Please Make Palin a Contender in 2012. Feminism Could Depend On It.

I know.  I can't believe I just wrote that either.  The current Palin candidacy has me very worried, and not for the reasons you may think.  I'm worried that no matter how the election cuts her status as the beauty queen of the religious right political movement just Barbi-fied the very real gains in politics made by all sorts of women, including Palin.  Gains made thanks to feminism.  

Palin calls herself a feminist, and for some reason, I believe that she really does identify as one. I understand that the difference in Hegemommy's feminism and Palin feminism stems from a difference in, oh, everything, but I absolutely respect the fact that she's scrapped her way up the food chain from broadcast reporter to vice-presidential candidate.  She's one of a handful of female governors, she's clearly comfortable on the national political stage, and fierce at riling the darkest corners of America's heart.  All notable feats to be sure. 

Yes, Sarah Palin is a pretty darn good politician, but the big questions around her candidacy- Is she qualified?  Can she do the job?  What did she just say???- those pose the biggest problem for any gains women have made from the likes of Libby Dole, Kay Bailey Hutchinson, Hillary Clinton, Olympia Snow.  

This is how it cuts.  If McCain wins the election and Palin becomes Vice President, that is in itself a victory for feminism.  Less than one hundred years after being granted from the male political establishment the right to vote and an ability to have the voice of a citizen, a woman would hold the second highest political position in the nation.  That's a big deal and there will be a lot of talk of  history making.  Put ideology aside and ignore political platforms, do we want Palin as the Exhibit A to the gains made by feminism on the political landscape?   Should she be our history maker?

It's absurd to think that a Palin Vice Presidency would be the culmination of a race to the top by the brightest, most capable female politicians of the right.  She just is not in the leagues of Dole, Hutchinson, Snow, Whitman, O'Connor, Noonan.  On Sarah Palin, even Peggy Noonan and I agree.  My god that hurts to type, and this is gonna hurt even more - -bravo for having the tits to call out the shallowness of the Palin candidacy, Noonan.  

I think more condemning than Noonan's remarks (she is a paid commentator, so, well, she makes money saying stuff) is the stark silence from the leadership, or even the rank-and-file, of the feminist right coming out in praise of Palin.  Her candidacy is an exercise in vulgarity and they know it.  How insulting it must be to all those qualified women to be overlooked and instead have the cheerleader of the far-right male political establishment on the ticket.  

If Sarah Palin is sworn in as Vice-President that is a victory for style not substance.  Women will remain relegated to the image of supporter rather than equal.  Young girls will be given the image of the beauty queen who grinned her way to political prominence.  A leader that was so darn cute it didn't matter if she wasn't that smart.  We didn't expect her to be.  In fact, sometimes being too smart is a liability, so when in doubt, avoid it.  Try to be pretty instead.  It will get you further.  If only that was simply my tinfoil hat paranoia talking again.  I was actually given that advice by some wealthy women when I was 12.  I have no doubt those who gave me that advice years ago today plan to vote McCain.  And they'll call Palin a feminist too.  

If Palin loses, it cuts along similar lines.  By now her lack of an even basic grasp of historical reality, foreign policy, or time on the national political circuit is well documented.  No one even pretends that she is of a political mind and freely discuss her only a political image.  Her lack of substance will be named McCain's liability.  It already has.  As pundits dissect the campaign they will shred Palin.  Who knows how that will play into the subtle sexism still infecting politics- the sense that the women have a hard time winning national elections in part because of a lack of "qualified" candidates.  

Which is why I hope Palin makes an appearance in 2012 as a serious political candidate, and not as the current candidate Palin.  I want her to be educated on the issues, even as I shout at the tv as a result.  I want her to prove wrong the premise that she simply is Falwell's promised one, because I want to believe that this country is beyond simply voting for homecoming king (or queen) rather than president.  I want Palin to redeem the feminist right, to slap back at the misogyny in its own party that would elevate Palin as its standard bearer, signaling to all the truly brilliant feminist minds of the right that "this is what it takes" to get on the ticket.  Not merits.  Personality.

 

I Promise You, Palin Wears the Skirts on Purpose

Oh Sarah Palin.  Can you believe we are this close to the election and I have yet to really tackle the persona of Palin?  Me either.

Now, normally the idea of critiquing the fashion sense of any female politician is repugnant and one of the few areas where I get all bitchy feminazi.  But Palin's case is different.  And no, it's not different because I think Palin is a nutjob.  It's different because what strikes me as so fascinating is her constructed identity, and in that sense, the skirts, the heels, all of it is fair game.

Say what you will about Palin's apparent lack of readiness, her blatant disdain for all things intellectual, this is a woman who knows her political base.  She winks.  She flashes a toothy open-mouth smile, and she wears a lot of skirts.  She's teasing the right with her anti-intellectual lapdance and has made herself the walking, talking blow-up doll of the religious right.  I half expect to see the pull-string peeking out from one of her silky blouses.  She is the right's  antidote to Hillary Clinton's Sisterhood of the Traveling Pantsuits.  And she's doing it on purpose.

A lot of feminists have decried Palin's treatment by the press, and by other women in particular, as playing out another version of Mean Girls-- girl-on-girl hate crimes that hurt all women.  That would be true but for several factors, only one of which I can get into here.  The rest will have to wait for a future post.  

First, and most obviously, Palin is entirely complicit in her constructed political image and she works it with a savvy that the McCain folks either did not understand or totally disregarded.  When McCain first announced his pick the Republican base lit up like Christmas in Vegas.  The fringe of the party that had spent the better part of the twentieth century actively advocating against the rights of women heralded Palin as their champion.  And she took the crown with glee.  That snapshot allowed us to see what the religious right saw as an image of female leadership.  She was perky.  She was scrappy.  She was attractive (especially by political standards).  But she was also willing to cede all power, authority, and leadership to her male elder.  She was, at the end of the day, no threat to the male political establishment and never would be.    

But I have to give Palin credit.  She's just not mistress material.  As the McCain campaign derails pundits now complain about his inability to "control" Palin.  Her vicious race baiting (again, in stark contrast to the subtle race-baiting in the Democratic primary practiced by the Clinton campaign, but that is also another post) brings all the fever of a Pentacostal revival with none of the soul-saving.  It doesn't sit well with the Lutheran roots of mainstream America- it's too loud and too honest in it's bias.  

And Palin is too ambitious, again, a fatal flaw in the religious right's image of acceptable female leadership.  She's had a taste of the national spotlight and trust me, she's looking for more.  Think it was a slip when she referred to the "Palin/McCain ticket"?  I don't.

As the campaign draws closer to election day, and the pitch continues to elevate, and as the Grand Old Party sinks deeper in despair look for Palin's shirts to get a little tighter, the skirts a little shorter, and the hair worn down more than up.  Just a hunch.  

It's actually a game I'm pretty familiar with, but the thing is, Palin is no Hegemommy.  See to really beat the big boys, and I have no doubt that Palin aspires to beat them, you still need to be smarter than them.  The skirts, the winks, the toothy smiles are all the tools to get you past the cronyism, to let you in to the boardroom.  It's the substance that keeps you there.  On that point, neither the GOP nor its current fetishist Palin seem to get it.

Words Matter. And It Takes Tits To Say That.

Okay, so you've heard that I'm in one of those "transitions."  Yes, I gave up my lucrative career as a nut-cracking litigator to string words together for a living.  When I first announced this decision one of the more common responses from my peers (male and female) was: "Wow.  Good for you.  That takes a lot of balls."  Not everyone said this with the same tone, but I took the statement to be variations on a theme.  Balls.  Bravery.  Guts.  Maybe even slightly stupid.  But all interchangeable parts, right?  

For the first time ever this phrase stopped me in my tracks.  I mean, it's not like this was the first time I had heard it, let alone used it.  I always talk about needing balls to do this or the balls to do that.  I employ it ironically and not-so-ironically.  Sometimes when I talk about having balls to do something I mean courage, and sometimes I mean recklessness.  But it is always associated with action, with putting yourself out there consequences be damned.  But here I was, about to strike out on my own, to make my own name for myself, and all of a sudden this phrase took on a new complicated complicity.  Did I really want to have the balls to do anything?  What did that mean????

Words matter, and am I not the first to point out the interesting association between these shorthands for power and action, and human anatomy.  After all, sex is power, and when we want to create an appropriate visual of that source of power, the default should be to those organs.  It is beyond stating the obvious.  I mean, without such a truism there would be no Hegemommy.  Go back through this sad little blog and find a post, aside from the disclaimers and re-starts, that does not have as it's central premise the connection between sex and power.  See.  Told ya.

 The shorthand works just as well in reverse and speaks volumes to our collective unease with female sexuality.  Pussy.  Weak.  Cowardly.  Passive.  Once again, a shorthand I've employed as a slur for someones perceived weakness.  But now, as someone who depends on words for survival, let alone identification, these shorthands are becoming increasingly problematic.

This is complicated turf.  I see creativity coming from that same vat of primordial goop as sexuality-- a raw and charged power source that defines many different aspects of personality.  So as a writer, my creativity is undoubtedly linked to my sex and my sexuality.  How could I then continue to employ language shorthands that diminished the very power source I rely on to keep my lights on?

I've decided that I can no longer be complicit in the cultural demegoggery of  female sexuality and power, and I'm taking over my own shorthand.  Feel free to use it if you like.  Pass it on.  Like all things cultural, it may gain its own cache, find its niche, and create the counter-narrative to the presumption that an active display of power is a masculine trait.  That's right.  It takes tits.  Not balls.  Tits.

Once said out loud, the choice seemed ridiculously obvious.  

Here We Go Again. On False Starts and Starting Over.

Okay, so some of you may recall that I promised a brand new Hegemommy, and vowed to post with fury.  Well, ugh.  It didn't quite work out as I had hoped, so, once again, I'm here to say, it's a brand new day.

A lot has changed since those first naive posts.  A lot has not.  Hegemommy has learned to trust her instincts more and rely on others less.  All good things, but not worth spending more than a small paragraph discussing.  Moving on.

I'm now officially a full-time writer, so, I guess I better write.  This will be a good forum for those thoughts that rattle endlessly in my brain.  And really, Palin is the gift that keeps on giving, so I figure I have at least a month of great material to help hone my craft.

So, once again, I'm posting a transition post.  One that helps lead from one idea to the next.  Only this time Hegemommy has put her money where her mouth is.  Literally.  

Go ahead, have another cookie....

As some of you may have heard or read, the American Academy of Pediatrics now recommends using cholesterol drugs on children as young as 8 to stem childhood obesity. If there was ever any remaining doubt that our doctors are not our advocates, this bit of news should seal the deal. This particular issue really chaps my hide because of my own job, and I see a public health problem like childhood obesity as also being part of an environmental problem, and public safety problem, and a whole host of other problems that go well beyond the AAP's approach in this recommendation. But I'll get to that in a minute.

First, I have a favor to ask. Could you all stop trying to make my son fat, lazy and stoopid? For real. I by you all I mean big Pharma, Uncle Sam, and now apparently, my doctor. By now I probably lost a few of you into the "conspiracy kook" qualification, but this is not some half-baked paranoia. Doesn't matter if you send your kid to private or public school, they will be pumped full of garbage and there's really not a damn thing you can do about it. Here's an illustration.

My son is in daycare full time at a center that provides lunch and snacks. I only recently enrolled him in the lunch program after struggling for about a year to make him appropriate bag lunches that met the dietary restrictions his school created- most importantly no nuts and/or nut products and nothing that would have to be "cooked" but the school. So forget the pb&j fall-back or anything that wasn't essentially pre-assembled. And, I know this is going to make me sound like a total whiner, but getting those lunches together was hard. Usually I was making those lunches at midnight before bed or 5 am before work. It didn't matter though. I was determined that he not be pumped full of sugar and fat during the day. And, to be fair, my son's school provides healthful snacks, and the lunch program is better than most, but that's simply a function of the fact that we spend in daycare tuition what we would spend if we were sending him to college. That's a whole other post. My point is that it was more than my boho sensibilities driving his lunches of rice and beans, pasta with tomatoes, carrot sticks, and whole grain crackers. It was also my desire to keep our doctor's visits to a minimum, to try and raise my dude with as few food quirks as possible and, to be totally honest, to keep his energy and mood stabilized so that when I picked him up after a day of arguing, posturing, and getting flogged by the man my preschooler would be more, well, manageable. There, I said it.

It wouldn't have mattered if my motivation were only altruistic, the fact of the matter is, when he sat down for lunch and his buddy Tyler was eating a sloppy joe, or salisbury steak, or a breakfast burrito, my kid didn't want his lunch, no matter what it was. He wanted the hot lunch and began hunger striking to get it. I resisted his teacher's calls to sign him up for the lunch program at first but eventually caved after I'd lost hours of sleep to packing lunches that got thrown away, hounding from insistent teachers pecking away at my obsessing over his meals, and repeatedly came home with a cranky, hungry child who, despite my best efforts, had found processed sugar, empty starches, and a distaste for anything green and crunchy. I caved. I signed him up for the lunch program. I admit that its nice not to have to onemorething to do at night before bed or first thing in the morning, but before long I began to worry about what a lifetime in the hot-lunch program would do to my son's health.

Well thank fucking god the American Academy of Pediatrics has let me know that I don't have to worry about that anymore. See, rather than put their CONSIDERABLE resources toward creating healthful lunch programs and vibrant physical education curricula in public schools or for schools who receive public dollars of some sort, they have sided with big Pharma and now suggest we just further medicate our kids. Forget fresh fruit and a jog, try Lipitor instead. Sure makes my job as a parent a helluva lot easier AND the pharmaceutical and insurance industries make a windfall. Everyone wins! Besides, just ask Alice Waters and the Berkeley and Oakland public schools- no one is interested in actually creating healthful models when there is sooooo much money to be made on maintaining illness models.

But here's the ringer for the doctors. The Hippocratic Oath. First, do no harm. Do. No. Harm. First. That is an ethical obligation to patients no different than my ethical obligation to my clients. I am their advocate in the legal system, and my doctor, my son's doctor, has a professional obligation to be an advocate in the medical system. Meeting those ethical obligations is a challenge, especially when insurance companies want you to save costs, partners want you to secure a particular outcome, and you want to get home and be done with this stupidfuckingclientalready. However, if I abdicate my ethical responsibility it will, at a minimum, get me a professional reprimand, if not a malpractice suit. For the American Academy of Pediatrics those abdication result in public health policy decisions, mainstream media accolades, and a whole lot of grease from the industries they are supposed to be keeping a critical eye on.

It's Makeover Time!

Girls love makeovers, right?! That's what all those pretty fashion magazines tell me, anyways. Well, Hegemommy is undergoing a bit of a makeover, and here's what I can tell you so far.

As the three of you who regularly check in on this site have noticed, I haven't posted anything in a while. I'm gearing up for a big trial and what little time I've got left has been used trying to parent, and work on my material. The good news is I've compiled A LOT of it, so posting soon should be fast and furious. The other good news is that I've linked up with some folks who are challenging me creatively and intellectually, hence the Hegemommy makeover. All so new, yet so familiar.

So please, stay tuned. Big things are in the works here. I can't give a specific launch date, in part because if I'm in trial then the re-re-launch of Hegemommy will have to wait until all that jazz is over. Don't worry, this is no Chinese Democracy situation or anything. The countdown has begun. So sit tight, stay tuned, and get ready for a refreshed and reinvigorated Hegemommy to add the necessary dash of salt to your diet of politics, parenting, and pop culture. As told from the inside, of course.

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.