Reading List
Dear Readers,
I’ve added a new Reading List page to my blog where you will be tantalized with stories of political intrigue and personal drama. This month I’ve dug into Valerie Plame’s memoir, Fair Game, My Life as a Spy, My Betrayal by the White House. It is all the more interesting against the backdrop of Scott McClellan’s new book. I think it’s fascinating how he can defend the administration and admonish them at the same time.
I think he said on the Today Show that he didn’t think anyone lied about WMD, rather they left out details that failed to support their claims. Ummm, what the f is the difference? When you are talking about committing thousands of troops and trillions of dollars does it not behoove a government to make sure that they’re right? I smell oil an ulterior motive.
Plame contends that the CIA did not have enough evidence or intelligence to support Bushie’s WMD claims and that Colin Powel cherry-picked circumstantial evidence in his speech to the United Nations. She worked on WMD for the CIA. I think she would know.
I think McClellan’s book may be the next on my list. What do you think dear readers? Will you be picking up the political prose this summer? What is on your reading list?
Dear Aaron Sorkin,
I think you are a very talented writer. Husband and I have been watching seasons of the West Wing over the past few weeks and have enjoyed the stories. It is nice to imagine a president that is smart and understands grammar. It is nice to imagine a country in which leaders are concerned about governing. It is nice to imagine a government working in the interest of the people.
I have a critique. Well, a complaint, really. You forgot about women. Not only did you forget about them, you sexually harassed them. I give you credit in recognizing that liberal governments are pro-women except when it means not sexually harassing them or focusing on their looks rather then their resume. Ahem, the New York Times. That even in a liberal White House, men are free to comment on the bodies of their peers without reprimand or shame. This happens in the real world. I know that it does. Reflecting this in your portrayal of politics is fine. But painting the women in the series as accepting or appreciative of the commentary is ridiculous. The problem is you treat this kind of harassment as welcomed by women. I can assure you it is not. Do some women welcome commentary on their bodies? Yes, I’m sure some women do. But that does not make it feminism and it absolutely oppresses women. Would you make similar comments in terms or race or religion? Would that be acceptable? Yet, it’s acceptable when referring to women and has the added benefit of being feminist? As a writer, I’m sure you are aware of the power of words and the media. It is your livelihood, how could you not be aware of it?
Girls and women are told throughout life that their body is currency, where they are to find worth. It is a sexist norm. Reinforcing this in prime time media is shameful. You had a soap box. You could have changed the conversation about how women are perceived and what is appropriate, but you chose to tell half of your viewers that some women like it when male peers comment on their bodies, that it is in fact feminist and counterproductive to make a big deal about it. You do this several times in several episodes.
I’m referring specifially to the “Night Five” episode in the third season. The character Sam Seaborn comments that Ainsley Hays, his Harvard educated associate legal counsel female peer, looks so good she could make a dog break its chain. Another woman in the office calls it harassment and sexist. Then to make everyone feel better Ainsley tells this woman that she likes it when Sam comments because it shows that she is included and that nitpicking over words ignores the bigger issures keeping women down.
WHAT? As a writer, I am certain that you know the power of words, rhetoric, and media. Reinforcing the notion that because some women find it acceptable = feminism = men don’t have to change the way they treat and talk about women is absurd, offensive, and just wrong. Interestingly, in the same episode, the effects of child abuse are addressed. How when a person that is supposed to love and respect you belittles and abuses you, it has a lasting effect on your life. I guess that only applies to men. Because belittling women under the guise of compliments is uniquely feminist.
Shame on you Aaron Sorkin.
Voices of Iraqi Women
The New York Times is taking it to the streets of Baghdad. In their Baghdad Bureau blog, they are asking readers to submit questions for Iraqi women. A Times reporter will select readers’ questions, take to the streets of Baghdad with an interpreter, pose the questions to Iraqi women on the streets of Baghdad, and videotape their responses. Many of the questions posted to the Times website inquire about how their lives have changed, should the U.S. get out of Iraq, the different religious-political factions, and was life better before the U.S. occupation.
This raises an interesting question about the U.S. perception of the life of Iraqi women pre and post Saddam. In her book, “Between Two Worlds: Escape from Tyranny: Growing Up in the Shadow of Saddam”Zainab Salbi reveals what her life was like growing up and living under Saddam’s regime and inside his inner circle. Salbi gives a riveting view of life in Iraq before the U.S. invasion and shortly thereafter. She addresses the West’s view of Saddam’s “liberation” of women with respect to property rights and divorce. She refutes the notion that he was in any way pro-woman. He was a rapist and terrorized millions of people. These “freedoms” he granted were largely for show and at his whim. Given Salbi’s point of view, I find it interesting that the opponents of the war cited his pro-woman leadership as a reason not to go to war. Consequently, Salbi is also the founder of Women for Women International, a non-profit organization that advocates for women in war torn countries where rape has been used as a tactic of war.
I applaud the Times and their effort to give voice to Iraqi women. However, I can’t help but wonder if videotaping their political opinions in view of anyone on the street might not put them in harm’s way. I guess I’m not so sure how much of a balanced response they will get to readers’ questions. Under Saddam, saying or implying the wrong opinion was a death sentence to a person and their families. That horrific legacy coupled with the current violence and instability may not lend itself to accurate coverage of womens’ political views, at least not with a video camera.
Perhaps there is another way to reach out to Iraqi women and assess their needs?
I will be curious to see the results of this effort and will be following it on my blog.
