Syndicate and Hague

So I was at this thing today on the “mobile web” and, mostly, how to market to whom and blah blah blah. I often like going to more corporate-ish things because they tend to be light years ahead of Universities about conceptualizing and implementing ways of using technology. I’m pretty good at parsing the data and coming up with ideas based on the concepts, but less evil and more relevant to the work we do at the University.

Sometimes, however, I want to strangle presenters.

Look, I know advertising as a field is demonic. I do. This is a field in which you spend all your time thinking about how to sell people things that they:

• don’t need
• don’t want

“Oh, but Sara!” you might say if you’re in advertising and pretending what you do isn’t mostly evil, “we’re just giving people options/trying to tell them how to make their lives easier/no one is forcing anyone to buy anything.” Pshaw.

Here’s what set me off.

First, the keynote spoke–I have no inherent problem with what he was saying. He was really telling it like it is. People want to make money on mobile tech. Ad people are trying to figure out how to do that. It’s not really my scene and creeps me out a bit, but whatever.

But then this…this…ignorant, trifling woman gets up as part of a duo and repeatedly says horrific, offensive things that wound up causing me to blow the joint after she finished. (I couldn’t believe how much more I would want to strangle her by the end of the presentation).

It started with slides. Her point was to prove the pervasiveness of mobile. Fine. She called it (I paraphrase) the first truly democratized medium. I stifled a laugh. I mean, I think cell phones have done a lot of great things, but anything you have to pay a chunk of money for every month isn’t really “democratized,” and it’s not like the library has a bunch of cell phones lined up for free usage. Plus…we’re at an event that is centered around targeting and tailoring content to individuals and trying to find out as much as we can about people so that we can inundate them with messages to get them to buy things. C’mon.

As proof of her concept (yay mobile happy fun democratized equality!), she showed slides of people of varying races/nationalities using cell phones. Whoopee. It’s common knowledge to me, and probably to many of you, that cell phones really have revolutionized communication in a lot of areas that don’t have landline infrastructures. Poorer areas/countries and developing areas/countries have used mobile phones for some time now because throwing up cell towers is way cheaper than landline wiring a whole country.

Saying that isn’t offensive, because it’s true. Saying “and mobile phones have allowed people in places like Africa who didn’t have jobs to start businesses” (picture of a cell phone kiosk) is. Which was all kinds of ridiculous, but got worse. There was a photograph of a girl outside a small, circular house with a thatched roof in a pretty treeless, desert-looking area and she was holding up her phone. This girl lived in the country of Africa. You know, that country…the really big one…anyway, but the comment about that picture was something like “You see the funny house and clothes, but she looks just like a normal 13 year old with her phone.”

Because, you know, she was a normal kid with a phone.

Of course, the woman at the front probably doesn’t spend much time thinking of people in ways other than what demographics they happen to fall into and how she can sell things to them, but her assuredness and confidence in what she was saying made me ill. The utter elitism and exoticism and ugh. I was so angry that, when her next part of the presentation started, I just about lost it.

She started talking about the sectioned off demographics of cell phone usage. The first were “mobile moms.” Because, and I paraphrase, moms are really busy! they have to manage the family and their friends and they used to manage from the kitchen and hear about everyone’s goings on at the bfast/dinner table, but now everyone is busier and cell phones help mom feel like she’s there because she’s the ultimate multitasker blah blah blah blah. No mention of career. Lots of qualifications about “of course, not all moms are like this, but…”

And this (way way late, Sara) gets to what drove me away. Or, rather, what drove me to my bike and made me decide that reading through documents for tomorrow’s meeting was more important/interesting than being there.

Today’s multitasking mom? Is a creation of the ad industry. We can make choices. We can change how we live–buying less means you don’t have to make as much means you don’t have to work as much. Your kids don’t need $800 strollers or ten activities a week. They don’t need all their time scheduled. You don’t need to do it. You don’t need to look 30 when you’re 55. You just don’t.

And I had a revelation. It takes me a really long time to make decisions on purchases. But not on life. For instance, I decided it was what I wanted to do to move in with Megan, so I did it. I decided I should apply to grad school, so I did it. All of these major life decisions were quick and easy.

But trying to figure out what new cell phone I should buy? I’ve labored over the decision for eight months. It took me 2 years to figure out what kind of car I wanted to replace my crappy car with. And the reason is that I hate being marketed to. I’m filled with WANT from advertising, but there is a larger part of me that says waiiiit a minute, Sara. What do you need, what do you want, and where is the happy medium? Or, is there a happy medium? I’m not immune to impulse purchases, but I really try to fight the excess consumerism. As much as I can in this society.

Anyway, in honor of all that is evil and here to make women feel like crap, here are some great episodes of Sarah Haskins’ “Target Women” segments of Current TV.

“Feeding your fucking family”

Botox

You know, I am so sick of this. I blogged a while ago in my old Myspace blog about Lilly Ledbetter, a woman who sued her employer, Goodyear Tire, for paying her less than her male coworkers doing the same work. The Supreme Court ruled last year that because Ledbetter did not file a complaint within 180 days of her first paycheck she couldn’t sue. Because, you know, we generally find out we’re getting discriminated against within 3 months of it happening.

This is, of course, complicated by many companies barring employees from even discussing their pay (they can get fired for doing so). Personally, I think this is partially in place to allow discrimination to continue without accountability. Call it conspiratorial, but I’m just saying–women expect less and it’s in companies’ financial interests to not let us realize what’s up.

Well, today, Senate Republicans blocked the attempt to fix the legislation the Supreme Court interpreted in such an idiotic fashion.

Of the bill, Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky said:

We think that this bill is primarily designed to create a massive amount of new litigation in our country.

Honestly? I would hope it does. The point of legislation like this is to call the companies on their behavior. It’s us saying: you can’t get away with this anymore. Don’t want lawsuits? Don’t pay your female workers 6k less than their lowest paid male peer with the same responsibilities (that was Ledbetter’s situation).

And she summed up the lasting implications of it too: a lifetime of pay inequity results in lower Social Security payouts, lower pensions, lower 401k amounts…it’s a constant, lingering inequality. And it’s just wrong.

I’d like to note that John McCain–you know, the “maverick” that foolish Clinton and Obama supporters sometimes say they’ll vote for if their candidate doesn’t get the Democratic nomination–voted with the Republicans to block the bill. McCain has a long history of anti-woman voting, so this is not at all surprising, but I thought I’d call attention to it because the “If X doesn’t win, I’m going to vote for McCain” line is bugging the hell out of me.

To be fair, I thought I’d give respect to the Republicans who voted to advance this bill. They are: Norm Coleman of Minnesota, Susan Collins of Maine, Gordon Smith of Oregon, Olympia Snowe of Maine, Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania and John Sununu of New Hampshire.

File under: seething, smoke coming out from my ears.

I am so fucking sick of the sexist bile that is spewing forth from people criticizing Clinton in this race. My particular issue is about this (Via Feministing):

This is bad enough in and of itself. Lending credence to gross sexual harassment (calling Clinton “frigid” in high school–and may I point out that we’re a long way away from that era) by bringing it up during a campaign for PRESIDENT?!?!?! This is why Katie Couric annoys the crap out of me.

But it’s worse, of course, because then people grab onto this as if the douchebag assessment of Clinton as “frigid” can translate to some personality flaw–a humorlessness. Because, you know, bitch can’t take a joke. She should have been nicer when I told her she had a nice ass. Frigid whore. (Ah, if only I could say I’ve never heard that construction. Inherently doesn’t make sense. But it doesn’t matter.)

Then HuffPo has some jackass blogging this idiocy:

By asking Hillary on 60 Minutes about being known as Miss Frigidaire in high school, Couric brought out more of the real Hillary:

COURIC: Someone told me your nickname in school was Miss Frigidaire. Is that true?”

CLINTON: Only with some boys,” Clinton said, laughing.

COURIC: I don’t know if I want to hear the back story on that!

CLINTON: Well, you wouldn’t want to know the boys either.

(Apparently, the real story, as reported by Carl Bernstein, is that Hillary’s high school yearbook predicted she would become a nun, and would be known as Sister Frigidaire.)

I am guessing the “some boys” that Clinton thinks Couric would not want to know were normal intelligent people who had a sense of humor and had spotted someone who did not. I don’t remember too many low-lifes working for our high school yearbook.

Awesome. You. Are. Awesome.

I don’t think this needs to be deconstructed or elaborated upon. It just deserves a two word response:

Fuck you.

This breaks my heart. Via Feministing:

Men presidents only

I think that having a woman president would be a bad idea for our country. Women are not meant to rule countries and be in charge. They are meant to make decisions but not confirm them.

Our president deals with some countries that don’t respect or allow women in leadership positions. I wonder if the United States would have more terrorist attacks because we would be seen as weak with a woman leader. I agree that women can do many things, but leave the ruling of the countries to the men.

BRITTANY BAYLES, 13, Kennewick

So back in the yesteryear of the 1990s, Elizabeth Dole ran for the Republican nomination for the 2000 presidential election. I remember, at the time, having the discussion: would we (my friends and I) vote for her because it would mean having the first female president?

I said no. Not everyone agreed with me. But I’m still of the opinion that sacrificing my actual beliefs for the chance to see a woman–any woman–in office is a bad idea. It would be great. It would be super great! It would be empowering and it would show what was possible and it would also allow the media to show us its ugly misogyny day in and out as it obsessed over the Lady President’s clothes and how emasculating it must be to be a First Husband.

Oh it would be grand to catch up with the other parts of the world that have already had female leaders. Like, um, India or Pakistan or the UK or Israel or Germany…etc? Sigh.

Anyway, here’s where my issue comes in. The president has to make decisions. So if I’m going to throw my weight behind someone, it has to be someone who will make decisions that represent my values. The New Democrats didn’t and do not represent me.

However, I’m with Rachel Maddow on this: not a Clinton supporter, but WTF media? On what planet is it acceptable for Chris Matthews to pinch a presidential candidate’s cheek? (Really, he shouldn’t be pinching anyone’s cheeks, but let’s stick with how people with power are treated depending on their gender.)

It’s an ongoing problem for women with power. Back on my previous blog, I highlighted Bush’s inappropriate touching of German Chancellor Andrea Merkel (below).

Then there was the creepy way Senator Harry Reid placed his hand on Representative Nancy Pelosi’s shoulder during a press conference to interrupt her and left it there. The Daily Show did a great job covering that one:

Anyway, the below clip is a discussion of the media attacks on Clinton, Maddow’s desire to defend her despite not supporting her, and the strangely surreal world in which Pat Buchanan and I agree on anything at all.

I have always taken particular delight in people calling me names. Even guilt by association delights me — the “Warrior of Satan” brand that was thrust upon Angie for being pro-choice; the uncountable number of times I’ve been called a bitch, dyke, feminazi or what have you for being feminist; the plentiful times I’ve been called a socialist for believing we have an obligation to those around us; even the times the letters/op-ed pieces/blogs have caused my name and location to appear (negatively) on pro-gun websites or garnered me hate mail at my home.

Bring it. Those kinds of responses mean that you can’t engage on the issues, that you have nothing to bring to the table. Intellectual laziness.

I’ve been thinking about my ideological journey — and what it means to be an educated, opinionated woman–this week, in part because of the way NOW and Gloria Steinem have essentially accused young women of not being feminists for not supporting Clinton’s candidacy.

Hillary Clinton will get my vote in a race against a Republican, but she will never get it in a Democratic primary. She is too hawkish, too economically conservative to represent my brand of Democrat regardless of her gender.

However, she and her supporters are entirely correct when they say that she is treated unfairly due to her gender. From the outfit critiques (so many pantsuits! - side note on that: I think my mother is right in saying that if HC wore skirts, the media would insult her legs) to super close-ups of her wrinkles on Drudge to her “cackle” to the media’s repeated use of her first name while using her competitors’ last names to calling her Mrs. instead of Senator.

Even worse is how a woman isn’t allowed to be a tough leader. That this was part of some 20 year, conspiratorial Clinton plan.

The truth is that female leaders can’t have it either way. If you’re not as tough as the boys, you’re a weak woman (Patti Wetterling, Ann Wynia), and if you are, you’re a cold, calculating bitch with a shrill voice. Don’t believe me? Google any female politician with discernible opinions (any political party) with the word “shrill.” I’ll wait.

You could expand this game. Now search men. Funny, isn’t it, how it’s only used when trying to make the man histrionic and womanish?

You could expand this game even further. Replace shrill with bitch or cackle or giggle or clothing or fashion or iron my shirt.

In this, I risk you giving me other anti-feminist monikers: overly serious, humorless, blahdeefrigginblah.

Here’s the deal though, folks. Sexism is alive and well. And even though Steinem and my cohorts on the left sometimes drive me crazy with what they do with the truth, it doesn’t make what they say any less true. Clinton has it rough because she’s a woman. She really is trying to break a glass ceiling.

If you don’t believe me, dig a little and find out what your male peers make. If you don’t work in a male-dominated office/field, ask some women who do what their experiences are. And remember, always remember, that the women who ascend in terms of power and money are almost always regarded as bitches.

As for me, I know the monikers I’ve been given: bitch, know-it-all, bleeding heart, feminazi, socialist, dyke, opinionated, godless, knee-jerk.

Again, I say bring it. I’ve been engaged in ideological battles since I could speak (a benefit of a highly educated and political family and a father who heartily enjoys playing devil’s advocate and forcing me to actually debate) and I’ve been successfully battling the sexism thrown at me for all thirty of my years on this planet (a benefit of having a mother who was determined to have a strong and independent daughter), so let’s go!

God, Sara, where’s your sense of humor? Don’t be such a bitch…

The NY Times has a good, quick glance time line of Bhutto’s life - and since I’m pretty sure none of us know a terribly large amount about Pakistani history, I suggest taking a look. The BBC also has her life in pictures as well as reporters’ logs from around Pakistan today.

For our immediate global concerns, the ramifications of the assassination are stark. Pakistan is a nuclear power - unlike hopefuls like Iran or the sham of Iraq - and a descent into further turmoil could actually endanger the region.

My personal knowledge of the Mideast and its history is spotty at best, and I’m not comfortable speculating on Pakistan’s future. Chris Dodd had some interesting things to say on Olbermann last night.

Impact of Bhutto on ‘08

I really hate that I can’t just show the damned clip on my blog, but they don’t have a video embed available. Boo MSNBC.

What I’ve been thinking about in light of Bhutto’s assassination are two things. First, I wonder what it takes to know you have a real chance of being murdered - that you have to make yourself visible, put yourself in situations where you’re exposed when there are people who want to kill you - and you put yourself out there anyway.

I am in awe of those people. Bhutto’s father had been hung, her brothers murdered, and she knew it was entirely possible, if not likely, that she would suffer a similar fate if she went back to Pakistan. And yet…

There is something about people who are drawn to leadership, particularly the very public leadership of high office. I think they’re mostly egotistical and conceited, but I also think they hold a truly rare perspective - that each of them can actually, as an individual, influence the larger world. Whatever the reasons or the goals may be, they seem to actually believe this.

It’s different from rallying together as a group - they are the people around whom we rally. If nothing else, they believe in their power to bring us together to effect the change they believe in and that is something astounding.

In order for Bhutto to return to Pakistan, to risk her life, she had to believe that her presence in the country could change things. That her leadership could change things. And that’s what she risked her life for. To me, this is a pretty amazing. And I say that in a good way.

As a side note, I’d like to also play the “shame on the US game.” It’s not related to the assassination. But I’m really sick of people asking if the US is ready for a female leader. It’s as if it’s never happened before anywhere else. Sigh. Argh.

Ah, for my first real post on this new blog…how about a dash of social outrage?

I should say that I make a real effort to make sure that what I post is real–there have actually been stories I’ve passed on because I couldn’t find enough information to vent in public. So when I saw the commercial at the bottom of this post, I had to check it out.

And…yup…it’s a real thing. The Barbie Fashion Fever Shopping Boutique.

I remember from my teen years the brouhaha over the “Math is Hard” Barbie (speaking of Barbie history, there is an entire site devoted to Barbie history and I don’t know why this surprises me tonight. I think I’m a bit off my game.) Anyway, so I remember that and it’s utterly repugnant to reinforce this ditzy, useless version of femininity that Barbie has come to represent. Even though sometimes she’s a very sassily-dressed business lady. Sigh.

But, whatever, Barbie girls love shopping yadda yadda — it’s old news at this point.

Diabolical, to me, is the credit card that never runs out of money. It’s a terrible message to allow girls (or boys) to be instilled with. And shameless. Really, Mattel? What possible purpose would it serve to give children a fake cash register for their fake people to charge things to their fake credit cards which operate as free money? Okay, call me paranoid, but I do think there’s an argument to be made that they’re training the kids to be loose with money.

Anyway, after that long spiel, take a look at the video…