This here was just too good not to share. My best friend from childhood’s sister’s husband, Mike Jenkins, is a political cartoonist. This was his pumpkin this year.

Perhaps someone forwarded you this wacky protest song in support of McCain-Palin by Hank Williams, Jr., that’s going around. Here’s a favorite line from this Palin anthem:

“If you mess with her cubs, she’s gonna take off the gloves. It’s an American female tradition.”

My friend who forwarded me the lyrics quipped: “For me, this really hit the sweet spot of country music and radical feminist politics.” As another friend said, “Hey! It’s McFeminism!”

McFeminism, Red State feminism, call it what you will, but that sweet spot is exactly the point where gender politics and social class politics intersect.

Gender politics for working-class families often play out differently than do gender politics for middle-class families. Stephanie Coontz’s recent column goes into excellent detail, illustrating that, “how women address gender-based reproductive, sexual, and family interests varies by their class position and their personal options outside the family.”

So, for example, working-class folks, historically, are somewhat more likely to endorse traditional gender roles. In working-class families, according to this example, there’s a more traditional division of household labor. And as researchers show, working-class versus middle-class families even do sex differently. (Check out Coontz’s article “The Romantic Life of Brainiacs” for an analysis of sex and social class; page through to stuff on oral sex just for fun.)  Remember, of course, these are only statistical tendencies, not rigid patterns. They give us clues about how to sort out different feminisms.

So Sarah Palin has the promise to appeal to those who admire traditional feminine resourcefulness. In the traditional gender roles universe, the strong mama who does what it takes to defend her cubs (like a pitbull with lipstick) is a feminist heroine.

That’s powerful: I think of my mother who kept a gorgeously clean and attractive house, worked full time (sometimes at more than one job), finished college and went to graduate school, took care of four kids, tolerated an underemployed spouse, and seated the whole crew for breakfast and dinner every single day. This is an American Hero that we all can revere—maybe not as much as a prisoner of war, but certainly as much as Mom and apple pie. SP has qualities that remind us of our old fashioned, wage-earning, home-making, second-shift working moms—the very moms who gave many of us younger feminists greater courage to break the mold.

Luckily (for intergenerational harmony) my own Annie-get-your-gun kind of mom sees Sarah Palin as someone who, in the end, simply isn’t qualified for the job. In truth, my mom really thinks SP is pretty selfish, willing to do or say anything to get what she wants for herself—not that different from her running mate.

That might just be my mom. But it sure does make me think….

I can recognize and honor diversity among feminisms, but that doesn’t mean I–or my mom–can’t judge quality.

–Virginia Rutter

Photo from People magazine

I am all nail-bitey today as we enter the final stretch. As my co-penner extraordinaire Kristen said to me this morning, we have the audacity to hope.

To get your mind off–or ok, on–everything, here are a few links that came our way via the WMC. Enjoy, and Happy Hallowe’en!

Rachel Maddow has something to say about Sarah Palin

Lynn Sherr writes on why she thinks non-voters should have their toenails removed (ouch!)

Prize-winning historian Mary Hershberger asks why the media won’t examine the McCain war record

Nida Khan brings up the other campaign, the one with two women candidates: Cynthia McKinney and Rosa Clemente of the Green Party.

Robin Morgan tackles “faux feminists.”

Lorelei Kelly tells us why women must take charge

Ellen Bravo, who advocates for paid sick leave, sympathizes with Barack Obama’s break from the trail to see his ailing grandmother

Joanne Cronrath Bamberger writes about one congresswoman who went a few steps too far.

Peg Simpson focuses on possible wins for women in Congress.

Rebekah Traistor writes on the effects of the election on Katie Couric, Campbell Brown and Rachel Maddow: “Ladies of the Nightly News”.

And the current issue of Ms. Magazine has GWP blogger Veronica Arreloa’s review of the anthology edited by amazing duo Jaclyn Friedman and Jessica Valenti, Yes Means Yes: Visions of Female Sexual Power and A World Without Rape and also a piece by Latoya Peterson, who edits Racialicious.com.

My inspiring powerhouse of a friend, feminist philanthropist Jacki Zehner, has a post up today over at Huffington Post that I encourage you to help me make go viral. Here’s the gist:

On Wednesday Goldman Sachs & Co. announced their new class of Partners and yesterday they announced their new Managing Directors. Twelve years ago Jacki was one of those fortunate people who got the call inviting her into the partnership of the firm. The year she made it, she was one of TWO women out of a total of THIRTY-EIGHT, bringing the grand total at that point in time up to TWELVE.  One by one, for reasons Jacki writes about from time to time on her blog, those women left.  Of the fourteen pre-IPO women partners of the firm only THREE remain.  So many of those who have left have gone on to do KICK-ASS AMAZING THINGS.  They are leaders, movers, shakers, philanthropists, and innovative social entrepreneurs.

So that makes Jacki, and these other women, Goldman Sachs alumni–and they are proud of it, as should they be. The question Jacki now asks, though, in light of a cover story in Bloomberg Markets magazine this week that features FORTY-THREE Goldman alums–FORTY-ONE of whom are WHITE MEN–is this:

Is Goldman Sachs proud of them?

Inside Higher Ed reports that women’s sports teams on college campuses are losing ground. A biennial gender equity report released yesterday (“without fanfare”) by the National Collegiate Athletic Association finds that colleges that play Division I sports directed a smaller proportion of athletics spending to women’s teams in 2005-6 than they did in 2003-4.  And we thought Title IX was, um, safe?

Here are the stats:

• In the 2003-4 academic year, when the NCAA last surveyed its members, Division I sports programs spent an average of $7,285,500 on men’s sports and $4,194,800 on women’s sports, for a 16 percentage point differential (63 to 37 percent).
• In 2005-6, the year examined in the survey released Thursday, that split had widened to 22 percentage points, 66 percent to 34 percent ($8,653,600 for men’s sports vs. $4,447,900 for women’s teams).

Football and men’s basketball are responsible for most of the diverging fortunes of men’s and women’s sports programs. The average Division I college spent $7,095,000 of the $8,653,600 it laid out on men’s teams on those two sports.

Donna A. Lopiano, former head of the Women’s Sports Foundation and now president of the consulting firm Sports Management Resources, attributes the decline in support for women’s sports to the slowdown in the growth of participation of female athletes in high school and college and–guess what–a tightening economy.

Says Lopiano, “Add in the continued arms race in men’s football and basketball, in particular the academic support building arms race and assistant coach salaries,” and it’s inevitable that athletics departments will have trouble finding enough money to go around.

Lopiano also added that the Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights has largely stopped enforcing Title IX, the federal statute prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sex in federally funded schools.

For more on what’s currently going on around Title IX, do check out this blog we recently added to the blogroll, called Title IX Blog, which is also where I found the eerie yet entirely a propos image accompanying this post.

The other day I wrote a post saying that Sarah Palin could call herself a feminist if she wanted to (more on that next week), but that she did not practice a viable feminism. I’ve previously written about how Palin’s policies are distinctly anti-women.

Women have the right to sexual freedom and privacy as well as the right to economic and social independence and advancement; a lack of reproductive rights represents a disconnect preventing women from fully taking advantage of either. A woman cannot be both sexually active and fulfill her economic/social plans without the assurance of birth control and the choice to abort if needed. In Slate, Linda Hirshman cited statistics on female teenagers’ economic prospects if they give birth at an early age:

The fact sheets from the well-respected National Campaign To Prevent Teen Pregnancy describe a bleak prospect: Even controlling for social and economic backgrounds, only 40 percent of teenage girls who bear children before age 18 go on to graduate from high school, compared with the 75 percent of teens who do not give birth until ages 20 or 21. Less than 2 percent of mothers who have children before age 18 will earn a college degree by age 30, compared with 9 percent of young women who wait until age 20 or 21 to have children.

But wait, there’s more: “Overall, teenage mothers—and their children—are also far more likely to live in poverty than females who don’t give birth until after age 20.”

I think it’s obvious that women must have access to reproductive choice. And because lack of information can have such an egregious and detrimental impact on a young woman’s future social standing, we must be prepared to speak openly and honestly about sexuality and the effect of unexpected or too-early pregnancy on women’s economic future in our society.

Yet, when it comes down to reproductive justice, the McCain camp is unwilling to address the reality of women’s multiple circumstances in today’s America. Palin doesn’t believe in abortion unless a woman’s life is at risk. McCain has created some fantasy world where thousands of women making up “illnesses” and “health risks” to fetch themselves abortions, using “air quotes” to describe women’s “health” concerns. Though Palin and McCain may claim that they are concerned about women’s issues, they have no idea about the needs of the majority women in America. It’s a dark realization, an especially dark one with November 4th looming.

But to add some levity, take a look at the ever-awesome Samanta Bee’s take on John McCain on women’s “health”:

(Wait for it, wait for it… It’s in there)

Back in 2002, David Brooks reported that during the 2000 presidential election, “a Time magazine-CNN poll asked voters whether they were in the top 1 percent of income earners. Nineteen percent reported that they were, and another 20 percent said that they expected to be there one day.” Forty percent of people were all thinking that they were in that tiny, tiny space reserved for one percent of the population. When I talk about this with my introduction to sociology students, they get it. They can do the math.

But this bit of bad math is part of being American. It is essentially American to identify up the social ladder (over at the NYT, Jennifer Steinhauer has explained this wonderfully). We’ve had the lending policy and credit cards encourage us to do so. Just like we buy Gucci bags or cars we can’t afford, we have, for the past 25 years, voted for leaders that don’t line up with what we need or can afford.

Joe the Plumber is like the disoriented 39 percent from back in 2000. JTP identifies with the economic interests above his pay grade. Even though he doesn’t make 250K and doesn’t have prospects of doing so any time soon, he’s kind of “saving for a rainy day” by voting for the candidate who will have good tax policy for the life he wishes he had, instead of voting for the candidate who has tax policies that can help him now and can help him reach his goal.

JTP requires another twist of logic, much like the bad math of the 40% above: JTP doesn’t imagine that he could afford the extra taxes (perhaps $900 more under Obama than McCain) if he is making 250K per year (Dean Baker explains the numbers and the NYT offers a handy illustration). Still, he feels like he can forego the $$ from an an Obama tax cut that he will get now at his current income level. Not as good as a Gucci bag, but the same idea.

I know it is tasteless these days to mention socialism or anything like that. Obama used humor to remind us that sharing your peanut butter and jelly sandwich isn’t the same thing as socialism. Even so, this has been a great week for my social theory students to study Marxism. They are learning about how consciousness of your real position in the economy really can help you decide how to make your life better. And they think that Joe the Plumber’s class consciousness is out of order. Maybe he needs to call “Karl the Marxist” as Hendrik Hertzberg suggests in the New Yorker this week. (Thanks Ira.)

PS: What does this have to do with feminism? Economic justice and sound financial reasoning are feminist issues full stop. But over at the Joint Economic Committee, where GWP favorite Heather Boushey works, they have just put out a report about how bad things are in our economy–especially for the household sector, where women are especially hard hit.

–Virginia Rutter

Whatever else you think of her, Sarah Palin has been drumming up kudos in the world of communications experts for a certain, well, prowess.   And today I listened in as my fellow Woodhull Fellow Jillian Straus–a former Oprah producer now media consultant who advises corporations, individuals, and nonprofits–spoke to a group of “leaders who lunch” at another one of my fave organizations, Catalyst, about what we can all learn from Palin’s often infuriating yet ultimately effective-for-tv communication style.  Thought I’d share the, um, lessons learned:

1. Style over substance – the visceral feeling you get from watching someone on tv is WAY more important than what you say (so think hard before going on tv about how you look, sound, and how you’re going to convey your passion for your topic)

2. Stick to your msg – “I’m a Washington outsider, an average American, and just a regular mom.”  When asked about pretty much anything, Palin marginally responded, then quickly bridged to what she REALLY wanted to talk about, then sparkled (otherwise known as the classic “hit, bridge, sparkle!”)

3. Use stories and anecdotes – they humanize you, they personalize you, and they’re much more memorable that anything else you will say.  Few who’ve watched her on tv know what Palin actually did as Governor, but everyone knows that Palin is a hockey mom.  Think also of the images from last night’s Obamamercial: most memorable were the snapshots — Obama laughing with his kids, photos of his mom, etc.

4. Fake it til you make it – smile when you are talking.  It conveys “confident” even when you’re not.

Other takeaways from the whole Sarah Palin phenomenon?  Bring em on!

Well, it’s been a long election season, and in just 5 days it will be time to come together to figure out what it all means and what’s next. GWP is PSYCHED to be participating in next Wednesday’s Feminist Town Forum, organized by our friends at The Center for New Words. Here’s the dish:

At this culmination of the This Is What Women Want election project, please join those of us here at GWP, a panel of national leaders, and the feminist community nationwide to discuss what happened on Election Day, and what we should be thinking about and doing now to fight for equality and justice for all.

This is a first of its kind event convening feminists from around the country live via the blogosphere! Pretty cool, no? You’ll be able to watch live, converse with other audience members around the country, and submit your comments and questions in real time.

Please feel free to start telling us what issues and ideas YOU’D like to hear the panel address.  The organizers will get these comments to the panelists in advance, so this is your way to help influence the conversation.

(Facebook users: Click here to RSVP and invite your friends!)

Yup, it’s in the works! We’ve been scanning the universe of feminist calendars and have yet to find one that lists public talks, panels, and readings on feminist topics in selected cities. So, at the wise suggestion of one of our editors, we thought we’d start one of our own!

GWP’s Feminism in Public (Public Feminism?) calendar will eventually be available here. In the meantime, if you know of other useful calendars that we should link to on our Public Events page, please share them in comments. We welcome your suggestions.

And by the way, while I was tempted to post this picture to signify “feminist calendar”

you’ll see that I didn’t. Except — whoops — I kind of just did.