From Media Matters:

In a July 14 Washington Times article, staff writer Andrea Billups characterized the tone of a Michigan campaign event featuring Sen. Barack Obama's wife, Michelle Obama, as "as much estrogenfest as it was campaign rally" and later wrote: "Even Michigan Gov. Jennifer M. Granholm got in on the girlie show as they campaigned together." Describing the event with Obama and Granholm, Billups wrote: "[T]he economic bantering did not begin until after the two-term Democratic governor offered a gal-pal fashion compliment, telling the cheering crowd of mainly black women that while she and Mrs. Obama had something in common as Harvard Law School graduates, she would not bare her arms in public."

So when two women get on stage together, all of the sudden it's an "estrogenfest" and a "girly show"?

crossposted from unbossed

Discrimination against people who suffer from Gender Identity Disorder (GID), that is, transgendered people, is a hot legal topic these days. Title VII does not expressly protect them and expressly prohibits protecting homosexuals. As a result, the courts and the legal theories are all over the place when it comes to dealing with transgender discrimination. The basic legal conflict comes down to a question whether discrimination based on transgender status is discrimination "on the basis of sex" - something that is illegal under Title VII - or whether, since Congress has not spoken by adding protections based on gender identity while amending Title VII to make other changes, means it does not intend to protect GID.

A June 26 congressional hearing covered many of these issues.

There are some medical issues in life that are relative no brainers, right?

Men get diseases of the prostate gland, women do not.

Women get diseases of the ovaries, men do not.

There are also huge, huge disparities between men and women in healthcare.

• Nearly 30 percent of females are racial/ethnic minorities.1
• Black women have higher death rates than whites due to heart disease, cancer, and stroke. Hispanic, Asian and Pacific Islander (API), and American Indian and Alaska Native (AI/AN) women have lower death rates due to these conditions
• Black and Hispanic women are more likely to report that they are in fair or poor overall health or that they have diabetes.2
• Women are more likely than men to report having arthritis, asthma, autoimmune diseases, and depression.
• Poor or near poor women are more likely than high income women to report fair or poor overall health; and more likely to report having anxiety or depression, arthritis, asthma, diabetes, hypertension, obesity, and osteoporosis.

These were from: AHRQ 2004 National Healthcare Quality and Disparities Reports

More after the break

Back in the very early 90's, a girlfriend and I were sitting in a park in beautiful Bamberg, Germany (where I was then-stationed across the street from Kos's MLRS unit; I was with the 1st Armored Division, "OLD IRONSIDES").

Several beers into the hot afternoon we were having a great debate on war and gender.  I insisted that equity would also come in the form of equal risk in being drafted or having to do civil service.  Males in Germany had and still have a compulsory service requirement.  She smacked me down with the best come-back ever: "why should women be drafted to fight in a war started by men?!"

Well folks, the times are changing!

Having served in the Army (1988-1991) I can appreciate this as good news:  

Once again, MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell probes into polling data to figure out why John McCain is so close to Barack Obama in Gallup Daily Tracking Polls (4 points) while George W. Bush's approval ratings are so low.

When she asks her guest why, he goes on to further elaborate on how poorly the GOP brand is doing compared to the Democratic Brand.  Who do you want in Congress?  Democrats of course.

After a fairly lengthy speech, Andrea Mitchell points out that this fails to answer her question, but she offers a few numbers:

When people were polled on whether the country is on the wrong track, they responded.
Right Track: 14%
Wrong Track: 84%

For a poll on whether John McCain would change direction, the producers waited until the end of the broadcast to kinda-sorta flash up the actual numbers behind McCain so quickly I wasn't sure it actually happened.
Yes: ... (I don't know)
No: 68%

A clear preponderance of people think this country is doing badly and that John McCain won't help.

And she poses her question again, "Why is Barack Obama not doing better?"

A snippet of overheard conversation is a projectile in suspension.  The hearer knows nothing of the antecedents.  Can know nothing of the aftermath.  But that snippet I did hear.  I have been frightened, haunted, filled with an angst.

I watched the two ladies, obviously hospital employees, characterized by their togs and dangling name badges, enter into the serving area of the hospital cafeteria through one door.  I entered through another.  We converged at the beverage station.

"But I don’t want any grandsons."

On June 3, I posted the text of a speech I wish Hillary had given on gender. I think she has missed an opportunity to bring awareness to why so many women felt so passionately about a woman in the White House as well as an opportunity to shed light on gender relations (apart from labeling things as "sexist.")

A friend suggested I make a video of this speech, which I did after posting the text. This post (after the fold) has the videos (Parts I and II) embedded (I hope--if not, links to youtube are included).

I hope this isn't a violation of any dailykos rules. If so, I apologize and will delete the diary if requested.

In an earlier diary, I pointed out that while Hillary Clinton rightly
calls out sexism in this campaign, she has not delivered a speech about
gender or sexism comparable to the one Barack Obama gave about race.

I have been waiting for her to explain why it is important to have a
woman's perspective and experience represented in the White House and
other high offices. I have been waiting for her to tell us how her
experience as a woman would inform her service as president. Her failure
to use the incredible platform she has had to call attention to what women bring to leadership is one of my many disappointments with her and one of
the reasons I am supporting Barack Obama.

In response to my earlier diary, one person pointed out that I did not
explain why a woman's perspective and experience matter. So go beyond the fold to: the speech that I would write for Hillary. The speech I wish Hillary had
given.

[Updated to reflect comments pointing out a necessary correction.]

When Hillary concedes and endorses Obama for President what will the ABBGs* do? An opinion and commentary.

There is no doubt that sexism hurt Hillary Clinton's campaign and that without such a sexist culture she could have beaten Barack Obama for the nomination.  But that argument is only valid in a vacuum, since Obama had to overcome racial and religious bigotry in his own quest for the nomination.

But Obama did not play the gender card against Hillary, while the Clinton campaign regularly spoke of Obama's issues with white, hard-working voters.

Just saying, I hope that Clinton supporters -- and I was one -- who are angry at sexism realize that the white woman and the black man each had their own bigots to overcome, and they both beat a field of white men.

This article was written by Glenn Young.  Glenn Young, MPA is a long term activist in the disabilities movement, and a long term observer of American history.  He is currently working on a project investigating men's support for woman's suffrage in the early 20th Century. This article is being submitted by myself on behalf of the author

Since we currently live in an age where some issues of politics are not to be openly discussed, or only discussed in a fashion in which it is put out only as representing our "ugly" past, when we ask the question what does Hillary Clinton want, at this late stage in the nominating process, we tend to miss a major conflict that is being played out again, as it had been played out for nearly the whole history of the United States; that conflict is who gets their rights first?  What Hillary, and so many of her female base supporters want, is that, this time, women go first.

This is a follow on to altruista's marvelous diary venting at Clinton supporters for their dunder-headedness in threatening to switch their loyalties from Clinton to McCain. Apparently, Obama has a case to make with white boomer women (see, e.g. Matt Stoller's article
White Boomer Women Dropping Support for Obama. Even so, after watching a couple of venomous videos of Clinton supporters from yesterday's Rules meeting, I wasn't sure that some of these folks wouldn't feel more at home with McCain anyway. Sadly, their over-the-top comments and behavior clearly didn't do Hillary's cause any favors.

In any event, while writing a comment to altruista's piece, I realized I have a bit of a different take on these issues. Because my comments were getting long, I thought I should move them over to this diary.  

Yes, Hillary Clinton is the target of sexual prejudice, as Obama is the target of racial prejudice. The difference in the candidates can be seen in how they have handled it.

Kay Steiger, guest-blogging at Matt Yglesias' site, considers sexism in "trade professions" and after pointing out that jobs like hair dressing aren't counted as such precisely because women do them, suggests that

What would help is first what these truck mechanics Harding points to are already doing, mentoring young women in non-traditional fields. Secondly, unions that represent those industries need to not only be free of sexism themselves, but aggressively pursue lawsuits that would discourage sexual harassment. This is happening with some larger trade unions already, but it's not as wide as it should be.

I think this really sells short the potential for trade unions to take on discrimination.  Any kind of organization with the resources can file a lawsuit - or individuals or groups can do it with no organization at all.

The observation has been made that the most apt comparision of Sen. Barack Obama's leadership may not be to that of FDR, or JFK, or the Reagan Revolution, but toTeddy Roosevelt, at the dawn of the 20th Century.

Exactly. He's that Transformational; a Trans-generational figure that leads us from the 20th Century paradigm to that of the 21st.  [Bill] Clinton was the culimination of the post-WWII political aspirations of 20th Century American society; George W. Bush was a retro "pushback", a 'last gasp' of the Traditional Establishment, the Rooted Culture, and the Old [New World] Order.

Its about how the integration of our parochial, sectarian, and tribal beliefs enable the transition into a true planetary culture.  Here are some thoughts on how each of us might help ease our families, friends, and associates into this new reality, with as little wailing, flying of fur, and gnashing of teeth as possible...

As we get into the meat of this election cycle, we will once again be subjected to the biggest Republican lie. No, not that they are the leaders in efficient, balanced government (the past seven years have pointedly contradicted that lie). And no, not the one about how they support the troops (unless you count multiple deployments, inadequate training and equipment and selling out to private contractors as support). No, this year we will once again suffer through this nauseating sound bite: The Republicans are the party of family values. Ha! Personal conduct of Republicans aside, at least for now, the fact remains that the Republican platform is decidedly anti-family.

In order to get a more realistic look at how the gender biases are affecting the Democratic race, I analyzed voting/polling results from each state in which exit/entrance polls could be found.

For each state, I recorded the overall polled Male/Female percentage of voters who participated in the Democratic contests. I then recorded the candidate-specific Male/Female percentages for both Hillary and Barack to obtain each candidate's actual percentages of Male/Female votes won based on the total number of votes cast.

Update:  I received an email from someone claiming to be Michael Wolff pointing out that I use 'Richard' several times in this essay.  Ooops!  He got me!  Chalk it up to a bad pain day.  Most of you know I'm usually vigilant when it comes to details like this - but sometimes, when the pain gets really bad, the back of my brain takes over.  I was thinking about the TV pundit Richard Wolff (the Wolff I know best).  It just came out - and for that I am sorry.  If I'm eviscerating the man - I should at the very least get his name right!

So thank you MICHAEL Wolff for the correction.  That took courage.