catalyst, NYC (Sisterhood, Interrupted)
March 1 – Alice Paul Institute, New Jersey (Sisterhood, Interrupted)
March 11 – University of Missouri, Kansas City (Sisterhood, Interrupted)
March 17-18 – Central Michigan University (Intergenerational Feminist Panel)
March 26 – Lafayette College, PA (Sisterhood, Interrupted)
March 28-29 – WAM! Conference 2008, MIT (Writing a Book Proposal That Sells)
April 18 – Harvard University (Intergenerational Feminist Panel)
April 25-26 – Council on Contemporary Families Conference, University of IL, Chicago (What You Should Know about Blogging and Why)
To book me, please contact Taryn Kutujian at taryn.kutujian@gmail.com or Speaking Matters at info@speakingmatters.org.
Betty Friedan’s classic started with a survey of her college classmates some years after graduation. Fortysome years later, a book about The Feminine Mystique is starting out with a survey too. This just in from esteemed marriage scholar and friend Stephanie Coontz. Please pass it on — the survey is for younger women who came across the book in Women’s Studies courses as well as for those who read it when it first came out!
Writes Stephanie:
Thank you for agreeing to help in my study of the influence of Betty Friedan’s 1963 book “The Feminine Mystique.” I am trying to get a feel for how people in different time periods and situations reacted to this book, or merely to the general idea of a “feminine mystique,” whether or not they actually read the book. I have listed some questions below, but feel free to tell me anything you feel would be useful, and in as much detail as you choose.
If you heard the concept of “The Feminine Mystique” before — or without — reading the book, how and when did you hear of it? What did it mean to you? How did you react to the idea that there was a “feminine mystique”? Did a relative, spouse or friend read the book, and if so, what was their reaction? Did their reaction affect you in any way?
For people who read the book, can you tell me the year when you read it? Your age at the time? Were you married? Any children? Did you work for pay at the time? If so, at what? How did you come to read it?
Do you remember your overall reaction to the book? Did anything speak powerfully to you? Did anything anger you? What is your most vivid memory of reading it? Did it influence your life or relationships in any way?
Have you ever re-read the book? If so, why? Did your reaction change?
What is your ethnic or racial and socioeconomic background? Your current age and occupation? May I identify you by name if I quote from your response? Unless you explicitly give me permission to use your name in my book, I will not do so, nor will I offer details that might identify you.
I deeply appreciate any help you might give to this project. If there are questions I should have asked but neglected, please let me know that too. And if you have suggestions for other people I might contact, please let me know. You can e-mail your responses to coontzs@gmail.com
Most excellent rant this morning about unreconstructed dudes from Judith Warner, called “Like a Fish Needs a Donut.” Read it and weep. I’m just as ready as the next girl to spew donuts about it all, along with Judith. But I also wanted to share an article I wrote a few years ago for Psychology Today with lots of research-based evidence finding that highly-educated, high-achieving guys do seek high-achieving women as mates these days. The article was titled “The New Trophy Wife.” (Please note: It was not I who gave the article its title.)
If in North Carolina, please do come out to hear anthology editor Shira Tarrant talk about her new book, Men Speak Out: Views on Gender, Sex, and Power. I’m in the middle of the collection right now and I swear, it’s great.
Event: Men Speak Out
“Author Reading and Town Hall Meeting on Men, Masculinity and Feminism”
What: Informational Meeting
Host: Women’s and Gender Studies
When: Tuesday, February 26 at 4:00pm
Where: Elliot University Center, Alexander Room, UNCG
RSVP here.
More events posted here. I can’t wait til Shira and the guys come to NYC!
On Thursday Feb. 21 (3-5pm), the National Council for Research on Women is putting on a fantastic panel that I’m very sad I’ll be out of town for, “Translating Women’s Agendas to the National Agenda in 2008.” If you are in the NYC area, can attend, and are interested in guest blogging about it here on GWP, please email me!
Hosted by Merrill Lynch, the event is co-sponsored by Barnard Center for Research on Women; Center for Research on Women and Society, CUNY; Demos; Legal Momentum; Shirley Chisholm Center, Brooklyn College;WEDO; The White House Project, and the Women’s Media Center.
Speakers:
Linda Basch,National Council for Research on Women
Subha Barry, Merrill Lynch
Carol Jenkins, Women’s Media Center (moderator)
Johnnetta B. Cole, Bennett College, Spelman College
Ruth Mandel, Eagleton Institute of Politics at Rutgers University
Monique Mehta, Third Wave Foundation
Location: 222 Broadway, 23rd Floor, New York City
To RSVP, please call 212-785-7335 x100 or email jdudley@ncrw.org.
This program will precede the Council’s Making a Difference for Women Awards Dinner at Cipriani Wall Street on February 21, 2008. For more information, please contact the National Council for Research on Women Benefit Office, c/o CMI Events 212.763.8591, ncrw@cmevents.net, or visit the website.
