Gentleman's Agreement by Laura Zametkin Hobson

Have you read Gentleman's Agreement by Laura Zametkin Hobson No? Well, you should read it! Everyone should read it! Once upon a time, lots of people did - it spent five months at #1 on the New York Times Bestseller List after it published in 1947 - but it has since fallen out of favor. I'd never heard of it until a friend picked it for our book club's February selection, spurring probably the best discussion we've ever had.

The novel's current lack of visibility might be due in part to its Amazon blurb: The plot of GENTLEMAN'S AGREEMENT concerns the experiences of a young Gentile writer who poses as a Jew in order to secure material on anti-Semitism for a series of magazine articles. A thesis novel concerning the social and economic aspects of anti-Semitism in American life.

No, really, it's good! I wrote all over my copy of the book, and then typed up my notes. And, yet, it was fun.

It's a quick read, easy, but not shallow (except a little right at the end). And it's non-threatening, too, for a book with such a point. The main character is an ally (not prone to some of the major prejudices of his day) which casts the reader into the same role and allows us to hear hard truths and appreciate them while thinking ourselves exempt or hidden.

This is one of those books that has stuck with me and I find myself using some of its figures of speech in my everyday life weeks after completing the read. Flick, tap.

The novel is about a California-based widower and writer who gets a job with a major weekly magazine in New York City and relocates his family. The first people he meets are his new editor - who gives him the assignment of writing a series on antisemitism - and the editor's niece - who inspired the idea for the assignment and becomes the love interest/second main character. The writer gets the idea that in order to write convincingly and interestingly about antisemitism, he must experience it first-hand. So he introduces himself to everyone he meets as a Jew and undergoes a rapid transformation.

The novel deals not only with antisemitism but also with other forms of prejudice, including racism and sexism. I especially enjoyed some of the nascent feminism, as the author gently drew us along with contemporary lines like, "I'm having people over tonight. A couple of girls and people." How great is that? The role of women's work in the running of a household provides an interesting background, as do the the characters' remarks about "womanish softness" of thought and "a vague resentment that it's a man's world."

But the parts that really stuck with me were about antisemitism and are equally relevant today, with our own various -isms. Prejudice comes in little "flicks" and "taps." “Rarely was the circumstance so arranged that you could fight back.” "They gave you at once the wound and the burden of proper behavior toward it.” There's a lot of discussion about “the complacence of essentially decent people about prejudice” and the question of whether it's gauche or required to make a scene and speak out against prejudice whenever you encounter it (even if it's at a formal dinner party with an important client).

All this unfolds as part of a love story between the writer and his editor's niece. She inspired the assignment and is passionately antisemitic . . . but perhaps she
has a different understanding of what antisemitism is and means and how best to respond. What brought the couple together eventually drives a wedge between them.

If you read - or have read - this one, please let me know; I'd love to discuss it with you! And if it doesn't sound like something you're willing to read, the novel inspired a movie by the same name, starring Gregory Peck.

Click icon for more

book review blogs

@Barrie Summy

Patriot

The lack of civility astounds me. The loss of value for honor, integrity, and truth horrifies me. Our relentless pursuit of sensationalism and the shallowest possible understanding of important issues sadden me.

Not that long ago “flip flopper” was a political kiss of death. Now we no longer expect anyone to believe in anything. We expect politicians to kowtow to whichever group’s vote they’re trying to court.

What happened to the Straight Talk Express? What happened to the “service” part of “civil service?”

What happened to maturity?

I don’t like what we’re doing militarily in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, or Yemen (etc.). But I also acknowledge that we have caused additional instability in regions that can little afford it and have some responsibility to shore up what we broke. And I think we need to do a heck of a lot more for our vets when they come home: from taking care of their health care needs to addressing the real issues with re-integration into a civilian life.

I chafe against certain taxes. But I’d willingly pay more of others, because I think it’s ridiculous that we can expect to engage in wars without “tightening our belts” at all. I believe in the importance of public education, public funding for primary research, infrastructure, and a social safety net. I don’t believe that any child should be hungry. Or any adult without access to affordable health care.

I detest certain litmus tests. I’m Christian but think it’s ridiculous that politicians must profess my faith to have any hope of being elected in many places. I’d rather politicians demonstrate honor, integrity, intelligence, and maturity. Their faith (or lack thereof) is their own business. Flag lapel pins? Please.

We have so many more important things to deal with.

People who intentionally distort the truth to inflame the public should be publicly reprimanded and probably fined until it hurts. Global climate change and evolution should not be significant political issues.

Many rural areas have no obstetricians to deliver babies because of malpractice insurance. And everywhere physicians over-treat (causing additional problems for patients) because of worries about lawsuits. And yet we spend all our time squawking about Planned Parenthood. We care so much more about whether or not a woman should have the right to terminate a pregnancy than we care about the staggering numbers of children in the foster care system, or living in unacceptable homes, hungry and without the care and support they need in order to grow and thrive and become contributing members of society.

We’d rather draw lines in the sand about an individual’s right to own assault rifles than sit down together and have constructive conversations that address the balance between individual rights and the responsibilities of living within a society.

I’m anti-drug. I’m not wild about cigarettes or our over-fascination with alcohol, either. I don’t advocate a return to Prohibition. I’m for common sense. I’m for responsibility. I know addiction is a serious issue requiring more than the threat of prison to solve. But I’m weary of everything being so addictive (gambling, sex, pornography, junk food, television, chemicals, etc.) that the individual bears no responsibility for moderating his or her own behavior.

I’d like to vote for people who are willing to work hard and make the tough decisions - to be leaders rather than windsocks.

"We've got serious problems, and we need serious people, and if you want to talk about character, Bob, you'd better come at me with more than a burning flag and a membership card. If you want to talk about character and American values, fine. Just tell me where and when, and I'll show up. This is a time for serious people, Bob, and your fifteen minutes are up."

Aaron Sorkin can write!

His talent? His TALENT?!

Skimming though my "drafts" folder I found a bunch of old blog posts that I never published for one reason or another.  This one is from last fall, when Swiss police arrested producer/director Roman Polanski because of his outstanding U.S. warrant (the U.S. then formally requested extradition).

There was a huge uproar, with many filmakers, actors, and producers coming out in support of Polanski and his "unjust treatment" because of his "extraordinary talent."

To recap: Polanski drugged and raped (and sodomized) a 13-year-old girl.  He pleaded guilty to "engaging in unlawful sexual intercourse," a lesser offense, in a deal to preserve the girl's anonymity. To escape sentencing he fled the country and never came back.  He remarried and lived as a free man in Europe for thirty years.  He continued to work.  The 13-year-old-girl, now all grown up and wanting to move on with her life and stop being asked about Polanski all time time, tells people to just let it go.

For the record, the situation with this child was hardly a solitary "lapse in judgment" on Polanski's part.  His first two wives were younger than he, though both were certainly legal.  Then there was the 13-year-old-girl.  Then 15-year-old Nastassja Kinski when he was 43 (they dated for a few years). He's currently married to Emmanuelle Seigner, who is 33 years his junior. That wouldn't be so unusual for Hollywood, perhaps, if it weren't for the larger pattern. She was in her early 20's when they married. (See link below for his chilling commentary on the normalcy of his desires.)

My thoughts:

Does this mean that I can ignore any laws I want as long as I'm talented enough?

Ridiculous!

If rape is wrong, then rape is wrong. Why should a convicted rapist get a free pass because he left the country and eluded arrest for years? Horrible precedent.


Backlash builds against support of Polanski

"on ABC's "The View," in which panelist and actress Whoopi Goldberg made the comment that she didn't believe the original charges against Polanski were for "rape-rape," as what he views as a pervasive attitude.

"I assume [Goldberg] regrets saying what she said, but she really didn't say anything that is not under the surface anyway," Weeks said. "This is just the attitude, that children are property and crimes against them are not real crimes." Video Watch a discussion of about Polanski's supporters »

Goldberg's fellow panelist, Sherri Shepherd, said during the show that she believed Polanski should still be punished.

On Twitter, she tweeted, "Whew... long day at 'The View'... two shows today... hot debate over the Statutory Rapist Polanski. 45-year-old man plies a 13-yr-old w/drugs & Liquor and anally & orally penetrates her w/o her consent is a RAPIST. We hunt down 75-year-old Nazis. We must protect our children."

Actress Kirstie Alley wrote on Twitter "JUST FOR THE RECORD....RAPE IS RAPE...this is one HOLLYWOOD STAR who does not CELEBRATE or DEFEND Roman Polanski..his ART did not RAPE her.""

Earlier in that CNN article (link above) there's a list of celebrities who signed "a petition which states, "Roman Polanski is a French citizen, a renown and international artist now facing extradition. This extradition, if it takes place, will be heavy in consequences and will take away his freedom.""

Well, yes. That's generally how we punish rapists. And child molesters.



Filmmakers demand Polanski's release

Artist Rally Behind Polanski

Reminder: Roman Polanski raped a child Finally arrested 32 years after he fled sentencing for unlawful sex with a minor, the director is ... a big hero?

"Everyone wants to f--- young girls."

Sanity: Roman Polanski Has a Lot of Friends (I really wish I could write like Pollitt.)


I'm going to remember the names of some "stars" who support Polanski:
Woody Allen, Martin Scorsese and John Landis
Penelope Cruz, Tilda Swinton and Monica Bellucci
and many, many others.

A positive suggestion from the internet: "Instead of making the petition about releasing Polanski it should be stated as a petition for the social approval of drugging and raping a 13-year-old child."

Petition for the Release of Roman Polanski

It's Not Black and White

As much as we might like it to be.

She Flies Like a Bird

Ada's preschool is doing a winter Olympics unit this week. Today they competed in "ice skating" (after taping paper plates to their shoes) and made gold medals to hang around their necks. Each child got to choose his/her own medal-worthy event. Ada's was "Eating toast for breakfast."

When we got home we made lunch together, then she carried her plate over to "the little table" in the TV room. We use this for special occasions like popcorn on movie night and 6:00 am weekend breakfasts in front of cartoons while Mommy and Daddy try to sneak a little more sleep.

"I wanna watch the 'lympics, Mommy," she said, digging into her yogurt. I'm not going to deny that request! It's rare that anyone is excited to watch my favorite televised entertainment with me.

It soon became apparent that she wanted to watch last night's rebroadcast of ice dancing.

"That's MY show, Mommy, not your show."

No argument from me on that one. I fast-forwarded to Virtue and Minor so she could see the gold medal performance before nap time.

"Look at that pretty princess dress, Mommy! That's a really pretty princess dress. It's just like an underwear shirt!"

I love my baby girl.

We also got to start an interesting discussion I'd hoped to put off for several more years. Men's Team Large Hill ski jumping came on as I fast forwarded to ice dancing. She liked watching the athletes fly through the air.

"Dat's a girl, Mommy?" Ada's really into figuring out who's a boy and who's a girl lately. She's also playing with pronouns and inventing her very own "jokes" about gender (like mixing a girl's name with "him" and watching me slyly to see if I pick up on the subtle switch).

"Nope, that's a boy. His name is Michael."

"When da girls gonna jump?"

"Women don't do this type of ski jumping at the Olympics."

"Why not?"

I don't know.

Dollhouse

I've been meaning to ask you about Dollhouse.  Did you watch?  What did you think?  Buffy: compare/contrast.

If you've not heard of the recently canceled Fox drama, here's a brief summary of the series: "Caroline" - code name "Echo" - is an "Active," a member of a highly illegal and underground group of individuals who have had their personalities wiped clean so they can be imprinted with any number of new personas. Hired by the wealthy, powerful and connected, the Actives don't just perform their hired roles, they wholly become with mind, personality and physiology whomever the client wants or needs them to be. Whether imprinted to be a lover, an assassin, a corporate negotiator or a best friend, the Actives know no other life than the specific engagements they are in at that time."

The premise is enticing.  The story is engaging.  The sci fi is nifty.  The plot arc was nicely conceived.  And it's a Joss Wedon show; I'll follow Joss wherever he's headed out of curiosity.  He does things for TV that no one else does.  (I've blogged about Buffy the Vampire Slayer before.) 

However, I was not without concern.  Wedon seems to like showing tiny, beautiful women getting knocked around.  A lot.  To make this violence more palatable he sometimes has the women fighting each other.  Or really really bad guys hitting the women.  Or abused women with supernatural strength and healing ability.  But, still, it's lots and lots of violence against women.  After a while it's hard to justify.

And Dollhouse not only showed women getting beat up a lot, it also glorified prostitution as a victimless crime.  Or so it seemed at the beginning.

But the plot was much more complicated than that and deeper motivations became clear in the end.

Which, incidentally, came far too soon.

Dollhouse's cancellation was premature for me as a fan, but also for the story arc.  Obviously this season's story was meant to play out over several seasons.  Instead it was so condensed that it was hard to follow and definitely lacked the emotional punch it would have had if the story and characters were allowed to develop more gradually.  Alas. 

True or not true?  I heard that Dollhouse had a solid DVR and online following but not nearly enough real-time viewers.  If shows are indeed renewed or canceled based primarily on real-time viewers, will shows that appeal to a younger, hipper audience (plus me) continue to fail until the decision matrix changes?

Schmedwards

"Elizabeth Edwards and John Edwards have separated. And it's just too bad because they totally belong with each other."

I read a Facebook status update this afternoon that stuck with me as I was chopping vegetables for dinner.

Wow.  I mean, that's . . . harsh.  Thinking back on my least favorite politicians, their spouses, other world leaders, etc., I have a hard time thinking, "You know, what this person really deserves is to lose a child in a car accident.  Then to be diagnosed with terminal cancer while still having young children at home.  Then to have a spouse publicly cheat on you, have unprotected sex with someone else, and father a child outside your marriage."  I'm sure Elizabeth Edwards is no saint.  But to say that she deserves this?  I'm not sure anyone "deserves" that.  And if someone does deserve to have such terrible things happen to them, I'm quite sure I'm not the one to made that judgment call.

But some of the political hate spewing around lately is so terribly personal.  And, also, dishonest.

The other annoying comment I keep hearing regarding Edwards's infidelity goes something like this.  "At least she finally grew a spine. She should have left him long ago; the only reason she stuck around was for the chance to live in a big white house."

There's a lot to unpack here:

1. To suggest that adultery should be a universal marriage deal-breaker - and to judge anyone who stays with a spouse who has cheated - is narrow-minded and wrong.
   
2. And to be so cynical about the value of someone else's marriage seems ridiculous (and ignorant) to me.
3. Many people have called Elizabeth Edwards an "idiot" for believing her spouse until given good reason to doubt him.  She's a smart woman.  But surely trusting one's partner is more a virtue than a vice?
4. My not-so-hidden agenda rears its head here: I believe in marriage.  I did not make a lifetime commitment lightly.  In addition to the pledge I made to my husband, my community, my God, I also have children.  There are certainly situations where it is unhealthy or unsafe for a marriage to continue.  Barring that, I believe that I do have a responsibility to try to "make it work" (to quote Tim Gunn) and build/maintain/nurture a healthy lifelong partnership.  I'm not going to judge someone else for taking her commitment similarly seriously.  (But I'm very glad I'm not married to John Edwards!)
5. The sorts of comments I mention above are as offensive and ignorant as the ones I've heard suggesting that because Elizabeth Edwards looks her age, because she hasn't had "enough" plastic surgery, because she is not a size two, of course her husband was going to cheat.  And deservedly so.
   

As it turns out, I have some pretty strong feelings about adultery and I think Edwards is a giant ass - regardless of any specifics of the situation and his marriage to which I am not privy.  I appreciated a lot of what he had to say on the campaign trail, especially about poverty.  But I never felt a personal sort of connection to him.  In fact, I generally distrust extremely charismatic people of any political or religious conviction.  (It's no coincidence that I joined my current church because of an intellectual connection with a pastor rather than the motivational speeches of a charismatic megachurch leader.)  So I don't feel a sense of personal betrayal.  Sadly, I almost expect this sort of behavior from our elected leaders lately.  I don't condone it.  But I'm not shocked anymore, either.

Alito's reaction notwithstanding, I liked tonight's speech.  It breathed a hint of optimism into a year that's started off feeling pretty cynical to me.  So mote it be.

Feminists and Cheating
More on Feminists and Cheating

The Surrendered Wife by Laura Doyle

This month for Barrie Summy's Book Review Club, I'm discussing The Surrendered Wife by Laura Doyle.  When I decided to tackle this project, I had no idea what I was getting myself into.

It happened so simply.  I was clicking around on the web and stumbled upon a link to the author's website.  "I remember when that book came out," I thought.  "It sounded absolutely crazy and got tons of negative attention. I wonder what ever happened with all that."  Feeling in the mood to gawk, I clicked over.

The first thing I noticed was that the author considers herself a feminist and says the approach is about surrendering inappropriate control over one's husband (and others) rather than returning to the 50's or rebelling against feminism. Huh. That didn't sound so bad.  But why didn't she just say that, then?  The title of the book must really be misleading.  ("I adopted the world 'surrender' as my mantra, because it was shorter and more to the point than saying, 'stop trying to control everything.'" P. 19.)

I decided to read the book and review it.  I went into it with an open mind, reassured by what I'd discovered online.  What I discovered within the pages of the book was that the negative reviews I'd read were justified, the charges I'd discounted were true, and the approach really is about surrendering to your husband.

But also.  There's a TON of great stuff in here.  I've never read a book that gets so much wrong and so much right at the same time.  In the same chapter.  On the same page.  I'll be reading along, thinking, "Yes, right, good point, that's a good reminder, I really could be doing better at that."  Then, all of a sudden, KAPOW!  Did she really just say that?  Oh, yes, she did!  And since the book is extremely repetitive, there's no chance of quickly skimming over or pretending that you just misread the crazy extreme to which Doyle takes her advice.

 So I'm reading along, reading about the principles of a surrendered wife:

• Relinquishes inappropriate control of her husband
• Respects her husband's thinking
• Receives his gifts graciously and expresses gratitude for him
• Expresses what she wants without trying to control him
• Relies on him to handle household finances
• Focuses on her own self-care and fulfillment.

Right, good, OK, yeah, uh-huh, wait. Back up a minute.  Yes, the husband must ALWAYS control the money.  Completely.  The wife should not participate in household budgeting, check bank statements, determine how her bonus check will be spent, carry a credit card, etc.  She should tell her husband what she wants to pay for groceries, gas, going out with girlfriends, massages, etc.  He gives her what he decides is appropriate in cash.  Repeat process monthly.  He manages the accounts and pays the bills, even if they are a two-income family.  Finances are never discussed.  She just expresses her wants and he gives her the money or he doesn't.

Now, Paul and I have managed our finances various ways with various degrees of success.  (Separate post on this later.)  For us, by far the healthiest method - meaning that it works the best and makes BOTH of us happiest - is when we have a financial plan that we create and maintain together.  Not so, says Doyle.  We're sacrificing intimacy (?!) and missing out on the best part of surrendering by my participation in household finances.  As long as a husband is not physically abusive (if he's emotionally abusive he will stop once his wife starts "surrendering") or struggling with an active addiction, he must handle all the money.

In Doyle's case, she was a competent professional woman who managed the family finances with financial planning software.  Her husband, on the other hand, doesn't plan ahead for how each paycheck will be spent.  He pays bills as they come due . . . most of the time.  (Once their electricity was shut off because he didn't get around to paying the bill for a while.)  He snapped at her when she commented about retirement.  Later, he admitted that he snapped because he was feeling guilty that he hadn't contributed anything to their retirement account "in a long time."  Doyle explains that this is a very good thing!  He opened up to her and shared his vulnerability!  Yay!  Surely that's worth more than, say, a plan for financial security.  I was never able to determine why she was certain that a couple can't have both, just because it didn't work for her.

Back to the benefits of surrendering financially.  One is perpetual dating.  A wife expresses her "wants" and allows her husband to please her by addressing her desires as he sees fit.  This allows for them to go out for dinner or take vacations without her worrying about whether or not they can afford it.  It also allows her to be pampered and taken care of.

There's a lot about that in the book, all the gracious receiving of sweet, beautiful, luxurious things.  A wife NEVER offers advice (or her own opinion about anything to do with him, his job, his decision to move the family, his buying a new car, etc.) even if asked.  She never asks how her husband is feeling.  She is given an allowance.  She is taken care of and given gifts.  She focuses on her own needs and fullfillment.  Any problem or issue she doesn't want to deal with herself she turns over to him.  In many but not all ways she sounds like . . . a child.  This impression was driven home for me in one of the sample exercises at the end of the book.  The wife should write a list of things she is grateful for about her husband and give it to him as a gift (great idea!).  She should write one item from her list on each page of a small notebook and then decorate the pages with crayons.  I'm sure Daddy will appreciate that thoughtful touch!  (For a more adult version, I've hidden notes with things I appreciate about my husband in his computer bag or suitcase. He appreciates and enjoys this, especially when I include chocolate.)  


This review is already too long and still barely scratches the surface.  (For example, Doyle acknowledges that husbands frequently will not be excited by taking over all these responsibilities, and she offers strategies to ignore his objections.)  I will say that I've gotten a lot out of the book and am using some of what I've learned, to good effect.  But not all of it. 

Yes, it's important to relax in the car and stop gasping, suggesting alternate routes, and slamming your foot down on the imaginary right-side brake all the time.  But not mentioning it when you know your husband has gotten on the interstate headed the wrong direction even if he doesn't notice his mistake until you've gone a hundred miles out of your way?  That's not just crazy, it's disrespectful, like NOT pointing out the spinach in a good friend's teeth and letting her walk around like that all night.

In addition to an incredible amount of repitition and some seriously wacky advice, Doyle also does a ton of generalization.  Men are like X, Women are like Y, for true intimacy to develop relationships need a huge difference between X and Y, if you do this then he WILL do that, etc.  This type of lazy pseudo-psychology drives me batty, but apparently it sells books.  It also makes people who don't fit these so-called norms feel like something's wrong with them.

Doyle's husband apparently hates to talk about his feelings.  So, according to her, ALL men hate to talk about how they're feeling and we should never ask how they're feeling since we're not their mothers or their therapists.  Of course some men don't like to talk about their feelings.  Some women don't either.  And probably most people dislike being grilled and interrogated the way she reports talking to her husband before "surrendering" to him.  And of course it is possible to ask someone how they're feeling in a caring and nonjudgmental way that doesn't make you seem like their mother or their therapist.  The problem isn't with the topic, it's with the approach and underlying intent.

In conclusion (finally!) I found this book a good read.  I'm glad I read it.  I plan to keep referring to it.  But all the wacky and offensive things in it made the good things harder to trust and accept.  Perhaps in revision Doyle could write a mainstream version that leaves out some of her more extreme ideas about how in order for a marriage to succeed, one must lead ALL the time and the other must follow in EVERYTHING.  Or maybe someone else should write that book.

Click icon for more
book review blogs
@Barrie Summy

Seriously?

First: Low Income Women Can't Get Abortions, But RNC Staffers Can

The Republican National Committee's health insurance plan covers elective abortion - a procedure the party's own platform calls "a fundamental assault on innocent human life."

Federal Election Commission Records show the RNC purchases its insurance from Cigna. Two sales agents for the company said that the RNC's policy covers elective abortion.

...

Leading up to passage of the House health care reform bill last week, 176 House Republicans joined 64 Democrats in voting for the so-called Stupak amendment, a measure that prohibits federal funds from being used to buy health insurance that covers elective abortions.

So, abortion's OK if you work for the RNC but not if you don't? Makes no sense. Now that the policy - which has been in place since 1991 - has come to light, the RNC says it will change its plan to stop covering elective abortion.


Second: Homeless Held Hostage by Catholic Church in D.C. Fight for Gay Marriage

If gay couples are allowed to marry in our nation's capitol, the Catholic Diocese of D.C. will cut off social services to the city's homeless.

...

According to the Post, roughly one-third of the city's homeless population currently receive services from Catholic Charities, the Church's charity arm. That's about 68,000 people who will be cut off from shelters, medical services, food programs.

I understand that the Roman Catholic Church feels strongly about the issue of gay marriage. But what do gay marriage and hunger and homelessness have to do with each other? Is it worth letting people go hungry and cold - in the winter! - because the city in which they live holds a political position the Church finds problematic? Are starving, freezing people less important than a political position?

How Women Look

Unhealthy body images abound. There are women in magazines vs. women in real life. On one hand, the women in magazines are often extremely thin or unnaturally proportioned (more on that in a moment). On the other hand, women in real life are often overweight.

I'm sure that many of you have seen this video from the Dove Campaign for Real Beauty. It's always worth a look:



Have you also been following the flap over professional model Phillipa Hamilton? She says she was fired by Ralph Lauren for being too fat ("You no longer fit into our clothes") despite the fact that she says her weight has not fluctuated over the 8 years of her employment.

Maybe that's not so wrong in the fashion industry. And she hasn't sued her former employer for wrongful termination. The way the situation became public was when Ralph Lauren released an advertisement featuring Hamilton in which she was photoshopped to humanly impossible proportions. Her head was bigger than her pelvis.



I've heard graphic artists defend this sort of photoshopping by talking about the difference between art and reality. But when it comes to marketing images, it seems obvious to me that the line is less fluid. If you want to create interesting conceptual art depicting humanoid creatures and display it on the wall of a gallery, have at it, man. But if you want to sell actual clothes to actual women and the picture proports to a photograph of a woman wearing the clothes, well it should probably do so!

In the process of manufacturing images from photographs and blurring the line between art and marketing, the artist is shaping what we as a society see as attractive.

Shouldn't a marketing campaign show the product itself in its most flattering light, rather than creating a product that does not - and can not - exist? Does that not come dangerously close to the idea of false marketing? In fashion, make great clothes and show them on tall skinny models, we get that. But to take those tall, skinny models and digitally alter them still further? This crosses a line, in my opinion.

For the record, this is how Ralph Lauren photoshopped Phillipa Hamilton.  And this is how she looks in another photo.  (Google her or watch the video below for more.)

Hamilton is 5'10" tall and 120 pounds, which gives her a BMI of 17.2 - officially underweight. "Healthy" starts at a BMI of 18.5. (In order to hit the bottom of a healthy BMI range, Hamilton would have to gain nine pounds.)

There are problems with BMI as a tool for determining if one is overweight or obese in part because it doesn't take muscle mass or frame size into consideration. My husband and I often joke that if he achieved what our Wii Fit suggests as a healthy weight for him, he'd no longer be capable of performing all the exercises it offers.

Similarly, when I am at what is - for me - a very healthy, strong, fit, attractive weight, my BMI is on the cusp between "healthy" and "overweight." Yet at that weight I am by no stretch of the imagination "fat" and if I were to lose additional weight, much of it would be muscle!

"In the developed world anorexia nervosa is the third most common chronic condition of adolescence."

Yet the vast majority of "health" coverage in the media related to children and weight is about obesity. And the media reports themselves are fueled by advertisements promoting unhealthily thin women and girls.

So what is fair? Surely, companies should be allowed to use create artwork to sell their products. My suggestion is that when photos are edited beyond the retouching of blemishes, there should be a disclaimer on the image itself.

And we consumers need to be more conscientious about voting against these practices with our dollars.

Blessed Are the Peacemakers

"Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God." Matthew 5:9 (TNIV).

Sometimes I am not sure.

By which I mean: I think there's a downside as well as the (more obvious) upside to peacemaking.

Given a situation where people have diametrically opposed positions, where compromise is impossible, there's still great value in continuing the conversation. I believe this is the way to bring along as many people as possible as we move in a forward direction (even if that means proceeding more slowly). I think it's important not to demonize the "other side," not to polarize the debate.

In the new edition of Newsweek, there's an excerpt from Cass Sunstein's new book Going to Extremes:

"In 2005, Sunstein asked liberals and conservatives to write down their views on social issues (gay unions, climate change). Subjects were then split into like-minded groups for 15 minutes. Almost all became more dogmatic in their views. This is called "group polarization.""

There is serious danger in surrounding oneself with people and information that only reinforces one's opinions. So, yay for the peacemakers who bring everyone to the table, who make people see each other rather than dehumanizing each other.

But on issue where I do see a clear Right and Wrong, I think there's also danger in pretending that both sides are "equal." There really are such issues. Slavery. The holocaust. Women's suffrage. Let's keep going: civil rights (for all races, sexes, orientations, abilities), genocide, ignoring third world hunger and disease, human trafficking, lack of access to quality healthcare.

By not roundly condemning that which is wrong (and thereby shutting off discussion with those I've judged) I am disrespecting and hurting innocent people.

It's a hard decision: do the "right" thing but hamper progress in a global sense, increase polarization, and deepen rifts between people-

Or continue on in discussions with people with whom I disagree, patiently listening and explaining, knowing all the while that by engaging and not condemning I'm lending a certain amount of legitimacy to a position that might be hateful and hurtful to people I love.

There are issues, like gay rights, where I find it easier to continue the discussion, be patient, allow time and tides to pull more people along on our ponderous slide forward. And there are issues that are perhaps more personal to me, like hatefulness toward the developmentally disabled (affecting, as it does, my child who cannot yet stand up for herself) and possibly even misogyny (affecting, as it does, me and millions of other women) where I am more comfortable taking the Judging role. Zero tolerance. You are wrong and this is why.

I understand those for whom gay rights is such an issue. I think there's need for people in both roles on each issue - the trailblazers and the peacemakers - as long as we continue moving forward.

Feminist Romance

Part I

I've complained about romance novels before, so today I thought I'd backpedal a little.

I'll start by picking on another genre and mentioning something that drives me crazy about mysteries. I love mysteries, especially clever ones that I have a hard time figuring out then have this big, wonderful "click" moment at the end where it all falls into place and I see how it was set up from page 1. But I hate it when someone dies in a book and everyone around them gasps, then either goes on like it's no big deal or treats it as a purely intellectual puzzle. In my experience, most people - and communities - are emotionally stricken by such events, and the residual effects don't wear off in a day or two.

Back to romance. I've already clarified that I don't hate all romance novels, though there are common genre tropes that annoy and frustrate me. Now I'll go a step further.

In a romance novel, the main story arc is usually . . . the romance. You know, the guy and the girl getting together. I am resistant to any story when I feel like I know how it ends. I didn't see Titanic until it had been on DVD for a couple of years, and then only under duress. (I liked it OK, but didn't wish I'd made it to the theater.) I went to see Apollo 13 at my husband's request and enjoyed it very much, though I was reluctant to see it because it was a true story and I knew how it turned out. And I get annoyed when shows give away too much in the previews, so I spend the whole episode waiting for a scene that turns out to be a big deal at the end. (Looking at you, season finale of Private Practice!)

I'm also resistant to seeing musicals, though I might enjoy them when I finally concede. I still haven't seen Chicago or Moulin Rouge, which I understand is akin to blasphemy.

What about you? What drives you crazy in fiction - be it written, acted, or sung? And what blind prejudices do you have?

Part II

The Eroticization of Equality and Social Justice (Hillary Retig)

This article is a very interesting read, but I'm not sure I am seduced by the premise. (joke credit: Retig)

1) "What do conservatives . . . have against romance?"
Just because conservatives are against something doesn't make it progressive. (And it's hard to argue that conservatives are against romance, anyway, just certain aspects of what broadly falls into that category.)

2) "[R]omance itself is a fundamentally progressive activity."
Not necessarily. For example, there are genre publishers, imprints, etc. that commonly require women to be like X and men to by like Y (e.g. "alpha"). In other words, romance fiction might very well codify and reinforce tired gender stereotypes.

3) I'm also not convinced that the idea of progressiveness = love for humankind is best exemplified by romance fiction, in which one character is seemingly destined for one other character, usually to the exclusion of all others. It's very individually focused and not typically spun outwards into a community experience.

4) "it's also commonly acknowledged in the field that if you were ever to meet one of those Byronic alpha-male romance heroes in real life, he would likely be a real jerk."
I'm not so quick to excuse perpetuating the romanticization of this type of character. In fact, doing so consciously might be worse.

5) "egalitarian partnerships tend to be the happiest, but also tend to lack sexual spark."
Huh.

But the article is very smart and thought-provoking, and I loved chunks of it. For example:

"More and more, romance fiction is incorporating the ideals and values of progressivism, not just by becoming more diverse in its characterizations and relationship constructions, but by replacing a one-up, competitive model of power, in which I derive my power from your relative weakness, with a between-equals, cooperative model in which power is shared and distributed to the benefit of all. The more it does this, the closer it will come to providing models of ecstatic, loving, romantic, sexual relationships that work in real life - a huge public benefit and radical act."

Why do I spend so much time writing and thinking about romance novels? Because of statistics like this:

"More than a quarter of all books sold in the U.S. are romance fiction, and more than 64 million Americans read at least one romance novel each year (source: Romance Writers of America, RWA). Romance fiction is an enormous part of American culture, and an important transmitter of values."

Romance fiction is obviously hugely popular, and I think it only makes sense to pay attention to something so influential.

New Safety, New Concerns In Tests for Down Syndrome

A handful of biotech companies are racing to market a new generation of tests for Down syndrome, a development that promises a safer way to spot the most common genetic cause of mental retardation early in pregnancy even as it weaves a thicket of moral, medical, political and regulatory concerns.

My friend Becky sent me a link to this article, thinking I might find it interesting.

Indeed I do. And I have been following this development for months with enthusiasm and excitement. (Though I am uncomfortable with some of the wording/phrasing within the piece, that's pretty much par for the course with this type of reporting.)

My perspective on prenatal testing and Down syndrome differs widely from that of many other parents of children with Trisomy 21. Ellie was diagnosed prenatally, and so was Ada (with her oh-so-typically configured chromosomes). With Ellie I had the quad screen (second trimester maternal blood test, safe for mom and baby but very high rate of false positives - and negatives) followed by a targeted ultrasound (aka "Level 2") that picked up markers for Down's, culminating in amniocentesis because I just needed to know and to prepare myself by that point. With Ada I had chorionic villus sampling, CVS, late in my first trimester. I've only been pregnant twice, I've had prenatal testing twice, and I've chosen not to terminate twice. So that's my story.

I'm someone who needs to know everything I can, to understand as much as possible, to feel like I have control over a situation. Pregnancy was no exception to that. For me, knowing as much as possible, as safely as possible, as early as possible sounds GREAT.

I share the concerns of many other parents of children with Down syndrome that earlier, safer, and more widely available diagnostic tests will lead to fewer children born with Down syndrome and worse community support and acceptance for people with Trisomy 21.

"We have a history in this country of a eugenics movement where people tried to eliminate certain people from the gene pool," said Andrew J. Imparato of the American Association of People With Disabilities. "People could start wondering, 'How did you get born?' "

I just disagree about the right way to address the problem. I'm giving a talk to a group of obstetricians next week about delivering difficult news to moms whose babies have been diagnosed to Down syndrome prenatally. There are some things my doctor did that were great, and others that she (and her office) could have handled much better.

I think that educating people and eradicating fear of the unknown are critical. I think that talking about Ellie and sharing our experiences together are important parts of the process. I think that doctors doing a better job of talking to pregnant women about the diagnosis is necessary.

But I don't think that limiting access to information is at all helpful. I trust women to make their own decisions about what testing they choose to have throughout pregnancy. I trust women to make their own choices about how they manage that information. I think that my job, and the job of each pregnant woman's healthcare team and the community at large is to help women as they research and learn and decide as they see fit.

I can't see this as simply a personal decision; it's also political. And I can never see this as purely a political decision, either. In this case, the two are inextricably combined for me. And I hope that gives me an extra bit of compassion for families dealing with the uncertainty surrounding pregnancy, prenatal testing, prenatal diagnoses, and decisions about whether or not to terminate.

I see this scientific breakthrough as a call to action, not a threat to my child.

A Post-Abortion World

If abortion were outlawed tomorrow in all 50 states, it wouldn’t stop happening.

Desperate women would seek out illegal abortions from unlicensed practitioners.

Women with means would launch a medical travel industry for trips to Canada, Mexico, and elsewhere to get abortions.

Making abortion illegal won’t stop the debate, or drive it underground.

But if we put the debate aside for a moment, we can focus on the realities of the situation. We can identify common ground, and we can make a real difference, now. Instead of politically charged rhetoric that drives us further apart; we can save and improve lives, right here in America, right now.

We can fix our broken adoption and foster care systems.

We can make sure that no child in American goes hungry, and that every child in America has access to adequate healthcare. We can provide early intervention services and therapies for children who need them now in order to be fully participatory members of society later. We can guarantee prenatal care to all those who need it. We can remove many of the barriers that make women feel like they can’t have a baby now.

We can reduce the number of unplanned pregnancies. We can educate all pubescent kids about sex and what it can lead to. We can make sure all teens know the facts about pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases. We can make sure they know about birth control, its benefits and its limitations, because some of them will make the decision to be sexually active before they’re ready to be parents themselves.

And parents and churches can jump into the breach, educating kids about values, about right and wrong, good and bad decisions, responsibility. Our kids are going to hear about sex: from TV, movies, magazines, the internet, and each other. We can make sure that the information they hear outside is shaped by the value system we have structured and built. And we can provide good role models for our kids to follow. We can walk the walk in addition to talking the talk.

If we want to, we can effect real change. We can work together to improve and save the lives of millions of Americans. Or we can keep vilifying each other, dividing ourselves into Red and Blue, seeing each other as evil and wrong, and keep using abortion as a spur to drive increasingly polarized voters to the polls to elect officials who are in turn less interested in solving the problems than in political grandstanding.

The Candidates on Disability - Part IV

It's time to wrap up this series, including: McCain on disabilities, Obama on disabilities, Biden on disabilities, and now, finally, Palin on disabilities.

Let's start with the obvious. Sarah Palin has an infant with Down syndrome. I was once in her position! I too found out, while I was pregnant, that I would have a baby with Down syndrome. My first reaction is to think: we have something major in common! She gets me, the way only other people who have been in this position do. But does she? Let's take a look at the evidence.

First, there was her speech at the Republican National Convention. She said, "And I pledge to you that, if we're elected, you will have a friend and advocate in the White House." I liked that a lot. Plus, her son was there, frequently on camera. This led to quite a bit of positive exposure for Trisomy 21, including several news reports that were much more accurate and balanced than those I'm used to seeing. Hooray!

But what did Palin mean, that she'll be an advocate for me, for children like mine? She didn't specify - then or since - and "Maria Comella, her spokeswoman, would not elaborate on what Ms. Palin would seek to accomplish for disabled children as vice president."

OK, so she's not talking specifics in this campaign, and she doesn't have a congressional voting record like the other three candidates so we'll look back at her record of volunteer work, charitable giving, and political actions as mayor of Wasilla and governor of Alaska.

1) Volunteerism: I couldn't find any public record of Palin volunteering. If you find information about her volunteerism for disability-related causes, please leave a link in the comments section so that I can update this post.

2) Caritable giving: Again, I struck out here because Palin won't reveal finances until after debate with Biden.

3) Speeches: Other than the RNC speech referenced above, I found nothing.

4) As Mayor: I found nothing applicable.

5) As Governor:

1. In the "Issues" section of her campaign web site, Palin didn't mention disability.
   
2. This summer she celebrated the "18th Anniversary of the ADA" in Alaska.
   
3. Governor Palin signed a bill produced by a legislative task force that reallocated money within Alaska's education budget, shifting funds to more rural school districts and increasing the per-student allotment for students with special needs.
   
4. But on the other hand, she vetoed half of the proposed Special Olympics budget for 2008 (Page 100, SB 221 with vetoes).
   
5. Here's a video of Palin talking about these accomplishments . . . though perhaps her claims are a little exaggerated. And she believes that government just "gets in the way" of medical research for diseases like cancer, Parkinson's, and Alzheimer's.
   
6. "When a young governor line-item vetoes six appropriations for community disability services or for accessibility modifications to public accommodations, that governor gives us reason to be skeptical about promises and prospective performance."

Of great concern to me is Palin's repeated - and recent - assertions that the size of government be cut way back. I support government funding for ADA enforcement and many other disability-friendly programs. I am concerned about a politician who vetoes previously noncontroversial educational budget items like libraries, textbooks, and safer landscaping, explaining that funding can be found elsewhere rather than from the government. (The entire text of the budget and the governor's vetoes are widely available online, if you have the time and inclination to wade through it all.) Also of especial concern to me is Palin's position on healthcare, specifically the desire that "Health care must be market-and business-driven," and her advocacy for "personal responsibility for personal health & all areas," as "personal responsibility & choices key to good health." Those quotes are from this year and aren't great news for those with "pre-existing conditions."

In the absence of much concrete information about Palin's support for disability-related programs, I'm looking at similar government programs and am very concerned by her positions.

I googled until my fingers were sore, looked through newspaper reports, budgets, and dozens of speeches. Outside of that comment at the RNC, I've found nothing from Sarah Palin supporting families with special needs. (For example, see On the Issues.)

In conclusion: Sarah Palin might indeed turn out to be an advocate for kids with special needs. But I've no evidence to show that she shares my priorities in this area. I can't vote based on that blind hope alone, without any assurance whatsoever that she supports the sort of legislation I'd like to see for people with disabilities.

Recap of my summaries for the other candidates:

• John McCain: Other than general support for disabled veterans, McCain has very little to say about disability-related issues on his campaign web site, and I am concerned about the importance he places on disability issues, and what that suggests about the policies he'd support as President. (Especially with all this regulation/deregulation stuff.)
  
• Barack Obama: Obama is far and away the strongest candidate with respect to disability rights and programming. He has long had a page on his web site devoted to disability issues, and has a long and strong track record of both supporting and sponsoring legislation to help people with disabilities and their families.
  
• Joe Biden: Biden is a strong supporter of disability rights, but he's not an activist. He votes the way I'd like him to on those issues, but it's not quite as high a priority for Biden as it is for Obama. Still, a good, solid record.

Fathers' Rights

I'm way behind on Newsweek, again, so I missed my opportunity to respond to Dahlia Lithwick's article "Rethinking Fathers' Rights."

It's a good article, for the most part. Custody rights are a very difficult issue to tackle.

Because scientists and sociologists have done studies and written papers, we all know that women make less money than men. We also know that, after divorce, women fare much, much worse that men do, financially. And we know that married women bear a disproportionate amount of the burden for running the household and caring for the children, regardless of whether or not they work outside the home.

Part of what makes the issue of custody rights tough is that divorce can often be hard on everyone involved. It's rarely a black-and-white issue. And most of us probably know good parents who feel that they've been screwed by the system as well as by their exes. Sometimes those good parents are dads, who pay a lot of child support and see little of their children, or have ex-wives who talk negatively about them to the kids. That sucks for everyone.

But it's still hard to let go of that "children need their mothers" thing. Most of us know that continuing to paint fathers as incompetent ninnies when it comes to child-rearing is counter-productive. But given the other factors stacked against women in divorce situations (see above, remembering that with money comes power) it must be hard to give up that one big piece of power.

Because most of us can't bear the thought of losing our kids.

So, yes, it's an interesting article tackling a difficult issue.

But Lithwick misses a major point. She makes a significant logical misstep, and she repeats it twice in the short article. It goes like this:

"Many good fathers will be downgraded from full-time dads to alternating-weekend-carpool dads. They will be asked to pay at least a third of their salaries in child support for that privilege."

Umm. No.

When you have sex, you are taking the risk that you might become a parent. And when you do become a parent, you bear a financial responsibility for your child, regardless of whether or not you have whole or partial custody of the child.

You're not paying child support so that you can see your child. You don't get off the hook and get to stop paying if you forfeit your right to see your child. You're still responsible for your child financially, if in no other way.

Sure, there are plenty of examples of men who skate out on child support payments, complaints that the payments are too high, etc.

A couple of things. First, it's lousy. Second, yeah, kids are expensive. Really, really expensive. And if the dad's not paying, the expenses don't go away. It's just harder to see the way the day-to-day expenses add up when you're not right there every day.

And maintaining two households is significantly more expensive than maintaining one. So . . .

I won't get into my feelings about how we should handle the problem of divorce in our society, at least not in this post, though I find the conversation fascinating. I just couldn't resist pointing out Lithwick's offensive suggestion that non-custodial fathers "pay for the right to see their kids on alternating Sundays."

No. Fathers pay so that their children can eat, wear clothes, have shelter, afford school fees, and, perhaps, go on the occasional field trip once in a while.

It's true that withholding visitation rights is sometimes the stick to get deadbeat dads to pay. But would you say that the main reason you don't murder your annoying neighbor is because you don't want to lose your right to vote? No, that's just one possible consequence of the action, and probably not even the most significant one.

If you want to prove yourself a good parent, then withholding money your kids need for food and shelter is not such a great idea. That is, after all, what you're paying for.

Feminism and Stuff

Bitch needs help.

And if feminism is your thing, you might be interested in some of this discussion, especially the links. (Charging victims for their own rape kits as a "cost-cutting measure?" Sick! Sign me up for the ever-disparaged Big Government.)

If you're looking for a new media personality to thumb your nose at this week, consider Donny Deutsch:

Equating Palin to a "product," CNBC's "The Big Idea" host Donny Deutsch jubilantly declared that the governor represents a "new creation that the feminist movement has not figured out in 40 years … the feminist ideal. She's sexy. She's still young enough to have physical appeal. Hillary didn't get it—she wouldn't put on a skirt."

And Call Me A Feminist, Please is an interesting article by Elisabeth Eaves, deputy editor of Forbes.com's opinions channel.

Following her advice:

But It's Saturday!

Hello, and welcome to a rare weekend post from me! This one is specifically for any of you who might have happened over here after reading an article in the Sunday New York Times about Governor Palin and the role in this election of funding for services for people with disabilities.

If you just read that one, please be sure to go back and read the last one that quoted me: Genetic Testing + Abortion = ???. It's a great article, part of a great series, and for the interested, the part about me includes this, "[A]s a woman who continued a pregnancy after learning that her child would have Down syndrome, she also has beliefs about the ethics of choosing, or not choosing, certain kinds of children. “I thought it would be morally wrong to have an abortion for a child that had a genetic disability,” said Sarahlynn."

OK, now that we're clear and all on the same page, welcome! Please feel free to look around. In particular, I'd invite you to check out my "Passionate Posts" linked over there in the sidebar and also some of the "Labels," like Ellie and Down syndrome.

Both of my daughters are such amazing people. They're both such blessings to me, I can't imagine my life without either of them. They have taught me so much about love, and myself, and have challenged me to grow in wonderful ways.

I hope you'll share my journey a little, here.

I support a culture of life in which fewer women face unintended pregnancies. I support education and access to birth control for all women who want or need it. I support social services supporting children and families, so that fewer women feel like they "can't" have children. I support funding for early intervention, education, and therapy services for children and adults with disabilities, carrying respect for life on through. I support full inclusion of people with disabilities into all walks of life, reminding others that people with disabilities are people first, people with a lot to offer our society.

Qualifications

Upon further reflection.

I still do have reservations about Palin's personal decisions and how they impact her political decisions. But those are my personal feelings and I am very uncomfortable with those issues being front and center in a national debate.

I am especially uncomfortable at the way the discussion's being framed as an assault on Palin as a working mother. I do not apologize for my opinions - far more balanced for me as concerns about both Palin and McCain than the way they're echoing around the public discussion - but I do apologize for the extent that my comments on this blog played into that noise.

These personal issues are merely one of the several areas in which I am uncomfortable with Sarah Palin as a candidate. I wish the media, the blogs, everybody would spend more time on the other issues. For example:

1. Palin wanted to ban books from the library (and reportedly threatened to fire a librarian who opposed her).
   
2. Palin wants to eliminate a woman's right to choose.
   
3. Palin supports the teaching of "creationism" in public schools.
   
4. Palin injects polarizing positions into issues that should be community-building (like guns and abortion into a local race that should be about roads and schools).
   
5. Palin supports abstinence only education. (To clarify, she is against against sex education and the teaching of contraception in schools and other institutions that receive federal funding.)
   
6. Palin supports secrecy in government, not letting local department heads talk to local press without her permission when she was mayor.
   
7. Palin thinks that "community organizing" is a big joke, a laughable endeavor.
   
8. Palin has no foreign policy experience, and got a passport and traveled outside the US for the first time last year.

These positions scare me in a candidate for the second - and potentially first - highest office in the land.

Many believe that Palin's experience is on par with Obama's. I disagree, especially with regard to the experience that matters most to me in this election, and here's why.

Palin

1. Two terms as mayor and city councilmember of Wasilla, Alaska (then population around 5500, I believe) which is not inconsequential, but is at most a stepping stone toward the Vice/Presidency. Palin's take on her own executive experience, so commonly touted by her party as being twice that of Obama's and Biden's (not to mention John McCain's, I suppose): According to an October 1996 article in the Mat-Su Valley Frontiersman, when asked how she would "effectively run a city without experienced leaders," Palin said: "It's not rocket science. It's $6 million and 53 employees."
   
2. One year as chair of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission.
   
3. 18 months as governor of Alaska. (This is significant experience, for better and worse, but I'd prefer to see more than 18 months of it.)

Obama

1. 8 years in the Illinois senate (iVAWA, EITC/tax cuts, early childhood education, videotaping of confessions and interrogations in capital cases)
   
2. 3-1/2 years in the U.S. Senate (sponsoring 131 bills, co-sponsoring 4-500 more, including tax-spending accountability and ethics reform)
   
3. Extensive foreign-policy experience, including serving on three of the four Senate Committees dealing with foreign policy issues (no other Senator matches that record).
   
4. "Obama has also traveled extensively in his capacity as a member of the Foreign Relations Committee and has visited Russia, Ukraine, and Azerbaijan in Asia; Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Kuwait, and the Palestinian Territories in the Middle East; and Chad, Djibouti, Ethiopia, Kenya, and South Africa in Africa."
   
5. There's also the pre-public life experience, including his degrees and his history actually living abroad.

Palin has experience being the boss, and that's very important in a Commander-in-Chief. Obama also has experience being a boss, though not in elected executive office. That particular experience, while important, is far less critical to me than the sophisticated understanding of international issues necessary in today's world.

I presume that we're spending so much time contrasting Obama and Palin because of McCain's age? It seems an unusual way to go into an election.



Regarding the convention tonight. Giuliani's speech - and the reactions to it - were some of the ugliest politics I have have ever seen, and I've watched a lot of these conventions. It made me feel sick to my stomach, the way I feel when I've said something I shouldn't have, or have silently witnessed someone being bullied. I felt like I needed a shower.

I liked what Palin said about children with special needs. I liked it a lot. But I didn't like the way she made political hay out of her son's upcoming deployment. (But how cute was was that adorable little girl licking her hand and smoothing down her baby brother's hair?)

Palin and Sexism

It's RNC week, so here's another post on Sarah Palin.

Fortunately, we're beyond some of the most obvious racist and sexist attacks. This doesn't mean that racism and sexism are dead. It just means that we have to be a leeeetle more subtle with our verbal darts. (Note my post on Obama's supposed ego.)

But this applies to sexism, too, of course, and Sarah Palin. While I disagree with Palin on nearly every policy position, there's no ignoring that many of the attacks against her - like those on Hillary Rodham Clinton earlier in the campaign season - are both terribly sexist and often lobbed by "liberals."

Some of this falls on the McCain campaign. Legitimate questions about her positions and experience are often met with challenges of sexism by a campaign spokesman. That's disingenuous; you can't have it both ways. Women politicians are full equals, or they're delicately above reproach because of their gender. Also, Did you notice McCain standing very close to Governor Palin during her first speech as the nominee . . . apparently reading over her shoulder and mouthing the words along with her? Was this because McCain is a control freak? Or just lacking in confidence somehow in his running mate?

Regardless, there's plenty of blame for the left. Plenty of it. Some of it blatant. All of it inexcusable.

But what about the questions regarding her family? As a voter, family values and what sort of parent a candidate is do matter to me. One of the parts of Biden's story that touched me most was the part about how, after his wife and child died, he was conflicted about taking the oath of office. He eventually went ahead and did so, but never moved to Washington, commuting home to Delaware every night. Family has been a big part of Obama's campaign, too, with many press questions and interviews discussing what's going on with his kids while Senator and Mrs. Obama campaign. I think all that is important.

So to focus on the top of the Republican ticket, it bothers me a great deal that Senator McCain lived in Washington while his wife raised their children in Arizona. ("The McCains have a commuter marriage in which he stays in Washington, she stays in Phoenix, but they vacation together twice a year.") It also bothered me that she recovered alone after her stroke. And, of course, there's the stuff about his first marriage (ignore the post, it's the comments that matter).

Shouldn't these issues get as much attention as what Governor Palin is planning to do for childcare during this campaign and afterward, if elected?

It's fine with me if people have open marriages, long-distance marriages, or rarely see their own kids. (No, wait, that last one does bother me if it's a choice rather than a necessity.) But I'm also free to draw my own assumptions about a candidate, to some extent based on his or her personal life.

In the end, I'm left with this: I'm glad I never seriously considered a life in politics, or married a politician. That's not the life I want for myself, or my children. We do, of course, need good, qualified men and women to choose differently.

***

Did anybody else watch President Bush on NBC tonight? They used the audio directly from the satellite feed. Which, while crisp, clear, and synced with the video, didn't include crowd reactions. Wow, did that make the speech painful and awkward and devastated the speech's intended crowd-rousing effect for the TV audience. I'm thinking somebody at the network got fired for that switch-feed blooper. I thought that Thompson and Lieberman did a good job with their speeches, though I thought Lieberman had delivered his last line about 10 separate times.