Making marriage work in the twenty-first century.

There is lots of press now about gay and lesbian couples marrying, but not about some of those couples breaking up instead. The availability of marriage as an option in California and Massachusetts is forcing many couples to confront their individual expectations about commitment as never before. As I have heard from a number of my gay and lesbian friends, some are finding that those expectations do not match. Painful as this process may be for those couples, it may be for the best.

But there is a bigger lesson to be learned here. If we are to decode social gender roles and eliminate their unfair limitations on individual potential, we can’t just make changes in the workplace and schools. We have to change the rules in marriage and relationships.

Gay marriage is an unprecedented opportunity to help us do this. The religious right has this all wrong. Gay marriage does not threaten heterosexual marriage, it will strengthen it. Many gay and lesbian couples are creating committed, mutually satisfying relationships without all of the Mars/Venus gender stereotypes that have defined heterosexual marriage for hundreds of years.

Gay and lesbian couples will be taking on a lot of heartache in this process, but what they learn will help all of us transform marriage in a way that will make it work for more couples in the twenty-first century and beyond. This change will hasten the emergence of matrocracy and help more heterosexual couples bond and stay together as gender equality becomes reality.

How are we going to beat misogyny?

I have to admit to being reluctant to comment on Hillary's candidacy, because I believe it is in legislatures that women's political power will be felt the most. The propensities of an individual executive are just that - individual. Women's fitness for office should not be judged by the performance and characteristics of one woman. That said, I was enormously disappointed her campaign met with defeat.

One of the lessons learned is there is still an enormous amount of misogyny in the United States that is tolerated by most people. Sexist remarks can go much further without prompting general outrage and condemnation than can racial slurs. Witness John McCain's laughing response to woman who called Hillary Clinton a bitch at a town hall meeting, and the fact that the day after his campaign had its biggest single day of online fundraising up that point. Imagine how his response would have by necessity been quite different if instead a person of color had asked him, "How are we going to beat the nigger?" Many other examples of woman bashing littered the public discourse about her.

Misogyny is also a theme of the top Emmy nominated television drama of the year, Mad Men, realistically portraying the 1960's workplace when women had almost entirely subservient roles and often endured sexist insults from their bosses. Yes, it's a historical drama and some women characters on the show will rise in the workplace over the long run. But, don't hold your breath waiting for an accurate historical drama in which a focal point is whites keeping down minorities on the job. Such realism would not likely be tolerated even on cable.

If the above observations fail to convince you that sexism fails to provoke outrage in the campaign, see the amazing video of McCain dodging the question of whether insurance companies that pay for Viagra should be forced pay for birth control. Imagine the uproar that would have resulted if he had avoided condemning a policy that failed to pay anything for drugs that would prevent a well-known condition that only affects a particular racial or ethnic group.

International Women’s Day.

The American women’s suffrage movement spurred the creation of International Women’s Day in 1911. However, this annual celebration on March 8 fell into disfavor after it was adopted by communist countries and for years passed with scant attention in the U.S.

One of the organizations seeking to amplify the voices of women worldwide is the International Museum of Women. Visit their site in honor of International Women’s Day.

Hillary's emotions.

Hillary's getting choked up on the eve of the New Hampshire primary and carrying the women's vote has been the subject of intense scrutiny and debate. Stay at home mom and columnist Judith Warner, in her typical don't-tell-me-women-are-weak tirade, bemoans what she saw as women being drawn to Hillary's apparent weakness and vulnerability. Maureen Dowd, a liberal whose efforts to draw readers with cynicism sometimes puts her in the same league as Ann Coulter, beats up on Hillary for what Dowd says was a display of narcissism. I agree with Dowd and Gloria Steinem that one of Hillary's biggest liabilities as a woman candidate is that she seems constantly driven to prove her masculinity and appear tough. So, I was relieved when she showed some emotion and vulnerability.

Voters may be attracted to women as leaders and policy makers because they hope women will bring some humility, compassion and desire for cooperation to the job. After all, been male ego and monolithic thinking have gotten us into so many of the messes facing our nation. Many voters are tired of leaders who try to solve international conflicts with force, are unable to see the nuances in complex situations, and are unable to admit their mistakes. I hope Hillary will show more emotional complexity in the future.

Abortion and women's rights.

Abortion opponents boast of their moral outrage at killing, but most of them support the death penalty and don’t bat an eye if a lot of innocent people in other nations are killed in order to eliminate a few terrorists. They also don't tend to support policies that would lower the inexcusable U.S. infant mortality rate below its present level, which is higher than virtually all of Europe.

Opposition to abortion is mostly driven by fear that making abortion easily available leads to sexual promiscuity and women not assuming their proper role in society, thus destroying the social fabric. An excellent book on this subject published by Cornell University Press analyzed the history of laws in all fifty states affecting women's rights and freedoms and those affecting the protection of life. It concluded that the states with the strictest abortion laws also offer the poorest protection of women's rights and worst protection of life in all areas other than abortion, and that restricting women's rights was a much stronger motivator of anti-abortion laws than fetal protection. (The Journal of Christian Ethics described the book as a balanced prescription for a "seamless garment of love for unborn children.")

U.S. slips in gender gap rankings

(Fourth post in a series on the book Matrocracy. Link to first post.)
According to the Associated Press, the U.S. scored lower in the annual Global Gender Gap Report because the percentage of female legislators, senior officials and managers fell in 2007, and the pay gap between women and men widened.

Why is the U.S. 31st in the world in gender equality and not in the top ten? In part, it's a choice voters and potential voters are making. Young single women, whose opportunities are most affected by this gap, are a group that has in the past been least likely to vote.
Link to fifth post in the series.

The default image of a leader is male.

So say a recent op-ed and an article in the NY. Times. To succeed, Hillary tries to appear tough (but probably doesn't have to work too hard at it), and women in general have to be more aggressive negotiators, observe the women writing these pieces. But Hillary is reportedly cultivating her girlfriend advantage, and a researcher is examining whether cleavage helps women in sales. Women have to work both sides of the gender divide to succeed seems to be the message. No wonder women's brains are better wired for multitasking than men's.