A Sad and Pathetic Figure

“One thing that is fascinating about George Bush is how little he has grown in office. No, that's not right. It's not that he hasn't grown, he has gotten smaller; less Presidential, more sad little man watching his paper boat circle the drain. After six years of playing The Decider he should at least have a thin candy shell of gravitas as opposed to coming across like one of those guys on Peoples Court who not only has an unshakable belief that people won't see through his bullshit, but that no one will notice his artful comb-over either.”

I found this quote on a blog several weeks ago and have been thinking about it since. I totally agree with the opinions of the author. The more interesting question, in my mind, concerns patterns. Have most presidents grown and/or matured while in office? Or have others acted more like Bush and regressed during their White House stay?

I think it's fair to say that George W. Bush has morphed into nothing but a sad and pathetic figure. He will always have that 20-25% of the electorate who, it seems, would remain loyal even if he murdered someone on national TV. But it’s clear that most of the nation is embarrassed by our current chief executive.

The simple answer to presidents “growing” in office is that most actually do. History demonstrates that two things tend to happen to presidents. First, at some point in their term, event(s) humble them—driving them to rethink much of their boisterous, and ideologically rigid campaign rhetoric. This is when many mature and transform themselves from politician to statesman. Second, most also find that maturity and growth force them into seeking a historical legacy; which means leaving something substantive (not partisan) to the nation and its citizens.

There are some examples in the past half-century of presidents who have grown in office—examples from both parties.

When the boyish John F. Kennedy entered the White House in 1961, some saw him as an inexperienced playboy whose daddy had bought him the election. While I will not compare Bush with JFK (W is no Jack Kennedy, shall we say), Kennedy did have a certain detached manner that made many think that he didn’t take issues seriously enough.

Yes, JFK had been a war hero and had plenty of medical problems, but he did come from a wealthy family that had greased the political wheels for him when he had nothing else to do in after WW II.

But Kennedy’s on-the-job training changed him immensely. The Bay of Pigs fiasco forced him to restructure his internal decision-making aparatus—and it caused him to question military/CIA advice. And then the Cuban Missile Crisis brought Kennnedy face-to-face with nuclear war. After October 1962, his speeches became more measured, his tone much more peaceful and conciliatory—if nothing else, Cuba taught Kennedy that he had the power to destroy the world—and it had almost happened.

What did we get from this 45 year-old man after Cuba? Not smirks and snide comments, not frat-boy giggles and statements from an ideologue. During his next twelve months in office, President Kennedy uttered some of his most memorable and lasting words— marvelous speeches about peace, disarmament, the arts, poetry, and his vision for a safer world.

Maybe JFK had this in him from the start—but like most politicians, he came to office a little cocky and too sure of himself. But by November 1963, he was a different person—he had clearly grown as a person and as a president.

Ronald Reagan also proved that one could develop while in office. While I am not a huge fan of Reagan, I have always been intrigued by his efforts to rid the world of nuclear weapons when he met with Gorbachev in 1986. Some say Reagan didn’t know what he was doing—but I disagree. Reagan was trying to use the office to do something grand, and that’s what the presidency is all about.

Reagan, by 1986, knew that legacy was important—and legacy is leaving something to history. It’s acting in the best interests of future generations—it’s doing those things that you couldn’t do when political interests dominated. Reagan knew this, and tried something big.

Finally, while Lyndon Johnson’s last year in office was tragic—he even matured. LBJ abandoning the office that he so loved and actually wrecked his legacy--but it might have been the apex of his maturation. Johnson was a schemer and still hoped the Democrats would turn to him in the fall. But even LBJ had learned there was something bigger and more important than his ambition.

I think that two of the three individuals I mentioned in this post were mediocre presidents at best (I will let you guess which ones), but all three were much more impressive than the current occupant of the White House. All three left office with some gravitas, and all three knew that was an important part of the presidency.

As we all know, Bush had his opportunity didn’t he? And what did he tell the American people to do after 9/11….to go shopping. What a fucking moron. He has done nothing domestically—except appoint fascists to the court system. And his foreign policy, to say the least, has been a disaster.

George Bush, in my view, has been the worst president in American history. Overturning his mistakes will take years. He has become a small figure—immature and clearly not suited or qualified for the job. Luckily, we have had presidents in the past that did grow in the office, but not this adolescent clown.

Novel Ideas

Mark Twain remarked that “A classic is something that everybody wants to have read and nobody wants to read.” I don’t know if that is still the case—but I think Twain has been generally correct about this.

Personally, I have had a terribly schizophrenic relationship with the classics (and novels in general for that matter) for the past 20-25 years. The primary reason, I believe, has been my study of History. You see, after reading traditional nonfiction History: textbooks, journals, short articles, and primary source materials—it becomes difficult to read word-for-word books. When you read academic nonfiction, you can often skim—searching for main ideas and key points, while quickly glancing over the language and style.

I do enjoy nonfiction very much—but I grew up reading classics and lament the fact that I continue to have trouble reading the great works. I can zip through a 500 page biography in a few days—but when I try to pick up one of the classics, I stick with it for awhile, and then…….my thoughts wander to some American history topic.

I could simply give up. I read enough good nonfiction…..I need not be so hard on myself, right?

But I still believe that fiction in general, and these classics specifically, are well worth the effort. I want to take my time and read each and every word, meet interesting characters, and understand their human emotions and dilemmas. The beautiful sentence structures, the perfect word choice, and the unfolding plots. I do get some of that in good history book—but I want more. Besides, the classics are so civilizing.

I grew up reading Dickens—Oliver Twist was the first real, adult novel I remember reading. Then I read David Copperfield and was “hooked on the classics.” But once I went to graduate school, the nonfiction took over.

I was assigned The Sun Also Rises in a graduate school History class once—and I loved that novel. I still read it several times a year. After reading it in Dr. Allen’s U.S. History seminar at Southern Illinois University—several of my classmates and I got drunk for about 4-5 days straight! We each bought one of those wine skins that Jake and the others drink from in the novel . Those were the days!

Well, I am here to say that I haven’t given up yet…..I am trying once again. I have a stack of classics that I keep on hand so when I get the urge, I have something to grab. A few days ago, I spotted the fat little Bantam Classic edition of Tolstoy’s Anna Karenina (Tolstoy pictured above). Thus far…..wonderful. I don’t want to say too much, I have completed 191 of 868 pages. But I sense that this might be the start of something.

I will keep you posted on my progress! Wish me luck.

Friday Cat Blogging

I give you Buddy--master of, and the inspiration behind this blog. Buddy was a scruffy neighborhood stray who showed up at our apartment in the early 1990s. We were hesitant to feed him but he was persistent. I tried catching him several times, but he always got away.

My lovely domestic partner finally trapped him one day, took him to the vet for a checkup, and even had him fixed (I don't know if he was too thrilled about that). Buddy has been part of the family ever since. The vet wasn't sure how old he was, so currently Buddy might be anywhere from 14 to 17 years old. He is a wonderful cat!

On a Few of the Evils of Capitalism

Twice during the past week, I have been at academic discussions where a “radical” market capitalist has been the primary speaker. The frustrating thing about these market missionaries is they realize there is no real political opposition to their ideology. So what you hear from these self-righteous zealots are “lectures” about how free markets must be expanded; how people worldwide are doing so well under globalization; and how there are no economic options anyway.

As Andrew Murray wrote in the Guardian, these market advocates continually utilize the argument that “there is no alternative” to the uber-capitalism that we now see running rampant in America and throughout the world. And it is true in the United States at least, that the majority of the left has eschewed any efforts to seriously confront the market system.

But shouldn’t we be more vocal in critiquing capitalism? Should I accept the crap that was given to me at the meetings I attended? From my perspectives the clear answer is no.

Let’s look at just a few of the problems and ask some basic questions about market capitalism. Now I’m sure the conservative right-wingers have “answers” to all of these issues—I doubt however, that the answers are at all valid.

-The rich-poor gap has widened in the United States and appears to be continuing on that course. This is happening in most of the western nations.

-Women’s wages remain well below the wages of men—and the free market has yet to alleviate any of the work/family issues that women are constantly dealing with.

-The health care crisis in the United States is not being solved by the marvelous free market. In fact, it’s clear that the market isn’t working at all regarding this issue.

-Business can move whenever they want, devastating communities and workers—while employees have had trouble even unionizing in their own country.

-Business get huge subsidies from the government—even though the market is supported to be an invisible hand. But governments only retreat when the poor ask for something.

-Globalization was supposed to at least help end wars (remember, capitalist nations don’t fight each other), but we know that the military-industrial complex is now getting more money than ever. The military will always find some way to hog the budget.

-People are working longer and longer hours for less and less money.

-Corporations are canceling or not offering benefits.

-This hyper-capitalism has no moral compass and has done nothing for social justice in this country or around the world.

And in one of the best current critiques of capitalism, Satish Kumar wrote the following in the online journal Resurgence:

"Even where money and material goods are plentiful, selfishness, greed, competition, crime, violence and frustration prevail. Capitalist societies are left with increasing rates of cancer, obesity, depression and stress. Capitalism has failed in human terms. But even more drastically capitalism has failed in terms of the natural environment. Capitalism is rapidly destroying soil fertility, biodiversity and the atmosphere. Capitalism founded on the ideology of unlimited economic growth and industrialised mass production is not only unsustainable – it is blatantly harmful."

Let’s face it, globalization/rabid market capitalism is good…..for a small group of people. The multinational corporations, the weapons and arms-manufacturers, and the global bankers are all doing very well. For the majority—the masses, the poor, the underprivileged……I don’t see this economic system as a panacea at all. It is destroying the earth, its beauty, and its people!

Will we be able to alter the system? Probably not in my lifetime—but why can’t we at least begin to fight back? Why can’t we make sure to critique this system when we have the opportunity?

Capitalism wasn’t handed down by god (and even if it was, that would just give me another excuse to dislike it). Capitalism was set up to benefit certain people, and keep them in power—and that is exactly what it does.

And we must remember, there are socialist alternatives, Marxist theories that explain how capitalism works, and other critiques that are valid and useful. Let’s not give up on this issue—let’s not cede this to the market folks so easily.

And to once again quote Satish Kumar: "We need . . . a system for the age of ecology, a system which is embedded in the care of people, all people and also in the care of the earth and all life upon it, human life as well as animal life, plant life, earth life, air life and water life. We need a system which replaces our capitalist world view with a naturalist world view, and shifts our society from capitalism to “naturalism”.

Feminism 101

There is a new blog that I urge all of you to view. It's called Finally, a Feminism 101 blog. What is it? Well, feminist bloggers have found themselves spending an inordinate amount of discussion time answering some of the same old questions about women's rights, gender roles, and feminism. Many of those questions, no doubt, are obnoxious queries from men who may never understand these concepts.

In order to spend more time on serious discussions, and less time answering the same old questions--this blog was started to answer some of those questions like:
-What do feminists want?
-Why do feminists hate men?
-What is male privilege?
-What's wrong with the suggestion that women take precautions to prevent being raped? Short answer to this one: Because it puts the onus on women not to get themselves raped, rather than on men not to do the raping; in short, it blames the victim.

There is more to that last answer, and some great discussion threads and links. Please check it out!

Winter in Minnesota: From "E Pluribus Unum" to "It's All About Me"

posted by Chet Brinkley.....

We were out to supper with friends not that long ago. Bill, who drives a snow plow in the winter, was commenting on his latest misadventures. As usual, getting buried recently under several inches of heavy, wet snow did not bring out the best in our fellow citizens. One shrieking harpy called up Bill's station and screamed, “I don’t care about anyone else! You get a plow over to my house right now and get me out of here.” Bill’s boss, of course, laughed uproariously before hanging up on the hysterical wench.

When the storms are as bad as they got a couple of weeks ago, Bill drives twelve hours at a shot. As anyone who’s lived in Minnesota for any period of time knows, snow plow drivers are some of the most despised people in the state this time of year. Cleaning the streets also means clogging people’s driveways with massive piles of back-breaking, compacted snow. The force of the propelled precipitation can smash or at least deform mailboxes. In order to accomplish the greater good, all of us who own homes have to pay a little extra for our privilege and dig ourselves out. It’s the only way all of us can get to our jobs and pay our bills. But this doesn’t stop morons from trying to pass these behemoths on the road, and from flipping them off for having the temerity to slow them down. Of course, a lot of these bozos end up in a ditch or slammed into a light pole a little further down the road.

Bill was doing what had to be done, driving a truck that, fully loaded, weighs about 15 tons, when a crazed citizen jumped in front of him, forcing him to slam desperately on the brakes. The man screamed, ‘You left a big pile of snow in my driveway! You come back and clean that up!” He demanded that Bill come around a second time, drive on the wrong side of the road so that the snow would pile up in the middle of the street, and then come through a third time and push it all into the yards and driveways of his neighbors across the way. In other words, screw everybody else, just take care of me. As this fractious discussion continued, the rabid fellow jumped up onto Bill’s truck, so Bill grabbed for his hammer and put it on the dash, just to make sure it was there if he needed it. As the tensions escalated and Bill remained resolute in his sanity, the fellow finally adopted a thin veneer of sanity, read my friend’s name tag, and intoned, “Well Bill, I guess I’m going to be calling your manager.” Bill laughed uproariously and said, “You go right ahead.” No doubt this fellow became the story/psycho of the week back at the shop.

It’s easy to think of Bill’s experiences as silly stories about a couple of wack jobs who freaked out during a recent snowstorm, but I’m not sure any of us can let ourselves off the hook that easily. Maybe Barack Obama is doing more than establishing a niche issue for himself when he speaks of an “empathy gap”. All of us have raced down the interstate—or even a small local road—and cursed at anyone who impeded our progress in the slightest way. More and more of us stare transfixed into our computer or television or cell phone screen or plug ourselves into our MP3 players and eschew meaningful interactions with the world around us. We shop on line, we drive through the bank and the fast food place—we probably have more fondness for our cars than for our neighbors or even members of our extended family. Where does it end? How long is it going to be before we’re all so myopic and unjustifiably self-righteous that we’re lying in wait for the newspaper deliverer because he left the paper lying in the middle of the driveway—where it was buried by the snow plow?

Who You Gonna Call?

Here’s something that might finally put you over the edge. Presidential hopeful John McCain reported at a recent fundraising event that "When I have a question about something that's going on in the world, I call Dr. Henry Kissinger and he is able to connect the dots for me."

Let’s just hope McCain’s poll numbers continues to plummet. All we need is that fucking war-criminal Kissinger back in charge of foreign policy. McCain went on to say that Kissinger is “one of the only people I've ever known who can connect the entire scenario for you in a way that you understand the completeness of the challenge."

McCain said that he also consults with Brent Scowcroft, George Schultz, Lawrence Eagleberger, Robert Kagan, and Bill Kristol. (That list was only “slightly to somewhat fucked-up” until we got to Kristol.)

Now seriously, what does it mean when a 2008 presidential candidate admits that Henry Kissinger is his primary foreign policy advisor? I think it means we (the people, the country) need to worry.

Why? Let’s start a list detailing the major liabilities of Dr. Kissinger:

1. He is probably wanted in several countries for war crimes--something that often hinders one’s travel plans.

2. He helped keep the Vietnam War going on for 4-5 years for no logical reason. The morality of that has always escaped me.

3. East Timor….again, very serious ethical and moral questions.

4. Kissinger spends most of his time stammering and babbling to Charlie Rose—who seems to be the only other person, besides McCain, who will listen to him. .

5. He knows more about the Congress of Vienna than he knows about the 2008 world. And this my friends, is a serious problem. Let me clarify.

Doesn’t the choice of Kissinger really show that the 72 year-old McCain is past his time? I think it does. Maybe McCain ought to be talking to some foreign policy experts who better understand Islam, globalization, markets, international gender issues, and human rights (something Kissinger has had problems with).

Henry Kissinger is 83 years old. Even if one is willing to grant him some credit for his diplomacy during the Nixon administration (China, Middle East), I truly don’t believe he has a lucid grasp of the contemporary world.

The United States needs a modern, enlightened foreign policy. Instead, Kissinger’s manta would probably be, “What Would Metternich Do?”

George Bush talks to God, McCain talks to Kissinger……you figure that one out!

It's Really a Simple Question Folks

As many of you have probably already read, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Peter Pace (shown at left), denounced gays this week as "immoral." He compared gay acts to adultery and said the army should rid itself of these terrible individuals. In order to drive gays from the armed services, he seeks to repeal the "don't ask, don't tell policy,"

Pace was immediately criticized by many groups and individuals. The Human Rights Campaign was quick to condemn his statements as was Republican Senator John Warner. The Virginia senator said specifically, "I respectfully disagree. . . that homosexuality is immoral."

Nice job Senator Warner....a clear and concise answer to a simple question--are gays immoral?

Now....do you want to know why those of us on the left are so concerned about our current crop of presidential contenders? Here is the reason. After Pace's moronic statements, the leading Democratic candidates have all been asked to comment. Here are some of their answers--please read carefully:

Senator Clinton, when asked if gays were immoral responded with the following statement:

"Well, I’m going to leave that to others to conclude. I’m very proud of the gays and lesbians I know who perform work that is essential to our country, who want to serve their country, and I want make sure they can."

Wow, that's really a strong pro-gay statement isn't it--"I'm going to leave that to others." The Clinton spinmeisters immediately realized there might be a problem. Later in the day, the New York senator--or her staff--made some amends by stating:

"I disagree with what he said and do not share his view, plain and simple. It is inappropriate to inject such personal views into this public policy matter, especially at a time in which there are young men and women in such grave circumstances in Iraq, in Afghanistan, and in other dangerous places around the world."

In the meantime, Illinois Senator Barack Obama, when asked about Pace's comments on whether gays were immoral gave this quasi-definitive statement:

"I think traditionally the Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman has restricted his public comments to military matters. That's probably a good tradition to follow."

What the hell does that mean? When asked later, Obama maintained that the main issue should be who was willing to sacrifice their life for their country. Which again, seems like it doesn't really deal with the question of gay morality.

Okay, now behind Door #3 we have John Edwards. In an interview with Wolf Blitzer, the former senator was asked the same question.

BLITZER: Let's talk about General Peter Pace, the chairman of the joint chiefs. He suggested today, his own personal opinion, homosexuality, he said, was immoral. As a result, don't change the don't ask, don't tell policy. First of all, in your opinion, is homosexuality immoral?

EDWARDS: I don't -- don't share that view. And I would go -- go further than that, Wolf. I think the don't ask, don't tell is not working. And as president of the United States I would change that policy.

BLITZER: Is the don't ask, don't tell policy immoral?

EDWARDS: I think the don't ask, don't tell policy is wrong. It's not working. I think what it's done, effectively, is kept us from having some of the most talented people we could have in our military. It's caused -- caused more problems than it's solved. And it ought to be changed.

By today (Friday) both Clinton and Obama were till trying to spin their weak responses. While both candidates finally agreed that that being gay was not immoral, it seemed to take a while.

Human Rights Campaign president Joe Solmonese, who spent most of yesterday on the phone with both camps, was relieved and a little mystified that he had to fight to elicit the statements."I hope that we have learned moving forward that, at the end of the day, all that American voters expect, whether they are gay or straight, is clarity from the candidates," he said.

So by the end of the week, all appears to be well. But several things concern me.

1. The answer should have been clear, obvious, and easy--NO, gays and/or the gay lifestyle is NOT immoral. It shouldn't have just rolled off the tongue--no thinking involved. Pandagon reported that:

"Clinton and Obama supporters, speaking on condition of anonymity, said both might have been trying to avoid offending socially conservative Democrats, particularly churchgoing African-Americans, who share Pace’s views."

2. Both Clinton and Obama are still trying to out-triangulate each other. When will this end--and when will either, or both of them, start talking straight.

3. Finally, John Edwards looks better and better each week.

News Items of Interest

SDS is Back Again!
In New York City on Monday, about 100 students, all members of SDS New York, occupied an Armed Forces Recruiting Center for two hours. The occupation ended when 20 students were arrested by the NYPD. The students were charged with criminal trespassing.

At approximately 11:15 am, a large contingent of New School SDS members left the New School Graduate Center (65 Fifth Avenue) heading south. The column weaved its way through lower Manhattan, arriving at Chambers and West Broadway--where they connected with another march, this one originating from Pace University. The two columns streamed west on Chambers and entered the recruiting center which 25 students occupied for about two hours. Recruiters in the facility slammed and locked the doors to their offices, apparently to avoid interaction with the students--effectively closing the center for the duration of the occupation. Outside, dozens of additional protesters stood with signs chanting: “Troops out now,” “No justice, no peace. U.S. out of the Middle East,” and “Stop the war, yes we can. SDS is back again.”

comment: This is wonderful! What more can I say. These sorts of protests should be taking place all over the country. And we really need to do something about these military recruiters.


American Historical Association Opposes Iraq War
Members of the American Historical Association have ratified the “Resolution on United States Government Practices Inimical to the Values of the Historical Profession.” The vote was 1550 (75.61%) in favor and 498 (24.29%) opposed. Two persons submitted incomplete ballots. The number of voting members represented 14.67% of the AHA membership.

A major role was played by a relatively new group, Historians Against the War (of which I am a member). For the past few decades, academic groups have felt they should not get involved in these sort of partisan political activities. I guess some still believe students are not supposed to know that we have political views!

comment: Yes, I actually WANT my students to know that I am a passionate political creature with strong opinions. They don't have to agree with me--and most of them don't. But I will not become an ideological eunuch just because some spineless administrators are afraid some student might be offended by my views!


Now It's NORTH Dakota!
Here we go again. The North Dakota Senate is poised to hear a bill, HB 1466, which would ban all abortions in the state. And this proposed ban is even more extreme than the beaten-down South Dakota ban! There are no exceptions for rape, incest, or the health of the woman AND the ban would impose criminal penalties on women and their doctors.

The bill would also allow the Attorney General to implement a ban on abortion regardless of the status of Roe v. Wade. Performing an abortion would become a Class C felony in the state. Planned Parenthood Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota is monitoring the situation. Go to their website for news and other information.

comment: I don't know what else can be said about these assholes. They clearly will not accept the fact that the public opinion tide appears to be running against them. Oh, I almost forgot though, God is on their fucking side isn't she? We just need to keep working.


Kroger Does the Right Thing
The supermarket giant Kroger said last week that "medication is a private patient matter" and that it will fill all requests for emergency contraceptives. The controversy began when a customer in Atlanta was apparently denied the "morning after pill" at one Kroger store.

Several other pharmacy chains have made the same pledges, including CVS, Rite-Aid, and Walgreens.

As we should have expected, there was a statement from the "critics" who said that this contraception "encourages promiscuity and unprotected sex...." blah, blah, blah, blah.

comment: Good for Kroger. This shouldn't even be an issue should it? If these bastards are allowed to pick and choose whom they serve--aren't we really back to the days of Jim Crowism? If they don't have to serve women, maybe they can refuse service to African Americans.....or overweight people....or the handicapped. Where does it end?


This Is Sick
This isn't really news, but it seems creepy enough to report. I first read about this on Feministing--and it's weird. Purity Balls are where teenage girls are escorted on "dates" by their fathers! During the balls themselves, vows are exchanged, cake is served, and the elaborate ceremony leads to some sort of abstinence-until-marriage pledge by these young ladies. The fathers, in turn, promise to protect the chastity of their daughters.

comment: This seems really sick to me. I can't even write about it anymore. What the fuck is going on in this country? Here in Minnesota, Planned Parenthood has a wonderful program called Teen Council. These are groups of hard-working, dedicated, and passionate high-schoolers who go into schools and talk to their fellow students about sex education. It is a fabulous program (I will blog more about them in a future post). Now, wouldn't you rather discuss healthy sexual relationships with your peers--instead of making some kind of sick "pledge" with your dad?

On the Sexualization of Girls

A psychology professor friend emailed me a recently published copy of the American Psychological Association’s Task Force Report on the Sexualization of Girls. While the findings may not be startling news to many, the report makes for fascinating reading. Let me offer a few quotes/conclusions:

"Virtually every media form studied provides ample evidence of the sexualization of women.”

"In study after study, findings have indicated that women more often than men are portrayed (in the media) in a sexual manner (dressed in revealing clothing, with bodily postures or facial expressions that imply sexual readiness) and are objectified (used as decorative object, or as body parts rather than a whole person). In addition, a narrow (and unrealistic) standard of physical beauty is heavily emphasized. These are the models of femininity presented for young girls to study and emulate.”

Specific examples are even presented:

-Skechers “naughty and nice” ads that features Christina Aguilera dressed in schoolgirl pigtails, with her shirt unbuttoned, licking a lollipop.

-Bratz dolls (see picture above) dressed in sexualized clothing such as miniskirts, fishnet stockings, and feather boas.

-Thongs sized for 7-10 year olds, some printed with slogans such as “wink-wink”.

And the report’s “Consequences” section was what we might expect. The research linked sexualization with “three of the most common mental health problems of girls and women: eating disorders, low self-esteem, and depression or depressed moods.” In addition, frequent exposure to these media images that sexualize girls and women also affects how girls conceptualize femininity and sexuality.” The study finds that girls and women heavily exposed to these stereotypes are the ones that place an emphasis on “appearance and physical beauty” and tend to make those traits the focal point of their value system.

Other societal problems stemming from sexualization include:
-fewer women entering science, technology, engineering, and math
-increased rates of sexual harassment and sexual violence
-increased demands for child pornography

Now here is the one that really concerned me…and the one I want to rant about for a few minutes: “Exposure to narrow ideals of female sexual attraction may make it more difficult for some men to find an “acceptable” partner or fully enjoy intimacy with a female partner.

Yes, men and boys are also deeply affected by the sexual objectification of girls and women. How many American dads take the time to teach their young boys about the sexual problems that women face day-to-day? Isn’t it about time that men start doing their part to change the way society objectifies women? This is not just a women’s issue—it’s a societal issue.

I see college-aged men (boys actually) each and every day, and they appear unwilling to even consider this an important issue. They rationalize their fraternity-like behavior with a variety of excuses:

-Advertisers and/or the ubiquitous “market” can do whatever it pleases.
-It’s just those feminists complaining again, why do they hate men anyway?
-Girls aren’t really affected by that sexual objectification stuff. And this is a fascinating one because the guys generally get one of the young ladies in the class to agree. The interesting thing is that the female who they use as their spokesperson is, more often than not, a young lady with low self-esteem that says whatever the boys want.

What can men do—plenty? Here are some of the things that I think important, and I would appreciate comments from other men (and women) about we (especially white men) can do to help stop the sexualization of young girls and women.

1. Question your buying choices. Don’t buy products that advertise using female sexual images and stereotypes. And don’t shop at establishments that use this form of cohesion.

2. Question the media--especially the ultra-sexist sports media. Just because you like football doesn’t mean you need to accept the objectification of women in beer ads and other marketing ploys.

3. Listen to women—they live with this crap every day. And when they try to help…listen. Try to understand by shutting up, not getting defensive, and not being so egotistical as to think their concerns are about us.

4. Call out other men on their sexist behavior, jokes, and other crude antics. Speak up against the locker room mentality that seems to dictate American male actions. This one is difficult….”they might not like me anymore.” But what’s really more important? Think about it.

5. Encourage every young girl that you know to study math and science. And convince as many as you can to NOT try out for cheerleading; and to QUIT using makeup.

6. Understand white male privilege. If we fail to own and accept that privilege, we will never understand these sexualizing issues. Just because white males SAY they don’t feel privileged, doesn’t mean they aren’t!

7. And once and for all…..there is no fucking reverse sexism. This is the biggest crock of shit that the fratboy-types attempt to impose on a compliant male public. As one writer so persuasively argues, “The fact that an individual man can be harmed by an individual woman does not override an entire misogynistic social system.”

8. Stop whistling, gawking, drooling, and staring at women. Leave them the fuck alone.

9. Act like an adult with some class.

10. Start becoming part of the solution.

Carry Me Back to Ole Virginny

Gentlemen.....Confederate jewelry. Doesn't it just give you a warm and fuzzy feeling? Mother's Day is coming up--and how about a gift for that significant other!

Buddy's Book's and Bait is pleased to present a new contributor. Our friend Chet Brinkley will hopefully be writing many more columns in the future. Today, Chet comments on a topic we started several weeks ago....the South and the Confederate flag.

My lovely partner and I recently visited our dearest friends, who in late 2005 decided to leave Minnesota for the warmer climes of Virginia. This might seem like a perfectly sane decision, but here’s the deal: he is black and she is white. And while Virginia may not be Mississippi, make no mistake: it’s still THE SOUTH. More than 50 years after Brown v. Board of Education we may have made significant strides toward addressing segregation, disenfranchisement, and unequal opportunity, but we still have a long way to go. If you need to be reminded, just go visit an interracial couple in Virginia, where every joint departure from your home necessitates a strategic defense plan.

I accompanied my friend to the lumber yard the first morning of our visit. He is retired, well-educated, dignified, and a peaceable, affable fellow who just wanted to order some building materials. Yet we no sooner made our appearance than the fellow behind the counter looked up and his demeanor changed immediately. His two associates down the way who had been engaging in spirited banter stopped talking and glared at us for the first full five minutes of our transaction. I started wondering if my shower hadn’t taken. Later that night I was talking with my friend and asked him if I’d been imagining things. He replied, ‘I’m so glad you noticed.’ Am I just an overprotective liberal with an overdeveloped imagination enabling an African American friend who’s been forced to live his entire life on the defensive? Absolutely not.

The next morning we went to the supermarket, and while the woman behind the bakery counter cheerily fetched loaves of bread and pastries for all the other white customers in the store, she had my friend get his own. That night, in an effort to get something nice for my NASCAR-loving, salt-of-the-earth neighbor back home who was plowing the snow off my driveway while I walked around in shirt sleeves, I visited one of the omnipresent “NASCAR” shops in town. One can’t really quite make a living selling only toy cars, racing caps, key chains and bumper stickers, so the store had to diversify its stock with NFL merchandise and “Southern” paraphernalia. My “favorite” was a bumper sticker that read, “I Have a Dream” and featured the White House with a rebel flag flying overhead. Another depicted a mosquito with stars and bars wings quipping, “Send more Yankees. They are delicious.”

All the arguments about “heritage” and “culture” are a big, stinking pile of shit. The Confederate flag wasn't around long enough to embody much of anything except secession. But since the so-called federal government allowed Southern whites to terrorize their black neighbors after 1877 and didn’t start taking white supremacy seriously until two Jewish boys got killed with James Chaney in 1964, Southerners are used to speaking or hearing unapologetic defenses of racism. And it’s not like the North has much room to feel superior.

So what kind of life do my friends expect to have in small-town Virginia? I’m proud of their resolve to live there. They are a wonderful addition to any community. I know any local citizen who can, after seeing a black man with a white woman, calm down long enough to actually engage his/her brain will see they are wonderful, charming, warm-hearted people. And there are actually more black professionals in their current zip code than my friends ever met here in the Twin Cities. So perhaps I shouldn’t be so concerned. The guy behind the counter at the lumber yard eventually thawed and treated my friend like an actual human being. Another supermarket employee came over and engaged us in neighborly conversation after his coworker’s snub. But I’d feel better if I hadn’t seen that tattered rebel flag hanging from a house about half a mile down the road from where my friends live.

Friday Cat Blogging

This is Lexie. She is Buddy's sister and basically Queen of the Household. We adopted Lexie when she was about 9 months old. The people moving out of a next-door apartment just left her--and she came to our place. So I guess you can say that she actually adopted us. That was around 1991 (I think), and we have had her ever since. She is a sweet cat! Lexie is friendly, well-mannered, and she puts up with Buddy's roughneck and sometimes rude behavior.

She does look a little stoned in the first picture below.

Pink Stop Signs

In the past few months, I have had several serious conversations about using the word partner or domestic partner instead of wife. I am an advocate of using partner, but it doesn't flow naturally in my conversations--I have been trying, however.

But, if there is anything to make me work harder and harder at using the term, it's the right-wingers--and thanks to Pandagon for first posting this. Yes, read the following comments (the bold emphasis' are mine) from a fundamentalist group in Maine. Now I plan to use domestic partner every chance I get. And I will plead and beg all my friends to also use the term.

-What are "domestic partnerships?": The more accurate phrase is homosexual partnerships. The phrase "domestic partner" is a legal fiction created by homosexuals and non-married people who think they are entitled to the same benefits and recognition from society that marriage receives.

comment: Wow, legal fiction! Here are some of their other ideas!

-While it MAY BE legitimate for government and business to honor an employee's spouse and children with this benefit, it is not right for our institutions to honor sodomy in this way. The practice of unhealthy lifestyles should not qualify anyone for societal benefits.

-Anytime a law like this fails to distinguish between civilization-forming sexual practices and civilization-destroying sexual perversions, then "special rights" are being created.

-It (a domestic partners bill) is designed to create a successful court case in the future for homosexuality. Same-sex marriage is the pot full of gold at the end of their rainbow. This bill will continue to lay the foundation for equality of sexual practices if it becomes law. Moral sex must be equal to immoral sex for the public to accept same-sex marriage. That is what this bill is about: giving immoral sex the same support as moral sex in the law. If this were not the case, then a prohibition of immoral sexual practices would be included in the definition of "domestic partner." It is not. Therefore, this bill is unjust ... and certainly not Christian.

This bill allows elderly sisters to get benefits, therefore it will be a proper law if passed, correct?: A square stop sign painted pink instead of red is still a stop sign. It is not, however, a lawful stop sign simply because the sign features the word "Stop." A lawful stop sign is a red hexagon, by law. If businesses and the state want to honor elderly celibate sisters with 10 weeks of unpaid leave then they should say that this is what they want to do. That isn't what they are saying. They are saying that immoral and unhealthy sexual practices are irrelevant to the definition of "partner" and couple.

The goal here is same-sex marriage. Make no mistake. This is like the state saying that the color and shape of a stop sign are irrelevant to the effectiveness of a stop sign. It is like allowing the road department to put up square pink stop signs as well as normal stop signs. This is redefining and making a wreck out of family and marriage in Maine.

comment: What a fucking great idea--pink stop signs. I love it! I am going to write to my national and state leaders and propose just that!

I thought I elected a representative who would think for himself. Why is the media so powerful? Many politicians often think about the next election. Many are hoping to be elected to higher office. As America has moved away from common sense on matters related to family, marriage and human sexuality -- and as we have decided to create a much more permissive culture -- those among us who wish to be powerful learn quickly that they must accept drinking, drugging, gambling and pansexuality.

comment: I am also for pansexuality--whatever it is. Would someone please let me and my domestic partner know? Can you have moral or immoral pansex next to a pink stop sign? And would that be civilization-forming or civilization-destroying sex? Just wondering.

Celebrate Women's History Month

Emma Goldman, (1869-1940)
anarchist, feminist

Emma Goldman was a legend in her own lifetime. She was an opponent of established authority, war, and totalitarian government. In short, she was the most famous rebel of her day. A passionate activist and charismatic speaker, Goldman committed her life to radical causes in Europe and the United States. Goldman was one of the most notable and influential women in modern American history, consistently promoted a wide range of controversial movements and principles including freedom of thought and expression, radical education, sexual freedom and birth control, and an eight-hour day. Goldman's advocacy of these causes, which many deemed subversive at the time, helped set the historical context for some of today's most important political and social debates.

Born in a Jewish ghetto in Lithuania, Goldman immigrated to the United States when she was sixteen. She quickly realized that for a Jewish immigrant, America was not the land of opportunity that had been promised. America, for Goldman meant slums and sweatshops where she earned her living as a seamstress. She became attracted to anarchism not only because it promised to replace capitalism with worker cooperatives, but because anarchism espoused atheism, free speech, and freedom from sexual inhibition.

Emma Goldman became a formidable public speaker and a prolific writer. Her whole life was devoted to struggle and she was controversial even within the radical and anarchist movement itself. She was one of the first radicals to address the issue of homosexuality, she was a fighter for women's rights, and she advocated the virtues of free love. These ideas were viewed with suspicion by those who placed their faith in the cure-all solution of economic class warfare and they were denounced by many of her contemporaries as "bourgeois inspired" at best. Goldman believed that birth control would alleviate human misery by reducing the burden of large families on the poor and giving women of all classes sexual freedom. And she was a pioneer lecturer on the subject. Having actually practiced as a midwife and a nurse, and attended a conference in Paris where birth control methods were discussed frankly, Goldman was familiar with modern methods. In 1916 she was arrested for violating a law that forbade giving out information about contraceptives. To many Goldman embodied the "New Woman"—independent, unmarried, and sexually emancipated.

In the early days Goldman also supported the idea of propaganda by deed. In 1892, together with Alexander Berkman she planned the assassination of Henry Clay Frick, who has suppressed strikes in his Homestead Pennsylvania factory with armed guards. They believed that by killing a tyrant, a representative of a cruel system, the consciousness of the people would be aroused. This didn't happen. Berkman only managed to injure Frick and was sentenced to 22 years in prison. Her defense and aid of Berkman made Goldman a marked woman and her lectures were regularly disrupted by the authorities. In 1893 she was arrested for allegedly urging the unemployed to steal bread and was given a year in prison She was also implicated in President William McKinley's assassination.

From 1908 to 1917 Goldman spoke throughout the United States on behalf of the anarchist cause and edited the anarchist journal Mother Earth until 1916. Through her lectures and writing, she helped introduce American audiences to Henrik Ibsen, Bernard Shaw, August Strindberg, and other European playwrights, whom she admired for their advanced social ideas and spirit of rebellion. To mainstream Americans, however, Goldman was known as a demonic "dynamite eating anarchist". She toured the States, agitating and lecturing everywhere she went. She was hounded for much of her life by FBI agents and was imprisoned in 1893, 1901, 1916, 1918, 1919, and 1921 on charges ranging from incitement to riot to advocating the use of birth control to opposition to WWI.

During World War I, Goldman was arrested and sent to prison for having organized an anti-conscription campaign. Afterward, along with other anarchists, she was deported to Russia in 1919. J. Edgar Hoover, who directed her deportation hearing called her one of the most dangerous women in America. Although an early supporter of the Bolshevik Revolution, Goldman became disillusioned with party rule and the suppression of free speech she encountered there. Her book, My Disillusionment with Russia (1923), was one of the first serious critiques of the Soviet system. She left Russia and spent the rest of her life in Europe and Canada. In the 1930s she made three trips to Catalonia during the Spanish civil war and enlisted support in England on behalf of the Spanish Republic.

The plus side to deportation meant that Goldman got a free ticket to Russia where she was able to witness the Russian Revolution at first hand. Goldman had been prepared to bury the hatchet of mans conflict with anarchism in the 1st international and support the Bolsheviks . However, in 1919 as Goldman and Berkman travelled throughout the country they were horrified by the increased bureaucracy, political persecution and forced labour they found. The breaking point came in 1921 when the Kronstadt sailors and soldiers rebelled against the Bolsheviks and sided with the workers on strike. They were attacked and crushed by Trotsky and the Red Army. On leaving Russia in December 1921, Goldman set down her findings on Russia in two works - 'My Disillusionment in Russia' and 'My Further Disillusionment in Russia'. She argued that 'never before in all history has authority , government, the state, proved so inherently static, reactionary, and even counter-revolutionary. In short, the very antithesis of revolution.

Her time in Russia led her to reassess her earlier belief that the end justifies the means. Goldman accepted that violence as a necessary evil in the process of social transformation. These views were unpopular among radicals as most still wanted to believe that the Russian Revolution was a success. When Goldman moved to Britain in 1921 she was virtually alone on the left in condemning the Bolsheviks and her lectures were poorly attended. On hearing that she might be deported in 1925, a Welsh miner offered to marry her in order to give her British Nationality. With a British passport, she was the able to travel to France and Canada. In 1934, she was even allowed to give a lecture tour in the States.

In 1936 Berkman committed suicide, months before the outbreak of the Spanish Revolution. At the age of 67, Goldman went to Spain to join in the struggle. She told a rally of libertarian youth Your Revolution will destroy forever [the notion] that anarchism stands for chaos. She disagreed with the participation of the CNT-FAI in the coalition government of 1937 and the concessions they made to the increasingly powerful communist for the sake of the war effort. However she refused to condemn the anarchists for joining the government and accepting militarisation as she felt the alternative at the time was communist dictatorship.

Goldman died in 1940 and was buried in Chicago not far from the Haymarket Martyrs whose fate had changed the course of her life. Emma Goldman has left behind her a number of important contributions to anarchist thought. In particular she is remembered for incorporating the area of sexual politics into anarchism which had only been hinted at by earlier anarchists. Goldman campaigned and went to prison for the right of women to practice birth control. She argued that a political solution was not enough to get rid of the unequal and repressive relations between the sexes. There had to be massive transformation of values--only that transformation would change society and the lives of women.

Emma Goldman Quotes
-If voting changed anything, they'd make it illegal

-The most violent element in society is ignorance.

-It is safe to say that no other superstition is so detrimental to growth, so enervating and paralyzing to the minds and hearts of the people, as the superstition of Morality.

Runaway and Homeless Youth Act

A critical piece of Minnesota legislation will be the topic of the day—and frankly, I have been looking to write more on Minnesota-Twin Cities news and events.

House bill 537 (now in committee) is the “Runaway and Homeless Youth Act.” Actually, a similar statute was adopted last year—but wasn’t funded…..go figure! But this biennium, the bill would be funded for $8 million. And it would be money well-spent. This Act would finance a number of needed programs for homeless and runaway youth:
--street and community outreach
--drop-in centers
--emergency shelters
--supportive and transitional housing programs

I reiterate.....this is extremely important legislation! According to the 2003 "Homeless in Minnesota" survey conducted by the Wilder Research Center, there are over 22,000 runaway and homeless youth in the state. And figures from The Bridge shows that every night, there are more than 500 homeless youth in the state—most of them in the Twin Cities. Yet, there are only about 70 shelter beds in the metro area.

Just who are these young people who find themselves on the street? They are not losers, troublemakers, or misfits. They are kids with problems, and most of the time they simply don’t know what to do or where to turn. A supervisor at one emergency shelter said that they, “see youth and families from all backgrounds and walks of life, dealing with everything from common parent-teen conflicts, to abuse or neglect, to mental health issues or substance abuse.”

And many are gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender. A Wilder survey of youth served by District 202 found that over half had experienced discrimination or verbal abuse due to their sexual orientation—mostly at school or in another public place. Some even at home. In addition, 25% of all homeless youth report that they have engaged in survival sex to meet their basic needs.

To make this just a little more personal, here are several examples of youth who utilized the services of The Bridge:

--Bill and some of his friends get picked up by the police after curfew and taken down to the curfew center. One by one, each of his friend’s parents arrive to collect them, but his mom isn’t answering the phone. When she finally does, she’s drunk and announces that he can stay just where he is as far as she’s concerned. But he can’t. The curfew center’s not set up for that. The police bring him to The Bridge, where he arrives tired, angry, and afraid.

--Referred to The Bridge by a school counselor when he learns of her plan to commit suicide, Mary won’t let us contact her parents. “Please don’t call,” she says. “I can’t ever face them again.” From a deeply religious family, she’s an athlete, a straight-A student, with college and career all mapped out. But yesterday she discovered she was pregnant. She feels her life is over.

--A young man shows up at the door. He’s about 16, speaks only a few words of English, and looks like he’s been on the street for long time. He has no money, belongings, or identification. Unable to get a job or a place to live, he wants to find a way back to Mexico to return to his family.

--Grades just came out and Robert knows there’s going to be trouble at home. Sure enough, he and his father nearly come to blows. He’s been trying to do better in school, but he just can’t seem to concentrate. Now he’s grounded. “Forget this,” he thinks, as he heads out the door. “You go out that door, don’t even think of coming back!” his father shouts. A few days later, Robert shows up at The Bridge, wondering what to do next.

--A young woman arrives. Born as a boy and christened “Robert,” Margaret has always felt herself to be a girl. Now a teen, her parents have disowned her and she has fled the ridicule of her small town. She doesn’t want to live on the streets, but it seems like the only option.

We can do much better here in Minnesota—we must fully fund this bill. As the Star-Tribune wrote in a February editorial, “surely this bill will pass, for the alternative is ominous. It involves leaving runaway and homeless youth in the cold….” Actually, it will leave them both cold and on the streets and make them perfect candidates for long-term homelessness. Let's rescue them now while we can. Call, write, or email your state representative now!

Did We Miss An Opportunity?

As most of you have read by now, at this weekend's Conservative Political Action Conference, Ann Coulter called John Edwards a "faggot."

Most of us on the left pay little attention to the harpy Coulter. As Atrios wrote yesterday, she is very predictable, and not worth getting excited over. Atrios did point out one problem, however. While she is clearly an unapologetic homophobe and racist--Coulter continues to secure media appearances!

After her comment, the Edwards camp issued a standard response about hateful language and diversity. Edwards said all the right things and even took the opportunity to beg for some much-needed campaign money, or Coulter Cash as it is being called. Howard Dean also issued a statement saying there is "no place in political discourse for this kind of hate-filled and bigoted comment."

But I am feeling that we on the left missed an opportunity here. Trouble is, I'm not exactly sure what should have taken place--but I still sensed an underlying hesitation to actually defend/support/endorse gays and lesbians.

Yes, all the correct positions came from official liberal voices--and I know there is a campaign going on. But there was no effort to make this a moment when the left would speak out on homosexuality, on inclusion, on gay marriage, on America becoming a better society. This might have been one of those instances when we could have advanced those issues--educated the public. Coulter handed us something and I think we fumbled it just a bit.

My worry is that the Democratic powers-that-be, and even many of the leftist blogging community, remain afraid of this issue.....or maybe somewhat homophobic themselves. As one blogger wrote--and I wholeheartedly agree with her--"calling someone a faggot is still considered the worst insult ever." Is that true?

Again, I apologize for not offering some clever solution. But it is about time we on the left treat this as a unambiguous human rights problem. And in order to do that, we need to stop running from the issue.....we need to stop believing that being called gay is an insult.

Ann Coulter helped us out this weekend, but the Democrats/left didn't do enough with it. The blogging community offered comment-after-comment castigating Coulter and calling her everything from a bitch to a skank--and worse. But while we laughed and congratulated ourselves for receiving a gift.....we might have missed a chance to teach some people that being homosexual is normal and nothing to be ashamed of. When will we start advancing those positions?

It's NOT Education....It's Insanity

Kudos to Wisconsin Governor Jim Doyle. He recently turned down $600,000 in federal abstinence-education money “because new rules would limit how much recipients could talk about contraception or sexually transmitted diseases this year. “

Bill Smith, vice president for public policy for the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the U.S., a group that promotes comprehensive sex education said that: “It seems to me there is some sanity returning to the notion that sexuality education is about public health and not about hyper-moralism and ideology,” he said.

Sanity is the key word here—and it is something that the Bush administration lacks. We know there are few (if any) scientific data to support abstinence-only sex miseducation. But of course many of Bush’s primary supporters don’t think too highly of science anyway, right?

We also know that abstinence-only miseducation must depend on lies and misinformation to even convince those few neanderthals to actually continue their support. A federally funded program in 2004 found that over 80% of abstinence only curricula "contained false, misleading or distorted information."

The ironic thing about Bush and the anti-science crowd is this--it isn't enough that they are trying foist this crap on Americans.....but they are also attempting to export this nonsense abroad. Conservatives have been trying to "force its anti-condom agenda" on the rest of the world.

Yet, evidence/data shows (there's those nasty "scientific" words: evidence and data)--that by age 18, 70% of young people in the United States have had sexual intercourse. James Wagoner, president of Advocates for Youth--a nonprofit organization devoted to sex education, suggests that "less than 10% of Americans are virgins on their wedding night."

So who are these abstinence-only until marriage programs aimed at? We all know the answer don't we:
--These puritan moralists want us to stop having sex (ain't going to happen).
--They dislike the fact that women are now making their own decision and choices on sexual issues and birth control (deal with it).
--They dream of a return to "real men" days when young males could act like cavemen (or fraternity pledges), drag imaginary virgins to the alter, and then keep them at home cooking and cleaning while they play golf and screw their secretaries (keep dreaming).

If and when I run for office, I have the perfect plan to rid the country of abstinence-only programs. I would propose that ONLY AMERICAN MALES be required to take the abstinence-only miseducation instructions. That's right, females need not enroll, they could be as sexually active as they want.

Can you imagine what our male-dominated Congress and statehouses would say about this? How about all those NASCAR dads out there--they don't really want abstinence for Johnny and Biff.....only for their daughters. The abstinence money would be cut in no time!

That's my plan--sounds like it would work doesn't it?

Celebrate Women's History Month

Several years ago, in order to commemorate Women's History Month, I compiled some short biographies on a number of notable and extraordinary American women. I posted those bios on my class webpage where I teach. While I feel a little guilty republishing materials that I wrote two years ago--I think these brief narratives are still extremely relevant (besides, my students didn't read them anyway). These are all women that I find inspiring--and I hope my own young nieces (and nephew) will read about these remarkable women instead of wasting time on presidents, generals, and other stale defenders of the capitalist status quo.
dew


Alice Paul (1885–1977)
suffragist, feminist leader, founder of the Congressional Union

Alice Paul (pictured above) was an ardent fighter for women’s rights. She organized one of the first major marches in Washington, D.C. in 1917 on the eve of Woodrow Wilson’s inauguration. Paul used more radical means for her crusades, such as staging hunger strikes and picketing the White House, and she was arrested numerous times. After women won suffrage, she turned her attention to other rights. She founded the National Woman’s Party and drafted the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) in 1923. She worked for its passage into the 1970s, although it never became a law.

Alice Paul was born into a Quaker family in Moorestown, New Jersey. Raised in an intellectual and religious environment, she graduated from Swarthmore in 1905 and then attended the New York School of Philanthropy (later Columbia University School of Social Work), the University of Pennsylvania, and a training school for Quakers in Woodbridge, England. While in England she served as a case worker for a London settlement house. It was there were she was enlisted by England's militant suffragists Emmeline and Christobel Pankhurst. Her education as an activist was solidified through a series of arrests, imprisonments, and hunger strikes. She quickly and adeptly learned how to generate publicity for the cause and how to capitalize on that publicity.

On her return to the United States in 1910, she earned a Ph.D. in sociology and then began her rise in the American suffrage movement. In 1914 she co-founded the Congressional Union, an organization dedicated to seeking a federal constitutional amendment for woman suffrage. In 1916, she founded the National Woman's party. She led pickets at the White House and Congress and despite America's entry into World War I she refused to abandon her radical tactics. She and her colleagues were arrested and imprisoned; they engaged in hunger strikes and endured forced feedings at the hands of authorities. Ultimately, President Wilson made a federal suffrage amendment a war measures priority, a stand he had previously refused to take. Paul was a pivotal force in the passage and ratification in 1920 of the Nineteenth Amendment.

In 1923, Paul proposed an Equal Rights Amendment to the Constitution. It took some time, but by 1944 Paul had secured acceptance of an era plank in the platforms of both major political parties. She continued to provide inspiration to new generations of women's rights activists until her death in 1977.

Throughout her life, Alice Paul remained personally conservative and professionally demanding of both herself and her colleagues. She did not relinquish power readily nor could she be easily persuaded to depart from the methods and tactics she had learned from the Pankhursts in England. But her vision for women always transcended her conservatism and rigidity. "I think if we get freedom for women, then they are probably going to do a lot of things that I wish they wouldn't do," she said shortly before her death. "But it seems to me that it isn’t our business to say what they should do with it. It is our business to see that they get it."