Women As Presidents. Get Used To It

As we're floating names for 2020, I'm hearing huge swaths (of generally white guys) really getting excited about Beto and Biden. Never mind how Beto is an Israeli war crime apologist and can't quite get behind universal healthcare and Biden is so bland and centrist, zero progress would be made – forget reversing the damage of our Nectarine Nightmare wreaked. We have both the inexperienced superstar and the old establishment default choices represented. This is diversity for white people I guess. We can do better. The people elected new representatives this time around that aimed to make Congress look more like the people. For instance, Rashida Tlaib plans to organize a delegation to Palestine, which would serve to make the discourse a bit more equal than the default genocide-as-Israeli-self-defense position.

(And if you want, in the spirit on not excluding men, I'd accept this guy maybe...)

Women are half of the population and SHOULD be half of Congress a the very least. Yet it's harder for women to run for office because of sexism and misogyny - and you can add exponential challenges for minority and queer women. Some think men are the default human and that they are naturally smarter and possess more leadership qualities and this is how they explain the lack of women in top jobs. Those of us who have lived as a woman on Earth, have read a freaking book -- or have looked inward know that there is quite a different explanation for that.

Old prejudices die hard. I remember my own mother saying she was more comfortable with men doctors because she assumed they were more qualified. I never asked her – WHY? 

Two articles and two podcast episodes follow to illustrate:

1.

Will America Ever Have a Woman President?

“History suggests that the biggest obstacle to a woman aspiring to the highest office anywhere is simply that she is not a man. In every era, in every culture, as French philosopher Simone de Beauvoir pointed out, a man is the norm, and women are defined in terms of their difference from that norm. This is particularly true when it comes to our visual images and expectations for the head of state.”

2.

Nearly 60% Of Republicans Don't Want A Woman President In Their Lifetime, Poll Finds

Well, this is disappointing: 

“Asked if they'd see a woman president in their lifetime, 20 percent of respondents said they "definitely will,"...”

Both encouraging and discouraging are these results:

“A comfortable majority of Republicans—59 percent—responded no, they don't hope to see a woman president in their lifetime, according to YouGov. In comparison, 89 percent of Democrats and 63 percent of independents responded that yes, they hoped to see a woman president before they died.”

First podcast: 

Around the 44 minute mark

Ep 32: How To Run For President: https://unladylike.co/episodes/032/women-politics-pipeline

THIS, RIGHT HERE, FOLKS: 

“Men are 60% more likely to say that they are very qualified to run for office, while women are more than twice as likely to say that they are not at all qualified. Men, who are probably less qualified than you, are just jumping in.”

This is my problem and why I believe we need to seek out these women. Follow Barbara Lee and Stacey Abrams. Kamala Harris is being floated despite some misgivings of the prosecutor kind by progressives. Read books by black women. Follow black Twitter. If the default is white male, and it is, you have to do the homework and legwork to avoid being sexist and accepting the same old white guys whose perspective isn't going to be as relevant or accurate due to their lack of experience in certain ways. We need to stop accepting white men as the default in place of women with the same or greater qualifications.

Gillibrand has also been mentioned, but again, as with many white folks, the Israeli war crime issue is a red flag on their inability to take a stand for human rights here and abroad.

Warren seems great, too, sort of. Trump already has her number though with the Pocahantas slur. She does great tax, healthcare and wealth inequality explainers, but her handling of the ancestry issue wasn't handled well enough not to haunt her and cause resentment among Native Americans.

So, basically, there are some strong black women, problematic white women and the same old white guys.

Second podcast:

Scene On Radio: 50. MEN Part 4 Feminism in Black and White 

This is such a great point that I appreciated in Obama, but I didn't have a name for it: standpoint theory.

Around the 38:30 mark:

Biewen: "The big takeaway was something called standpoint theory, coined by the philosopher Sandra Harding. The theory basically says that people on the receiving end of oppressive systems, people at the bottom of social hierarchies, will see things more accurately than the people at the top, the ones benefitting from the system. Black women, for example, will share a general body of knowledge about how society is, about how it works, because of their common experiences. And, according to Sandra Harding, that shared understanding won’t just be distinctive, it’ll actually be better knowledge, more true, than the collective picture of the world that privileged people like me will soak up from our

surroundings. "

**(Also covered are problems with white feminism and how white supremacy sits on a foundation of patriarchy.)

**NC book alert:  Gender and Jim Crow: Women and the Politics of White Supremacy in North Carolina, 1896-1920

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/57459.Gender_and_Jim_Crow

We can only hope so: Why 2020 Will Be The Year Of The Woman

Obama's farewell address

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/10/us/politics/obama-farewell-address-speech.html?_r=0


Hard not to quote the whole thing but here are some favorite parts---

This is where I learned that change only happens when ordinary people get involved, get engaged, and come together to demand it....It's the insistence that these rights, while self-evident, have never been self-executing; that We, the People, through the instrument of our democracy, can form a more perfect union.

On inequality

After all, if every economic issue is framed as a struggle between a hardworking white middle class and undeserving minorities, then workers of all shades will be left fighting for scraps while the wealthy withdraw further into their private enclaves.

He had good advice for many groups in the context, but this hit home because I've heard people I know say these things in the course of my life and I know they are untrue and unjust and those things make me angry. Injustice makes me angry like few things do.

For white Americans, it means acknowledging that the effects of slavery and Jim Crow didn't suddenly vanish in the '60s; that when minority groups voice discontent, they're not just engaging in reverse racism or practicing political correctness; that when they wage peaceful protest, they're not demanding special treatment, but the equal treatment our Founders promised.

The key. And here he begins talking to everyone as in both parties, saying hard things, but necessary, where before he was talking everyone as in the nation.

So regardless of the station we occupy; we have to try harder; to start with the premise that each of our fellow citizens loves this country just as much as we do; that they value hard work and family like we do; that their children are just as curious and hopeful and worthy of love as our own.

Hitting the nail on the head

This trend represents a third threat to our democracy. Politics is a battle of ideas; in the course of a healthy debate, we'll prioritize different goals, and the different means of reaching them. But without some common baseline of facts; without a willingness to admit new information, and concede that your opponent is making a fair point, and that science and reason matter, we'll keep talking past each other, making common ground and compromise impossible.

So many good points, stressing participation, we need that right now.

And all of this depends on our participation; on each of us accepting the responsibility of citizenship, regardless of which way the pendulum of power swings.

Our Constitution is a remarkable, beautiful gift. But it's really just a piece of parchment. It has no power on its own. We, the people, give it power - with our participation, and the choices we make. Whether or not we stand up for our freedoms. Whether or not we respect and enforce the rule of law. America is no fragile thing. But the gains of our long journey to freedom are not assured.

Compare with Trump's press conference that happened a day after where he talks incessantly about how he won, how it felt to win, what he did to win, rather than his plans to unite the country, release tax return, right wrongs in a divisive campaign, accept reality, plans for his term in office. . . 

(Writing this post on Obama's address and the next on Trump's press conference on the same day, several days late, apologies!)

Prayers for Obama

I have a bit of a rant today, I guess. It's a politics and religion one, so it may rub some people the wrong way. I've been noticing this inconsistency since, oh... around January 20.

James's thoughts on what exactly is pro-life could have inspired this, but since I find myself in the minority among another minority here, I suppose it is always on my mind.

Let me just say first that I am all for praying for the President, the country, the world, etc. Thank God for our freedoms every day. These are all good things and I am all for it. There just seems to be some differences in how this is applied while Democrats vs Republicans are in office and I think that shouldn't be the case. The other problem is when some folks say we should pray for the President, you can read from context and tone of voice that what they mean is- pray that that heathen Democrat you people elected to kill babies and glorify homosexuality doesn't do too much damage before we get another righteous Republican in office. Ok, that's a bit extreme, but you know what I'm saying. We've all heard it. No party has a monopoly on Godliness; all are made up of individuals who will fail from time to time and both parties deal with corruption and the like. Not one of our Presidents was sent from God... any more than any other world leader, that is. And if that is scripturally false, someone please correct me.

These groups were formed on Facebook (some just after the election, it seems):


Millions of Christ Followers Praying for the United States

Stop the Silencing of God-
This country was founded on Christian values
Separation of church and state means the government doesn't restrict my rights as a Christian
If we don't get God back in our country we will collapse


I keep hearing very frequently now about how we need to pray for the President, they're taking God out of schools, things aren't as good as they used to be, pray for the direction of our nation, etc. People seem to be giving the impression that now that Obama's president, the burden of sin is pressing so hard, it will soon envelop and suffocate us all. There wasn't nearly the urgency and frequency of calls to pray for our nation and President. When GWB was President, I occasionally would hear a reminder to pray for our leader and the troops, but other than that, it seemed people thought he didn't need prayers or he was from God so people didn't feel they had to pray the nation back on track (???).

And people, you really need to stop and think what the implication of more church in the state ("going back to our religious roots") means in this country before you ask God for it continually. Do we really want to go back to a time when one denomination ruled and if you weren't a part of that, then you couldn't hold public office or other things and probably would get thrown in prison for preaching anything else?? Or would we like such laws as:

"Settlers who failed to observe the Sabbath lost provisions for a week (first offense), received a whipping (second offense), or were executed (third offense). "

(From Steven Waldman's book, Founding Faith)

You have to remember that putting church in the state will also put state in the church.

I think rather than pushing for public communal prayers in schools, events, etc, we should embrace our freedom of speech and assembly. Perhaps we should think of it another way. If God isn't mentioned much anymore, maybe it's our fault. Maybe we don't use our freedoms to the extent we could. Do we really need the state to "bring God back" ?

Another thing I don't get is that many a Republican will say how they are against government hand outs in monetary form and yet they are up in arms that government isn't handing out religion. They want all these obstacles in the way of government aid to individuals, they are against welfare, and government programs to help the poor which I would think Christians would be in favor of. To be fair, they do often say that the individual Christian should be giving to the church and community instead of the government (which doesn't distribute wisely, etc?). I can understand that to some extent. But, that being said, why criticize Democrats for "taking God out of schools" and public life? In the same vein, shouldn't the individual rather than government be the one to put God in various places (free speech)? If you think the government can't distribute the money to the poor properly, what is it going to do to the Bible and God???

Just seems kind of odd to be ok with the individual tending to the poor (rather than the government) but to turn around and call the other party Godless for applying the same principle to religion.

It also seems that if you value your freedom of religion (freedom to practice as you see fit) that you'd want the church and state separate... maybe that's just me.

And after 4 sessions, I think that's all I've got for now...