The gift of health, the gift of reproductive control

Have you heard that Planned Parenthood of Indiana is offering gift certificates for health care, including contraception? The Associated Press explains in this story:

The group, a network of 35 clinics, decided to offer the vouchers because so many people are uninsured or are putting off health care because of prohibitive costs, said Betty Cockrum, its president. About 800,000 Indiana residents do not have health insurance, Ms. Cockrum said.

Planned Parenthood’s checkups, which include Pap tests and breast exams, typically cost $58. The vouchers can be used for those exams, medication, birth control and other services.

I think it sounds like a great idea, but opponents argue that this is a mockery of the holiday season. Hmm. I just don't see how helping someone afford a Pap test and a breast exam could possibly be a bad gift, let alone inconsistent with sentiments of the season.

Mothers sacrifice. What's new? But who should benefit?

The headline, "To Buy Children's Gifts, Mothers Do Without," caught my eye this morning. I thought it might tell of mothers scrimping on food budgets, maybe on gasoline or other transportation costs, or perhaps on some small indulgence for themselves --all to be sure their kids each had a present or two to open on Christmas morning. Instead, the story Stephanie Rosenbloom tells in today's NYT is really one of largess. Here are the first few paragraphs:

Come Christmas, McKenna Hunt, a gregarious little girl from Safety Harbor, Fla., will receive the play kitchen and the Elmo doll she wants. But her mother, Kristen Hunt, will go without the designer jeans she covets this season.

* * *

“I want her to be able to look back,” Ms. Hunt declared, “and say, ‘Even though they were tough times, my mom was still able to give me stuff.’ ”

The real point of Rosenbloom's story seems to be that sales of women's apparel have fallen dramatically in recent months, so I felt a bit hood-winked by the headline. The accompanying photo by Charity Beck is more consistent with the story's message of largess for the younger generation of middle-class Americans. The photo seems dissonant with the headline, however, and it makes me think that little McKenna could probably make do with a little less. I am sympathetic to the idea that Christmas is for kids, but what is McKenna learning here?

I guess I am on a bit of soap box this morning, but this seems like excessive consumerism -- even if mom isn't getting her designer jeans. Weighing on my heart and mind are the photo (above) and story about the line of folks waiting for a Thanksgiving care package at the Sacramento Food Bank and news of the record turnout at Loaves and Fishes Thanksgiving Dinner last night here in Sacramento. Read just one story here. All of us who have shelter, warm clothes on our backs, and a secure food supply should be making sacrifices this season, but not so we can instill a me-first mentality in our children. We should do it so others can eat.

Advice for Michelle Obama

Apparently it is pouring in from around the world, including some very public advice from Cherie Blair, who proffered it in her regular column for The Times (London). Like French President Nicolas Sarkozy's wife, Carla Bruni, Blair continued to work while her husband was the U.K. Prime Minister. Blair wrote in her regular column for The Times of London:

You have to learn to take the back seat, not just in public, but in private . . . When your spouse is late to put the kids to bed, or for dinner, or your plans for the weekend are turned upside down again, you simply have to accept that he had something more important to do.

Blair went on to note the irony that in this age of purported equality those married to political leaders must set aside their ambitions and be seen but not heard. Blair observes that, unlike herself, Michelle Obama will not have that option of continuing to work.

Rachel Swarns' story in today's New York Times reminds us that Hillary Rodham Clinton is the only first lady prior to Michelle Obama to have had an active career until shortly before her husband became President. I have recently recalled here responses to Hillary's becoming first lady in 1992. The only other first lady even to have an advanced degree was Laura Bush, and that degree was in the rather lower profile subject of library science. Ms. Clinton and Ms. Obama, of course, are lawyers.

Also of great interest in Swarns' story is the observation that Michelle Obama became more popular among the electorate once she quit work during her husband's campaign and fully embraced the role of "mom-in-chief."

Leslie Morgan Steiner, editor of “Mommy Wars,” an anthology of essays (Random House, 2006), argued on the NPR program “Tell Me More” that Mrs. Obama had been “put in a box” and was only celebrated in the news media after she decided “to put her family first.”

In the online magazine Salon, Rebecca Traister bemoaned what she described as the “momification of Michelle Obama,” criticizing the news media’s focus on Mrs. Obama’s search for schools for her two young daughters, her fashion sense and her pledge that her No. 1 job is “to be Mom.”

Traister bemoans the lack of curiosity about Michelle as a professional, successful, independent woman who is facing some major changes in how she spends her days. Certainly, leaving work that one enjoys is a big adjustment, and Ms. Obama's last job was a $300K/year post as a Vice President at the University of Chicago Medical Center. Nevertheless, as one commentator points out, unlike most women who leave work to be a trailing spouse, Ms. Obama's career won't suffer long-term consequences. Once her husband is no longer President, her time spent in the White House will be viewed as very valuable, and she will have her pick of jobs, among them partnership at the law firm of her choice.

So, fem legal theory alums, do you have any advice for Michelle?

Btw, as of today, I'm giving Michelle Obama her own label on the blog.

What women are saying about Hillary's new role

Read Jodi Kantor's story in the New York Times here. So many parts of this story resonated with me, particularly the part where Kantor suggests that the decision HRC faced --U.S. Senator from New York vs. Secretary of State--resonated on some level with many women. One question on so many of our minds, as Kantor expressed it, was "ultimately, how well will her male boss treat her?" I especially like this bit of Kantor's story, which put it all in historical perspective:

Their case for Mrs. Clinton’s decision as feminist triumph has gone something like this: Ten years ago, she was still a first lady whose hairstyles were the subject of late-night jokes; now she will be the world’s top diplomat. She may still be in a more powerful man’s shadow, but being married to a president and working for one are worlds apart. And Mrs. Clinton is such an esteemed figure, no one will see her as a mere emissary.

I sure hope Kantor is right about the "esteemed figure" part. Hillary has earned at least that.

Required reading about Hillary . . . yes, she's back

Hillary Rodham Clinton (photo vintage 1992) is very much back in the news in recent days, mostly in relation to whether she will become the next Secretary of State. Read Gail Collins' column here, which she closes with this list of reasons why Hillary should get the job. Those reasons include the fact that Hillary might do a great job and the rather more whimsical comment that she has enough pantsuits to keep her in the Middle East for extended peace negotiations. Others include the benefit of not letting the Vice President run our foreign policy, as Dick Cheney has and that Obama could live out his team-of-rivals fantasy without naming Sarah Palin to his cabinet.

A story by Helene Cooper in today's NYT front page tells us that HRC has supporters among foreign advisers. Lots of people seem to see her would-be appointment as a win-win.

The revival of interest in Hillary and her political fortunes may be what prompted the NYT to revive this column by Anna Quindlen, who might be considered Judith Warner's predecessor. Quindlen's column was written on the occasion of Bill Clinton's election to the U.S. Presidency in 1992, and in it, Quindlen queries: "Now that we have a First Woman as educated, intelligent, superachieving and policy-savvy as her husband, what do we do with her?" In addition to sharing several reader responses, Quindlen put it all in perspective by suggesting that our responses are not Hillary as much as they are about us:

It has been about how we feel about smart women, professional women, new women. It's been about nurturing moms and working moms and what we do for love, including keeping our mouths shut. We want her to make the world safe, not only for education reform and preschool programs, but for opinionated women who want to be taken seriously.

Quindlen goes on to note that two of the terms then most associated with HRC are "hard-edged" and "headbands." If you don't get the "headbands" reference, well you'll have to do a little research for yourself; I remember all too well. As for being "hard-edged," wasn't that one of the characteristics (or characterizations?) that continued to haunt HRC as she sought the Democratic nomination for '08?

Perhaps what we saw this year with Hillary's candidacy was an example of the old adage, the more things change, the more they stay the same. Perhaps too little changed in our society between when Hillary entered the White House as first lady and when she sought to re-enter as President.

On the other hand, what did change was many women's respect for Hillary -- and it wasn't necessarily a change for the better. Between 1992 and 2008, many third-wave feminists and post-feminist women became voters. When Hillary ran for President, well, I'm afraid they just didn't get it. They didn't "get" her. They didn't appreciate her. While discussing Hillary's (near) teary moment after her defeat in the Iowa caucuses, just before the New Hampshire vote this past winter, a student in my feminist legal theory class opined that Hillary was "faking it." Seemed a mighty uncharitable presumption from a feminist, albeit a third-wave one.

In any event, I encourage you to read Quindlen's entire November 8, 1992 column here. In fact, Quindlen wrote a series of columns about Hillary in 1994. They appeared under the heading "Public and Private." You can read them here, here, and here. I love Gail Collins and Judith Warner, but I miss Anna Quindlen. A former student recently declared to me -- affectionately, I think -- "oh, Professor Pruitt, you're so second-wave." Yep, I guess I am.

Dick Cavett on Palin

I can't resist directing you to Dick Cavett's column, The Wild Wordsmith from Wasilla. It's about more than Sarah Palin's way with words. It's about gender, and which gender got the best of which in the McCain-Palin pairing. He observes that Palin is still getting a great deal of media exposure, that she is everywhere on television right now, and queries why:

I suppose it will be recorded as among political history’s ironies that Palin was brought in to help John McCain. I can’t blame feminists who might draw amusement from the fact that a woman managed to both cripple the male she was supposed to help while gleaning an almost Elvis-sized following for herself. Mac loses, Sarah wins big-time was the gist of headlines.

Cavett concludes that McCain "aimed low and missed." Interesting that Cavett assumes Palin got the better of things. He may be right. On the other hand, an astute contemporary of mine was opining this week that Palin had been used by the good ole' boys and she didn't even realize it yet. Hmmmm. I'm not sure there is a clear answer on who got the better deal when McCain joined forces with Palin. Maybe the answer to that depends on whether or not you're a Palin devotee.