AJC.com > Opinion > Woman to Woman > Archives > 2008 > January
January 2008
Is Homeland Security Too Focused on “Guns, Guards and Gates”?
Andrea Cornell Sarvady, a left-leaning columnist, writes the commentary this week and Shaunti Feldhahn, a right-leaning columnist, responds.
Rebuttal
September 11 woke Americans up to the fact that some people hate us so blindly, based on so many warped and inaccurate views, they will try to hurt us no matter what we do. That is the lesson we forget at our peril. I agree that we need big-picture efforts like community involvement. But that alone won’t protect us from a terrorist driving a suitcase nuke into Manhattan. For that, we need guards, guns and gates - and a willingness to recognize that hundreds of millions of people hate America for reasons that we simply can’t back down on. Should we eliminate our insistence that Jews be allowed to remain in Israel just because that infuriates many Muslims?
Relationship-building is critical - but when do we wake up to the reality that we have already spent decades of effort on exactly that? For example, to avoid the perception that we are anti-Palestinian, we have done more for Palestinians than the very Muslim nations who criticize us over Israel. America opens its doors to Palestinian immigrants - yet Refugees International points out that nearby Muslim countries like Lebanon often refuse all entry to Palestinian refugees.
We’ve also spent billions of dollars in aid to Muslim nations, and continuing to do so is the right thing to do. But it’s also not enough. We need the security measures that make the ACLU mad, like watch lists and terrorist profiling. We can’t lessen security measures in the name of winning our enemies’ favor. As Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff put it, if we weaken watch lists, “would you then get on an airplane or put your children on an airplane in that kind of environment?”
Perhaps because we have put so much attention on other methods, our last line of defense is very demoralized. And that is not good for security. Border patrol agents, for example, literally put their lives on the line trying to protect us: this is when we need to be applauding them and giving them whatever they need to do their jobs.
As Andy pointed out, the London attacks were inspired by discontented local Muslims. Locals who had more “big picture” freedoms and rights than in their home countries. And that, as we all know, didn’t stop them.
Will an “emotional moment”
be a weakness in the White House?
Shaunti Feldhahn, a right-leaning columnist, writes the commentary this week and Andrea Cornell Sarvady, a left-leaning columnist, responds.
Commentary
In the movie A League of Their Own, Tom Hanks plays a 1940’s manager reluctantly overseeing the first women’s professional baseball team. And his classic line, “There’s no crying in baseball!” perfectly captures how so many men view tears on the job: This is not the place for them!
I believe Hillary Clinton’s much-discussed “emotional moment” in New Hampshire was powerfully genuine. I also believe it would be a weakness in the White House. Not because genuine emotion is a sign of weakness - very much the opposite. But because of the widespread perception that crying is a weakness, especially in women. And perceptions, as we all know, can create a weakness where there really isn’t one.
For example, George W. Bush is widely perceived as a buffoon, which is crazy: The man got a Harvard MBA on his own merits and built a thriving business empire. But the perception alone has impacted his ability to lead: If he makes an inexplicable decision, people don’t assume that he has information we don’t, or that the decision was labored over and fine-tuned for months. No, it’s “there goes that idiot again,” or “Cheney’s pulling his strings again.”
So the moment Hillary misted up, the talk-show circuit immediately asked, “Is she going to cry in front of Kim Jong-il?” That’s just as crazy as the idea of Bush as a buffoon; after all, she’s also accused of being an ice queen. The woman can’t win!
In a 2007 study, research firm Catalyst found that “when women act in ways that are consistent with gender stereotypes, they are viewed as less competent leaders.” Tellingly, when Ellen Degeneres bawled on her talk show in October, comedian Bill Maher commented, “At this moment when the entire nation is saying ‘Hmm, can we have a woman president? Maybe they’re too emotional,’ I don’t think this is helping.”
Americans don’t mind a President’s tears of compassion for a dead solider. But I’m guessing most Americans don’t want their President crying because he or she is exhausted and the job is “not easy.”
Emotion isn’t a weakness. But in the White House, it would be all too easy for it to be perceived as such. Especially, unfortunately, in a female president.
Rebuttal
“Can a Mormon be president?” we are asked these days, with far more gravity than that question deserves. “Can an African-American? Can a woman?” While Barak Obama rose above the ridiculous debate about whether he is black enough, misty-eyed Hillary Clinton is under fire by some for being too much of a woman.
Clearly voters are smart enough to realize that Clinton’s “emotional moment” might happen again if she gets elected. Knowing this, the people of New Hampshire didn’t just give her a consoling hug. Many, in fact, marched down to the voting booth and pushed her further towards the White House.
Clinton may yet give us other reasons to challenge her candidacy. Yet how can anyone imagine that a moment of vulnerability is enough to hurt the standing of a president? Serious concerns are developed through a body of evidence, with years in which to judge the actions and character of the commander-in-chief.
“Perception can create a weakness where there really isn’t one” my colleague Shaunti writes. How true. During a campaign, glimpses of personality may annoy us—-say, a highly-educated person who can’t pronounce simple words—but it should take far more than that for us to collectively decide our leader has been proven unfit. In examining the Bush record, it’s easy to see that something has “impacted his ability to lead.” No kidding. Lost in all the straw man concerns about looking weak in front of tyrants like Kim Jong-il is the fact that Bush’s actions abroad have already earned us the enmity of our own allies.
Like most fresh starts, the prospect of this one brings equal parts exhilaration and confusion. How exactly do we wade through all the hype brought on during this endless sales pitch? How do we know exactly what we’re buying?
The answer is simple: we don’t. For all we know, our next president may suddenly go French on us and pull a Sarkozy: get the job, get divorced and take up with an Italian model. But you know what? We’ve had worse. As long as he or she makes wise decisions, in between romantic and other emotional moments, we should survive nicely.
Is maternal profiling a problem in the workplace?
Andrea Cornell Sarvady, a left-leaning columnist, writes the commentary this week and Shaunti Feldhahn, a right-leaning columnist, responds.
Commentary
Auto service technician Mailyn Pickler is fired a week after she tells her dealership that she ‘s pregnant. The boss informs her that it wouldn’t be prudent to drive the shuttle bus in her condition. Kohl’s employee Teresa Lehman gained high marks for a decade, and was assured she was on track to become store manager. Then the mother of two saw five managerial positions go to less experienced employees who were childless or indicated they would have no more children.
“Maternal Profiling,” selected by the New York Times as one of their 2007 buzzwords, is definitely alive and well. Popularized by advocacy group momsrising.org, it’s “employment discrimination against a woman who has, or will have, children.”
“Family Responsibilities Discrimination” is the more inclusive term used at Work Life Law, a center at Hastings College of Law in California. It astutely acknowledges that not all employers who discriminate against mothers are men, and not all caregivers in need of family-friendly policies are women.
Yet mothers still get hit hardest with bias due to presumptions surrounding their caregiver status. The center’s deputy director, Cynthia Thomas Calvert, helped me sort through some common offenses: Pregnant women being fired for trumped-up reasons; interview questions designed to weed out mothers and other caregivers; performance reviews designed to eliminate those employees, whether or not work has actually been affected.
Laws are in place to address these grievances, yet laws are not always followed. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission reported a nearly 40 percent increase in pregnancy discrimination complaints since 1992, even though the birthrate has been dropping. No wonder momsrising.org and the Work Life Law Center are just two of many thriving organizations designed to advocate for families, as well as assist companies grappling with this issue.
We should sympathize with the unique challenges of creating a family-friendly work environment. Yet our nation requires it, now more than ever. The recent spike in unemployment and the threat of recession puts any employee with a perceived “domestic deficit” even further at risk. As employees increasingly take on the care of aging parents in addition to their own offspring, let’s continue to find solutions that work for both companies and caregivers.
Rebuttal
I get furious when I hear a Kohl’s manager asked Teresa Lehman, “Did you get your tubes tied?” after she had three kids in four years. So, apparently, was the jury in her case: they awarded her $2.1 million.
But offensive statements aside, there’s often an uncomfortable but legitimate business dynamic at work in situations that look like “maternal profiling.” It’s easy to see something as discrimination that is actually a legitimate result of how women with families often choose to work. That’s not maternal profiling; its maternal preference.
If a mom chooses a less-intense job that allows her pick up Johnny at 5:30 p.m., for example, and simply can’t tackle late-night meetings or last-minute travel, she’ll probably be paid and promoted less than her peers who pull the all-nighter to get the client deal finished. It is frustrating for the sidelined mom, but she is getting the benefit that she prioritizes most: Family time instead of money.
Childcare duties are more evenly distributed today, but the fact remains that most women want to be there for their kids. A study by the Center for Policy Alternatives found that 71 percent of women would rather have more flexibility and benefits than a higher wage, and almost 85 percent took flexible work arrangements when they were offered. Andy says we need a solution, but the increasing availability of part-time and flexible work arrangements is a solution. Unfortunately, those arrangements are often simply less productive and convenient for the company. We shouldn’t penalize a progressive company by insisting that they pay and promote those employees the same!
Teresa Lehman was apparently a respected Kohl’s employee, tracking toward management, but she had several small children, including one who tragically died. I couldn’t find specific information on her case, but isn’t it possible that she needed several years of special accommodation for time off work, medical visits, and wasn’t able to work the long hours her peers could?
As Carrie Lukas of the Independent Women’s Forum said in an interview, “I would hope employers would be able to work with [women with family realities], but they have hired employees to work, not just out of the goodness of their heart, and they have to think about their bottom line.”
What factors, beyond having sex, contribute to teen pregnancy like that of Jamie Lynn Spears?
Shaunti Feldhahn, a right-leaning columnist, writes the commentary this week and Andrea Cornell Sarvady, a left-leaning columnist, responds.
Commentary
As adults dissect Presidential primaries, teens are still chattering about Jamie Lynn Spears’ pregnancy. And I’ve been saddened by their most common reaction: “Why didn’t her mom or anyone talk to her about birth control?”
Not, “She just shouldn’t have had sex.” Not, “Wow, birth control really isn’t foolproof.” Instead, their initial reaction speaks volumes about why the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy says that 1 of every 13 teen girls gets pregnant each year.
We say we’re disturbed by teen sex, but our culture tacitly condones it (“Practice putting the condom on the banana”). We’re horrified that Jamie Lynn’s mother reportedly allowed her to live with her boyfriend, but many parents are just as lax if they allow a teen couple to be home alone after school. The ultimate choice rests with each teenager, but cultural and parental standards have made underage sex (and pregnancies) much more likely.
I find it hard to believe that teens like Jamie Lynn don’t know about or use birth control - but its only foolproof if you avoid sex altogether. According to the FDA, 11 out of 100 women using condoms will get pregnant each year. If Spears used condoms, she’s got company.
Some people will blame the Spears’ stated Christian beliefs, but research shows that teens active in a church community are more likely to delay sex. As conservative commentator Michael Gerson argued in the Washington Post in July 2007, “Responsible behavior requires both ‘norms’ and ‘networks.’ An intellectual belief in right and wrong is not sufficient. Teens require a community that supports their good choices, especially in times of testing and personal crisis.”
A strong community and parent can often overcome the cultural messages, but like all too many parents, Lynn Spears didn’t seem to take that route. Not only is it dangerous to be your kid’s friend instead of their parent, I was stunned in my own research to learn that it isn’t even what kids want. In a national survey for For Parents Only, my last book, three of four teenagers secretly wanted their parents to set and enforce real rules, instead of letting them do whatever they want. Now that the consequences have hit home, I’m guessing Jamie Lynn would be in that category.
Rebuttal
Once more we visit Jamie Lynn Spears and the scandal that rocked the cradle. That’s all the teen pregnancy “movement” needed, a telegenic front person. But before J-L’s baby shower spread comes out in OK! magazine let’s work on a reality-based pregnancy prevention campaign, shall we?
First of all, the condom failure rate is still miniscule compared to the number of teens who report ignoring birth control completely. So the real culprit behind teen pregnancy, right after sex itself, remains an immature denial of consequences.
I recently spoke to sociologist Mark Regnerus, author of “Forbidden Fruit: Sex & Religion in the Lives of American Teenagers,” who shared some eye-opening findings. A clear fan of faith-based communities, Regnerus finds evidence of sexual delays for truly religious teens. Nonetheless, he concedes that kids merely raised in the Evangelical faith without their own rock-solid beliefs are “uniquely subject to a lot of mixed messages.” Told to “delay sex until marriage and often not much else,” they actually have an earlier loss of virginity than many other groups. In addition, these teens typically have sex several times before finally owning up to their behavior and seeking out birth control.
Sounds to me like a bigger problem than faulty condoms.
I agree that parents need to set and enforce rules of expected behavior. Yet when more than half of all teens leave their virginity behind by graduation we have a complex issue, in need of complex thinking. So let’s not equate giving kids information on sexual responsibility with buying them a room at the No Tell Motel.
“Don’t drink and drive” is an absolutist message, yet we typically attach it to a no-questions-asked emergency pick-up, realizing the consequences of denial are far too severe.
Similarly, encouraging young people to protect themselves from pregnancy and sexually transmitted disease isn’t lax parenting. It’s merely recognizing that children turn into adults in the blink of an eye, often when we’re not looking.
It’s normal to think our own innocent lambs are light years away from needing information on birth control. Normal, yet naive — and what parent wants a teen pregnancy to prove them wrong?
.JPG)
-1.JPG)
Services »
Commentary
By Andrea Cornell Sarvady
September 11th was a brutal reminder that there are people out there who have the desire and means to kill us in a mass attack, and we have to stop them. “The best defense is a good offense”, we like to say, but in this case it’s a little trickier than that. We need an offense mindful of long-term gains and a defense more nuanced than smash-mouth football.
“Guns, guards and gates,” our bulwark against external threats, remains an essential part of our defense. Yet consider this: attacks attempted or carried out in the UK involved insiders, young Brits willing to kill their fellow citizens. It’s hard to employ a simplistic “us vs. them” strategy, when “they” are living and working alongside us.
To better understand this quandry, I recently caught up with Juliette Kayyem, Undersecretary of Homeland Security for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and a former adviser with the National Commission on Terrorism. “We need to minimize the number of people interested in hurting us,” Kayyem says. A systematic strategy of “incredible community involvement” is key: “You build relationships with people so that they want to help us ferret out potential terrorists.” If we focus on fence-building around these communities, the non-terrorists inside them have no incentive to align themselves with our government. Why should they, if they’re treated like terrorists themselves?
Without an unlimited budget for our protection, we must spend wisely. Americans like programs that are easily quantifiable—this many boats patrolling the harbors, that many guards added to the border. Meanwhile, long-term detective work here and abroad can better stop a threat before it ever reaches our shores.
Al Qaeda plans to wage both economic and literal war on us; let’s not fall into their trap by spending millions on creating a police state on the level of North Korea. Even with an unlimited budget it wouldn’t make us as safe as one would hope, and, as Kayyem puts it, “we won’t be the nation we want to be.”
Simply building a moat around the castle is tempting, but we’re not living in a fairy tale. In waging a war against an ever present enemy, trust-building and infiltration is just as important as shows of might. We forget that at our peril.