AJC.com > Opinion > Woman to Woman > Archives > 2007 > August
August 2007
Will reports of a stronger Al-Qaida bring “security moms” back into the GOP camp?
Andrea Cornell Sarvady, a left-leaning columnist, writes the commentary this week and Shaunti Feldhahn, a right-leaning columnist, responds.
Rebuttal
There’s a reason security moms voted for Father Knows Best in 2004. It’s called “homeland security,” and a June Gallup Poll shows Democrats have since become complacent about how necessary it is. Only one percent of Democratic voters think homeland security is the most important issue for the 2008 election. Yet half think Iraq is. Is that backwards, or what?
Our Iraq efforts deserve attention, but many distracted security moms (okay, and iPod Dads) have forgotten that Iraq is only part of a much bigger picture. And those distractions are less about Abu Ghraib than about the unending media attention to Obama vs. Clinton’s war chests, the real estate crash, or which young actress was arrested for DUI this week.
As 9/11 becomes more entrenched in our history textbooks than our emotional memories, we no longer realize just how precarious and important our security really is. Our real estate difficulties are notable - but insignificant compared to the economic crash that would follow a suitcase nuke detonating in Seattle, or a rash of airplanes exploding over the Atlantic. In a recent ABC News interview, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff discussed just how close we came to the latter scenario last year, saying, “In terms of its intent, [the liquid bomb plot] was looking at devastation on a scale that would have rivaled 9/11.”
A recent non-partisan survey by the Center for American Progress (CAP) showed that unlike average Americans, eight of ten experts “expect a terrorist attack on the scale of 9/11 within a decade.” P.J. Crowley, CAP’s Director of Homeland Security, suggested in an interview that Americans who aren’t as concerned, “probably don’t believe there is going to be another attack. But we have to figure out how to have terrorism in our psyche. We cannot become complacent. We are vulnerable.”
It is primarily because this Administration has thus far kept us safe that security moms have been able to get distracted enough to nitpick about its methods. Bush may be branded as “arrogant,” but he sure knows more about the threat than most Americans. I mean, really: with your life at stake, would you rather have Father Knows Best or Homer Simpson for a father?
Can a man be a better advocate for women than a woman?
Shaunti Feldhahn, a right-leaning columnist, writes the commentary this week and Andrea Cornell Sarvady, a left-leaning columnist, responds.
Commentary
When I asked several liberally-minded female associates this week’s debate question, they all sounded puzzled why I would even ask. In their minds, apparently, gender defines what makes the best women’s advocate; everything else is secondary.
I totally disagree. On this issue, I find myself in a rare moment of accord with Elizabeth Edwards, who in July told Salon that a man - specifically, of course, her husband John Edwards — could actually do more for women than a female candidate such as Hilary Clinton. Ms. Edwards pointed out than ambitious women like Hilary may feel they “have to behave as a man and not talk about women’s issues. I’m sympathetic — she wants to be commander in chief. But she’s just not as vocal a women’s advocate as I want to see. John is.”
The question, though, is what does it really mean to be an advocate for women?
Elizabeth Edwards - further stoking the controversy on Larry King Live - defined it as being “an outspoken advocate for the issues that women care about.” That may be part of the equation, but it also begs the question: who defines what women care about? Ms. Edwards’ list (universal health care, poverty, environmentalism) is important, but I know plenty of women who would prefer an advocate for the unborn, lessening divorce, and championing higher educational standards for our children. Or what about national security? Why is that not a “woman’s issue?” It’s frankly a bit offensive for someone else to tell me what issues I should find most compelling, just because I’m a woman.
In the end, I think it is far more respectful of women to avoid putting us in a box, and instead treat us like the individuals we are, without assuming we all think the same way. Thirty or forty years ago, simply to be heard, we as women may have needed to try to break out “women’s studies” at universities, “women’s rights” at work, and “women’s issues” in policy. But its time to integrate all of that back into the mainstream. Otherwise, we simply continue to marginalize ourselves instead of consolidating the gains that earlier “women’s rights advocates” worked so hard to obtain.
Rebuttal
Shaunti’s colleagues are probably less puzzled by her question than by her willingness to grab Elizabeth Edwards for her debate team. I fiercely admire Mrs. Edwards yet take with a grain of salt her realization that the best woman’s advocate for our country would be her own husband. Any smart, good guy committed to the marital cause has convinced his wife of that.
So let’s instead look at men who aren’t personally affected by our happiness — in fact, let’s look at the world before women had power in the political arena. We didn’t have the vote, we didn’t have legal recourse in the event of rape, we didn’t have equal work, much less equal pay for it. Can we agree that those are women’s issues, Shaunti? Now let’s throw in abortion (both sides of the issue), funding for ovarian and cervical cancer and work policies which take into account the need and desire for women to support themselves and their families. There, plenty of “women’s issues” and we didn’t even have to get near global warming or Iraq.
What all these issues have in common is that they affect women first, not only, but first, and that issues like these languished in the purgatory of “We’ll get to that, Little Lady” until women educated each other and made themselves heard.
I’m not opposed to seeking male counsel on many intimate issues — why, I’m pretty sure my crackerjack male gynecologist doesn’t base his sage advice on personal experience. Yet as much as I, too, hate being put in a box, I must concede that nature, not other women, put me there.
Women aren’t going to pick a leader just on the basis of gender. Yet are we going to make sure that the big, rancorous tent of sisterhood is strongly represented in today’s government? You bet your sweet voting rights we are. After all, who wants to return to the days when a powerless woman just had to hope and pray that her leader was a smart, good guy who cared about her welfare?
I mean, can you imagine?…
Should cities adopt ordinances to ban the “saggy pant” look?
Andrea Cornell Sarvady, a left-leaning columnist, writes the commentary this week and Shaunti Feldhahn, a right-leaning columnist, responds.
Rebuttal
As amusing as it is to visualize baby boomers striking a blow for equality, this isn’t about bad taste. And it’s not really about the saggy pant “style” per se either: it’s about what sort of partial public nudity we should tolerate. I could care less about the style, as long as the underwear model is covered up - but that’s often not the case. If you want to wear saggy pants or low-riders that practically show your equipment at a private party, that’s your business. Just don’t make it mine - or my kids’ - by wearing it on the street. I’d prefer to not be confronted with the thoroughness of your bikini wax when I stand next to you at the airport or take my pre-schooler grocery shopping. And neither would most people. That’s why most public decency laws prohibit “partial nudity.”
The trend of cities proposing amendments or new laws suggest that either the original laws aren’t specific enough to keep up with the skin-showing trends, or - more likely — the laws are just fine but we need a collective kick in the saggy pants to enforce them.
Calling this trend a ‘fad,’ as if it’ll shift with the next season lineup from Hilfiger, ignores that this trend hasn’t changed for years. And can anyone argue with a straight face that fashion trends are likely to become more modest?
In Atlanta, C.T. Martin is one city councilman who’s had enough. He recently told the Associated Press that flaunting boxers and thongs is an “epidemic that is becoming a major concern around the country.” The amendment he proposes would allow for stiff fines to get the point across.
In an interview, Dr. Janice Crouse, Senior Fellow at the Beverly LaHaye Institute, the think tank arm of Concerned Women for America, said we don’t really need new laws: we need to enforce existing ones. Of the low-slung-underwear-and-thong trend she said, “You can definitely make a case that that is partial nudity. All of us know the example of extreme partial nudity, and these are definitely instances of breaking the law. We could definitely make someone an example and that would help curb the problem.”
How a sparring partner became a friend:
A tribute to Diane Glass
Commentary
It is very hard for me to believe she is gone.
Four years ago, not long after President Bush took us into Iraq, Diane Glass and I sat down for lunch to discuss a a weekly liberal-conservative debate column. We couldn’t have foreseen it then, but the country was about to become even more contentiously divided along ideological lines. And the vision for a true commentary-rebuttal format — where the point was to specifically reflect on and respond to each other’s opinion — would be especially valuable in the shout-past-each-other ethos of the years to come.
We also couldn’t have foreseen, during that first meeting, something that I view as a legacy from Diane to this contentious culture: That we could become not only business partners, but friends. Two completely different people - she the liberal feminist agnostic, me the conservative Christian - can indeed passionately defend opposing beliefs in public but be respectful of each other. And eventually seek out each other’s company, just to get together every now and then.
Forgive the cliché (Diane would surely roll her eyes at me for this), but that sense of collaboration is something that this country desperately needs.
Why is it that each camp has so vilified those with whom they disagree? Why is it that President Bush or Hillary Clinton are cast as hateful ‘liars’ and even ‘murderers’ by their opponents, instead of simply strong ideological leaders on a course that others deeply dislike? (If you have no idea why Hillary would ever be considered a murderer, you clearly lean left and haven’t been forced to receive Vince Foster conspiracy theory emails.)
Yes, there are very real and important worldview differences struggling for cultural impact today. It matters - and matters intensely — what policies are instituted, or what influences we see in the media. It matters for all of us how the war on terror, the war in Iraq, or dozens of other issues are handled. For example, I personally believe that one of today’s most important issues is abortion, since abortion takes a life. But for Diane the issue was just as important on the other side, as she felt compelled to protect women’s rights from extinction.
And even though I intensely disagreed with Diane’s positions, I would be far worse off for having never really considered them. Certainly I will continue to press the need to restrict abortion - but I will do it differently for having been challenged to help not only the unborn but the desperate women who feel that they have no other “choice.” I will continue advocating for broadcasting decency standards, but will be much more mindful of free speech concerns. I still believe we need to give much more support to the war in Iraq, but believe it can be done much more wisely if we address the realities raised by those who want us out.
It is easy to stay in our huddles, never hear each other, and succumb to groupthink. But we can’t afford that luxury. Primarily due to Diane’s example, I have become convinced that it is essential to speak not only to those who are convinced you are right - but to those who are angrily convinced you are wrong.
Diane, more than many readers realized, had an open mind - and despite her sometimes acerbic style in print, a soft heart. She was a very private person. In the weeks before her death, her boyfriend, John, shared with her friends an open letter he’d written to Diane, saying how much he wished she’d been able to “show more people how truly tender you are… The depths of your love and kindness were too well hidden from far too many.”
The last time I saw Diane I was glad to see that her smart-alecky wit was intact, even in a hospital bed. But so was the gentleness that many of us had rarely glimpsed. When I cried with her, she took my hand to give me comfort. And we prayed together; she having the courage to reach out to eternity with her questions.
In the weeks to come, this column will resume its role of bringing a respectful debate into the public square. But for now, I hope that in Diane’s memory readers of all stripes will use this moment to consider the importance of agreeing to disagree — and collaborating, regardless.
I will miss my friend.
Services »
Commentary
By Andrea Cornell Sarvady
We now eagerly await Election Year 2008 and birth announcements from the pundits welcoming Google Moms and iPod Dads (you heard it here first, Folks). As exciting as that time will be, who isn’t just a bit nostalgic for the Security Moms of 2004?
Ah, Security Moms. How the Republicans have missed them. It’s been a whole year now since a Pew Research Center poll showed that married female voters are “more inclined to vote Democratic than at any point since Sept. 11, 2001” — this before Bush’s popularity sank to the low double digits he wades in these days.
Where did it all go horribly wrong for that ladies man, George Bush? He had some smooth moves, alright. You’d be watching the news, fuming about the environment or our health care crisis. Suddenly a graphic would pop up, showing Code Orange leaning red. A shiver would overtake your body as you’d find yourself wondering if the kids are really okay at school. This “dial up the fear” approach worked at least somewhat on the Security Mom in each of us, truth be told.
Well, we’re still afraid, but we’re also distracted. Distracted by pictures of Abu Ghraib, rising body counts, a Supreme Court that threatens to base its rulings on whatever flew in 1789, an Attorney General who contradicts himself more than your sixteen-year-old with a case of beer in the trunk. Sure, we’ve managed to avoid another 9/11 on our shores, and that’s not a small accomplishment. Yet a firestorm is brewing around the globe and any Mom can tell that it’s exacerbated by our arrogant Father Knows Best approach to foreign and domestic policy.
No, come the election, the Insecurity Moms of 2008 are going to rise up and angrily vote out the party of bullying, lying and “protection” without representation. Al Qaeda is scary, to be sure, but also frightening is the look on Mom’s face when you’ve been caught pulling the wool over her eyes. In fact, with the look she’s giving George these days, his whole gang just might find themselves grounded for good.