Obama does the right thing, apologizes to Harris and tells America he gets it

Posted on April 6, 2013 by margotmagowan

Obama called Harris earlier in the day to offer an apology, according to White House Press Secretary Jay Carney.

“He called her to apologize for the distraction created by his comments,” Carney said during a Friday briefing at the White House. Carney acknowledged later that the president had also “apologized for the remark” during the conversation with Harris.

Obama “did not want in any way to diminish the attorney general’s professional accomplishments and her capabilities,” Carney said. “He fully recognizes the challenges women continue to face in the workplace and that they should not be judged based on appearance.”

Harris’s response?

“The attorney general and the president have been friends for many years,” Harris Communications Director Gil Duran said in a statement e-mailed to POLITICO. “They had a great conversation yesterday and she strongly supports him.”

Thank you, Obama. You did the right thing. Mostly, I appreciate how your spokesperson made clear: “He fully recognizes the challenges women continue to face in the workplace and that they should not be judged based on appearance.”

I also like Harris’s response. She didn’t mitigate the gravity of Obama’s comment. Good job, politicians, Hopefully, Americans are learning something here.

After Obama’s sexist comments, Tweets, blogs abound critiquing appearance of female politicians

Posted on April 5, 2013 by margotmagowan

After Obama’s comment yesterday calling California’s Kamala Harris the “best-looking attorney general,” the internet abounds with critiques about who is the prettiest.

Here just are a few Tweets:

#KamalaHarris is the best looking State AG,have you seen them other breastless doubletalking crumbs. #Sexless

@JoeNBC – Sure she’s nice looking; but, she’s no JANET RENO! #KamalaHarris

Get over it you P.C wusses! Obama was right! #KamalaHarris is indeed a babe! I have been jacking off to her for years!

#kamalaharris Would it have been better if he called her homely?

Obama, do you have any idea how hard professional and public women have to work to direct the public discussion, critiques, and evaluations about them about them away from how they look and toward what they do? With just a few words yesterday, your reference to Harris’s appearance gave America permission to focus on the “attractiveness” of female leaders.

SFGate reports:

many commentators took the comment as an opportunity to joke about who they believe are the most attractive attorneys general.

Obama, however, does have some supporters:

Fox & Friends… found the comment more accurate than offensive, asking simply, “So what?”

Obama’s summer reading list: Caitlin Moran

Posted on April 4, 2013 by margotmagowan

I’ve been reading and quoting from Caitlin Moran’s excellent book How to be a Woman. This passage (and the whole book, frankly) would be great reading for Obama.

Women know clothes are important. It’s not just because our brains are full of ribbons and bustles and cocktail frocks– although I believe brain scans will finally prove that at some future point. It’s because when a woman walks into a room, her outfit is the first thing she says, before she even opens her mouth. Women are judged for what they wear in a way men would find incomprehensible–they have never felt that uncomfortable moment when someone assesses what you’re wearing and then starts talking down to you, or starts perving you, or presumes you won’t “understand” the conversation– be it about work, parenting, or culture– simply because of what you put on that day.

Men exist in a different world with extremely different rules about appearance than women exist in. For President Obama to intro Harris as “best-looking” shows not only his own sexism but also his ignorance about how sexism influences and affects women’s daily lives, our identities, and our aspirations.

Another thing I’m wondering about, who are the other 49 Attorney Generals that Harris is in the beauty contest with?

Mr. President, the race for California attorney general isn’t a beauty contest

Posted on April 4, 2013 by margotmagowan

President Obama,

Today, when you endorsed California attorney general, Kamala Harris, at her fundraiser, you said:

“You have to be careful to, first of all, say she is brilliant and she is dedicated and she is tough, and she is exactly what you’d want in anybody who is administering the law, and making sure that everybody is getting a fair shake. She also happens to be by far the best-looking attorney general in the country — Kamala Harris is here.”

I know you didn’t mean anything offensive by calling California attorney general, Kamala Harris, the “best-looking Attorney General in the country.” You probably thought you were being humorous or complimentary. You weren’t. Referring to Harris’s looks in support of her campaign shows how out of touch you are with the situation that women in America are in.

Women in America are constantly valued for how we look and not for what we do. This prejudice is something every female in America of every age has to deal with on some level every single day. For the President of the United States to refer to the attorney general’s looks is not a trivial thing. I wish it were.

Kamala Harris is California’s first female attorney general. The first one. Why do you have to call the first female AG the “best-looking?” It’s not funny. Not only are you the president, you’re the father of two daughters. You’re telling America and your own kids that you value Harris because of the way she looks. Would you ever consider introducing a male candidate as the “best-looking?” How men look is basically irrelevant when evaluating their performance. Unfortunately, the same is not true for women. Harris, the women of America, and your daughters deserve more respect and an equal playing field. When you called Harris “best-looking” today, you took that away from her. When Americans hear your words, they, too, will look at Harris and evaluate her appearance. If our daughters– and I have 3– hear you, they’ll get training to do the same thing. That training already exists everywhere around them. The last thing our children need is to hear their President focusing on the looks of a high ranking, female politician.

You need to understand this. It’s important. Women put you in office for a second term. Yet, it’s startling to me how few women you’ve appointed to power positions in your Administration. Your cabinet has more men playing starring roles than a Hollywood blockbuster movie.

Women make up 50% of the population yet we’re drastically under-represented in our U.S. government. In 2013, women are just 18% of the United States Congress. Throughout our history, only four women have held the office of Supreme Court Justice. There has never been a female President of the United States. Do you think a female president would introduce a female politician as “best-looking?” Or would she ever introduce a male politician that way, for that matter?

Right now, the U.S. has only five female governors, a low for this century. Harris has the chance be the first female governor of California. To get her there, it doesn’t help to have the U.S. President reduce the race for California attorney general to another beauty contest. That’s bad for women and bad for America.

Thanks for listening,

Margot Magowan

P.S. I’m crafting a summer reading list for you. I know you love books and some of these may help you understand this issue better.

Kids, skis, fashion, and the gender police

Posted on April 4, 2013 by margotmagowan

Thanks so much for your suggestions about how to respond to the gender police/ kid squad. The response I like best for the times when your kid is asked by another kid “Why are you wearing that?” is “I like it.” As you wrote, that sentence is simple and to the point.

But here’s the challenge. I wrote this in the comment section, but am posting here too for larger discussion. My kids complained bitterly about their ski clothing. They didn’t like it at all. I think that it wasn’t so much the color, but that they were unused to it. They thought it was puffy and baggy. I think it felt odd to them. I told them no one cares what they look like. All that matters is that they are warm and dry. That is the purpose of ski clothing.

The clothing they wore belonged to a friend of mine who owned the house we were staying in. Everything was unusual and different for them. My kids barely see the snow, hardly wear mittens or boots or scarves or frankly, even jackets. Here’s my only pic of all 3 kids together in the borrowed clothes.

The little pink one actually ended up switching to gray because it fit her better. Here she is in the next day, in action and in gray with one of her older sisters behind her who is also in black and gray.

My kids’ discomfort or insecurity or challenge with newness is a big part of the issue with all this gender police stuff. If you have a kid who loves blue, you can support her. She will insist on wearing blue and that’s great. She has her passion behind her. But what if your kid, like so many kids, isn’t sure about what she’s wearing. She doesn’t know. She could go either way, or one of many ways. It’s that state of mind that marketing and peer pressure hones in on and exploits. That’s when they nab you, and I hate that. Because you can act like you’re giving a kid a “free choice” but what choices are free?

Say, for example, there’s a kid with a feminist mom. That kid might wear blue, but it’s a blue dress. And she’ll wear it with jeans. No ski pants at all. Or mittens, for that matter. Here’s my infamous nine year old daughter on our last day of the trip.

They’re going to send me back to the Mama Factory for this one. At least she’s wearing her helmet.

How do you respond to the gender police, kid squad?

Posted on April 3, 2013 by margotmagowan

My daughters had two incidents this week where other kids asked them why they had boy stuff. The first time was when my nine year old daughter was in ski school and another girl asked her if she had a big brother because she was wearing boy clothes. My daughter was wearing a black parka and gray ski pants. My daughter told me that she lied to the girl, saying she didn’t have a big brother but she had a boy cousin who was older. The girl was wearing white ski clothes and her skis were covered with a pink design that my daughter thought might be birds.

My husband told my daughter, “Just say to her, ‘Did you eat something pink? Because it looks like you threw up all over your skis.”

I kind of like that. I need help from you about how to respond to kids like this. I know exactly what to say to adults but I don’t want to get all intellectual on kids. I also don’t want to shame the kid, even though part of me does. Here are my three daughters, learning how to ski, being brave, taking risks, trying something new, and some little kid makes them think about how they appear? How they look? ARGH.

Have you had similar experiences and what has your kid said or you said that you felt good about?

The next event happened to my six year old daughter. Usually she gets school lunch, but that day, she brought a lunch bag to school that is blue and gray. A boy in line asked her why she had a boy lunch. A boy lunch?

Again, the last thing I want my daughter focusing on is how her lunch looks.

The focus on appearance starts so young with girls, and I hate watching it get programmed into their growing brains. Kids are resilient but girl children get so much attention for what they look like, you can literally see them learn “how I look = attention= love.” Unlearning that message, when it is reaffirmed everywhere for a lifetime, is challenging to say the least.

If there were any way to win this battle of appearance= happiness, maybe I could get behind it. But there is no way for females to feel good about themselves when their identity and power is shrouded in how they look. Even if a woman spends all of her time, all of her money, and all of her mental energy on looking good, say she’s Kim Kardashian, people will still call her “fat” and “a hairy Armenian.” No woman who is in public on any level will escape being called ugly to insult and degrade her. But even say, magically, some woman were so perfectly “beautiful,” she was immune to ever having a bad photo on the internet. That woman will age and then she will be “ugly.” There is no way for a woman to win the “beauty” game. That is why I hate that tiny baby girls are taught by parents, doctors, and teachers that their bodies are valued for how they appear and not for what they do. And one of the saddest things ever is watching little kids do this to each other, because you know who has taught them this– us.

‘Finding Dory’ to be Pixar’s first film titled for female star

Posted on April 2, 2013 by margotmagowan

I am so excited, because, today, Pixar announced that Ellen DeGeneres will star in the Nemo sequel “Finding Dory” out in 2015.

“Dory” will be Pixar’s second film ever to feature a female protagonist (the first was last year’s “Brave”) and its first film ever to put the female character’s name in the title. YAY!

Fox News reports:

“I have waited for this day for a long, long, long, long, long, long time,” DeGeneres said. “I’m not mad it took this long. I know the people at Pixar were busy creating ‘Toy Story 16.’ But the time they took was worth it. The script is fantastic. And it has everything I loved about the first one: It’s got a lot of heart, it’s really funny, and the best part is — it’s got a lot more Dory.”

It better be a lot more about Dory and YES, it has been a long time waiting. I’m a little worried because Dory wasn’t the sharpest tool in the shed, but she was funny, compassionate, loyal, and brave.

Pixar, please make sure Dory is the real protagonist of this film. That means Dory is the one who ACTS and the movie is centered on her quest. Don’t forget, heroes are the ones who make choices, take risks, and go through a transition.

It would be great if you would throw some more female characters in the movie, even making half of them female. Don’t let Dory be a Minority Feisty.

Thank you for making “Dory,” and I am looking forward to 2015!

Disney Junior ratings expected to surpass Nick Jr. for first time

Posted on April 1, 2013 by margotmagowan

I just blogged about watching 3 shows on the Disney channel over Spring break, when I saw a link on Elizabeth Sweet’s Twitter feed to an article on these three shows from today’s New York Times:

On Tuesday Nielsen data for Disney Junior will be revealed for the first time; the new channel is expected to beat its rival, even though Nick Jr. is available in 75 million homes, 25 percent more than Disney Junior.

Disney now has the top three preschool cable programs, led by what appears to be a monster-size new hit, “Sofia the First,” a cartoon that stars a pint-size princess and her zany animal friends.

The 3 programs, the ones I just wrote about, are Doc McStuffins, Jake and the Neverland Pirates, and Sofia the First. That’s the Disney Junior morning line up.

In my blog, I called the home of these 3 shows the Disney Channel. Apparently, the channel is actually called Disney Junior. The goal is to hook kids while they’re young on Disney Junior and then transfer them to the Disney Channel for 6 – 14 yr olds.

“These children are the Walt Disney Company’s most important audience,” Ms. Sweeney said. “They’re the future, and this is their first introduction to our brand.”

I’ve got to admit, out of those three choices– PBS, Nick Jr, and Disney Junior, the latter has the best shows for female protags. The NYT article states Dora is getting dethroned by Sofia. Physically, I prefer Dora’s appearance, especially since both girls are supposed to be Hispanic. Dora actually looks the part. But Dora lost her coolness when she morphed into a princess herself and then was eclipsed by her cousin, Diego. I agree, though for different reasons, Dora has fallen from grace.

PBS’s morning line up is terrible for female characters.

Is the good news about the high Disney Junior ratings that female characters sell?

Recognizing the sanctity– and a travesty– of marriage

Posted on April 1, 2013 by margotmagowan

I wrote this piece for the San Francisco Chronicle in 2000. Living in San Francisco and witnessing the fight for marriage equality inspired me, a heterosexual woman, to think of marriage in a new way. While I always thought the institution was irrelevant and kind of stupid, I came to see it as exciting and alive. I still do. Thank you to the gay movement for vivifying marriage for all of us.

Recognizing the sanctity – and a travesty – of marriage

MARGOT MAGOWAN

Published 4:00 am, Tuesday, February 22, 2000

I DIDN’T think TV could shock me anymore. But then, during sweeps week last week, I watched Fox’s new hit, “Who Wants to Marry a Multimillionaire?” and realized modern television had sunk to a new low.

The show began with the introduction of 50 women, all competing for the grand prize of marriage to a multimillionaire, their union to be sealed with a $34,000 engagement ring.

The women stepped into the klieg lights wearing everything from bathing suits to wedding gowns, exposing their bodies to be rated and judged. Meanwhile, Mr. Multimillionaire was safely shrouded in a darkened booth. The whole scene brought to mind the voyeuristic ambiance of a peep show.

During one of the show’s worst sequences, each finalist had 30 seconds to convince Mr. Multimillionaire that she was the one he should choose. While guitar porn rock played in the background, the women said things like, “I know just how to please a man.”

At the end of the show, Mr. Multimillionaire finally appeared in a tux and chose his bride, the blondest and thinnest of them all.

I was stunned by this degradation and mockery of the marriage ceremony. How can there be any presumption of honesty or integrity in marriage vows when the groom takes them – as Mr. Multimillionaire did – just moments after meeting his wife to be, promising to love her until death?

Are those elements that I thought were key to marriage – vows and love and commitment – without real meaning?

A wedding ceremony should be a sacred celebration, inspired by devotion so powerful that those in love want to make a lifelong commitment to each other publicly.

Yet on the Fox Network, marriage became a modern-day flesh auction with women transformed into a commodity to be purchased by a wealthy man.

I’m not completely naive. I know that marriage was initially created as a financial contract. I know that in Biblical times the purpose of marriage was to control the means of reproduction – that is, women.

I know that when women had no social, political or financial power, when they were not allowed to own property and were only valued for how many children they could bear, marriage existed just to ritualize the transfer of ownership of women from fathers to husbands.

I know that remnants of these ancient roles of womanhood are still prevalent in marriage ceremonies, but I had thought they no longer had significance.

Though brides still traditionally wear white, the color has lost its relevance as a symbol of virginal innocence, once so prized in a woman. Few recall now, when the priest asks if anyone has just cause why the marriage should not take place, that the question was originally meant to determine if anyone had evidence that the bride was, in fact, not a virgin.

Fast forward a few thousand years to the debut of Fox’s top-rated show. After watching these women on TV, whose worth was measured by how well they conformed to limited ideals of beauty, while male worth was measured by wallet size, I was feeling pretty cynical about gender roles and matrimony.

Then something happened to restore my faith. The debate on Proposition 22, the ballot initiative on gay marriage, caught my attention.

As supporters of the initiative condemned gay marriage for defiling a holy institution, I thought of the irony. An elegantly packaged prostitution ring on prime time television is perfectly legal, yet two people in love who want to make a public and legal, lifetime commitment to each other, with sincere vows, are forbidden legal recognition of their marriage because they are of the same sex.

While “Who Wants to Marry a Multimillionaire?” illustrates the worst of marriage, defeating Prop. 22 would bring out the best of it. Allowing gay people to marry shatters all of the antiquated sex stereotypes that still threaten to be resurrected in popular culture.

If marriage is to survive and thrive in this millennium, it needs to evolve. The marriage contract is a living document. We need to keep the best of it – the love, the romance, the vows – and leave behind those elements that reduce human beings to property.

If Californians really are concerned with family values, they should be fighting for the right of people who truly love each other to legalize their commitment.

Disney Channel morning line-up outshines PBS in female characters

Posted on April 1, 2013 by margotmagowan

Last week, we were on Spring break and staying at the house of a friend of mine up in Tahoe. The TV channels were different, and we found ourselves watching the Disney Channel in the morning. I was pleasantly surprised by it. Possibly, in part, because my expectations were so low. Or perhaps, because I was so disgusted and appalled by the domination of male protagonists on PBS, the “educational” station.

Here is what we watched: “Doc McStuffins.”

Dottie McStuffins is a six year old girl who wants to grow up to be a doctor like her mother. Her animal friends, 2 female and 2 male, help her out fixing and healing. How cool is that? Also, she’s African-American. Some stuff bugs me, like her purple glittery doctor’s bag along with various other pink and purpleness, but mostly, I love this show. Reel Girl rates Doc McStuffins ***HHH/ S***

Next up is “Jake and the Neverland Pirates.”

Obviously, Jake is the star. And, surprise, surprise, there are 2 main male characters to one female character. Not only that, the Minority Feisty is Pirate Princess. Gag. But, in every episode I saw, she had a big part, second to Jake, and she was smart, brave, and helped to save the day. Clearly, Princess Pirate’s power is safely circumscribed by pink and the more heroic Jake, but Reel Girl rates Jake and the Neverland Pirates ***H/SS***

And finally, “Princess Sofia.”

I was so dismayed when I heard about the debut of this supposedly Hispanic princess that Disney decided to make light-skinned and blue-eyed that I didn’t even blog about her. When I finally watched her last week, I liked her okay. The show surprised me in some ways. For example, the princesses had to design their “dream castle.” I groaned, dreading decorating tips. I was thrilled when Sofia said that in her castle, she wanted a laboratory for a Sorceress and a stable for flying ponies. My 4 year old daughter was pretty excited about that too. My main complaint with the show– as with the Barbie movies–is the look of the females. If we could just get them out of the puffy dresses that are so endlessly distracting, it might be a good show. Unfortunately, the way its stands, the message girls get (and boys about girls) is first and foremost, girls must look a certain way. Once you get the look down, adventures and exciting things might just happen to you. If you don’t look this way, you’re invisible, you don’t exist at all. Also, I HATE that demure, shy way she’s standing. Ugh. Reel Girl rates “Princess Sofia” ***H/SS***