A difference of opinion

In light of my earlier post, I want to pose a question about the pro-life/pro-choice debate.  I want to begin by saying that I am not anti-live, although I am pro-choice.  I hate this rhetorical distinction.  I mean, I'm against the death penalty, but I am for a woman's right to govern her own body. I digress.

Here is my question: why is it that most members of certain political party are pro-life, yet they often do not support programs (like Head Start, Welfare, Medicaid, etc.) which would improve the quality of life for the babies they so desperately want to be born?  As a good, good friend of mine once said, "Many Republicans care about babies, until they're born." 

The lamb

About a week ago I had a conversation with the dean in which I firmly expressed that I did not want to be a sacrificial lamb for the partner placement initiative, such as it is, at CU.  The dean firmly agreed and indicated that everything that could be done would be done to prevent it.  I am acutely aware that the dean has two back up plans in place.  I do believe this dean is committed to ensuring that Archer and I stay at CU.  After all, as the dean reminded me, in the last 4 years, we've both brought in about $40,000 in grant money; Archer has made a name for himself in a fairly small field while teaching in a country that barely recognizes said field; I've designed 4 classes that have increased enrollment in 3 departments; and we've both demonstrated that we have strong research potential.  All the while, the dean added, while staying on the job market and balancing our home life with our careers.  The dean reminded me, however, (as deans are wont to do, I suppose) that sh/e could only control so much.  The dean reiterated that the joint appointment as it has originally been envisioned was still the way sh/e preferred to go--for lots of reasons, the primary one being that the two departments are about to merge.  I am the only person on campus who can teach in both departments.  The plan makes a lot of sense.

In an entirely separate conversation with the chair of Research department, I again stated I did not want to be made a sacrificial lamb.  RC (Research Chair) assured me that this was not going to happen, saying that if a decision was made by the appropriate committee to move forward with the interview then the appointment would go through.  I said again, "I'm not sure I believe that is the case; however, this appointment reflects the career track I want to be on.  Therefore, I will trust you."  That is where I made my mistake.

The interview happened on Monday.  I thought it went well.  The questions following my talk turned into a conversation.  Two faculty members stayed after the Q&A ended to follow up on issues in which our research areas overlap.  The following interview was also a conversation.  Lunch went well.  The grad students seemed to like me.  Dinner was a bit awkward, but it was fine.  RC assured me I had put my best foot forward and that all would go well.

The dean called me yesterday about 40 minutes after Archer and I landed for our babymoon/research trip.  The committee met sometime yesterday to finalize the appointment, or so I had been told before I left town.  All had not gone well.  I was, in fact, made the sacrificial lamb.  I will not be holding a joint appointment in Research department and Teaching department.  I know nothing more than that.  I have a conference call scheduled with the chair of TD later today.  I'm hoping to get answers, but I suspect TC will only be able to tell me so much.  I may be scheduling a meeting with my union rep when we return to CU Land as well.

A big deal

I rarely get caught up in politics to the extent that I engage in public debates with people or that I post something political on my Facebook page.  This week has been an exception.  I've been following the Susan G. Komen Foundation's decision to end funding to Planned Parenthood after this year's grant cycle really closely.  Why?  Well, PP means something to me, as does providing women with adequate health care.  I've been to PP before, and I fully support its mission.  It does so much more than offer abortions (in fact, only 3% of its total services are offering abortions), and I've gone to PP when I was new to an area and needed affordable health care.  I've had friends go there for birth control, pap smears, breast exams, and biopsies.  They have all reported receiving quality care and excellent counseling.  Given that most of these friends were uninsured undergrad and grad students at the time they went to PP, they were all thankful to receive such good care at a price they could afford. 

As for the Komen Foundation, there is a history of breast cancer in my family.  My great-grandmother survived breast cancer at a time the only treatment was a mastectomy, radiation, and prayer.  Add to the fact that she lived in a poor mining community in rural Appalachia, and she was damn lucky to survive.  I often think that her life would have been very different if she had access to the kind of health care PP offers women.  My aunt has also survived breast cancer.  I've worn pink ribbons, I've run in many "Race for the Cure" races, and I've supported their mission. 

So I followed the story closely and, perhaps, a bit rabidly.  I posted at least one thing about  on my Facebook page about the story every single day.  I also engaged in a public, albeit civilized, debate with my aunt about the story.  This aunt (who is the same aunt who survived breast cancer) is staunchly pro-life, and she viewed the decision to cut funding to PP as a pro-life decision (as an aside, I find it really interesting that in spite of trying to assure the public that this was not a decision motivated by the abortion debate most of those supporting the Komen Foundation's decision to stop funding PP did so on the basis of being pro-life).  She posted her support for the Komen Foundation, and I questioned the logic of the ruling.  She argued it was "saving lives" by cutting support to an organization that performs abortions, and I argued it was ironic to read the decision to stop providing funds for breast exams and general breast health as life saving in any way.  It was tense, but cordial, and it was telling how much the issue meant to both of us that we even broached it at all.

So it was a big deal to open my web browser and read the following headline: "Komen Cancer charity reverses, will fund Planned Parenthood."  To me, it was a very big deal.

Disturbed

The news this morning is disturbing to me, for lots of reasons.  First, I want to say that Archer and I lived in upstate New York on 9/11.  I was working for a non-profit, and Archer was a Ph.D. student.  I knew several people (primarily through the board of directors) who were killed, and Archer had 5 students who lost parents.  Add to that the fact that my father was a fire fighter, and 9/11 hit close to home for us.  In fact, I had panic attacks for months after 9/11. 

Today's news is disturbing because I find it hard to swallow people's reactions.  My aunt, who is a devout born again Christian, thanked God on her Facebook page for yesterday's events.  It seems very odd to me to thank God for the killing of another human being.  Was the killing justified? I find it hard to say no, but I also find it hard to say yes.  Did it accomplish anything?  I can't see that it did.  The 3,000 plus individuals who died in the States on 9/11 are still dead.  There are still wars going on in Iraq and Afghanistan, both of which we can connect directly to the events of 9/11.  The Middle East is still in turmoil, and this man's death* will not end the terrorism that he started.  Someone will simply take his place.  So while justice may have been done in some small way, I'm don't like the fact that a man's death has been made into an international celebration.  It all seems oddly political to me. 

*I'm purposely not using his name as I don't want traffic from this post. 

A sudden realization

At some point late last night, in the hazy joy that permeated our home, C and I watched Brian Williams interview Luke Russert, Tim Russert's son. The younger Russert has been reporting on the youth vote for NBC for several weeks now, and as C and I listened intently, I said "This is so awesome--people our age got motivated, got invovled, and made a difference." C looked over at me and said, "Um, M, I hate to tell you, but we're not part of the youth vote any more. We're now in the next category." Oh, yeah, that's right. I'm not in the 18-29 category any more. . . when did that happen?

Sexism, Politics, and the Separation of Spheres

Can I just say how the current primaries and the resulting media coverage very nicely illustrate how there is, in fact, absolutely no separation of spheres? I mean, if there were, we clearly wouldn't care about Hillary Clinton's recent emotional outpouring or whether or not Barack Obama takes his kids to school. We also wouldn't be debating whether or not crying helps politicians in their negotiations with foreign leaders. What am I talking about? I'm referring to the blatantly sexist comment that Maureen Down quoted in her NYTimes op-ed. She wrote

"When I walked into the office Monday, people were clustering around a computer to watch what they thought they would never see: Hillary Clinton with the unmistakable look of
tears in her eyes.

A woman gazing at the screen was grimacing, saying it was bad. Three guys watched it
over and over, drawn to the 'humanized' Hillary. One reporter who covers security issues
cringed. 'We are at war,' he said. 'Is this how she’ll talk to Kim Jong-il?'"

Come on!! Why include this blatantly sexist quotation? I mean, George Bush cries all the time and no one questions his ability to handle foreign leaders because of it. (Keep in mind I do think we should question his ability, but not because he cries.)

As I wrote yesterday, I'm seriously annoyed with the media's coverage of Hillary Clinton (and yes, I'm very pleased she won the NH primary yesterday!). First they criticize her for not being emotional enough, a criticism she has addressed herself, which Dowd quotes

“'If you get too emotional, that undercuts you,' Hillary said. 'A man can cry; we know that.
Lots of our leaders have cried. But a woman, it’s a different kind of dynamic.'”

I want to say a few things about this quotation. First, Clinton is absolutely right--men can cry in politics. When they do, we see them as human, as moved, and as genuinely concerned--again think about all the times George Bush has cried. As far as I know, we haven't ever questioned his motives for shedding tears in an emotional moment. But, as Clinton correctly points out and as has happened to her, if a woman cries, she is immediately seen as emotional, as out of control, as--gasp!--irrational. Yet, in Clinton's case, the media also chastised her for not showing any emotion. She can't win for losing. Second, why does Dowd refer to her as Hillary? She never once refers to Barack Obama or John Edwards by their first names. Why is she so disrespectful to Clinton? She refers to her by her first name because she is a woman, plain and simple. And before someone comments that perhaps Dowd refers to Clinton by her first name so as not to confuse her with her husband, I don't believe that is the reason either. I mean those of us who take the time to read the NY Times opinion page (yes, I am being a bit elitist here) realize which Clinton is running for president. Dowd is being as sexist--and yes, a woman can be sexist towards another woman.

One more thing: I'm sick and tired of the likability issue. I for one don't give a fig if the president is likable. I want a president I can trust to do a good job. I mean, look what likability has gotten us in the past 8 years.