A woman from the Pasadena Weekly asked a question about how women fit into the grand scheme of his global initiatives. She quoted "when you give a man an education, you teach an individual, but if you give a woman an education, you teach a family." Clinton rambled on and on about overfishing, CO2 levels increasing in the atmosphere, describing the evolution of the first human all to say that teaching women is the key to reducing global population and poverty. "The question she asked is a powerful one," he said. It musth have been so powerful that he couldn't, um, answer.
Cross-posted on campusprogress.org/blog.
Thursday, September 27, 2007
Nitpicking on Rhetoric
I realize that the whole discussion around global warming (and other economic issues) has adopted a rather grating phrase: "grow the economy." But do they have to say it so often?
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
Fashion Design: For Women. By Women?
Jezebel has an interesting post based on a Women's Wear Daily (trend) piece about the role of female designers in fashion. It seems that male designers have been dominating high fashion for years, but recently female designers are gaining ground. Granted, I know nothing about fashion -- I'll be the first to admit that I don't change my wardrobe with the seasons and fashion week makes me want to go take a nap -- but it seems logical that women would design clothes that they're going to wear. At the very least it seems more comfortable.
Seasonale Patent
The oral contraceptive called Seasonale, which allows women to have a menstrual cycle only once every three months, has gotten its patent renewed. What this probably means is that a generic version (and therefore less expensive version) of the drug won't be available for several years.
Anchorwoman
Jamie Kirchick had a post last week about Katie Couric sliding her way to an anchor position because she's popular with women viewers and was only sent to Iraq to garner cred as a reporter. He said, "Couric's ascension does not represent some great achievement for women in journalism." So imagine my surprise when Acela's in-train magazine, Arrive, plastered Couric on the cover along with thumbnails of other female TV reporters. The rather weird cover article, written by USA Weekend writer Dennis McCafferty was mainly pegged to an incident in 2006 when Jennifer Griffen, FOX News anchor, successfully negotiated the release of two members of her news team held hostage in the Gaza strip. The article made some generalizations about how women bring "emotional heft" to news.
There are a few of things at work here. Firstly, Couric doesn't have the reporting cred that other news anchors who have sat in that seat before her do, but then, women find it much harder to earn the cred. Although women have been prevalent in the world of reporting for at least the last 20 years, they've often been pigeonholed into covering "human interest" stuff. Couric is a widely recognized name because she was in a role that she was hired to fulfill for years, a host on a morning TV talk show. There are plenty of women who do more serious work than Couric, but they also get far less recognition.
Secondly, the whole process of hiring female TV news anchors seems to be one of the most sexist practices in journalism today. You are hired to look a certain way. When I was in journalism, those in visual journalism had to be very concerned about what to do with their hair on camera. There's an assumption, as exemplified in the Arrive article, that women inherently bring a certain softness to news. This is, of course, an extremely rigid reading of gender stereotypes.
Thirdly, TV anchors usually come from a reporting background, but the job itself doesn't require that much reporting. This is, at least, the claim that Dan Rather is making in his lawsuit against CBS/Viacom. They are primarily responsible for presenting the news, and only rarely report it.
Fourthly, women are less engaged in hard news, and there's a great deal of speculation about why this is. Perhaps it's because they choose to be, perhaps because they're too busy, or perhaps because the way news is currently presented doesn't really appeal to them.
While I was never a huge Katie Couric fan and I almost never watch CBS evening news, I feel a slight obligation to open this up to discussion. There are a number of factors at work, and I think it's worth thinking about a little bit more than rolling your eyes at the "achievements" of Katie Couric.
There are a few of things at work here. Firstly, Couric doesn't have the reporting cred that other news anchors who have sat in that seat before her do, but then, women find it much harder to earn the cred. Although women have been prevalent in the world of reporting for at least the last 20 years, they've often been pigeonholed into covering "human interest" stuff. Couric is a widely recognized name because she was in a role that she was hired to fulfill for years, a host on a morning TV talk show. There are plenty of women who do more serious work than Couric, but they also get far less recognition.
Secondly, the whole process of hiring female TV news anchors seems to be one of the most sexist practices in journalism today. You are hired to look a certain way. When I was in journalism, those in visual journalism had to be very concerned about what to do with their hair on camera. There's an assumption, as exemplified in the Arrive article, that women inherently bring a certain softness to news. This is, of course, an extremely rigid reading of gender stereotypes.
Thirdly, TV anchors usually come from a reporting background, but the job itself doesn't require that much reporting. This is, at least, the claim that Dan Rather is making in his lawsuit against CBS/Viacom. They are primarily responsible for presenting the news, and only rarely report it.
Fourthly, women are less engaged in hard news, and there's a great deal of speculation about why this is. Perhaps it's because they choose to be, perhaps because they're too busy, or perhaps because the way news is currently presented doesn't really appeal to them.
While I was never a huge Katie Couric fan and I almost never watch CBS evening news, I feel a slight obligation to open this up to discussion. There are a number of factors at work, and I think it's worth thinking about a little bit more than rolling your eyes at the "achievements" of Katie Couric.
Private Investment
What's been surprising to me is the emphasis on private investment here today. Brad Pitt and Steve Bing are offering up to $10 million in matching funds to donors who donate to rebuilding the lower ninth ward in New Orleans. This morning, Hamid Karzai, the president of Afghanistan, clearly took the opportunity to be in the room with Goldman-Sachs people and took the opportunity to sell investment in Afghanistan. Obviously the World Bank president and the CEO of Wal-Mart have an interest in emphasizing the investment factor. As long as the free market is the answer, they're in a very comfortable position.
Philanthropy is often seen as the out to regulation for large corporations. They're investing in undesirable places or causes, so they use that as an excuse for not getting regulation imposed on them. The role of investment is certainly powerful, but I don't think we should allow it to be an excuse for not putting regulation on corporations.
Philanthropy is often seen as the out to regulation for large corporations. They're investing in undesirable places or causes, so they use that as an excuse for not getting regulation imposed on them. The role of investment is certainly powerful, but I don't think we should allow it to be an excuse for not putting regulation on corporations.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
