PunditMom's blog

Maria Shriver Says It's a Woman's Nation. Do You?

2009-10-20T10:00:21-05:00

California First Lady Maria Shriver says we're now living in a Woman's Nation -- women make up half the work force, the majority of mothers are the main breadwinners or co-breadwinners of their families and women are in charge of 80% of the high ticket item household spending. That, says Shriver, is some power we need to grab by the horns!

So why doesn't it feel like we have more influence and gravitas when it comes to managing our lives? And why does it seem like women are still the ones doing all the juggling and compromising, both at work and at home? Is it our own fault because we don't know how to use the power we have or are things tougher than Shriver's report suggests?

To her credit, Shriver has put together an extensive report on the state of families today -- The Shriver Report: A Woman's Nation Changes Everything -- that examines attitudes of men and women, husbands and wives, and employers and employees, about the state of our lives, with an emphasis on the role of mothers and how that's changed since her uncle, President John F. Kennedy, commissioned a White House study on women over 40 years ago. The study's main thesis, which was written in conjunction with the Center for American Progress, is this -- that the simple fact of living in a country where women make up more than half of the work force will ultimately change things for women for the better.

On Monday, Shriver talked about many of the findings in a conference call with 30 bloggers including Julie Pippert from Using My Words, BlogHer's Morra Arrons-Mele, Mary Kate Cary of US News & World Report, and Rebecca Traister from Salon, among others (and thank you to Ms. Shriver and the CAP for inviting me to participate!). She expressed her very heartfelt belief that it's time for women to stand up and use the power of their numbers, be brave and demand what they need and what her report says employers already know -- that it's in the financial best interests of businesses to allow workplace flexibility of all kinds for men and women.

But I wondered, what prompted such a report now? As Morra points at the Families and Work Institute Blog:

The report stems from the finding that women are ... as Gloria Steinem put it ... half of all workers with incomes that are necessary to 80 percent of families—indeed, 40 percent of babies are now born to single mothers—childcare is still nowhere on the list of priorities in Congress, and we have also become the only industrialized country without any requirement of paid family leave.

I asked Shriver, if women are still getting paid significantly less than men (77 cents on the dollar), carry the lion's share of family obligations AND still have voices that are heard less than men's, how can we move forward and make any real change, even if we have become a majority of workers?

Shriver's response was surprising and shocking. She said women felt afraid -- afraid to go in and ask for time off to care for someone or ask for the flexibility needed to do their jobs and care for their families. Not hesitant or cautious, but afraid. She hopes that women will overcome that fear, see that there are lots of people in the same boat and find the strength and courage to demand what they need and embrace the power of being the majority in the workforce.

I certainly get Shriver's point and agree in the abstract, but marching into your boss' office and making any sort of "demand" these days might not be the best tactic to ensure a regular income. Finesse might be a better strategy at the moment. If any worker's fear is driven by a concern about losing their job, that's certainly a legitimate concern in today's economy.

In a conversation on Anderson Cooper's CNN show, a panel of women, including financial commentator Suze Orman, were vehement in their collective opinion that one of the reasons more women are employed today has less to do with gender inequality coming to an end and more to do with the fact that women are paid lower wages than men and are less inclined to ask for a raise, and, therefore, are seen as more desirable hires in these tight economic times.

While the report is titled a Woman's Nation, it does seem very focused on families with children. A fair question was asked by BlogHer's Elisa Camahort on Twitter while some of us were live-tweeting the call, wondering whether the report shouldn't more accurately be called "A Mom's Nation," since its focus is more on mothers than on women without children who may have other caregiving obligations other than offspring. It was something that struck me and others on the call, too.

So with all the good information and food for thought contained in the Shriver Report, will it spark a real national conversation or will it fade away in a few days after Shriver's Conference on Women is over? It's hard for a cynic like me to hold out much hope. There was a time when I was optimistic about all these things -- when I was in my late teens and early twenties I thought that by the time I was a mother and in my mid-life that things would be drastically different. I envisioned that my nieces and daughter would have much smoother sailing than my generation or the ones that went before me.

During the conference call, John Podesta, the CAP's president, proudly proclaimed that the results of the report are proof that "the battle of the sexes is over." I wish I could believe that, but I have a sense that when it comes to our country truly becoming a Woman's Nation, we shouldn't get rid of our body armor just yet.

I know we're not all going to read the 400 page Shriver Report, but based on your lives and experiences, what do you think? Is the "battle of the sexes" over? Are you afraid to ask for change right now or can you live with the status quo? And if you are a breadwinner in your family, what would you tell Maria Shriver about the state of things today?

BlogHer Politics & News Contributing Editor Joanne Bamberger can't help herself when it comes to writing about all things political, especially when they impact women. When she's not hanging out here, you can find her at her blog, PunditMom, and at The Huffington Post. And on Twitter, too, because she can't help herself.

Holding Up More Than Half the Sky

2009-10-16T14:21:51-05:00

One of my favorite Chinese proverbs says, "Women hold up half the sky." Some days I feel like it's more than half, but the point of the proverb is that women are equal partners with men in navigating through life. At least, we ought to be.

In their recent book, Half the Sky: Turning Oppression into Opportunity for Women Worldwide, New York Times reporters Nicholas Kristof and Sheryl WuDunn explore not only the moving stories of girls and women around the world who struggle with horrible circumstances, but they've created a call to action for us to help empower women and children to bring them out of poverty.

But why write a book about poverty stricken women and girls in a time of war and economic downturn? WuDunn sums it up pretty nicely:

The good news is that this mission is close to heart of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton:

You have to recognize how deep-seated [women's inequality] is, but also reach an understanding of how without providing more rights and responsibilities for women, many of the goals we claim to pursue in [United States] foreign policy are either unachievable or much harder to achieve.

Democracy means nothing if half the people can’t vote, or if their vote doesn’t count, or if their literacy rate is so low that the exercise of their vote is in question. Which is why when I travel, I do events with women, I talk about women’s rights, I meet with women activists, I raise women’s concerns with the leaders I’m talking to.

Kristof and WuDunn write in their New York Times piece that accompanied Clinton's interview:

... [I]n a large slice of the world, girls are uneducated and women marginalized, and it’s not an accident that those same countries are disproportionately mired in poverty and riven by fundamentalism and chaos. There’s a growing recognition among everyone from the World Bank to the U.S. military’s Joint Chiefs of Staff to aid organizations like CARE that focusing on women and girls is the most effective way to fight global poverty and extremism. That’s why foreign aid is increasingly directed to women. The world is awakening to a powerful truth: Women and girls aren’t the problem; they’re the solution.

In the past, these issues have gotten little media attention. But if more people have the reaction to the book of this reviewer at Shine, things could be changing:

By page 7, I had cried twice, but more importantly, I realized that this collection of stories about WOMEN is not about the atrocities or abuse they suffered. Those cruelties are just the backdrop. What this book exemplifies is that the human spirit, regardless of what is hurled at it, insults, belts, or fists, will not be beaten down.

The New York Times Magazine cover story on The Women's Crusade also resonated with Marina at The Fifth Day of May blog. Why?

The stories presented left a deafening mark on my heart and brought me to tears. Ultimately, I felt confused by the facts presented about the brutal oppression suffered by women around the world.

I can't wait to finish reading the book, partly because I find this topic so compelling and partly because in a few months, we will be traveling back to China with PunditGirl for the first time since she became our daughter through adoption. Nine years ago, I wasn't focused on the status of Chinese women -- I was too starry-eyed about becoming a mother and incredibly nervous about how, as a 40-something mom, I would manage a little baby. This time, we'll be focusing on a lot of things and I know that how people live, especially women and girls, will be something we'll have to talk about with her.

As parents of daughters, I hope we can all come together on this to tell the stories of these women and to find ways to help them break free of their oppressive circumstances, even in this time of political division. As WuDunn said -- this time, we can't walk away.

BlogHer Politics & News Contributing Editor Joanne Bamberger writes about political women, especially mothers, at her place, PunditMom. She also has a bad Twitter habit, so you'll find here there, too, when she's not supposed to be working on her book about political mothers (Bright Sky Press, Fall 2010)

BlogHer is non-partisan but our bloggers (including me) aren't! Follow our coverage of Politics & News.

Getting Mad as Hell on Health Care and Not Taking it Anymore

2009-10-09T09:20:04-05:00

Women on Capitol Hill seem to be mad as hell when it comes to health care and they're not taking it anymore. This week, women Senators and members of Congress started speaking out collectively about the lack of interest and, perhaps, the lack of respect that women's medical issues are getting in the health care reform debate.

First, there were the astounding comments from Senator Jon Kyl who believes that because he doesn't need maternity care that it shouldn't be in health care policies that men pay for.

Then there was Senator Orrin Hatch trying to slip one past us by proposing that no insurance companies -- not even private policies purchased with private dollars -- should provide coverage for any abortion procedures. And let's not forget the SEIU report that was recently released that revealed that eight states and the District of Columbia allow insurance companies to exclude coverage for domestic abuse injuries as pre-existing conditions.

That's just the tip of the information iceberg I heard in a recent press call with Senator Debbie Stabenow and Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Shultz.

Then on Thursday, the Democratic women of the Senate stood together to express their collective outrage about how we could possibly be at a point in America where it's acceptable for us to turn our backs on basic, fundamental coverage for women's health:

One story that Senator Amy Klobuchar shared on the floor of the Senate that didn't make it into the video is one of the best examples of what women can do to help change the prevailing attitudes and practices of health insurance companies. When Klobuchar's daughter was born with some medical issues, new mom Klobuchar was forced to leave the hospital after only 24 hours, even though she had not only given birth, but then had to immediately start working with doctors to assess her newborn daughter's condition. When legislation in her home state of Minnesota was introduced to guarantee that a new mother would have at least 48 hours in the hospital after giving birth, debate on the bill suggested it would be voted down.

On the day of the vote, she accompanied half a dozen visibly pregnant women to the hearings, where they made their presence and their voices known.

The bill passed.

So the lesson of the day when it comes to male-dominated legislatures (state or federal) writing and voting on laws that directly impact us is this -- speak out.

Keep speaking out. And speak out some more.

Sooner or later, someone is going to hear us and we can make change happen. It's not easy. If nothing else, they'll have to vote on legislation we want with us in the room, as with Senator Klobuchar and her group of pregnant political moms!

I was sad to see that none of the Republican women joined their Democratic sisters on the Senate floor to speak out on women's health care. Maybe there's just too much political heat at the moment, but I'm hoping that at the end of the day (are you listening Olympia Snowe??) that their women constituents will call on them to do the right thing so that insurance companies can no longer deny women coverage for purported pre-exisiting conditions or charge us more for the exact same coverage as men.

I might be going out on a limb here, but I'd wager a little money that Senator Kyl's wife and daughter might have a slightly different view on keeping maternity care out of health care reform. Maybe we could recruit them?

BlogHer Politics & News Contributing Editor Joanne Bamberger writes about the intersection of motherhood and politics at her place, PunditMom.

BlogHer is non-partisan but our bloggers (including me) aren't! Follow our coverage of Politics & News.

Frontal Assault on Reproductive Health Care

2009-10-02T06:39:25-05:00

Senator Debbie Stabenow is on a roll for women's health care. First, she took on Senator Jon Kyl about his proposal that maternity care shouldn't be provided for in the health care reform package:

Then, Senator Stabenow contested the plan of Senator Orrin Hatch to preclude insurance providers who work with the federal government on any public option/co-op sort of plan they come up with from offering abortion services to their private insurance customers:

So in the span of a week, one GOP senator said he didn't think the new health care legislation should cover maternal care and then another one said it shouldn't cover abortion. Am I missing the logic here somewhere? Because it seems that this is more about denying women coverage in a variety of circumstances unique to them than it is about principle, individual health insurance availability or reform.

As explained so well by Cynthia Tucker at the Atlanta Journal Constitution, Hatch's amendment was aimed at federal subsidies that low-income families will be able to use to buy private health insurance:

[A] group of Catholic bishops, anti-abortion Democrats and conservative Republicans are up in arms over the subsidies which will be offered to families who cannot afford to purchase insurance. They claim the subsidies will be used to buy policies that cover abortions.

They’re wrong. The legislation sets up an elaborate accounting system which separates private money from public money. That system has been used effectively in states where Medicaid provides for abortions. (Medicaid is paid from both federal and state tax funds; states that allow Medicaid to cover abortions can’t use federal funds to pay for it.)

This is just a guess, but I'm thinking that Senator Hatch knew that when he proposed the amendment. And I hate to break it to him, but the last time I checked, abortion was still legal in America. So his attempts to try to slip an amendment into the current health care reform proposal to preclude most, if not all, insurance companies from covering a legal abortion under any circumstance is a pretty underhanded way to do an end run around women's rights.

Thank goodness, as mentioned at CNN, the women on the Senate Finance Committee saw this amendment for what it really was:

"Both [Senator Olympia] Snowe [of Maine] and Democratic Sen. Debbie Stabenow of Michigan challenged the amendment as a new limit on a woman's right to abortion by requiring women with private health insurance to purchase supplemental coverage for abortions."

Bonnie Erbe at on her blog at U.S. News & World Report called Hatch's amendment "whacky" and thinks that once the dust settles after this current debate, it should be time for Congress to re-evaluate the current state of abortion law altogether:

When reform is completed, congressional Democrats should go after the Hyde Amendment, and some probably will. It needs to be re-authorized each year. Methinks sometime between now and the next mid-term elections, it should be voted down once and for all.

These challenges don't seem to be about what any individual's insurance plan should cover. They look more like poorly disguised efforts to turn the clock back on women's reproductive rights -- no matter what part of the process we're talking about. Can you imagine if the women of the Senate had offered amendments to call for men to purchase separate riders for something male-specific like prostate cancer coverage? The protests would be deafening.

Given these efforts in the Senate, I wouldn't be surprised if an attack on birth control is next. Griswold vs. Connecticut is still good law when it comes to contraception, but I wouldn't be surprised. I'm listening for it. We all should be.

You can find BlogHer Politics & News Contributing Editor Joanne Bamberger getting all political on issues that impact women at her place, PunditMom. Joanne is also a regular contributor to The Huffington Post and is at work on a book about mothers and politics that will be published in the fall of 2010 (Bright Sky Press).

BlogHer is non-partisan but our bloggers (including me) aren't! Follow our coverage of Politics & News.

Michelle Obama - The New Secret Weapon on Health Care?

2009-09-25T13:30:47-05:00

In the battle for health care reform, the White House has unleashed its new secret weapon -- Michelle Obama! She gave an amazingly inspired speech to the White House Council on Women and Girls last week. The First Lady shared the speaking duties with three women from around the country who shared their stories that proved one of the biggest statements the First Lady made during her remarks -- that women are being crushed by the current health system.

Below is the full video that was live-streamed, as well as a link to the text of her remarks:

I know people are concerned or don't believe the President's statements that the much-needed changes in our health insurance system can be paid for. I know there's this whole debate over whether there should be a "public option" for health care and what that would do to the current for-profit system (yeah, the one that's doing such a great job with our health care), but something has to change.

When women are charged more than men for the same coverage, when women can be denied coverage because pregnancy and domestic violence are considered pre-existing conditions, when women who work hard to care for themselves and their families still have to choose between life-saving screening tests or keeping a roof over their heads, it's time for a fight.

Is health care a basic human right? And what rights are we, as a country, really concerned with? If we took the money raised by the National Rifle Association in the past year and put it toward health care reform, I dare say we could accomplish a little something -- a recent report on Morning Joe on MSNBC suggested it was something in the neighborhood of $300 million.

Is it OK with us that without health care reform, insurance companies will continue to make women pay more for insurance? Is it OK with us that without health care reform, insurance companies can continue to deny women effective preventative and diagnostic care of mammograms and Pap smears? It is OK with us that the woman with lung cancer and breast cancer who sat next to the First Lady can't afford the necessary screenings so she knows if her cancers come back?

It's not OK with me. And I wonder -- if we took away the great health insurance that Senators and Representatives have and they had to live through the experiences of the women on the dais with Michelle Obama, how would their views on competition and the public option change? I bet they'd find a way pretty quickly to fix our horribly broken system.

We all love our insurance until it comes time for it to cover something big. Just as car insurance companies are notorious for kicking people out after an accident, health insurance companies are happy to have our money and our business until we get sick and they have to pay out. As someone with a few ongoing issues that need monitoring, I'm fearful of what will happen if things stay the same.

We are the face of this fight. And it is a fight. It's a fight not just with the insurance industry, but it's also an ideological one -- do we want to be the country that realizes the long term benefits of creating a healthier nation or are we going to be the one that says providing health care for everyone who needs it is too much of a burden on a company's profits?

In the end, this is also a fight to determine what we believe it's the government's job to do. I believe there is a role for the government to play, at least in terms of making sure that insurance companies play fairly and don't let their CEO's become multi-millionaires at the expense of people's lives. As for premiums? They keep going up and if health reform legislation fails, you can bet those insurance companies will waste no time hiking them again.

If have a few minutes, tell Congress what you think. Check out the online letters to send your representatives at the National Women's Law Center or at MomsRising.

BlogHer Politics & News Contributing Editor Joanne Bamberger writes about news, politics and current affairs at her place, PunditMom. She's also at work on a book about political mothers and raising political families, tentatively titled, Mothers of Intention (Bright Sky Press, Fall 2010).

BlogHer is non-partisan but our bloggers (including me) aren't! Follow our coverage of Politics & News.

Katie Couric and Diane Sawyer Are No "Newsmommies"

2009-09-18T10:37:27-05:00

Someone has actually coined the phrase "newsmommy." Yes, you heard me. Newsmommy.

I thought we'd come a long way, baby, when Katie Couric was named to anchor the CBS Evening News. So when ABC announced that Diane Sawyer would be taking the anchor chair there, the former TV newscaster in me who always had to battle the 'she can't do that because she's the girl' argument, was excited. Sawyer's list of credentials is a mile long, including her gig at 60 Minutes. I've never been a fan of Sawyer's manner of presentation, but there's no doubt that she's got the qualifications. Yet, in spite of that, some have suggested that her years of experience aren't enough and that Couric and Sawyer landed their gigs because they're too mommy-like.

The critique is actually directed at the networks and not the anchors themselves. But a conversation at the blog Feministing suggests that the networks are letting women down because Couric and Sawyer are too soft and maternal to be taken seriously. (FYI, Sawyer doesn't have children).

I have no problem with people questioning whether news networks are choosing the best qualified people to sit behind the anchor desk. And, of course, there are probably many good choices that could have been made for either network. But do we really have to go down the road of wondering whether someone is in their job because they are "mommy-like?"

I guess I'm troubled by the whole newsmommy discussion because it serves no purpose other than to have women characterizing other women in a diminutive way that not-so-subtly suggests that we should act more like men to succeed. While the criticism is ultimately about what kind of woman network and cable executives want to put behind a news desk, when we blithely toss about the "mommy" word, it's just like a pat on the head that says, "Oh, isn't she cute wanting to be a news anchor," while ignoring their more than worthy credentials.

And I'm not the only one bothered by this. Shannon at Undecided blog laments:

But really, aren’t we beyond all this? What’s with the use of the word “mommy” in that context–as if it’s a synonym for airhead or lightweight?

...

What will it take for us to stop judging each other and get on the same team? To stop reaching for the shards of shattered glass from those ceilings our sisters have worked so hard to crack and using them as weapons against each other, rather than sweeping them up, admiring the fact that we might be able to make it through a little easier, and getting on with our own lives and the ceilings we’ll inevitably face?

As Amanda Fortini pointed out in her column at Salon:

A 40-year veteran, Sawyer is no stranger to hard news; she has interviewed, among many other political and cultural figures, Saddam Hussein, Ahmadinejad, Antonin Scalia and every president (plus first wives Nancy and Hillary) since George H.W. Bush. The New York Times reported that when she interviewed Michael Jackson and Lisa Marie Presley back in 1995, she prefaced her queries about their sex life with this slightly perturbed admission: 'I didn’t spend my life as a serious journalist to ask these kinds of questions.'

Aside from being annoyed at yet another instance of someone creating a word that suggests that women who are mothers are somehow inherently less capable because we're busy being all soft and nice (nine-year-old PunditGirl might have a word or two to say on that one!), it's time to take a moment to admit that the good interview isn't always about shouting or pounding your fists on the table.

As any good interviewer knows (whether it be in news or law!), effective questioning isn't usually about jumping in for the kill -- it's about the set up. It's doing your homework, taking the time to lay a foundation, to ask the seemingly innocuous and, perhaps silly, questions first, and then nicely, gently (no big, sudden movements), move in for the big questions.

These are skills Couric and Sawyer clearly have. So I think it's fair to ask -- why aren't we more focused on pointing out the professional achievements of these, and other women, especially someone as overly-qualified as Sawyer, rather than talking about whether a woman with maternal qualities (or not) should be the face of authority? I'm hard-pressed to come up with a good answer.

And while we're on the subject, I can't help asking -- who's your "newsdaddy?"

BlogHer Politics & News Contributing Editor Joanne Bamberger also writes about politics, news & current events from her view as a political mother at her place, PunditMom, The Huffington Post and MOMocrats.

BlogHer is non-partisan but our bloggers (including me) aren't! Follow our coverage of Politics & News.

How Much Reform Will There Be in President Obama's Health Plan?

2009-09-11T08:50:48-05:00

Polls taken immediately after President Obama's health care speech to Congress indicate that many were pleased and excited about what he had to say about health reform. Congresswoman Maxine Waters thinks he hit it out of the park and rallied the Democrats. Surprisingly the online commentary isn't really showing that.

Lindsay Beyerstein at RHRealityCheck was less than inspired by what the President had to say:

Instead of presenting a vision and asking Congress to line up behind him, the president stressed that he was synthesizing a compromise position incorporating ideas from the left and the right. Instead of a coherent vision, the president’s scheme sounds more like a last-ditch compromise plan to enable him to declare victory. Like many Democrats, the president seems to be confusing the strategic with the expedient.

Even if details are still missing, Karen Tumulty of Time Magazine believes it was still an important moment for the President:

The White House promised more detail ..., and in that sense, the speech delivered--if only to make more explicit many of the things that Obama has only tacitly dealt with before. But it was a move that was badly needed at this moment. Within the House Chamber, he has provided the guidance that lawmakers have been begging for. But the real question is this: Has Obama provided the reassurance it will take to bring back the rest of the country?

Maybe not. Jessica Mador at Minnesota Public Radio writes that one couple she talked to is glad that the President is committed to change, but they're worried that it won't come soon enough:

In Little Falls, Minn., Heather Dehn-Brastad and her husband are both self-employed, and they can't afford health insurance for them and their four children. [Heather is] looking for answers.

"I'm hearing a solution to people who don't have insurance but I didn't hear it coming quickly," she said. "There was some talk about within four years putting people like myself in a group that would be eligible for applying for insurance at more like the same cost that employers can get insurance for, but I thought four years would be a little longer than I was hoping to wait."

While Jane Hamsher writes at the Huffington Post that it felt like the President was backtracking from the public option, which could be the undoing of health reform on both sides of the aisle:

At some point there will be a day of reckoning when the public understands that the public option is gone. But getting there will be tricky, and in the mean time the White House wants to stop their opponents -- and let's face it, progressives who are insisting on the inclusion of a public plan are at this point their opponents -- from being able to exploit that gap. Because with every day that goes by, the base gets more and more wedded to the promise of a public plan, encouraged by the positive rhetoric of the President himself. It becomes that much harder for the White House to extract itself from the enthusiasm they assist in fostering without paying a huge political price.

So while the poll numbers suggest people were pleased with what the President had to say, commentary online indicates the opposite.

While some of us may have felt better at the end of the President's speech, Barack Obama is now between that dreaded rock and a hard place. He's going to have to face his progressive supporters and be able to explain why a public option died if that happens. And trust me, that won't be pretty.

The rumblings of the "netroots" who put him in office are starting a drumbeat to insist on that.

After all, health care for all was a centerpiece of his call for "change we can believe in."

I want to believe.

BlogHer Politics & News Contributing Editor Joanne Bamberger also writes about politics at her place, PunditMom. In her "spare" time, Joanne is at work on a book about the increasing political involvement of mothers (Bright Sky Press, Fall 2010).

BlogHer is non-partisan but our bloggers (including me) aren't! Follow our coverage of Politics & News.

What are Conservatives Really Afraid of When the President Talks to Schoolchildren?

2009-09-04T10:10:42-05:00

Yesterday, I wrote a post at my blog that was something of a rant about the right wing's campaign to keep kids home from school on September 8 when the President is scheduled to broadcast a web event to talk with them the importance of education, working hard and staying in school.

Brainwashing! Indoctrination! Filling our children's heads with lies! The invectives came fast and furious from the ultra-conservatives with the announcement of the school-time speech and some schools are actually going to ban the talk.

It seems pretty innocuous to me, nothwithstanding all the fear that some are trying to generate about a supposed plot by the President to use this talk to turn our children into liberal converts.

Really? Do people actually think this is part of an EE-vil plan? I'm sure that those who are behind this effort to take their children to the zoo instead of sending them to school know better, but they want to use this as another way to create more fear about Barack Obama.

I'm not the only shaking my head in disgust over the faux tumult. As Julie Pippert points out at MOMocrats blog, there was no similar outcry by progressives when George W. Bush spoke to our school children about guns and drugs. I'm with Julie on this point -- why this outcry? Why now?:

I'm also not comprehending why people are so outraged and concerned about the President addressing kids about committing to education. Of all the benign and potentially useful messages, this rates pretty high. I'm a lot less concerned about the possible messages here, than say the strange messages my kids have come home from school with about sex, drugs, music and religion (yes at public school). I'm also well-prepared to discuss this with them. I've read through the letter from the US Department of Education about this, and scanned the suggested classroom activities and discussion points.

For the first time, I've got a heads-up about a message being delivered to my kids as well as potential activities and discussions they'll have about it.

I feel more and better informed than EVER BEFORE. I feel more a part of this than EVER BEFORE.

Cynematic, also at MOMocrats, raises an important aspect of this debate -- this isn't just a boycott over a difference of opinion. This call for a right wing day of truancy is costing us all money, money that our schools can't afford to lose:

But this is why the boycott has me steamed: my kid goes to a public school in California. Like many other states, our state's budget is stretched thin. Public school dollars are based on attendance. In our case, when a kid's absent from school for sickness or any other reason, our school loses $47/day. Per student.

...

[I]f this boycott becomes widespread, it amounts to a one-day systematic de-funding of your public schools and mine.

That hurts your kids and mine.

Down to Earth Mama, a former public school teacher herself, says:

Conservatives stood up, crying foul. Several started a tea party movement to keep their children home on September 8th, calling it an indoctrination of youth into the socialist agenda. They are likening this to the recruiting of Nazi youth. They are complaining that Obama is subverting their authority as parents to sell his health care and big government plans, that he is recruiting them to be his army.

...

But I can argue, so what? So what if he talks about health care. So what if he talks about community organizing. So what? Are you so insecure enough in your influence over your own child that you are threatened? Do you not want your children to learn? Do you disagree with the pep talk? Because, in all honesty, I would use it, regardless of what I saw, regardless of who was giving the speech, a republican or democrat, as a learning opportunity.

If this is what right-wingers really believe, I'm scared. If, as I suspect, it's not what they really think and that they are the ones trying to brainwash the easily persuaded that Barack Obama is sending subliminal signals to our children, then isn't that as evil as they claim the President is trying to be?

When progressives tried to criticize George W. Bush, many in the GOP said we were being unpatriotic. But the Fox News crowd wants us to believe that their criticism toward Barack Obama is merely an effort to protect their children from mind-control.

My question to all parents is this -- when was the last time you were able to control the mind of your child of pretty much any age? If a speech about staying in school and working hard is propaganda, and it convinces even one child to keep on studying, then that's propaganda I can live with.

I'd like to think if I close my eyes and ignore these efforts they will go away when people realize the nonsensical extremism at work here.

But I know better than that.

BlogHer News & Politics Contributing Editor Joanne Bamberger writes about politics & current events from a progressive mom's point of view at her place, PunditMom.

Political Girl Crushes

2009-08-07T08:35:30-05:00

There's been more than a little tongue-in-cheek conjecture that if the "boys" had listened to the "girls" or if "girls" had been in charge, our financial structures wouldn't be in meltdown mode today and our economy wouldn't be in the tank. So you'd think that a little more attention might be paid to the wise words of Elizabeth Warren, the common-sense Harvard professor who was put in charge of the TARP oversight panel.

When she talks, everyone should listen. I've become such a fan, that I think I have something of a girl crush on her!

Warren makes sense when talking about these topics that so many of the guys on Wall Street, as well as former regulators, want us to think are oh-so complicated. You can actually understand the words that come out of her mouth when she speaks about the economy. There's no Alan Greenspan-like econo-mumbo jumbo - just easy to understand words of wisdom about transparency and wanting the government and the investment banks to explain where the billinons we gave to bail them out went and when we're going to get paid back.

Interestingly, she is not beloved by those people. It's her jobs to ask questions and get answers about how things are going, what's happening to the money and when we can stop the financial hand-holding of these supposed finance wizards (and don't even get me started on the fact that they're still getting gi-NOR-mous bonuses). You'd think the Treasury Department would be glad that Warren and others are asking these questions and demanding answers -- um, apparently, not so much.

Warren told Rachel Maddow recently, that, in addition to overseeing where all the TARP money is going, what the country really needs is a Consumer Financial Protection Agency. Why? Because, in Warren's lovely plain English, the government should be looking out for regular people and making it easy for us to understand credit terms without "tricks and traps."

There, that idea wasn't so hard to put into understandable language now was it?

Elizabeth Warren isn't the only one on my Washington, D.C. political girl crush list. There's also Sheila Bair of the FDIC who recently received a Profile in Courage award, but who has been criticized by people like Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner for pressing for more structural changes within the financial community.

I've always liked Brooksley Born, formerly of the CFTC, who also received the same award as Bair, who tried unsuccessfully to warn the Clinton administration of the economic perils of credit default swaps.

And, most recently, I have a soft spot for Melissa Hathaway, President Obama's Cybersecurity advisor who just resigned reportedly because of pushback she was getting from the White House economic team, including Larry Summers.

Someone recently said to me that she has concerns about women trying to effect change through traditional organizational channels because things move so slowly and women don't always push to speed the process up.

While Elizabeth Warren and others may feel like they are spinning their wheels in the ego-driven world of male politics, I can't help but admiring them for what they are trying to do and hope that more will follow them so that women's common sense voices can be heard above the din of the men who have bee rewarded by keeping the status quo too long.

BlogHer Politics & News Contributing Editor Joanne Bamberger can also be found hanging out at her blog about politics and current events from a mom's perspective, PunditMom. She also can't wait to see her essay in Kirtsy Takes a Bow: A Collection of Women's Online Favorites, which she hopes will be coming out soon!

BlogHer is non-partisan but our bloggers (including me) aren't! Follow our coverage of Politics & News.

Health Reform -- You Say ToMAYto, I Say ToMAHto

2009-07-31T08:43:54-05:00

Things always get a little heated in the nation's capital this time of year. July and August along the Potomac tend to be humid and steamy and that makes it hard for anyone to compromise and negotiate in a bipartisan way. Not to mention that it's awfully difficult to find happy people when they're all having bad hair days!

So I guess it shouldn't be a surprise that we find ourselves with only herky-jerky momentum for health care legislation. Or health insurance legislation. Or whatever you want to call it -- I really don't care, I just want to know that we live in a country where we really do care about the tens of millions of families and children who need just basic medical access and that we're not going to split hairs on what we call it, as long as we can get it done.

I know everyone is concerned about money. Trust me -- I'm not happy about the prospect of premiums going up more. Given the work situation here at Chez PunditMom, we pay the full freight for our policy -- not like the days when I worked for the federal government and had a fabulous plan that was actually affordable. If one of the options is to be able to provide that same plan that *ahem* our Representatives and Senators have, why is that a bad thing?

After reading a zillion articles and watching people on the TV machine talk about the various proposals and overhearing conversations at BlogHer '09, I've come to this conclusion -- we are a nation that's more concerned about the money in our own pockets than in giving up some of it to make sure everyone has health care.

Please don't go calling me names. That's one of the concerns that was raised at our BlogHer get-together with Valerie Jarrett, one of the President's closest advisors -- that so many in the country think we're on the road to socialism if we try provide health care for all Americans without sending them into bankruptcy. (You can find the live-blog of the session here!)

But there's something wrong with a country where for-profit insurance companies can deny coverage to a pregnant woman because her pregnancy is considered a pre-existing condition. I mean really -- the part of the discussion that we're not having on health care is that insurance companies exist for one reason -- TO. MAKE. MONEY. To do that, they have to deny coverage to as many people as possible. And as long as that's the standard, good people who work hard and try to play by the rules -- the people described in a speech by Harry Truman over 60 years ago when he thought it was time to change the health care system -- will never get what they need. And as long as lawmakers take money from the insurance company lobbyists, where is the incentive to change the status quo?

And what about the people like Erin's dad? And my dad? Part of her question from our session with Ms. Jarrett was this:

Erin: I'm afraid for people like my dad who will only take half of his pills because he can't afford to buy. Can you assure me that those average people who really need health care aren't going to get left behind?

Jarrett: At least every other day [President Obama] says to us, let's remember we don't want to get just something done. Our goal is to improve the quality of the health care. We have to provide the stability and the security so families don't wake up every day taking half a pill.

When you talk about compromise, true believers don't want any compromise. I think that the president is a pragmatist but he's not going to compromise fundamentals. He thinks the public plan is the right thing to do. He thinks it will prevent insurance companies from having a monopoly and better serve the American people.

Is it going to be ideal and perfect? No it's not. [But] it is going to be much much better.

I hope she's right. Given all the GOP wrangling and Blue Dog Democrat balking over the idea that health care for everyone has to be paid for and is something that all Americans ought to have, I'll believe it when I see it. In the meantime, if you think it's important that our moms and dads don't take just half a pill or that pregnancy shouldn't be a pre-existing condition that an insurance company won't cover, it's time to contact your lawmakers -- even if they're cranky about staying in the humid weather by the Potomac in the summertime.

BlogHer News & Politics Contributing Editor Joanne Bamberger is really excited about the new look of her blog about motherhood & politics, PunditMom. Joanne is also trying to figure out how to keep up with her regular blogging and get her butt in gear to write Mothers of Intention, her book about political motherhood that's scheduled to be published in October 2010 (Bright Sky Press)!

BlogHer is non-partisan but our bloggers (including me) aren't! Follow our coverage of Politics & News.

BlogHer '09: "There's so much power in this room."

2009-07-24T11:02:34-05:00

For some, a ballroom crowded with several hundred bright, accomplished and outgoing women might be a scary place. A conference with close to 1,500 women with opinions and blogs is probably even more frightening! But as we juggled our glasses of wine and tried to make conversation over the din at the first night of the BlogHer '09 conference, one wise woman turned and said to me, "There's so much power in this room."

It was the way she said it that struck me -- part in astonishment that so much female potential to be harnessed could be in one place, but there was also a tinge of sadness that sort of said, "Why aren't we doing something with all this power besides waiting for the swag bags?"

Obviously, there's more to a blogging conference than the parties and the goodies, but it is a fair question -- what could we do to grab an opportunity where so many women gather? How can we make an impact or, even, start a movement?

The list of big and small things goes on forever. Kim of Hormone-Colored Days has called for conference goers to save their unused hotel toiletries for a women's shelter. On a bigger scale, the question is being asked today by Veronica and others - what do politics mean to women in a post-Sarah Palin world? (Is it even possible to imagine a post-Sarah Palin world!) And the beginning of a movement is underway to take back the integrity with which many of us write, even though there are some who suggest that we are nothing more than product promoters.

It is good to pause and focus on what else we can be doing with this accumulation of power. We're so much more than the sum of our blogs. If we each take a moment to step away from the swag and the cocktails to think about what we could do to contribute to our communities, both online and off, we can take the next steps toward "world domination." And I know we'll be able to do it so skillfully, that the current powers that be will never even notice!

BlogHer News & Politics Contributing Editor Joanne Bamberger also writes about her political and, sometimes, activist, thoughts at her site, PunditMom. Joanne is also a regular contributor to The Huffington Post and is currently writing a book about mothers and politics to be published by Bright Sky Press in Fall 2010.

Womenomics: We've Got More Power Than We Thought!

2009-07-10T07:09:34-05:00

What would you say if I told you that you have more power to negotiate your work schedule than you think? Or that your boss may be afraid of you leaving your current position because of how much it would cost to find and train your replacement in this economy?

Those are just a couple pieces of food for thought from the new book Womenomics: Write Your Own Rules for Success, by Claire Shipman of ABC News and Katty Kay of the BBC. Claire and Katty graciously agreed to be part of a book "salon" at Chez PunditMom to talk about how their personal experiences and the research they've been doing led them to write this book that they hope will inspire more women to see the power they possess in the workplace, especially when it comes to gaining control over their schedules while advancing their careers AND making time for their families.

Katty & Claire hanging out on my deck!
Sound too good to be true? Well, it's not easy -- depending on our professions, some of us might have a harder time than others convincing our bosses that it really is to their benefit to re-evaluate how we all work, but Shipman and Kay say the proof is in the research they cite in their book.
Some of my lovely guests!

As they told Morra Aarons-Mele at Families & Work Institute blog , "Flexibility at work isn't like a favor you hand out at a children's birthday party. It's good for business and it's good for people. Such a simple and common sense approach, yet it's one that the majority of employers just don't get." The premise of Womenomics is that in addition to having power, women need to find ways to help their employers see that it really is to their benefit to be more flexible in how they think about women in the workplace -- that encouraging and promoting flexible and part-time work isn't just an accommodation or a perk, but rather a key ingredient to success, especially in this economy.
Shipman and Kay write in the book's introduction:

The business world is changing in ways that call for more brain over brawn, and our more inclusive and constructive management style is in high demand. Again, this claim is not wishful thinking; you'll see the research. And when you do, it will make perfect sense. Our right-brain multitasking and problemsolving skills help us make good corporate decisions. And companies now understand that a woman's opinion about products is critical, since (as we all know) we do the bulk of the buying for our families. Throw in the fact that we've got more degrees than men do and that there is an approaching talent shortage, especially of college-educated workers, and anyone can do the math. We have never been hotter. And it helps, by the way, that our savvy youngers are fanning the flames, demanding more freedom than we've dared.

I think it's safe to say we all came away from our book discussion feeling like there are more options for us to create meaningful and lucrative work lives AND that we don't have to sacrifice our personal lives for it -- that it might be slow going, but there is a way to support our families, advance our careers and have the kind of time we want for our families, as well.

Nicole from BananaBlueberry is finding the book inspirational. Lolli of Better in Bulk said the idea about setting work boundaries to be more productive led her to this epiphany:

It hit me like a brick wall that I need to define some boundaries for myself. It's so easy as a work at home mom to work all day long. It was the same way when I was a stay at home mom. There's no beginning or end of the work day. It's always computer time. So thanks to Claire and Katty, I have vowed to stay away from the computer between 3:00 and 8:00 and devote that time BACK to my kids.

Reading the book, I had many moments where I slapped my forehead and thought, "Of course!" But for many of us there is an element of fear -- what if I set boundaries and I get fired? What if I say I'm not available at certain times and they don't hire me again? Those are legitimate questions we all struggle with, but Shipman and Kay make good points about finding ways to help our employers see that it benefits them when they loosen the grip of the time clock and let all employees work smarter.

Nothing is going to change overnight. But over weeks and months it can if we spend the time laying the groundwork -- if we do good work and become valuable assets for our employers, it will only benefit them to keep us and encourage women, and men, to work more productively. As Cindy from Don't Gel Too Soon, remarked:

For someone my age, it's thrilling to hear employment issues discussed with assumptions we could never have made. Asking for schedule adjustments, work/family life balance, was out of the question. We were just fighting for equal pay and a few weeks off when we had our babies. The argument these two women make, that businesses are learning that women in their workforce in great numbers, and at all levels, is of great value to their bottom line. They line up to hear the two speak; join conference calls by the dozens to be briefed and basically finally get the power and capacity of "more than half the talent, not just more than half the population."

Womenomics doesn't have all the answers for making things better for women in the workplace, and they've taken some heat for that, but the ideas in the book are good ones -- ones that I'm taking to heart.

Claire and Katty, thank you so much for your book and allowing me to host such a special event!

BlogHer News & Politics Contributing Editor Joanne Bamberger writes about politics and a whole lot more at her blog, PunditMom (new & improved!) When she's done thinking about Womenomics, you can also find Joanne at The Huffington Post and MOMocrats.

BREAKING NEWS: Sarah Palin Resigns as Alaska Governor

2009-07-03T17:38:36-05:00

Just when we thought the Fourth of July weekend was going to be dominated by continuing coverage of Michael Jackson's death, Alaska Governor Sarah Palin stepped in to give us something else to talk about -- her sudden and unexpected announcement that she will resign before the end of the month.

At least one journo is wondering if Palin is resigning because she is pregnant! You can watch the full speech (see video below) which was a little on the bizarre side, especially the part about only dead fish going with the flow.

She said she's not wired like a normal politician and doesn't want to advocate for Alaska in the usual manner and so is starting down this new path for Alaska? Palin compares herself with a point guard in her decision? She sure seemed like an overly caffeinated point guard to me and the people of Alaska have to be asking themselves, "What were we thinking when we elected her governor?"

These are some really concerning ramblings by a woman who came awfully close to being the Vice President of the United States. And after reading the Vanity Fair article about her just today, I have to believe she still has political aspirations -- but if so, her actions make absolutely no sense. Maybe in her mind she is carving out a new path to political fame, but it seems like it will be a winding and unlikely path.

Palin says this decision has been in the works for a while, partly because some have mocked her son Trig? Really? I haven't heard any of that.

To be honest, her ramblings made no sense and really made me question what is really going on here. And, if she had become vice president, would she be resigning that office today? Or is there some oddly crafted plan to run for the Senate in 2010 or the White House in 2012? And why would anyone vote for her again if she can't even last four years in the Governor's office of a sparsely populated state?

There's sure to be a lot of speculation and analysis over the coming days and I, along with many others, definitely want to be there to see how this unfolds. My biggest hope is that the very strange tale of Sarah Palin doesn't dissuade other mothers of small children from running for office. There's something to be said for having that perspective in state houses, governor's offices and in Washington, D.C.

I hope the strange path that Sarah Palin seems to be on doesn't keep other moms away from the political world. I think there's more to explore and examine on this story and I am looking forward to writing about it in the coming days!

BlogHer News & Politics Contributing Editor Joanne Bamberger also writes about politics at her place, PunditMom.

Supreme Court Says School Strip Search Unconstitutional, But Where are the Consequences?

2009-06-26T09:56:43-05:00

Six years ago, 13-year-old Savana Redding was called to the principal's office because another girl claimed she had given her prescription strength ibuprofen in violation of the school's strict "zero tolerance" drug policy. When school officials didn't find anything in Redding's backpack or other belongings, they ordered her to strip to her underwear and pull her bra and undies to the side, exposing herself, so they could make sure she wasn't hiding any pain relievers under her clothes.

I can't even begin to imagine how humiliated and violated I would have felt as a young teen if that had happened to me. We're taught pretty early in school that as Americans we have certain protections and rights. Now, the Supreme Court has ruled that Redding's Fourth Amendment constitutional rights were violated when school officials made that extremely questionable decision to ask a young high school girl to strip in the name of "zero tolerance."

In an 8 to 1 decision, Justice Clarence Thomas being the lone dissenter, the Supreme Court ruled that the search that was performed on Redding went beyond what was called for in that situation and that, as a result, her constitutional rights had been violated.

After reading the accounts of the oral arguments, I was pretty sure the court would rule against Redding, opening the door to increasing numbers of overly intrusive searches of students. The male justices jokingly talked on the bench about how high school boys are comfortable with being naked in the locker room and snapping each other with towels, and seemed untroubled by the clear difference between locker room antics and being forced to strip in front of your assistant principal.

At the time, Dahlia Lithwick at Slate recounted:

This leads Justice Stephen Breyer to query whether this is all that different from asking Redding to "change into a swimming suit or your gym clothes," because, "why is this a major thing to say strip down to your underclothes, which children do when they change for gym?"
This leads [Justice Ruth Bader] Ginsburg to sputter—in what I have come to think of as her Lilly Ledbetter voice—"what was done in the case … it wasn't just that they were stripped to their underwear! They were asked to shake their bra out, to stretch the top of their pants and shake that out!" Nobody but Ginsburg seems to comprehend that the only locker rooms in which teenage girls strut around, bored but fabulous in their underwear, are to be found in porno movies. For the rest of us, the middle-school locker room was a place for hastily removing our bras without taking off our T-shirts.

Lithwick also reported that the justice who laughed the hardest and loudest at the idea of high school kids in their underwear was Clarence Thomas. Maybe he was just remembering his own youthful Tom Cruise moment.

After the argument, Justice Ginsburg lamented, seemingly out of frustration, "They have never been a 13-year-old girl. .... It's a very sensitive age for a girl. I didn't think that my colleagues, some of them, quite understood."

Some of my faith has been restored that a little common sense remains at the Supreme Court, but the justices still missed an opportunity to tell parents across the country that there will be consequences to school officials who cross this line -- the justices refused to allow Redding's case for damages against the assistant principal to move forward. So, while we can feel better about the fact that schools should not be strip searching our kids for pain relievers, if they do, there's really no recourse.

Another thing that occurred to me is that given the kinds of questions (and jokes) raised at the oral argument, something must have happened between then and the decision's announcement, because while SCOTUS questions don't always reveal which way the justices are going to rule, they can be a reliable indicator.

But I have to wonder, in light of the apparent change between oral arguments and the decision, what happened to help produce this major shift in thinking?

I'd like to imagine that maybe Ginsburg had had just a little too much of her colleague's callous remarks, that she marched herself into their chambers and had a little "talk" with all of them. I know that's not really how the Supreme Court works, but I love the visual image of Ginsburg reminding her male peers of the teen years of their sisters or daughters or friends, and that she made them reach back into their own memories of childhood and apply some common sense to this one. I want to hold on to my fantasy mental imagine that Ginsburg turned the ship on this one by asking Chief Justice John Roberts to think about this case and imagine it was his own daughter in Redding's position. If she was able to do that, maybe the Supreme Court has taken a slight turn in women's favor.

A girl can dream, can't she? After all, Ginsburg is carrying a big load for all women and girls until we get another woman on the Supreme Court.

BlogHer News & Politics Contributing Editor Joanne Bamberger is a "recovering" attorney and avid Supreme Court watcher (as well as a member of the Supreme Court bar!) When she's done reading through the full opinion in the Redding case, you can also find her musings at her blog, PunditMom, as well as at The Huffington Post, DC Metro Moms and MOMcrats.

BlogHer is non-partisan but our bloggers (including me) aren't! Follow our coverage of Politics & News.

Letterman vs. Palin -- More Media Sexism or Just Tasteless Humor?

2009-06-19T06:56:41-05:00

I'm not the only one who thinks that David Letterman owes us all an apology. But it seems like there are only a few of us.

It's probably no secret to some of you that one of my hot button topics lately has been the free ride the media often get when sexism tries to disguise itself as humor. Lots of people disagreed with my objection to the Spongebob Square butt commercial as inappropriately sexist and aimed at children. Now, just when I've cooled down over that one, I've got the whole David Letterman/Sarah Palin smack down to think about.

A few think I've lost my sense of humor and others have accused me of being a closet Republican because I believe that Letterman calling Palin's clothes slutty and joking about her daughter's sex life (I don't think it matters which daughter he was talking about) were sexist, not harmless humor.

I can promise you I have not crossed over to the GOP and my sense of humor is intact.

My gut says that there's not going to be much agreement between the humor vs. sexism camps on this one, but hear me out on why I think it's important to object to what Letterman said, even for those of us who disagree with Palin's politics. When a powerful entertainer with the media platform of David Letterman suggests that a woman governor is a slut and jokes about the sex life of one of her daughters, that sends a message to our children, especially our daughters, that it's accepted in our society for men to make women's appearances and their sexuality the brunt of their jokes. What's worse is that it also says they get rewarded for it, big time.

Some on the political right have claimed that the lack of protest by progressives about the Letterman/Palin saga proves that conservative women bear the brunt of this type of treatment more than their liberal sisters. To prove the error in that argument, I only need two words -- Hillary. Clinton. Not to mention the latest video from the Republican party that not-so-subtly compares Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi with that infamous James Bond character Pussy Galore.

It doesn't matter who the political woman of the minute is -- comedians and talking heads alike will continue to use sexist terms in their jokes and "analysis" because it gets attention and attention makes them money. The fact that we're still talking about all this is proof of that. But if we don't call them on it every time -- even if the target is someone of the opposite political persuasion -- they'll keep doing it and the next generation of celebrities and TV personalities will continue that tradition when our children are having children.

Some seem to think that Letterman's remarks were fair game because Palin somehow brought this on herself because she injected her sexuality and her views on abstinence only education into her political persona. But don't we just perpetuate that sexism by adopting that view? Just because Palin made the mistake of trying to use her daughter Bristol as the poster child for her own political agenda, doesn't justify the subsequent sexist jokes of Letterman, which impact all of us, not just the Palin family.

It just seems to me that it's a societal slippery slope if we say that, in the name of humor, it's OK for our kids to see shaking booties selling burgers and high profile comedians mocking women politicians for the way they dress and saying that it's just all in good fun.

My nine-year-old daughter is already starting to doubt herself on a whole host of issues. I've spent plenty of time dealing with some of the Disney demons, so I don't need any help from other entertainment sources when it comes to convincing her that news and entertainment outlets really do respect girls and women.

That's why I feel so strongly that it's important, regardless of our political persuasion, to step up and speak out when this type of sexism continues. We have plenty to debate when it comes to the views and politics of progressive and conservative women; their physical appearance and sex lives should be left out of it. And while we're at it, we can ditch the sexist code words so many use as default, as well.

When BlogHer News & Politics Contributing Editor Joanne Bamberger isn't tearing her hair out about the insidious nature of sexism and how it's already impacting her soon-to-be fourth-grader, you can find her writing about lots of other political goodness at her place, , as well as at The Huffington Post and MOMocrats.

BlogHer is non-partisan but our bloggers (including me) aren't! Follow our coverage of Politics & News.