Apt. 11D

Mother Dearest

Clinton announces her presidency. Pelosi bangs the gavel to bring the House to order. It has taken the pundits a couple of weeks to clear their throats, but now they're ready to analyze the chick thing.

Since my readers love me best when I'm angered, Jeremy sends me a link to a Linda Hirshman analysis of these events. As usual, the piece is all over the place at times picking at the stay at home moms and other times aiming her vitriol at women in general.

Hirshman wonders whether women will vote for Clinton. An excellent question. I'm very interested to see what happens on that front also. She decides to find out what women, who she describes as couch-sitters, will do by interviewing a dozen members of the Wednesday Morning Group, a D.C. area organization that provides speakers and programs mostly for stay-at-home moms.

These 12 DC women tell Hirshman that they formerly had jobs, they mostly read People and Real Simple, their husbands read real news, and the women ask their husbands for advice on politics. Good research work as always.

Since it's DC, the husband probably all have jobs in government and need to read the newspaper for their work. These men probably do have the inside scoop on politics. It does not follow that women around the country also lean on their husbands for political opinions. It's not clear if these women are any less informed than 99% of the rest of America.

Hirshman is on safer ground when she brings up other research that has been done on women and politics. She writes, "women have voted more Democratic than men recently, but since the ratification of the 19th Amendment in 1920, only once has the women's vote arguably been different enough from the men's vote to determine the outcome of a presidential election." Study after study shows that women consume less political information than men, are less informed about political events, and are less likely to contribute to a compaign. (Also less likely to write a political blog -- at least political in a completely obvious way.)

To get elected, she advises Hillary to talk personal and give the dirt on life with Bill. Chicks like soap operas. She also tells Hillary to look good and appear popular; women like winners.

But women also like the slightly dangerous bass player with tattoos and long hair, so should Hillary get a CBGBs T-shirt and drive a motorcycle? Er... maybe that's not women in general. Maybe that's just me. Okay, nevermind.

So, are you surprised? I didn't hate the piece. Sure, there are some slams and sneers at stay-at-home moms, but I was prepared for it this time. She's right that women and men haven't really gone their separate ways in the voting booth. However, it doesn't mean that women are taking their bidding from men. It might just mean that other factors, like economic status, are more important than gender in the voting booth.

Women aren't as politically shallow as Hirshman makes them out to be. Women may be less likely to read traditional media news sources, but they pick up opinions in other places -- the soccer field, the PTA meeting, on the phone with their friends. I think that pollsters haven't tapped into the politicalness of women, because the pollsters are men and they are asking the wrong questions.

Yes, image is important to women, but it's important to men, too. It's just a reality in our high tech world. Go ask John McCain.

Others are saying that Hillary and Nancy need to use the "mom" card. More tomorrow.

Was McCain Sleeping?

Blogging has been super slow lately. Teaching is taking its toll. I'm in the process of stockpiling lectures and revising an article, so I'm super busy. Also, I've been scratching the political debate itch in class, instead of here.

During a lecture on classical liberalism, we got into a great discussion about what Karen Hughes should have said to the Saudi women in 2005, as a lead into Mill's justification for a representative democracy.

The State of the Union was a big topic of discussion in all my classes. Most of the students watched it, and I pumped them about their impressions. Many people thought that Nancy Pelosi and Hillary were suppressing waves of nausea throughout the speech. They were amused at the back slapping and hand clapping. A number of students pointed out that McCain looked like he was sleeping. Image, as we talked about in my media class, can be more important than content.

Apparently, a lot of people picked up on McCain's closed eyes. Tom Zeller writes in today's Times that McCain may have just blown his campaign as video clips of the sleepy McCain hit YouTube.

It is, perhaps, also no surprise in the age of YouTube — where unscripted video clips have become political Molotov cocktails — that a “McCain sleeping” snippet was uploaded to the Internet and was being discussed and linked in short order.

Whether the original intent was political sabotage or simple humor is hard to say, but either way the clip went straight for Mr. McCain’s Achilles’ heel: his age. He is now 70 years old. By 2008, if elected, he would be the oldest president to move into the White House.

So a video of the elderly statesman appearing to doze during the president’s speech — and particularly during a portion of the speech where terrorism was being discussed — seemed to put questions of his fitness for office in stark relief.

McCain's gang retaliated by uploaded videos of him clapping and looking alert. They said that he was just reading the speech on his lap and not asleep at all. Politics in the YouTube era. Excellent fun.

Weekend Journal

It's Catholic School week, so at church today some uniformed 8th grader proudly told us all the wonderful things about the parochial school and how she was going to go to this or that Catholic high school. Little Miss-Know-It-All went on for quite a while. When she was done, the congregation applauded. Without looking up from his Curious George book, Ian booed. Steve and I almost peed our pants.

Question of the Day -- Trashed Kitchens

I fed my kids couscous yesterday.

"What?!!", you say. "That's a rookie mistake. They trashed your kitchen yesterday, didn't they?"

Yes, they did trash the kitchen. At some point during the meal, Ian was eating the stuff by the fistful. Half of his dinner had slid into the folds of his shirt, his chair, and a fifty feet circumference around the table.

I still say that feeding the kids couscous isn't a rookie error, like letting them fall asleep at 6:00 (I did that the day before). It's a rookie error to try to clean up immediately after the meal. A pro knows to let it harden first and then clean it up.

Question of the Day: What's another rookie error? Is couscous the worst thing you can feed your kids? Or should corn muffins win the prize?

The State of the Union

I've had a packed day with lectures and kid's stuff. I'm sitting here thinking about what to write about the State of the Union address and all that comes to mind is something Simon Cowell would say... "All right, sweetheart. That's a no. Rather pointless, wasn't it?"

Anybody have something more constructive to add? Any Paulas out there?

Jonah's Bad Day

On Monday, Jonah came down the stairs and honked at me. Instead of saying, "hi, mom," he honked like a baby with croup, so I kept him home. We headed immediately to the pediatrician.

The doctor asked him what his symptoms were. He honked and then he said his throat hurt, had a cough and his eyes hurt.
"Your eyes hurt?" she asked.
"Yeah," I told her. "He's been complaining about that a lot lately".

So, she gave him a strep test and an eye test. He passed the strep test, but failed the eye exam. Looks like glasses for little Jonah. Probably, not surprising since both Steve and I have crappy eyes, but we were hoping that he had escaped the myopia curse.

Later that afternoon, he seemed to be feeling better so I didn't cancel the boys' trip to the dentist. She polished his bottom teeth that have come up horizontally like shark teeth. Her brush navigated around the chasm between the front two. When I asked if he was going need braces, she laughed. Not so much with the professionalism, lady.

In one day, Jonah learned he needed glasses and braces. In one day, all chances of seamlessly sliding through his middle school years were dashed. He doesn't seem to care, but he doesn't know what he's in for, yet.

The Geek Syndrome

I stumbled across an old Wired article over the weekend, which talks about the proliferation of autism in the tech corridors of our country. The tech world is a perfect fit for the mildly autistic mind.

It's a familiar joke in the industry that many of the hardcore programmers in IT strongholds like Intel, Adobe, and Silicon Graphics - coming to work early, leaving late, sucking down Big Gulps in their cubicles while they code for hours - are residing somewhere in Asperger's domain.

However, this safe haven for logical nerds could be a breeding ground for more serious, delibitating cases of this disorder.

The chilling possibility is that what's happening now is the first proof that the genes responsible for bestowing certain special gifts on slightly autistic adults - the very abilities that have made them dreamers and architects of our technological future - are capable of bringing a plague down on the best minds of the next generation. For parents employed in prominent IT firms here, the news of increased diagnoses of autism in their ranks is a confirmation of rumors that have quietly circulated for months. Every day, more and more of their coworkers are running into one another in the waiting rooms of local clinics, taking the first uncertain steps on a journey with their children that lasts for the rest of their lives.

In previous eras, even those who recognized early that autism might have a genetic underpinning considered it a disorder that only moved diagonally down branches of a family tree. Direct inheritance was almost out of the question, because autistic people rarely had children. The profoundly affected spent their lives in institutions, and those with Asperger's syndrome tended to be loners. They were the strange uncle who droned on in a tuneless voice, tending his private logs of baseball statistics or military arcana; the cousin who never married, celibate by choice, fussy about the arrangement of her things, who spoke in a lexicon mined reading dictionaries cover to cover.

The old line "insanity is hereditary, you get it from your kids" has a twist in the autistic world. It has become commonplace for parents to diagnose themselves as having Asperger's syndrome, or to pinpoint other relatives living on the spectrum, only after their own children have been diagnosed.

High tech hot spots like the Valley, and Route 128 outside of Boston, are a curious oxymoron: They're fraternal associations of loners. In these places, if you're a geek living in the high-functioning regions of the spectrum, your chances of meeting someone who shares your perseverating obsession (think Linux or Star Trek) are greatly expanded. As more women enter the IT workplace, guys who might never have had a prayer of finding a kindred spirit suddenly discover that she's hacking Perl scripts in the next cubicle.

....Says Bryna Siegel, author of The World of the Autistic Child and director of the PDD clinic at UCSF, "In another historical time, these men would have become monks, developing new ink for early printing presses. Suddenly they're making $150,000 a year with stock options. They're reproducing at a much higher rate."

Anyhow, fascinating article. Worth checking out.

sHillary

Despite Hillary's big polling number, she sure isn't getting a lot of love from the liberal blogosphere. It's down right chilly, in fact. Hilzoy thinks she's not cut out to be president. Scott doesn't think she can win, though Kevin Drum does. Pam at Pandagon ain't impressed. (more later)

Blog Gossip -- Echidne is now blogging at TAPPED. Good job, J.. Glad you've chosen a new, easier to spell name.

Brooks on Unmarried Women

In today's Times, David Brooks replies to yesterday's article about the growing number of single women. He pulls out many of the points that we made in yesterday's comment section. Since his article is limited to those with Times Select, I'm going to post his article below the fold.

Comment away.

51%

The Times reports that 51% percent of women are living without a husband. 

In 2005, 51 percent of women said they were living without a spouse, up from 35 percent in 1950 and 49 percent in 2000.

More women are divorced, never married, or living with a partner.  The article interviews various happy, single women who find great strength in their singleness.  I couldn't help wondering if the article was a little one-sided.  What was their socio-economic status compared to married women?  How many women in that group were struggling and supporting three kids on their own on a waitress salary? 

But I don't mean to rain on the parade.  I think it's fabulous that more women have more options than ever before.

The article briefly mentions the impact of this major sociological shift on politics.

Coupled with the fact that in 2005 married couples became a minority of all American households for the first time, the trend could ultimately shape social and workplace policies, including the ways government and employers distribute benefits.

However, the article doesn't expand on this observation.  I like to think that they are right.  The 51% tipping point might force businesses and politicians to make more female and family-friendly changes.  Single women may have more clout than married women.  There is always the assumption that married women have their husband's salaries to fall back upon.  Their jobs are considered optional, so there's no pressure to improve daycare, no accommodations at the workplace, and no support from the school system.  There are very strong resentments against married women with kids and prejudice lurks around the edges.  Perhaps the Murphy Browns have more a chance of making change than June Cleaver.  Which is fine.  I'll take change from any corner. 

Am I right?  Who gets more respect?  Married women or single?  Which group has a better shot at making changes.