AJC.com > Opinion > Woman to Woman > Archives > 2008 > December
December 2008
Who is the most admirable woman of 2008?
Shaunti Feldhahn, a right-leaning columnist, writes the commentary this week and Andrea Cornell Sarvady, a left-leaning columnist, responds.
Rebuttal
I spent my childhood immersed in superhero comics, marveling at characters that traveled the globe, fighting crime. My admiration for superheroes hasn’t dimmed, but now they take the form of medical researchers, in lab coats instead of capes, battling an unseen yet devastating villain.
For admirable men and women working tirelessly to wipe out communicable diseases, rewards are years in the making, if they come at all. For Francoise Barre-Sinoussi, the French virologist who helped discover HIV, December provided a rare moment to savor and celebrate; she was a co-winner of this year’s Nobel Prize in Medicine. The discovery of HIV (the virus that causes AIDS) led to the creation of strong antiviral drugs; Barre-Sinoussi and colleague Luc Montagnier have helped turn a certain death sentence into, what is for many, a livable, treatable, condition.
I’m sorry that Robert Gallo, an American researcher also involved in the discovery, didn’t get to share this incredible honor. Yet I’m equally relieved that Barre-Sinoussi wasn’t edged out. Nobels have been awarded since 1901, and of the 789 individual laureates, only 35 have been women—Marie Curie won it twice. With her Nobel, Francoise Barre-Sinoussi is guaranteed to make it into the history books, giving the next generation of female researchers their own Madame Curie to emulate.
“I’m personally convinced that we are on a good road towards a world without AIDS,” Barre-Sinoussi told her Nobel Lecture audience earlier this month, and she’s certainly doing her share to make that happen. She learned of her Nobel while in Cambodia; her current work includes training researchers and studying mother-to-child transmission.
In 2007 alone, 290,000 children died of AIDS, and statistics like these were clearly very much on Barre-Sinoussi’s mind as she accepted her award. For despite much of a lifetime spent around the globe, and one of the highest honors anyone can receive, it is her close collaboration with her patients that she deems “a wonderful experience.”
Few of us will ever meet the altogether admirable Francoise Barre-Sinoussi; many (myself included) struggle to properly pronounce her name. Yet in telling our daughters about her remarkable work, we send a powerful message: there might just be a cape out there with your name on it, honey. Find it and fly.
Is Obama involved enough in the economic crisis?
Andrea Cornell Sarvady, a left-leaning columnist, writes the commentary this week and Shaunti Feldhahn, a right-leaning columnist, responds.
Commentary
A wry moment came near the end of “Meet the Press” the other day. When asked by Tom Brokaw if he’d stopped smoking, Barack Obama’s initial, self-assured answer was: “I have. But there’s times when I’ve fallen off the wagon.” “Wait a minute,” Brokaw interjected, and pointed out that that answer indicated Obama hadn’t kicked the habit. “Fair enough,” the president-elect reluctantly responded.
What doesn’t seem fair enough, or fair at all, is the way that many are criticizing Obama’s performance for a position he doesn’t yet hold. Conservative pundits mock the “office of the president-elect” lectern, and other ways that Obama has been so quick to look presidential. Meanwhile, cohorts on the Hill, Chris Dodd and Barney Frank, don’t think he’s taking over fast enough.
“In the minds of the people, this is the Obama administration,” Dodd declared. “I don’t think we can wait until Jan. 20.” Frank got off a zinger in sharing his concerns: “He (Obama) says we only have one president at a time. I’m afraid that overstates the number of presidents we have.”
With Frank’s plea that Obama must “remedy the situation,” he acts like the president-elect is issuing “no comments” from some beach in Hawaii. Yet Obama has hardly waited until Day One to weigh in on pressing issues. His team is working closely with treasury officials, and he’s talked at length about his views on the future of the Big Three automakers. Yet in the “damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don’t” world of presidential politics, the transition period is fraught with political landmines. Obama gives specific policy briefings? Then he’s taking over the highest office in the land while Bush is still in power. He demurs on giving specifics? Then he’s accused of ducking responsibility when, in fact, he has no executive authority at all. Listen, this may be a uniquely challenging time, yet 9/11 didn’t rewrite the Constitution and neither did 11/4.
So give the guy a break, will you? As a strong opponent of smoking, I’d rather he take this breather without sneaking a cigarette. Yet if people keep insisting that President-elect Obama is either stealing George Bush’s job or already falling down on his own, I might just go out and buy him a pack myself.
Rebuttal
I found Barney Frank’s criticism that Barack Obama must take more leadership refreshingly honest, especially for a Democrat known to blast Republicans. The man who takes office in a matter of weeks has far more opportunity to signal the right direction through this crisis than the man who is leaving it. Speaking about the thorny bailout decisions being made right now, Democratic Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan perfectly captured the need, saying, “It would be very helpful if the president-elect would become more involved.” He continued, “I want him to offer his assistance. He is a person who can really bring people together.”
It seems disingenuous for Obama to say that since he can’t yet make decisions on the economy, that he can’t be involved. Just as Obama can rightfully request foreign policy briefings so he can decide on and signal his direction (such as asking Sen. McCain to report to him on a recent trip to Afghanistan), he can rightfully involve himself in the ongoing intense discussions on how to handle the immediate economic crisis. He says he won’t get specific until Jan. 20, but by then many crucial decisions will have been made without him.
When Bill Clinton was elected president, he also inherited a recession and a $50 billion bailout was being discussed in Congress. Instead of saying he couldn’t get specific until January, Clinton responded directly to reporters with, “Let me tell you what I’m going to do…”
All this said, I have a lot of sympathy for any president-elect; there’s a steep learning curve and pulling an administration together would be a full-time job even without a massive economic crisis to manage. But that is the job Obama signed up for, and I believe most people would willingly follow if he would lead. It would be entirely understandable if our president-elect didn’t yet know the right path to take, but that doesn’t let him off the hook. Not all of us voted for him, but all of us need him now to take leadership in pulling people together to tackle a time-critical problem, instead of forfeiting his place at the head of the table and having to accept what was pieced together in his absence.
Is it a good thing many troubled couples can’t afford divorce?
Shaunti Feldhahn, a right-leaning columnist, writes the commentary this week and Andrea Cornell Sarvady, a left-leaning columnist, responds.
Commentary
The number of couples who can’t afford to get divorced has been one positive aspect of this tumultuous economic downturn. Articles abound on troubled couples who can’t see a way to finalize a split right now. In a strapped economy it seem impossible to suddenly support two households instead of one — especially if the couple’s house has declined in value and wouldn’t provide much of a cash cushion once it is sold. Not to mention the reality that, as described in a 2006 Journal of Sociology study, divorcing couples usually lose about three-quarters of their net worth anyway.
For all those reasons, the latest survey by the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers (AAML) found that by nearly two to one, their members are seeing a national decline in the number of divorces, instead of the increases that sometimes accompany recessions. In places like Michigan, where the unemployment rate has greatly exceeded the national average for years, divorce rates have been consistently decreasing. And the trend extends beyond America. The U.K.’s Office for National Statistics reports a decrease in divorces to levels not seen since 1981.
Some observers might think it is heartless to see a silver lining in this reality, worrying that it will merely prolong the suffering of already suffering individuals. That is a legitimate concern for some, especially the small percent of marriages that are abusive — but various studies show that those individuals are more likely to seek divorce anyway. For the majority, a nationally representative 2002 study by the Institute for American Values found that most couples hugely benefit when they can’t or won’t divorce. In the study, two out of three unhappy couples that stayed together described themselves as happily married five years later. More significant, the report noted, “The most unhappy marriages reported the most dramatic turnarounds.” Further, those who did divorce did not, on average, become happier.
It is ironic that financial woes — which often cause marital strife — may in fact prevent couples from taking the ultimate step of severing their marriage entirely. And in the end, it is heartening to know that, statistically, many of them — and their children — will look back on this difficult economic period with gratitude.
Rebuttal
My colleague’s silver-lining scenario sounds like a Hallmark movie. Let’s call it Recession Romance. Our chick flick in a nutshell? Things go from bad to worse for an unhappily married couple when they lose their jobs, lose their house, and have to move into a lousy apartment in a bad neighborhood. All’s well that ends well, however, as the recession plays Cupid, forcing the couple to stay together in their dangerous, dilapidated hovel until they fall back in love.
Lights up, folks. As a child of divorce who is still thrilled after 20 years to find herself in a stable and thriving relationship, I’m all for taking marriage seriously. Yet I’m pretty sure that rampant job loss, rising medical costs and a housing crisis don’t make a bad marriage better, and I’m more than a little worried about what’s happening in those disharmonious homes. A small percentage of marriages involve abuse, and those women tend to seek divorce anyway? Hardly. I recall from my marriage and family therapy training how difficult it is for victims of spousal abuse to jump ship, even in the best of times. And in times like these? The National Domestic Abuse Hotline reported a 21 percent increase in calls for September. “Our people make notes of what’s said during the calls,” spokeswoman Retha Fielding told the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. “They tell us more women are talking about money problems in relation to the violence.”
Kiersten Stewart, director of Public Policy for the Family Violence Prevention Fund, confirmed for me this grim correlation: “Many women make the decision that being in an abusive relationship is better than homelessness,” she explained. “In times like these, there are many more women having to make that agonizing choice.”
I’m sure Shaunti would agree that abused women shouldn’t remain in untenable situations. Yet I think it’s important to remind ourselves just how bad things can get. Stewart informed me that, on average, three women in this country lose their lives every day through a current or former “intimate partner.” That’s why the increase in domestic violence this year makes it hard for me to see anything positive in forced domesticity.
Women who can’t afford to flee to safety? They’re the stars of a pretty grim picture, with no happy ending in sight.
.JPG)
-1.JPG)
Services »
Commentary
By Shaunti Feldhahn
Although this has been an historic election year for women, I want to highlight a Republican female who has never been a candidate — and whose grace, strength and history-changing contributions have often been missed by the spotlight.
In a destructive, vicious political culture, Laura Bush has lived out the compelling alternative of gentleness and respect. This summer, I was so proud of her for contradicting a reporter who wanted to gossip about Michelle Obama’s infamous comment that she was proud of America “for the first time.” In an intense political season, Mrs. Bush defended her political opponent by explaining how easy it is to misspeak and be misconstrued.
Although she cannot single-handedly change a rough political climate, she has been a major agent of other change. Mrs. Bush has overcame an enormous personal reluctance toward public speaking or acclaim, and has used her platform to accomplish an equally enormous number of humanitarian goals.
She has been particularly tireless at her “pink diplomacy” efforts on behalf of women around the world. Despite her understated nature, Laura Bush is one of this decade’s most effective leaders at drawing international attention to the need for breast cancer research. Just eight weeks from leaving the White House, she traveled to Panama on “Starbright” - the first lady’s version of Air Force One - to announce a new research partnership between the U.S. and Panama. This was not just a photo opportunity: Panama was the latest country to join a program Bush herself launched in 2007 to help nations fight breast cancer by sharing regional research. Just a few weeks earlier she was on an exhausting mission through Jordan, Saudi Arabia, the UAE and other Middle Eastern countries to confront the cultural taboos that prevent attention to the disease.
Or take her initiatives to promote literacy and a love of reading; or her award-winning efforts to draw international attention to the little-known genocide perpetrated by Burma’s brutal regime; or her success at educating women on heart health….
Her admirable attitude and accomplishments together must be the reason Laura Bush is one of the most popular first ladies in history, with an approval rating hitting 85 percent in 2005. As she leaves Washington, this quiet and self-effacing woman deserves some resounding applause.