feminism ain't easy: all apologies

I saw this on the news last night about an exchange between Ted Cruz and Dianne Feinstein in a senate judiciary committee hearing.  It bothered me, but not for the reason you might suspect.

I'm not overly upset about Ted Cruz and his line of reasoning. Sure, I disagree with him.  I also figure if he wants to make his underlying argument look weaker by trying to be condescending, that's his decision.

What concerns me about this story -- and others recounting the exchange between Cruz and Feinstein -- is the mention at the end of her apologizing to him after the fact.  If you watch the conversation in full and not edited for prime time news (available here), you'll see that Senators Leahy and Durbin also had some cutting remarks for Cruz.  In my opinion, none of the comments, Feinstein's included, were inappropriate or disrespectfully irate.  I'm at a loss as to why she should feel the need to apologize for making a strong argument in defense of her opinions.

More to the point, why is it relevant to the journalistic recounting of events?  I can't recall the last time a story on male legislators mentioned that one apologized to another.  Maybe the men of Washington apologize to each other all over the place.  Who am I to know?  Whether they do or they don't isn't my point, though, it's that if they do, we don't hear about it (and probably don't need to).  The fact that major media outlets seem to only find it relevant when a female senator apologizes: that's what I find problematic.

feminism ain't easy: gaslights around every corner

I may have mentioned it once or eleven times, but Meet the Press on the television is a must around here on Sunday mornings. This past weekend was no exception, and goodness, was it interesting. The highlight (for me, anyway -- I know not everyone enjoys political debates) was a roundtable conversation about how the upcoming presidential election will be influenced by female voters. If you didn't catch it but you'd care to, it's available at the Huffington Post here.

I have a tremendous amount of respect for Rachel Maddow and the way she handled herself during the conversation. Partially, sure, it has to do with the fact that I agree with her viewpoint, but more importantly I admire the way she articulated her opinions in an unfailingly civil and rational way. What impressed me even more in this particular exchange was the fact that she made of point of calling one of her adversaries' tactics what it was: condescending.

I posted that article with the Meet the Press clip on Facebook as well, in the hopes that more people would see it and participate in the cultural conversation about how the policies advanced by the two major political parties in this country will affect women. As an afterthought, I also added a link to this article by Yashar Ali about the concept of "gaslighting": the dismissal of women's feelings and opinions by way of framing them as irrational or otherwise invalid and unimportant. Sometimes it's intentional and sometimes it's not, but it's insidious, and it's everywhere.

When Alex Castellanos stopped debating the merits of Rachel Maddow's factual argument and referred to her as very "passionate" about her opinions, he was -- either intentionally or not -- engaging in gaslighting. He was framing her statements as emotion-based rather than fact-based, with of course makes them sound a lot less convincing. Kudos to Ms. Maddow for calling him on it.

I posted the article about gaslighting in connection with the Meet the Press clip in part because I think it's fascinating to watch the exchange with that in mind. I'm also hopeful that more people will notice (and, of course, work to decrease) gaslighting not just in political debates, but in their own lives.

Imagine my surprise, though, when I realized that Mr. Castellanos's comments during the discussion weren't the only gaslighting example on display. Once I'd clicked "submit" and the video clip appeared as a link on the page, the title as provided by Huffington Post was an example of gaslighting unto itself:


"WATCH: Maddow Flips Out on 'Meet the Press'"


You'll note, if you watch the piece, that Ms. Maddow does not "flip out." She states her opinions. She appears to be annoyed with Mr. Castellanos. She counters points she disagrees with. But she does not "flip out," and to say that she does inaccurately presents her as someone who is irrational and less worthy of respect.

But what, you ask, is the best part in all this? Could it get more deliciously ironic? Why yes, yes it could: the Huffington Post also ran the very same gaslighting article I linked to above on its site here back in September of 2011. They filed it under, among other things, "women's rights" and "inspiring."

Insidious, indeed.

An Open Letter to the Governor

Dear Governor LePage,

I'll put this out there at the beginning: I didn't vote for you. I don't agree with your political stance on many issues (a notable exception, though, and credit where it's due: thank you for addressing the issue of domestic violence). Despite our many ideological differences, you are my governor and you are entitled to my respect as an elected official; my hope is that you will behave in a manner that earns respect as well.

I was disheartened to hear recently that you chose not to attend a meeting of the National Governors Association (NGA). Certainly, I understand that scheduling conflicts occur, and that one cannot attend all the events and conferences that are available to position our state for future success. What disappoints me is the reason you cited for choosing to attend the annual Potato Blossom Festival in Aroostook County instead of a meeting with your peers: you said "it's non-partisan and that's a problem, because it's gridlock. Everybody is divided and we can't get anything done." I also heard some of your remarks in a radio piece on the subject. I couldn't find a transcript of that statement, but I do recall that you cited what you view as a "politically correct" atmosphere at NGA events, and you feel you "don't belong" within that context. The radio piece also indicated that you've found attendance at Republican Governors Association events to be more productive.

Governor LePage, much like I recognize the need to maintain respect for you despite the disagreements I may have with your positions, I do wish that you would recognize that you govern all Mainers -- those who voted for you and continue to agree with you, and those who did and do not. To that end, perhaps you could consider attending nonpartisan events and trying to work with those who hold viewpoints across the political spectrum in our country. Engaging in productive conversation with governors of other states -- particularly those governors with whom you disagree -- might go a long way toward conveying a sense that you understand your role as governor of all of us Mainers, and toward earning the respect I referred to above. If you feel as though NGA events involve too much gridlock, may I recommend that you attend and try to be part of a solution? If you don't feel comfortable communicating your viewpoints in a logical, reasoned manner (which I assume you meant when you said you "don't belong" where there's so much "political correctness") I would respectfully suggest that you may be in the wrong line of work.

If the current state of the national political arena has told us anything, hasn't it told us that the country is yearning for and truly needs more discussion and collaboration across party lines, not less? I fail to see how retreating to the comfort of engaging with only those who share our opinions, tempting as it may be, will allow us to solve the challenges we face.

Skipping the NGA event serves as an example, but I implore you to re-examine your approach overall. Please reach out to and work together with people and groups of varying political perspectives. It is, in my opinion, an important part of the job you signed up for: governing all Mainers.




*Anyone wishing to share their opinion respectfully and without hostility is welcome to do so. Obviously, anyone in that other disrespectful and hostile camp is not.

Warms my bleeding heart...

Did anyone else happen to catch the health care reform conversation on Meet the Press this morning? To summarize:

1. Rudy Giuliani stoops to inane fearmongering in the use of the phrase "pulling the plug on Grandma."

2. Harold Ford Jr. picks up his pen and crafts a reasoned, logical, scathing response while Tom Brokaw speaks.

3. Ford maintains his composure and gets several valid points across while Giuliani tries to interrupt with objections of varying degrees of substance. Ford points out the holes in Giuliani's argument and generally appears the more intelligent and rational of the two.

4. Senor Wonderful and I raise our coffee mugs in delight and cheer out loud from the comfort of our couch. Yes, we really did.

Watch numbers 1-3 here:

Having watched the second presidential debate...

Dear Senator McCain:

I am not your friend. Please stop calling me that.

If you insist on thinking of me as your friend, perhaps you could act accordingly and stop lying to me.

Many thanks,
Craftosaurus

Liberal

And proud of it!

That link is to a fantastic New York Times op-ed piece by Bob Herbert. Read it. Forward it. Own it.

As for a knitting update, I'm nearly one lace repeat into this sweater. The yarn is fingering weight wool so it's kind of slow going, but I'm hoping it'll be worth it. Also hoping the wool won't turn out to be too itchy. And that I don't run out of it before I've at least knit cap sleeves...

Is it nap time yet?

First, let me say that I was so impressed with Joe Biden's speech last night. I'm sorry to say that I don't know as much about him as I should, but MAN, did he seem like a genuine, quality human being. While I ordinarily find personality to be less important, theoretically, than ideology in a politician, for a vice presidential nominee, I think one's perceived personality takes on greater significance. Also, if that's what (a lot of) voters are going to base their decisions on, so much the better that a man appearing to be of great intellectual substance is also going to be able, it seems, to tap into that "I have to vote for someone I can connect with" sentiment. [Which is not to say that I think the media's portrayal of Obama as suffering from connectivity problems is accurate... rather that a ticket with two, count 'em, TWO intelligent, genuine, likeable people is a good, good thing.]

Bottom line: when I was watching Biden, then Biden and Obama, I couldn't stop smiling. And I'm typically pretty unemotional about politics.

But for crying out loud, do the powers that be need to schedule the big speeches for 10:30 at night? I am old, apparently, and can't handle a week's worth of this up-past-ten nonsense. I know, I could probably find the footage after the fact via the interwebs, but it just isn't the same.

Must go and forage for some caffeine...

Rant

I've been spending most of my Sunday mornings lately tidying my house while half-watching (or watching, depending on my level of interest) the networks' political analysis fare. This past Sunday, George Stephanopolous interviewed John McCain. I just found a transcript of the interview here.

Now, if you know me at all, you know that I disagree with the vast majority of the McCain platform. That, however, is not why I'm all ranty (well, today, anyway). What irks me is the blatant avoidance of difficult questions, redirection to topics he preferred to discuss, and failure to apply logic or intellectual sincerity to his responses. Ya don't like the fact that economists don't think a gas tax holiday will be effective, so you slam economists en masse as being out of touch with lower income Americans? Seriously? You respond to a question on how to solve the mortgage crisis by swivelling over to Congressional spending and dependence on foreign oil? For real? You're asked about your previously-stated opposition to gay adoption, and all you can muster is a robotic repition of the phrases "two parent families" (which, really, doesn't serve your argument, methinks) and "traditional family values," resulting in a distinct neither-confirm-nor-deny undertone? Come on now. I'll give Stephanopolous credit for calling him on some of this stuff, but I also think he let too much of it slide.

I know a large segment of American voters have resigned themselves to the notion that politicians are, by nature, evasive and unresponsive when asked about difficult policy matters, but it still infuriates me that they get away with it... and they get away with it because so many of us don't think carefully and critically about the logic employed in answers like these. I know there were heads nodding all around the country Sunday morning, people agreeing that of course, those "elitist" economists must not have any understanding of what it's like to live paycheck to paycheck, without stopping to realize that Senator McCain didn't answer the question he was asked.

[Along the same lines, the rampant use of "elitist" as a negative label - and smokescreen - to distract the public from substantive issues? Maddening! Remind me again, when did being intelligent, eloquent, and well-informed become a bad thing, particularly for a potential leader of our country? That is an important job, people! I for one would like the person filling it to excel in all three of those areas.]

Grrr.