Showing posts with label sexism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label sexism. Show all posts

05 October 2010

Take Back the Mic: Condemn Sexist Media Treatment of Politicians

Over at the Women's Media Center, they're running an important campaign to end sexism in the media -- a campaign you should be part of. Their goal is to hold media outlets accountable when they treat women candidates unfairly, and at the moment, they're dealing with a doozy.

Karen E. Polito is the Republican candidate for State Treasurer in Massachusetts. On September 20, radio producer Bill Cooksey of WRKO-AM radio, Boston, took to the air to give Polito his endorsement -- but not for any reason having to do with her stance on issues of merit, or her qualification for the job. No, Bill Cooksey went live on air to endorse Karen Polito because, in his words, "She's got a banging little body."

20 November 2009

Sarah Palin and Newsweek: Here We go Again

Earlier this week the Women’s Media Center released a strong statement condemning Newsweek’s inappropriate cover photo of Sarah Palin in short shorts and a tight top. WMC President Jehmu Greene noted, “…by portraying Sarah Palin in this light, they added an additional barrier for all women and girls who aspire to political leadership.”

We couldn’t agree more. Not only does the cover sexualize Sarah Palin, it stands as yet another illustration of the marginalization, objectification and stereotypes of women that persist in mainstream media.

It’s hard to imagine just one male politician objectified in this fashion on the cover of a news magazine, no matter his political orientation, his abilities or his conduct. Nor should there be.

Mainstream media must respect, not diminish, the stature of women, LGBTQ identified people, and people of color, if we are to reach the inclusive and equitable society that we all desire.

Sara K. Gould
President & CEO
Ms. Foundation for Women

19 March 2008

Five Years and Counting: A Call to Pundits and Politicians to Deepen the Conversation


On this, the fifth anniversary of the beginning of the Iraq War, it is critical that we heed the words of Albert Einstein: "The problems that exist in the world today cannot be solved by the level of thinking that created them."

For over a year, public dialogue about this war has revolved almost exclusively around exit strategy timetables and levels of insurgent violence. Should we stay one year or 100? Are there fewer car bombs this month or last?

Exit strategies and indiscriminate violence must be considered, no doubt. But too often public debate on the Iraq War seems to dwell, in Einstein's words, on the level that created it. A level at which fear dominates and those at the margins of our society--women, low-income people, people of color and youth--are at best, excluded from decision-making processes and, at worst, disproportionately affected by the consequences of war.

As we enter into our sixth year in Iraq, we must elevate our thinking to a level beyond fear and its necessary corollaries--racism, misogyny and economic injustice--to a place where strategy is not owned by the military alone, but is informed by those who should have had a say all along. And we must deepen our thinking to carefully consider the implications of enduring war and occupation on the lives of women, youth and low-income families at home and abroad.

Just look at the state of our nation today. We claim to defend women's human rights, while violating them repeatedly in Iraq and back home. We are in the throes of an economic crisis fueled by trillions of dollars we have spent on a failing war abroad.

So, five years since the the war began, and in the midst of an election year, what kinds of questions should we be asking? And to whom should we be listening?

For starters, the experiences of women whose partners have returned from violence abroad to inflict violence at home, as well as those of women who have reported widespread sexual assault within the military and private security firms, should inform policy decisions that will guarantee the protection of women's rights-and lives. (Alarmingly, The New York Times reports that, since the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan in 2001, there have been 150 cases of fatal domestic violence or child abuse involving U.S. service members and new veterans.) Likewise, economic policy and military budgets should reflect the needs of a low-income, single parent--and so many others like her--who is struggling to support her family, while any hope of relief is siphoned away for a war with no end.

Our increasing interdependence on each other and with the rest of the world demands an approach guided by a vision of a just and inclusive democracy that invites the perspectives and participation of those traditionally excluded from centers of power--including women. Those who are also, not surprisingly, most impacted by war.

In this vein, the media must cover the broader impact of the Iraq war on those most at risk: the woman in Iraq who is afraid to leave her house for water for fear of being kidnapped, the wife of a veteran who sports the bruises of both her husband's anger and the country's callous treatment of young, often low-income men of color in this country who are recruited into the military with cash cards and free lunches.

Similarly, our political leaders must engage in a more comprehensive conversation about Iraq, including the inextricable links between a failing war and a failing economy. In particular, they must take a good, hard look at the real economic fall-out in this country--the trillions spent while so many are struggling to keep their homes, pay exorbitant medical bills, afford school, or just the next meal.

And finally, I and many other social justice advocates nationwide are still waiting for our presidential candidates to inspire us with a vision that will prevent us from returning to this violent, seemingly intractable place. To this end, we want them to articulate a new level of systemic understanding that acknowledges the connections between war and racism, misogyny and economic inequality. We want them to ensure an exit from Iraq that protects the rights and livelihoods of those made disproportionately less secure by war. And we want to be sure that they will incorporate the lived experiences of people across the spectrum of race, class and gender into their platforms and policies during this election season and beyond.

Our democracy, and the rest of the world, depend on it.

Sara K. Gould
President & CEO

09 January 2008

The Primaries: Yes, Gender Matters...A LOT

Let’s put aside the question of whom to support in the Democratic primaries. Instead, let’s look at some of the most challenging issues facing our democracy that were raised by Gloria Steinem, co-founder of the Ms. Foundation for Women, in an op-ed in yesterday’s New York Times (1/8/08), "Women are Never Front-Runners."

They include:

“Why aren’t we ready to break the gender barrier?”

“The caste systems of sex and race are interdependent, and can only be uprooted together.” And finally,

We have “a talent pool limited by sex, race, money, powerful fathers, and paper degrees.”

Yes, money and pedigree are on the list, too, even though this country likes to blur our own class structures by highlighting the opportunities our free market system has to offer “everyone.” Class, like race and gender, creates significant barriers to equal and meaningful participation in our democratic process.

So, if our commitment to progressive social justice is real, we must at once address race and gender and class as we strive for an equitable and inclusive democracy.

At the Ms. Foundation, we support over 200 community-based and national advocacy organizations across the United States that represent, and work on behalf of, low-income women and women of color. Through our 35 years of support for women’s full participation in our society, we have seen over and over again that our grantees have powerful solutions to the myriad crises facing communities nationwide. But while fighting for policy and culture changes that benefit us all, they continue to face reinforcing barriers of racism, sexism and poverty–making them the most marginalized citizens in our democratic process.

Just take Hurricane Katrina and the ongoing disaster in the Gulf Coast. Low-income women of color were disproportionately affected by the storms and subsequent housing, health care and unemployment crises. But while their experiences make them uniquely positioned to devise and implement policy solutions, they remain largely excluded from decision-making tables.

In her op-ed, Gloria Steinem addresses the barriers women face by asking us to imagine an African American woman—with the same credentials as Barack Obama—running for president. “Could [she] be a viable candidate to head the most powerful nation on earth?” Ms. Steinem asks. Not likely. That’s because, she goes on to say, “Gender is probably the most restricting force in American life, whether the question is who must be in the kitchen or who could be in the White House.”

Let's now add class to the mix. Let's imagine a low-income, African American woman, single mother of three, running for public office. A woman with scarce resources and time, yet whose knowledge, leadership and commitment would drive significant policy changes that would benefit all members of her community, city, state or country.

The fact is, while small numbers of low-income women of color have won a seat at policy tables —our grantees are a testament to that—most continue to be excluded from decision-making processesand at great cost to us all. So as we take a look at the field of presidential candidates before us, let's not forget that the combined, often inextricably linked barriers of race, gender and class persist nationwide. Just how deep and pernicious these barriers are should be of great concern to everyone if we hope to realize a just and truly participatory democracy in 2008 and beyond.

By Sara K. Gould
President & CEO