This variety-show appearance of the Shangri-Las is problematic on several levels, by today's standards. The prim and proper outfits for a bunch of roughneck young ladies from Queens; the rude interruption of the "leader of the pack" himself (who looks like Bob Hope, but I can't tell for sure) and his loud motorcycle which keeps revving throughout the performance. The Shangri-Las, who have much fiercer performances of this same song, seem like they're there more to be laughed at than to be appreciated.
At the risk of being anecdotal, this may be a sign that expecting to be able to perform your song, be yourself, and do so without a laugh track was asking too much for a ladies' group in the 1960s. Translate that roughly to the professional environment of 2012, and the question remains. In the July/August edition of The Atlantic, Princeton professor Anne-Marie Slaughter less asks that question than states the answer in her much-trafficked and tweeted article, "Why Women Still Can't Have It All":
I still strongly believe that women can “have it all” (and that men can too). I believe that we can “have it all at the same time.” But not today, not with the way America’s economy and society are currently structured. My experiences over the past three years have forced me to confront a number of uncomfortable facts that need to be widely acknowledged—and quickly changed.
Melissa will tackle that question, and many more as they deal with not only gender politics, but Washington politics -- seeing as she'll also air, right off the bat, her interview with the former Speaker of the House, House Minority Leader (of the pack) Nancy Pelosi. We'll also profile a very special Foot Soldier, tackle daddy issues in the campaign, and talk about being black on Broadway with the star of "A Streetcar Named Desire," actor Blair Underwood.
Other guests include:
- Joanne Bamberger, founder and editor of PunditMom.com, and author of "Mothers of Intention."
- Katon Dawson, former chair of the South Carolina Republican Party, and former senior adviser to former presidential candidate Rick Perry.
- Nancy Giles, writer, comedian, and contributor to CBS News' "Sunday Morning."
- Emily Mann, director of Broadway's "A Streetcar Named Desire."
- Joy Reid, managing editor of theGrio.com, and an MSNBC contributor.
- Rebecca Traister, senior writer at Salon, and author of "Big Girls Don't Cry."
We hope that you interact with us during the show here in the comments of this post, on Facebook, and on Twitter, using the hashtag #nerdland -- and encourage others to do the same. (If you're in one of the areas of the U.S. without power this morning, don't fret -- visit out blog shortly after the show to find the video.) We look forward to having you join us at 10am ET on msnbc!
Leave a Comment:
I'm so disappointed with your discussion - you are completely missing Anne-Marie Slaughter's point. She is not talking about average working women, she is talking about the struggle for a woman to hold a position of power. In addition, I think its obvious you don't have teenagers, because in fact a physical presence is much more important in those years than it is for babies. What Slaughter chose was not to be a helicopter parent (what a pejorative term - shame!) but to deal with a potential crisis.
One thing that concerns me is the implication that individual women themselves can actually get the things they need and want simply by asking sometimes.
I hear many women - even some of you on the show - talk about how you are still doing all the parent tasks, and I wonder why. From the beginning of my relationship with my husband, I said I wasn't going to do that, and I continued to have conversations with him about sharing tasks. The result - he's as stressed as me about getting to the kids' concerts, baseball games, he knows how to take our son to the shoe store, etc.
When I interviewed for a job and negotiated my full-time salary, I then said I wanted to work at home one day per week. Since my boss didn't like the idea of telecommuting, she just told me to be a Mom on Monday's and get it done the other four days - all for the same full-time salary I asked for.
My point is, the wage gap could be gone - or almost gone - simply if women began to ask for more of what they need and want. That doesn't guarantee everyone is going to say yes, but you know the saying "All they can do is say no," or "You won't know if you don't ask."
Just my two cents as a working Mom who has had these conversations with many, many women. I also talk with groups of women about learning how to "Ask for what you want."
Deb from Milwaukee
Kudos for highlighting George Lakoff's 'framing' of the issues.
Republicans subscribe to the "strict father" model of society: "The beatings will continue until morale improves".
Empathy is at the center of living in a civilized society, and empathy is at the center of Liberal ideology.
Empathy from a safe distance: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xjrqkT13dGo
This is a fair representation of our civilized society. Just ask any silent child abuse victim. Oh, wait...
Finally an in-depth and thoughtful conversation on television about the power that working mothers have and the challenges of women in America "giving it all" being veiled as "having it all". Would love to share this segment with our members and get their opinions, but can't find the link to the video. Please send.
Gina Robison-Billups
Founder of National Association For Moms In Business; President, Women's Money Council
I am upset about the "Mommy/Daddy" part of your discussion. Really, the names just serve to reinforce old stereotypes. I don't vote for a "daddy" or "mommy" figure. I am an adult voting for a LEADER who demonstrates the ability to govern. I no more think of Hillary Clinton as a "mommy" stand in, than I see President Obama as a "daddy" who is going to fix all of our problems. I think whoever came up with this particular section of your program failed to see the irony in this discussion. It was uncomfortable to watch and irritating to listen to. I love your program, but this was a disservice to President Obama and the women who listen to your program.
"...the rude interruption of the "leader of the pack" himself (who looks like Bob Hope, but I can't tell for sure)"
Definitely not Bob Hope. He did look familiar, though, and my impression when the camera moved in closer was that it looked like Robert Goulet (it's those striking blue eyes--and I'm old enough to remember when he was the heartthrob of Broadway), but I was not all that sure until I checked out the YouTube posting, and the commenters there seem to have made the same identification: Robert Goulet.
I was really disappointed with the "daddy/mommy" segment of your discussion. In essence, it trivialized the very discussion you had been having on women. The fact is I don't vote for a "daddy" figure, rather I vote for a LEADER who demonstrates the ability to govern. I don't see President Obama as a "daddy" figure, nor do I expect him to solve all of my or this country's problems. I'm a big girl and that is the point; adults, whether male or female, make choices every day of their lives based on their personal circumstances. Our lives are not one dimensional. They are complex and layers of gender, class, and education further complicate those lives.
There was not too much examination of something that rational analysts don't like to talk about. Whatever your gender, half of the electorate will subconsciously apply selection criteria used for finding mates. For men in politics, the political hook is easy and has no downside. Romney looks good, JFK looks good, Obama has a twinkle in his eye. As Will Smith says to Tommy Lee Jones in Men in Black, "The difference between me and you is that I make this look good."
Something that is masterful about Pelosi is that she could as well say the same to Merkel. This is nothing new to female politicians but women who project strength can successfully also hook into the raw emotion that JFK had with women voters. This has nothing to do with the sort of power that young women use with flattering outfits. It has to do with a powerful mating drive in men. There is substantial survival pressure to select strong mates- strong mama bears to fiercely defend the brood. Without strong mothers, the DNA will pass to subsequent generations. Speaker Pelosi has this in spades- she has a laser like gaze, rapier wit and concise ability to cut through a statement to reveal tight insightful analysis.
That is a powerful emotional hook that is to the advantage of female politicians who are able to harness it. I find it extremely unimaginative that other politicians who are women don't study Pelosi more closely. The Speaker made a comment about how when discourse is uncivil it is a disadvantage to women, because they have a word for women when they talk that way. As much as it is a put down to the women, it is a put down to the men who support them, because they are cast as milquetoast wimps interested in subservience to a dominatrix. Liberals have to understand the alternate literature for this. No, such women are momma bears whose cubs are endangered. Don't mess with her or she'll rip your face off. Don't with her cubs and she will have few quarrels with you. Men that go for strong women demand strength and excellence. Those men who do not are demonstrate that their frail egos require domination over a weak mate- its the riff that Tutu repeats often- If I diminish you, I diminish myself.
So this turns the tables when the bitch meme comes up. If used deftly, the politician can turn it around so that the accuser is demonstrated to be the weak one, meanwhile delivering positive visceral emotional reactions to male swing voters- recognition of a mama bear. I am a very married man but I can tell you, it is very powerful, and more female politicians should learn how to tap into this JFK kind of charismatic force with voters of the opposite sex.
Pelosi is one, Sen. Cantwell from Washington state, and Rep Hanabusa (HI) are others. These public servants are masters.
Well, there is mso much to discuss about the daddymommy segment but I will restrict my coments to a specific point.However, let me preface my comments with this:I have always supported women's issues, I DO NOT HATE WOMEN. During the show, the women on the panel were asked a question about the gender duality of the roles they and other women play in culture. Some of them said that they saw themselves effectively as being both men AND women. Not surprisingly, there was little criticism of this absurdly weak thesis. The thesis goes like this: Men and women are the same, therefore gender is defined by what job or role one has in culture. This ridculous thesis begged for critical analysis and got none. The lone male voice on the panel, supposedly representing the voice of opposition was, as usual for the show,less than window dressing.This echoes one the many criticisms of her show, the lack of true criticism of feminists prinicipals. The same goes for Rachal Maddow's show. Anyway, what these women don"t understand is their opinion does harm to men(and culture at large) in these obvious ways. Women who believe as they do foster a false and hurtfull notion that being a man, any man ,is essentially easy. This is a message that I and my freinds grew up hearing from feminists and other women daily. These women effectively appropriate male identity, and then write a false narrative about the experiences of men which they never actually have. This is controling behaviour and doesn't give men the same oppotunity that women demand to control and expand their own identities. No matter how many diapers I"ve changed , no matter how many meals I"ve cooked or snotty noses I've wiped, doing so does not make me a woman. Nor does going to war or changing a flat tire or doing construction work make a woman a man. Everyone in society needs a space to be, to exists that is their's.
Recall the discussion was about the stereotype of the strict father "Man" versus the traditional model of the compliant housekeeping Mother. Lakoff paints a broad brush picture of politics where government is subconsciously compared to one's personal orientation to one of two models of what a healthy family is like. Like Freud or Jung, reality is more complex than the categories allow for, but using them casts a lot of light on how we think. Conservatives and liberals would benefit from considering his book "The Political Mind". Anyway, the two models are the "Strict father led family" versus "nurturing parents model.
Now, what was said by two of the women was that women can and often do assume authoritarian and the centrally responsible person roles in families- Lakoff's strict Daddy/Male roles. With that in mind, listen again to what they actually stated:
So really, I think you misheard what was being said, because I think that both agree that if you change a lot of diapers you will not generate ovaries, cause you to change your sexual orientation or your sex drive. They were simply talking about the Lakoff traditional Man role. He asks:
So really, your posting is conforming to this framing. This is the typical conservative pejorative framing of women who are the authoritarians in the family/ are wearing the pants in the family. The caricature of such women is that they don't accept that men are superfluous and don't have a legitimate roles in a family. Did you stop to consider the inconsistencies of your application of the caricature? Despite how the strict father framing informs you, she is just not operating in the pathological modes typically assigned by conservatives to people who do not accept that model. She does like men and sees so much value to one of those that she married one.
I think it would be a little clearer to you to take a look at George Lakoff's book (link). It is a quick read, and it is as useful for conservatives to understand political messaging as it is useful for liberals.
Too much psychobabble in this segment. Freud is dead and Lacan could not resurrect him.
All this is based on the deeply ingrained social structure of our nation, being under constant assault by the religious morality and Family values meme tied to the biblical man god ideology.
Could be many are leaving religion, because their current leadership representatives fail to leave some dogma behind, and enforce morally oppressive actions, while they are clawing at their loss of power?
the need to control the women is secondary to the need for these same "pure" selected folks backed by their gods unquestioned direction to keep minorities and all the "others" under their control.
The whole man rules and owns all that he chooses. Marriage was property rights, so women were just another flavor of slave, they just happened to be family generated.
We already know that the more knowledge you have, the more likely you are to not buy fully into inequality as a concept.
It used to be all the "slave class" (everyone NOT WHITE MALES) had no voice, now they do, so we are all under assault by folks whose ideology wants for the good old days. When the man and the money and the power was all in his control.
We are as a nation, beginning to have hope and seek a future not based on the ancient dogma of various translations of scripture and religious morality standards melded to fit an agenda of a few social dinosaurs.
The good old boys club, has word-smithed their way through the last generation. They know just what to say to keep the divisions alive, while hiding behind the wall of power and religious male driven dogma.
You women are fighting the standard set by a deity, who decreed you to reproduce and be obedient. god gave you this task, and no silly constitution should be able to over-ride this decree.
So goes it with god created "MAN" , not woman first, but second.
Man was given dominion over all, but not the fruit…
...Eve "deceived", Adam who apparently had weak will and joined in. god kicked them out, and eve and the beasts (all those slave class folks) have been paying ever since.
get this idea out of actual policy, and you stand a chance.
just my thoughts on it.
Isn't this phenomena true of fundamentalist- traditionalists throughout the world irrespective of the particular religion or non-religion?
What is interesting is not to perpetuate this manicheism but to understand the mechanism of its grip on the human psyche.
I guess the point is we need to ask is, when does "tradition and fundamentalism" get redefined, and or how do you start a "new tradition" for the ever changing and advancing nation and global reality?
Where religious fundamentalism and hard liner Traditionalists could be the only and last bastions of prejudice and dogmatic male centric silliness?
Many have begun to embrace this idea, but the hard liners will die holding onto the reins , even if it is a beating a dead horse.
The leadership of a certain party which is not actually a bonafide party at all, but more of an ideological infection is the forefront of this crusade to the bottom.
add in the greed and vanity of the "socially connected" and you have corporate man power, religious dogma to keep the flock docile and hate to keep the fight alive.
False morality loves a good old fashioned bible story to remind you of the "official social order"in some folks' world.
Welcome to CHANGE AMERICA!!!
Germaine Greer pointed out "the alternative to Patriarchy is not Matriarchy- the alternative is fraternity"
For this to be a real revolution, the fraternity and empathy cannot be insular. Lakoff's broad brush book does a hand wave about empathy being the alternative to patriarchy. Actually empathy has a central role in patriarchal systems, though it is not extended outside of the group. Lakoff does not acknowledge this dependence of conservatism on empathy nor why the his healthy model of the family is fundamentally different.
I think they are fundamentally different, but Jonathon Haidt has a more convincing explanation of the moral and emotional mechanisms in play both in the "conservative" and "liberal" perspectives. He was interviewed by Bill Moyers and this video gives a general idea of how his analysis proceeds.
From a point of view similar to Haidt's, Lakoff's can be seen as trapped in cultural associations. For example, when Bamberger brings down the hammer- is this necessarily her channeling the strict father metaphor? Although she is mostly aligned with the nurturing family model, Lakoff places her in the purgatory middle zone of being "biconceptual". A freudian would be less charitable, no doubt associating her impluses with penis envy of the Judeo Christian autocratic father's power and responsibility to punish.
Well maybe Joanne does look approvingly of things that are taller than they are wide, or wider than they are tall, but not necessarily.
The need for punishment and consequences can be in non gender associations. For example in the Hindu tradition Haidt points out that consequences are simply a manifestation of Being- it is part of Karma- the action and equal and opposite reaction kind of physical law. Responsible parents simply model a world of karma for their children so they are best prepared for the wold when they enter.
No gender associations necessary. It doesn't matter if both mates are the same gender or what the gender is of the person that exacts the consequences. They are simply the face of karma. Other cultures have other ways of describing this principle.
Lakoff does assert that the positive"nurturing family" model does not associate fixed roles with gender. But importantly, from Lakoff's POV, punishment is part and parcel of the pathology of the patriarchal system, regardless who exacts it. Enforcing principles only via praise with prohibition of punishment is a practice that many liberal parents reject as at best naive and at worst delusional both from a practical and a values point of view.
Regarding Lakoff's view of the healthy model of the family is centered on empathy rather than autocratic power: If you think about it, it is not hard to see that Fox news is little more than an empathy machine for members of the tribe to share the emotions of fear, disgust, or moral outrage that other members feel. It is a factory that manufactures synchronization and convergence of emotional states. Empathy is extended to everyone inside the tribe, scorn and demonisation is extended to everyone outside- including former members such as Justice Roberts, Bush I or Bush II who all betrayed or didn't go far enough.
Let's face it, although we liberals have no Fox news, this same pattern of emotional contagion exists on the left. Perform a thought experiment. It was pointed out on the show that unemployment rates have been much higher for men than women. Amplify it. Let's say that companies had become politicized and that job populations of companies with conservative managements hired only conservatives and that when the economy crashed, most conservative companies fired workers to preserve the bottom line while liberal companies did everything possible to avoid layoffs. Say the result was that unemployment amongst liberals was 4% and unemployment among conservatives was 14%.
Would you as a liberal feel the same empathy towards the unemployed, or the income inequality gap? Or would you say, they are getting their just deserts- reaping the whirlwind of their delusional economic theories?
Because conservatives have a narrative that explains why they should not extend empathy towards the unemployed. The response to the Occupy movement of dumping MacDonalds work applications out the window. The response of cutting benefits to the unemployed because "losers" should not feel "entitled" to governmental "nanny state" assistance- that the problem of the unemployed is that they don't want to apply for jobs with lower salaries.
So what are the differences?
The contrast between the two was played out between MHP and Dawson. Did MHP listen and respond to what Dawson actually said? Did Dawson? It is pretty clear he did not. He actually performed the epitome of the Father knows best routine: "Uh huh honey... actually their are both good family men. The difference is that Obama wants to tax you. Both of these are GOP talking point positions. 1) acknowledge the Obama's personal popularity, do not tell the public not to like Obama as a person 2) tell them he is a bad president - incompetent, ideological, tax and spend liberal etc. Civility would dictate that he at least made some attempt to respond to the question. Was it because he had little respect for MHP because she was a 1) woman 2) black 3) a liberal 4) and intellectual professor 5) a host of any media outlet other than FOX?
Conservatives have little more than contempt for their political opponents, and their war on the status quo began when they realized they had nothing more to say to the left. Hayes, ever the optimist once said something to the effect that if you step back and look at what is happening on social issues the conservatives are losing. Maybe that is precisely what Gingrich realized. Medicare was not being turned back. The American people would never give up FDR's socialist policies.... The demographic trends are that whites will no longer be in the majority.
They realized that using words the way they were was ineffective. So they went to war. Liberals simply have responded as if conservatives have any good faith interest in what they have to say.
Conservatives must be shown that the inversion of the maxim is true, that when wars fail, communication begins. One of the posters above dismissed the MHP talk (I believe unfairly as "psycho babble"), but on Hayes's forum, s/he pointed out:
This is the language of war. Must liberals reciprocate with a maximalist effort to politically obliterate the grip of the 1% on our economic, legal and political systems? I am for mobilizing progressives, and not being naive about emotional hooks to maintain that mobilization fervor. I think it is foolhardy to demonize the right or to stop talking or listening to them. Listen to what Nancy said. She is quite quite wise on this. We cannot lose our humanity when others are inhumane to us. Because then they have won. THAT is the battle we are fighting. It happens to be a spiritual battle- one that transcends particular religions.
I enjoyed the segment! I think the reason we're talking about the changing social roles of women and men in the U.S. is because our shared experience in this country has indicated that change is needed and desired by enough people that we can finally help it happen. Men threw off the yoke of the military draft, and women are throwing off the status of 2nd class citizen. Our laws and policies are sorely outdated. Fortunately, it's remediable! We had to talk about it first. And we'll have to talk about it more. It's how we process stuff and reach agreements.
I'm so glad you noted the need during the 1980s-Present for two incomes to maintain a previously basic standard of living attained with a single income, Melissa. Women are fully vested in the U.S. How is it that in the "richest country in the world", millions are struggling to exist on one, or even a half, income currently, plus having lost their homes (their only measure of wealth after decades of honest work) due to predatory business and gambling practices, or illness, or a lousy group plan called a "social contract"? Huh uh. We're not doing that any more; not if we can help it. I believe that humans generally agree on that. A change in management is needed, and Congress is the manager.
We finally have more widespread social agreement that "equality" applies to ALL humans; and we have more information about the inequalities and hypocrisies in our own traditional ways of thinking and being. Two of our clearest challenges right now are having to actually struggle for LAWS to assure that women (half the population) are paid equally for accomplishing the exact same work as that accomplished by men! How outrageous! The second is the abuse of governing authority to effect "legal" micro-management of women's health and healthcare by politicians, some religious doctrinaires, and even employers! Crazy! Telling a total stranger they must (and, essentially, how often to) reproduce is a right or authority I see mentioned nowhere in the US constitution. How could women be silent under these conditions? Why would they neglect their responsibility to speak in a free country?
Women are a more active and integral part of American society than in the past; not as chattel or afterthoughts, but as actual female citizens exercising their full array of civil and human rights. As a result, we are redefining our society to be more accommodating. Despite commercial and social influences, I think we are all trying to experience and create a humane and meaningful life in this country for everyone; including ourselves, and regardless of income and social status. We're remodeling. Either help, or stay out of the way.
Ooh, I need to condense. Sorry, folks!
If you think you are prolix, then what does that make me. On the contrary, please increase your word counts. That way I shall not be obligated to do the hard work of getting my own thoughts more concisely expressed.
Um seriously though, I do not think I am alone when I say I enjoy your notes immensely. I think people here are good at reading rapidly. When it comes to comprehending others... well that is sometimes less rapid.
I am from Cuba, I am citizen however I would like to tell you something very important happen now in Florida with Scott governer he doesn't care about people,different to Charles Crish, I am a Director of Housekeeping in one of the South Beach Hotels, I am paying for my HMO $200 dollars every 15 days for me and my husband, in my department only 2 supervisors paying for the insurance from the very large department, because no body can affort, aetna is to expensive incledible expensive, so I am very happy for the obama's care, something else i would like to said how people forget how Obama's received this country, how the race is so tide you can see the sincerity in Obama's e yes, you can see ambition, unsinserity on Romney eyes, how so many peoples give large donation to him is because people in american are blind now Romney is rich and for rich I rememeber when he said he do not care about poor people ,I hope Obama campaing le saque mas trapos al sol so the real middle class see who is Romney, I know in England, France,Germay and Canada the health care is very affordable for every one.
Republican are foxs around rabitts, abusives, naugthy unsincere and richs, not the type of rich want every body use they own pawer to be ric,h no, they are the type of rich want americans comeback to the slavary time.
Sounds like ogwriter has his panties in a wad. Why take it so personally? Perhaps og is an unhappy "Mr Mom" at home? Just wunderin...
Mr. Kiev? Your attempts at emasculating sarcasm, "got his panties in a wad","blah,blah... Mr. Mom",was perfect because it perfectly illustrates some of my points about how Americans, feminists included, view masculinity. Your commnents rad like a tirade from a chain-smoking, buzzcut wearing, potbellied,got-cut-from the police-academy gym teachers from the fifties. It is unfort6unate that even mild criticism engenders such derision;it is also too typical. However, thankfully,it exposes the flaws in Mr. Lakoffs assertions about the infallibility of naturally empathic liberalism. You words were hardly empathic and or sensitive.
Okeee... I made a smart-ass comment for a cheap laugh. So sue me. The setup was an irrestible temptation and I broke weak with a knee-jerk comedic comment.
Still, it was kinda short for a "tirade", don't you think?
You'll get over it. Take two shots of Tequila and call me in the morning. Don't skimp on the salt...