1920 - 1878 = ?
If you are quick, you've already calculated the difference. If you are really clever, you may have even figured out the significance of the equation and the answer. I'll come back to that point later.
What does a math problem have to do with the so-called "War on Women" being waged by politicians, lawmakers and the flame-fanning media? Everything, in my opinion.
First let's examine at the term. Where does the "war" imagery come from? Are there dead bodies in this war? Has blood been spilled? Are there prisoners, hostages, guerilla tactics? Are there uniforms? Is there a defined front? Are there clearly defined parties who have chosen a side? Is participation in this war compulsory?
The "War on Women" is a sham, a made-up event described with evocative terms that create a sense of danger and urgency. War terminology and symbolism permeate our culture to such an extent that we hardly question it when such terminology is coined. Scholars have been writing about the "Battle of the Sexes" for decades. But is that really the proper way to frame the many issues under the umbrella? I don't think so.
Look at where waging figurative wars have gotten us. Just a few "wars" that have been fought in my lifetime:
War on Drugs
War on Poverty
War on Terror
War on Terror
War on Illiteracy
War on Obesity
None of these wars have ended. The unfortunate conditions of poverty and illiteracy are still with us. Legal and illegal drugs are abused on every strata of society. Obesity may be a growing condition, but fighting it is more of an individual battle - no general or czar can make someone change their relationship with food and eating. And the war on terror, which isn't purely figurative, has always sounded like an oxymoron to me.
The amount of time, money and effort devoted to "warring" against these societal woes is staggering. And the toll on our psyche of so many wars - real ones like Afghanistan or figurative ones like the campaign to increase literacy - have diluted the meaning and seriousness of the word "war."
Meghan Daum, in an insightful LATimes op-ed, referred to "America's seemingly endless appetite for flimsy controversy." I believe the "War on Women" is one example of that media-fed desire for controversy. These days, they use a just-add-"GATE" approach to grabbing the attention of voters and holding it for the short span our ADD can spare. The candidates who take this simplistic approach, reaching out to voters by professing a belief that a war on women is the most significant issue facing this country do so at their own peril. It is an imaginary war and informed voters recognize the term as media hype and fear-mongering.
It is difficult enough to choose a candidate who is, at least symbolically, committed to their statements and promises. Often, we voters have to compromise when choosing the candidate we vote for. We may vote for the person who we are in agreement with on the greatest number of issues. Or it may be necessary to choose someone based on where they stand on our key issues. It is our right, as individuals and as an electorate, to decide how we weigh the issues and decide which candidate best fits that which we value. To that person, we offer our single, sacred vote.
Meghan Daum, in an insightful LATimes op-ed, referred to "America's seemingly endless appetite for flimsy controversy." I believe the "War on Women" is one example of that media-fed desire for controversy. These days, they use a just-add-"GATE" approach to grabbing the attention of voters and holding it for the short span our ADD can spare. The candidates who take this simplistic approach, reaching out to voters by professing a belief that a war on women is the most significant issue facing this country do so at their own peril. It is an imaginary war and informed voters recognize the term as media hype and fear-mongering.
It is difficult enough to choose a candidate who is, at least symbolically, committed to their statements and promises. Often, we voters have to compromise when choosing the candidate we vote for. We may vote for the person who we are in agreement with on the greatest number of issues. Or it may be necessary to choose someone based on where they stand on our key issues. It is our right, as individuals and as an electorate, to decide how we weigh the issues and decide which candidate best fits that which we value. To that person, we offer our single, sacred vote.
So why, in an already muddied election year, would the creators of talking points want to christen the debate over some important issues a "War on Women"? What can be gained by misstating the real questions and distorting the real answers?
I think I may have a partial answer. See, although only a few people truly want to be President of the United States, hundreds, perhaps thousands, of people want to be a spokesperson for a cause or group. And when it comes to dividing people by gender, few distinctions are easier to quantify, so the job simply remains to choose the larger group and make a play for their vote by claiming to speak for them.
Well, I have an announcement to make. Attention, media personalities, lobbyists, political spouses, union and club presidents, op-ed journalists and the various and sundry other limelight-seekers who claim to know what I think and want: YOU DO NOT SPEAK FOR ME.
I am a woman. That is a fact of my existence. But I am much, much more than a woman when it comes to my voting tendencies. I am entirely too complex a being to be pandered to on the basis of my gender. So please stop trying. You are wrong about me at least as often as you are right, which makes for abysmal statistics when trying to claim you "know" me.
Many people, office-seekers and others, claim to know what I think. I'm not sure where they get their credentials to interpret or broadcast their version of what I, a woman, supposedly want from this election process, though I grant them their First Amendment right to say whatever they choose. But how can anyone believe the claim that a person sitting in a Washington office writing propagandist copy has a true understanding of the multidimensional, non-composite entity called "Women Voters?"
A few politicians and pundits actually spend time outside the world of their insular lives: journalists listen to voters at town hall meetings and report what was said; candidates ask for input, not just votes; elected officials respond to constituent requests. I thank these groups for taking the trouble to get their facts first-hand and on the ground.
But many more individuals purport to speak for women without, in my opinion, any idea how women think. Men are guilty of this, but they often defer to women to shape their statements and opinions. However, there are many women in public life and the media who seem equally as out-of-touch as the men they deride. I don't want anyone who has no accountability to me to claim the right to speak for me, be they woman or man.
For the record, these women represent themselves, and do not represent me:
Michelle Obama
Anne Romney
Kathleen Sebelius
Sarah Palin
Rachel Maddow
Maureen Dowd
Ann Coulter
Hilary Rosen
Laura Ingraham
These people, regardless of whether I agree with their politics, policies or opinions, have not earned the right to represent me. I do not recklessly cast my lot with an unelected person, whether they be a paid pundit, government employee, a spouse or relative of an elected official or candidate, or a columnist, talk-show host or blogger. Because they are not accountable to me, and their motives are not tied to my welfare, I cannot risk my vote based upon the notion that they are women, and therefore are looking out for all women.
My vote is too important for that. The votes I cast in 2008 are what I live with today. The votes I will cast in 2012 represent my contract as a citizen withthe United States of America. The winners are my representatives, and the jobs they do are outlined in the Constitution.
I have a President. Whether I voted for him or not is not important. He is my President, and I claim him in success and failure, and honor him for serving my country. If I want different results, I must exercise my right to vote and cast my ballot for someone else next time.
Same goes for Congress. My U.S. Senators are Richard Lugar and Dan Coats. My U.S. Congressman is Joe Donnelly. My state's Governor is Mitch Daniels. Senator Barbara Boxer does not speak for me; not just because I disagree with her politics, but I also don't live in California.
I have representation. Those gentlemen are accountable to me. But I am also accountable to be an informed, useful citizen.
If my representatives are not doing their job to my satisfaction, I should first look to myself and my expectations. When I disagree, do I call their office, write a letter or email, attend a town hall meeting? Do I contribute ideas or only criticize? Do I get my information from 24-hour news channels and trendy websites, or do I examine voting records and bills authored by my representative? How well am I doing my job as a citizen and voter?
I bring a lifetime of experiences, knowledge and emotions to any discussion about the present problems or future solutions. I have opinions about decisions being made in Washington D.C. that will affect me and my family. I care about many issues that don't fall into the category of so-called "women's issues." And I don't agree with many women about solutions to problems that do center on gender-specific issues. I do recognize, however, that much of the hoopla being paraded as a war on women is nothing more than the struggle between opposing and overlapping factions to gain a larger share of the votes of women.
The self-appointed spokespersons for women will not influence my vote by suggesting there is a war being waged against me. I am wise to the game and I'm too smart to waste my time and my vote by falling for emotion-based scare tactics.
If there is one thing a history teaches, it is that few things worth having can be gotten quickly. Today's hot-button issues - health care reform, entitlement spending, energy availability and cost, bloody wars on foreign soil - none of the problems developed quickly, and they won't be solved in short order or without someone experiencing pain. That is the simple reality of solving complex problems in a country with a population of 300 million souls.
But in seeking solutions to complex problems, I expect to to meet with disagreement; I expect to win on some issues and lose on others. I certainly don't consider a peaceful, organized protest against mandated employer-paid coverage for birth control and abortion-inducing drugs to be a war on women. As a woman, I consider that protest to be the exercise of free speech, and the issue itself to be about economic and religious freedom, which applies to women and men.
When it was decided that I would stay home and raise our children rather than seek an job and income outside the home, that was a decision made by my husband and I together. It affected both of us, not just me. Women's work choices are no more or less important than men's. If anything, we have more options today than ever. Stay-at-home mothers know just as much about important national issues as mothers who work outside the home. All mothers, and all women, know that high national unemployment is a much bigger issue and affects many more people than the artificial discussion regarding individual choices of when and where to work during one woman's lifetime.
So don't try to tell me that there is a war on women. I personally support groups who are fighting against family-weakening policies, the continuing erosion of individual liberty and the strengthening of the welfare state. I think those people are fighting for all women and men. That is my opinion. My votes will be in keeping with this belief. If you believe differently, your vote may not be the same as mine. But whether we agree or disagree on a candidate or an issue, we all have a stake in the outcome.
Incidentally, the math problem at the beginning does have a bearing on this theme. In the year 1878, the first bill proposing a woman's right to vote was introduced in Congress and was defeated. It took several more tries before the 19th Amendment was adopted, and it was not ratified until 1920. Thirty-two years is a long time - at the turn of the century, it was most of the adult life expectancy for a woman. Some women who gave their life to the cause of women's suffrage died before seeing this reality:
There is no war on women. There is only a war for your vote, waged by slick propagandists and people who hope to achieve fame and influence by claiming to speak for you.
Speak for yourself. Study your candidates. Know your representative. Be your own researcher. Be your own advocate. Choose your candidates and representatives based on substance, not sophisticated media campaigns designed to confuse and exhaust you.
And, above all, cherish and value your right to vote, and make it count by being an informed voter.
Well, I have an announcement to make. Attention, media personalities, lobbyists, political spouses, union and club presidents, op-ed journalists and the various and sundry other limelight-seekers who claim to know what I think and want: YOU DO NOT SPEAK FOR ME.
I am a woman. That is a fact of my existence. But I am much, much more than a woman when it comes to my voting tendencies. I am entirely too complex a being to be pandered to on the basis of my gender. So please stop trying. You are wrong about me at least as often as you are right, which makes for abysmal statistics when trying to claim you "know" me.
Many people, office-seekers and others, claim to know what I think. I'm not sure where they get their credentials to interpret or broadcast their version of what I, a woman, supposedly want from this election process, though I grant them their First Amendment right to say whatever they choose. But how can anyone believe the claim that a person sitting in a Washington office writing propagandist copy has a true understanding of the multidimensional, non-composite entity called "Women Voters?"
A few politicians and pundits actually spend time outside the world of their insular lives: journalists listen to voters at town hall meetings and report what was said; candidates ask for input, not just votes; elected officials respond to constituent requests. I thank these groups for taking the trouble to get their facts first-hand and on the ground.
But many more individuals purport to speak for women without, in my opinion, any idea how women think. Men are guilty of this, but they often defer to women to shape their statements and opinions. However, there are many women in public life and the media who seem equally as out-of-touch as the men they deride. I don't want anyone who has no accountability to me to claim the right to speak for me, be they woman or man.
For the record, these women represent themselves, and do not represent me:
Michelle Obama
Anne Romney
Kathleen Sebelius
Sarah Palin
Rachel Maddow
Maureen Dowd
Ann Coulter
Hilary Rosen
Laura Ingraham
These people, regardless of whether I agree with their politics, policies or opinions, have not earned the right to represent me. I do not recklessly cast my lot with an unelected person, whether they be a paid pundit, government employee, a spouse or relative of an elected official or candidate, or a columnist, talk-show host or blogger. Because they are not accountable to me, and their motives are not tied to my welfare, I cannot risk my vote based upon the notion that they are women, and therefore are looking out for all women.
My vote is too important for that. The votes I cast in 2008 are what I live with today. The votes I will cast in 2012 represent my contract as a citizen withthe United States of America. The winners are my representatives, and the jobs they do are outlined in the Constitution.
I have a President. Whether I voted for him or not is not important. He is my President, and I claim him in success and failure, and honor him for serving my country. If I want different results, I must exercise my right to vote and cast my ballot for someone else next time.
Same goes for Congress. My U.S. Senators are Richard Lugar and Dan Coats. My U.S. Congressman is Joe Donnelly. My state's Governor is Mitch Daniels. Senator Barbara Boxer does not speak for me; not just because I disagree with her politics, but I also don't live in California.
I have representation. Those gentlemen are accountable to me. But I am also accountable to be an informed, useful citizen.
If my representatives are not doing their job to my satisfaction, I should first look to myself and my expectations. When I disagree, do I call their office, write a letter or email, attend a town hall meeting? Do I contribute ideas or only criticize? Do I get my information from 24-hour news channels and trendy websites, or do I examine voting records and bills authored by my representative? How well am I doing my job as a citizen and voter?
I bring a lifetime of experiences, knowledge and emotions to any discussion about the present problems or future solutions. I have opinions about decisions being made in Washington D.C. that will affect me and my family. I care about many issues that don't fall into the category of so-called "women's issues." And I don't agree with many women about solutions to problems that do center on gender-specific issues. I do recognize, however, that much of the hoopla being paraded as a war on women is nothing more than the struggle between opposing and overlapping factions to gain a larger share of the votes of women.
The self-appointed spokespersons for women will not influence my vote by suggesting there is a war being waged against me. I am wise to the game and I'm too smart to waste my time and my vote by falling for emotion-based scare tactics.
If there is one thing a history teaches, it is that few things worth having can be gotten quickly. Today's hot-button issues - health care reform, entitlement spending, energy availability and cost, bloody wars on foreign soil - none of the problems developed quickly, and they won't be solved in short order or without someone experiencing pain. That is the simple reality of solving complex problems in a country with a population of 300 million souls.
But in seeking solutions to complex problems, I expect to to meet with disagreement; I expect to win on some issues and lose on others. I certainly don't consider a peaceful, organized protest against mandated employer-paid coverage for birth control and abortion-inducing drugs to be a war on women. As a woman, I consider that protest to be the exercise of free speech, and the issue itself to be about economic and religious freedom, which applies to women and men.
When it was decided that I would stay home and raise our children rather than seek an job and income outside the home, that was a decision made by my husband and I together. It affected both of us, not just me. Women's work choices are no more or less important than men's. If anything, we have more options today than ever. Stay-at-home mothers know just as much about important national issues as mothers who work outside the home. All mothers, and all women, know that high national unemployment is a much bigger issue and affects many more people than the artificial discussion regarding individual choices of when and where to work during one woman's lifetime.
So don't try to tell me that there is a war on women. I personally support groups who are fighting against family-weakening policies, the continuing erosion of individual liberty and the strengthening of the welfare state. I think those people are fighting for all women and men. That is my opinion. My votes will be in keeping with this belief. If you believe differently, your vote may not be the same as mine. But whether we agree or disagree on a candidate or an issue, we all have a stake in the outcome.
Incidentally, the math problem at the beginning does have a bearing on this theme. In the year 1878, the first bill proposing a woman's right to vote was introduced in Congress and was defeated. It took several more tries before the 19th Amendment was adopted, and it was not ratified until 1920. Thirty-two years is a long time - at the turn of the century, it was most of the adult life expectancy for a woman. Some women who gave their life to the cause of women's suffrage died before seeing this reality:
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex. Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.In almost 100 years, women have benefited from great changes in society and played a major role in bringing about many of those changes. Compare the living conditions of the average woman circa 1912 to our lot today, and I think you'll see that, as a whole, we have much to be thankful for.
There is no war on women. There is only a war for your vote, waged by slick propagandists and people who hope to achieve fame and influence by claiming to speak for you.
Speak for yourself. Study your candidates. Know your representative. Be your own researcher. Be your own advocate. Choose your candidates and representatives based on substance, not sophisticated media campaigns designed to confuse and exhaust you.
And, above all, cherish and value your right to vote, and make it count by being an informed voter.
Elbaradei declined to comment on what the diplomats had said, telling reporters during a visit to the Czech design a carrier bag capital of Prague only that his agency still has “a number of questions” linked to the allegations.
ReplyDelete