Hillary, it's time.

For some reason I've withheld from posting anything overtly political, as in commenting on the current election cycle. It's time for the gloves to come off.

Hillary, girl, step aside. It's important. It's necessary. It's time. You're doing more harm for our cause now than good. And by our cause I mean all the other hegemommies out there. We champion your ball-busting demeanor. We LOVE that you don't bake cookies. We adore that you are the brains behind Bill's bravado. Most of all, we just love that men hate you simply because they fear you. They cannot demean you by sexualizing you and they cannot outsmart you. So instead they hate you and, by all appearances, you don't give a rat's ass. For that we love you because we see ourselves in you.

But speaking for myself now, I cannot support race-baiting any more than I can support gender-baiting, and your campaign, and your supporters, are race-baiters. The voters you woo in typically New-Democrat fashion are not Democrats. Many call themselves Reagan Democrats, or conservative Democrats. I call them Republicans. These are the same voters who for the past eight years actually believed that the Republican party gave a shit about them. They honestly thought the corporate robber-barons financing the Bush & Co., campaign would protect their jobs, provide them affordable health care, and, most importantly, save the institution of marriage from all those nefarious twinks. Oh, and the jihadists. We need protection from them also so your supporters vote for the party that will protect their jobs from the Mexicans, their cultural institutions from the gays, and their freedom from the Muslims. Those are your voters.

Do you really think if given the choice between a woman and McCain these voters will vote for you any more than they would vote for Obama? C'mon. You're a smart woman and you know better. These voters all go Republican in November, because they always go Republican.

I know you know better because I've watched you position yourself for this run since your first Senate victory. You vote Republican party-line at almost every opportunity. You want to bomb Iran as soon as you can. Your health care plan leaves all real power in the hands of the insurance industry. Your husband's administration (and the basis of your "experience" claim) shut out the working class with NAFTA and kicked the gays with Don't Ask Don't Tell. You pander to Hispanic-conservative racism, suburban fear-mongering and, at every opportunity, divide the true Democratic base to shore up personal support. You make millions of dollars a year, live the majority of your adult life in stately government mansions yet campaign as a commoner. Jeez, that sounds familiar. You learned a lot from the Bush II campaign, and its showing.

The thing is, I don't hate you, and I don't even hate on your political decisions because I am sure they are creatures of necessity. I understand that for a woman to get to your position of power that you had to make some compromises. I get it. I've made my own. I also get that just because I'm an egg-headed liberal that the nominee doesn't have to represent my "far out there" views. I can handle a candidate that plays to the center. So long as that is the center of the left, and you Hillary, you have been playing to the center of the right.

There's nothing I want as badly as a woman president. Well, maybe a few things, but for the good of the cause, we need a woman in office. Apparently this is a radical concept in the US, although not so much so for our democratic counterparts in the rest of the world as the UK, Germany, and a host of other industrialized nations have done just fine with it. But I also think as white women here in the states we have a larger ghost to exorcise.

History has used our white femininity as a means of whipping up racial frenzy and fear. Those early race-baiters preached that our country's fragile white women needed protection from the exotic sexual appetite of all things black. Miscegenation laws and Jim Crowe owe their very existence to the cultural urge to protect our women (and by default of female biology, our future) from the heart of darkness. Hillary, you are now, perhaps unwittingly, writing a new chapter in this country's abysmal history of race-baiting. It's got to stop.

I know the impetus of this blog is a vent for all the shit I take as a woman in a man's world. But I have not for a second lost sight of the fact that even in my diminished status in the professional world I remain absurdly privileged compared to my black female peers. Hillary, I think you could use some of that perspective.

And seriously, is your campaign, and the reporting of your campaign, not just a perfect illumination of the male gaze, the normative lens through which all cultural assumptions are formed? That gaze that has always pitted minority against minority, playing on women's perceived frailty as a cultural value endangered of being darkened. Do you really want to be such a pawn?

So please, Hillary, it's time. Let's let the Democrats, rather than the Republicans, choose our nominee. Your career has not arced yet, but if you insist on pressing forward in the manner in which you have since Iowa, then your defeat against McCain in November will do nothing but solidify the two dangerous cultural prejudices: that black men are still to be feared, and that women are too weak to ultimately govern. I know that is not the legacy you imagined as you set out on your campaign, yet it is the legacy you are helping to write. You've never settled for being simply another stereotype before, please don't do so now.

Compassion v. Competition in Gym Class

I'm a competitive person. I'm in a competitive profession and I've played competitive sports for the majority of my life. I've always seen competition as a healthy means to achieving some self confidence and, quite frankly, as a fundamental aspect of my personality. I have never been comfortable with the idea that boys are somehow inherently more competitive than girls, but a recent event did give me some reason to pause here.

I signed my three year old up for a sports clinic in an effort to drain him of some of energy during the week. The brochure told me the kids would be introduced to a new sport each week, and as a bona fide sports-lover I was sold. First they'd play soccer, then they'd play floor hockey, before moving on to basketball, flag football, and tumbling. The reality is it's just a glorified gym class with some poor young physical trainer-in-training at the helm, trying to organize ten kids ages three through six into some semblance of group cooperation. Whatever it is, it gives mommy one hour a night where my little dude can blow off some steam and all I have to do is watch.

The class is comprised of nine little boys and one girl, and the girl in this class is easily one of the most athletic kids there. That fact alone made me love her. Anyways, last week the kids were playing a version of duck, duck goose, but since it was soccer night they were playing soccer player, soccer player, goalie. I'll admit I was twitching a little bit at this game, and it was all I could do not to run on to the court and explain that goalies are soccer players, but I let it go.

It's pretty apparent at this clinic which kids are the older, more athletic of the bunch, and which ones, well, are not. And I'll come right out and say that in this group my kid is one of the little dudes.

During this simple little gym class for pre-schoolers, one of life's universal truths unfolded. The big kids kept choosing the other big kids to chase (including our only girl), while this whole group of little dudes, mine included, just sat eagerly waiting for one of those cool big dudes to pick them. The trainer-in-training picked up on this right away and she made a couple comments to the group about how they needed to make sure everyone got a turn. These comments went ignored by the all of the big kids except the girl. As soon as she was picked she ran around and tapped the chubbiest, most awkward kid in the group and shouted "GOALIE!"

Well, he gave chase and, like all nerdy kids before they are broken, chose one of the big kids as goalie because even at the young age of three the camps are drawn between those who are athletes and those who are not, and those who pine to be included in that group and those who will probably reject them. Not to be deterred, the teacher again told the kids to make sure everyone had a turn and again, as soon as the girl was chosen she picked another little dude to make sure everyone got to participate.

I'll admit that I was troubled by her choice, and equally troubled by my reaction. I love this little girl because she consistently out-maneuvers the boys and is quite simply one of the best athletes of the bunch. To the extent these little kids are "competing" she is doing so without the benefit of adjusted times, lowered expectations, all of those gender markers that plagued my gym classes, competitive sports, professional life, and the world of professional athletics for women. So when she was the only kid consistently trying to include everyone in their game of chase, and when the moms all looked at each other, grinned and said "of course its the girl who picks him" I thought that maybe we were teaching her and the other kids a bad lesson. Don't misunderstand, I am all for inclusion, especially at such a young age and when the whole purpose of an activity is just to have fun. But didn't we send a signal to the other boys that this was not their issue- that they could just go on in their "eat what you kill" world because inevitably, and obviously, the girl who could hang with them would take the responsibility of making sure societal expectations (in this case, the teacher's request that everyone get to play) were met? And what about all of us that were not surprised in the least bit that it was the girl who made cooperation possible? Isn't she just playing right into that expectation, even if it wasn't specifically articulated?

I also found myself concerned that I was irritated at her choice to try and please her teacher because, for some reason, it seemed to knock her down a peg in the group. By showing her empathy and compassion, she was relegating a bit of her competition. She slowed down her run to let the chubby kid catch her and didn't chose a kid because it would be fun, but because she was meeting an expectation. Why couldn't we just let her compete like all the other boys?

Of course, this is just little kids gym class, so there is part of me that needs to step back and get a grip. But I see this same dynamic play out everyday in my work. I'm chosen to deal with certain clients because I can empathize with them, a skill I'm proud of but not one that has earned me a lot of respect among the dudes writing my checks. Or, I'm placed on a case where it is important to create an certain image, like, see, my client can't be a sexually harassing asshole because he hired a woman to defend him. And the women I see who are truly successful in a litigation practice have turned those empathetic skills off completely- they have emasculated themselves in some sort of gender suicide because of this crazy notion that competition is inherently male.

So where does that leave us? At what point do we tell the dudes that it is their responsibility to meet those expectations that everyone get included because the girls aren't going to do it for them anymore? And can the girls do that without getting lost in that Lord of the Flies ethos that dominates pop culture constructions of masculinity? Trust me, this is not the last post here on the topic.

It's a Man's Game. Except When it Isn't.

When I made the decision to go to law school, and later when I made the decision to enter private practice as a litigator, I understood that I was stepping into some interesting territory as a woman. Sure, plenty of women go to law school, and plenty of women maintain very successful private practices. Heck, my graduating class was 51% female. But despite those facts and statistics, I also knew that the law was truly one of the last bastions of the old boys. Especially business litigation. I knew that many cases settled and deals struck either on the golf course or the steak house. I knew that my male collegues had wives who took care of the home and secretaries who took care of the office. I knew that some of my "partners" would never actually view me as such, simply because of my gender. I knew all that.

Despite that relatively clear-eyed view of my profession, I was dumbfounded when my gender became a central component in a case strategy. Let me explain. I'm working on a case where my main adversary is a notorious woman-hater. He just can't help himself. He's absoultely one of those guys who will always see smart women as a threat. If you de-feminize yourself enough he may accept you because this validates his idea that litigation is a man's game. If, however, you still embrace your feminity despite the fact that you work in a professional frat house (and I do) then he'll constantly demean you, harrass you, and for example, address questions and insults only to your breasts. For real. This fact is especially depressing because this guy is in his fifties. I mean, I expect it from the old farts who still rely on their secretaries to bring them coffee in the morning and turn on their computers, but not from someone even younger than my own father. Anyways, my client was about to have his deposition taken, and my partner on the case decided that it should be my job to defend that deposition. Normally that kind of task would both thrill and terrify me. I would be thrilled at the chance to go head-to-head with a more experienced litigator and show my stuff, and terrified at the possibility of getting beat pretty badly.

Not so here. No, I told that I was chosen for this task not because I'm a great lawyer, or because I could handle this legendary jerk of an opposing counsel (all of which are true, of course). Nope, I was chosen because I'm the woman on the file. And that fact alone. I was chosen because opposing counsel would be so distracted at the fact that a woman was sitting across the table from him objecting to his questions and defending the hell out of her client that he'd be off his game. He would be so distracted by my very presence as a woman that he'd forget to ask questions and instead of attacking my client (which is what he should be doing during this proceeding), he'd be attacking me. That's right. I was sent in as a diversion and a distraction. And got paid to do it.

Wow. What a complicated place to be in. Had my partner simply told me that I got the assignment because I'm good and could do the job, I'm sure I would have come to my own conclusions about any effect my gender had on the proceedings. To his credit (and his fault), he was completely candid about why I was sent on the front line. It was never because I'm a good lawyer and was always because I'm a woman who happens to be a good lawyer. My partner did say that if I sucked as a lawyer I most likely wouldn't have gotten the assignment because we could not be sure we'd keep the tactical edge. Hmmm.... backhanded compliment anyone?

The sad truth is it worked. And boy was I pissed. I was pissed at opposing counsel, pissed at my partner, and pissed at myself. Being pissed at opposing counsel is easy, and almost not even worth the effort or all that fun. He did spend hours on end baiting me, insulting me, and letting me know how to do my job. He behaved exactly as planned. But for my partner to use me as strategy, to subject me to that kind of degradation and attack for some intangible strategic edge?! The only reason he would do that is if he was pretty confident it would work, and to have that kind of confidence he must know just exactly what kind of ass our opposing counsel is (who, by the way, is an old friend of his-- they go waaaay back). And to let it happen, well that's all on me.

I suppose I could have refused. I could have turned on my heel and stomped off in an indignant huff. I could have let him know that manipulating institutional misogyny for the benefit of our client might be effective advocacy, but it is shitty personnel policy. Because it is. But at the end of the day I capitulated, knowing that my gender, at least in this case and at this moment, was another tool in my toolbox and I had been enlisted to use it.

If there's an upside to this story I suppose it is that the strategy worked and that in some twisted manner I was an agent of that strategy rather than a victim of it. I was attacked for over eight hours that day when it should have been my client, and our case is stronger for it. And I suppose my partner's strategy in coming clean with me about how and why I got the assignment made me more prepared for the assault than had he kept his true rationale hidden. Who knows, but I can't help but wonder if women in other professions find their "status" as a woman something that is manipulated either as asset or a liability depending on the task at hand. I can honestly say that this was the first time in my professional life (that I'm aware of, anyways) where I was given an assignment specifically because of my gender. Now that's some messed up affirmative action.