WOMEN HATING WOMEN

by Ruth A. Sheets
"Oh, you know her, she's just a . . ."  then "You know she can't be trusted, you know how women are."  also "I don't think I could stand her voice for 4 years."  and "She's such a b***h!"

I heard these statements and far worse during the 2016 presidential campaign.  I think I might get it more if they were said by men, as men's understanding of women is less than excellent.  I wasn't expecting the high level of vitriol toward Hillary Clinton from women.

I suppose I should have, though.  I am a teacher, a profession where females are the majority, in the classroom.  If you check out the positions of leadership in schools, district administration, and teachers' unions, however, men tend to significantly outnumber women.  Women supervisors/principals, though, have been crueler in their criticism and more vindictive, not just toward me, but also toward other women on staff.

Female teachers can be less kind to colleagues as well.  This unkindness is often subtle, a quick cutting remark here and a fake self-deprecating comment to someone in authority that implicates another teacher in something, there.  "I know I don't do it as well as Miss Smith who gets extra time every day to . . " "I didn't see Ms. Jones at lunch.  I guess she was here."  "I know it isn't as nice as Ms. Johnson's . . " (even though it was actually professionally done). 

I know that author Cheryl Sandberg tells women to "lean in," but what happens when there are several women leaning in at the same time or when one is perceived to be leaning in a bit more assertively than the other women?  Often, it isn't pretty.  What's going on here?  Women have made progress over the past few decades, haven't we?  Yes, we have, but there is something else going on.

Law Professor Patricia Williams in "The Nation" Magazine discussed the way some English words have become sexualized even though English words do not have gender prefixes and endings the way words in languages like French and Spanish do.   Which gender is associated with certain words is perfectly clear.  Cultural/social practices have associated characteristics to words.  So, the images one gets when saying or hearing the word "woman" can be pretty toxic.  Let's see, emotional, fussy, pushy, weak, submissive (or controlling) depending on a variety of factors, poor decision maker, vindictive, nasty, back-stabbing, soft, mother, nag, helpless.

Professor Williams uses the word "president" to help explain this phenomenon.  She says that Americans have an image of president as white and male.  It would be hard for many people to consider supporting a person in that office who is either a person of color or a woman.  This may account for the number of women who voted either for Donald Trump (despite his clear misogyny) or against Hillary Clinton, "She just doesn't 'look' presidential." 

Ms. Clinton did few of the reprehensible things Mr. Trump has done and her email-related poor judgment is really nowhere as serious as the media and Mr. Trump would have us believe.  But her sin is the worst one.  She's a woman and we can't get past what we believe a woman is/must be.  She tried to reach the highest office in the land, one she is not entitled to.  She left her place, so is an acceptable target for loathing by other women. "Only a man is strong enough to be Commander in Chief, you know."  

A few weeks ago, I attended an affair at a church.  The keynote speaker was a woman minister.  The event was to honor an extremely competent, active, caring woman for her years of service.  What was the talk about?  It was about how women need to submit to men.  They need to marry, have kids and submerge their needs beneath their husbands, the master and head of the house.  I was sitting with a woman who had divorced an abusive husband, yet, she kept nodding during the talk saying "Yes Lord" and "That's right."  I was totally shocked.  She was being insulted and put down, yet agreed.  And, the person doing the insulting was a woman.

The very little bit I could do was to occasionally shake my head and mumble "No, that's not OK."  (This was not my church and I didn't want to make waves.)  I didn't applaud for the speaker because I knew that most of the people in the room were strong competent, confident women.  I can honestly say I had no idea what the speaker was thinking and what led her to make such a ridiculous speech to these amazing women and why they all just sat there and took it with "Amen" and "Yes Lord.".  Could it be that somewhere deep down, we women believe that we really are not as good or as valuable as men?  Maybe, even most women see "popping babies" as our primary purpose in life, the secondary purpose being to support men and whatever they do or want.    

Perhaps, the only way we can really change things for women in society is to force the media to regularly show all kinds of women in a variety of roles, without male commentary.  More women need to step up and run for office at all levels.  This is not a new thought, organizations like Emily's List have been working on this for years.  However, it could be that more people saying and encouraging it could truly change the perception of women, even by women.

PERMISSION TO DESTROY

by Ruth A. Sheets

Following his inauguration, Donald Trump began the process of dismantling the Federal Government.  He did not ask the American people if we wanted this; he simply jumped right in.

How did he do it?  He nominated for each of the departments in the cabinet someone completely inappropriate for the position of secretary.  Because he is "Republican," and because the Senate is controlled by Republicans, and because winning is all to Republicans these days, the Senate confirmed every name that came to them.  A non-educator, public educating hater is now Secretary of Education.  A former surgeon is Secretary of Housing and Urban Development.  A man totally unable to acknowledge climate change heads the Environmental Protection Agency.  The Department of Defense is headed by a man who has said "I am polite, but I am prepared to kill everyone I meet."  He also got a waiver since a military person should not be in a civilian position until they have been out of the army for at least seven years.  The Secretary of State is a man whose previous experience is not with diplomacy and foreign relations, but with running an oil giant.  The Secretary of Transportation's claim to fame is that she is married to the man who runs the Senate (how convenient).

When one looks at the list, it is clear this is a deliberate plan to undermine the work of the Government.  If little by little the departments fail to provide the services needed by the American people, the people's dissatisfaction will grow and ta-da, the Republicans were right!  The Government is a mess and should be shrunk, even disappeared.  They will not know what should replace it, so that's where Mr. Trump and his cronies will come in.  They will have a plan alright, and it will not be pretty for anyone, but it will be too late to stop it.

It is easy to blame Mr. Trump for all of this, but let's face it, he's just not strong enough or smart enough to pull this off by himself.  He has had considerable help from his "advisors" who carry with them their own brand of hatred and distrust of anyone who is not white, male, rich, and nominally Christian.  These men believe in their own brilliance (they are rich after all).  And, they would be even more wealthy if those other people were not in the way.  Those people are taking the money we could be spending on more military stuff to prove how strong we are.  Of course they don't actually go and fight; that's for the "takers" who need to earn their place in America.

The Republicans in Congress and Mr. Trump's entourage either help to shape Mr. Trump's "Executive Orders," or they do nothing to stop them.  They have all benefited from the gerrymandering that has been storming state legislatures since the 2010 census, insuring that Republicans have little opposition.  Major efforts are underway to keep people, mostly minorities, from voting in a nation that claims to be a democracy. 

Congress could fix all of this with new laws requiring independent groups to draw district lines.  They could make automatic registration at age 18 mandatory for all Federal elections (as they have had men register for the draft).  Congress could stop the travel bans cold, knowing they are targeting Muslims, something that is un-American.  They could override any veto with their patriotic fervor. 

Why don't they do these things?  I suspect it is because these actions would make America more fair and they are afraid that if things were fairer, they might not be in the positions they currently hold.  When you are addicted to power, it is hard, perhaps impossible to imagine yourself without it.  Giving more people voice threatens those who would monopolize the conversation.

I know many people disapprove of any  comparison of this administration to that of 1930s Germany, but there are similarities that are hard to ignore.  Adolf Hitler did not have the ability to cause the destruction of Germany and the Holocaust by himself.  He needed and received an enormous amount of help from men who were even more lethal than he was.  He got the ball rolling and talked the talk.  They moved the process forward possibly beyond anything Hitler dreamed of. 

We at least have that example to learn from if we would.  Just because Mr. Trump says something does not mean anyone should act to support it.  Congress had no trouble opposing nearly everything President Obama recommended.  One can't help but wonder if Republicans even think of what is best for all Americans, even those who voted them into office.  Since actions speak louder than words, I would say "Not likely."  Republicans are giving Mr. Trump permission to do whatever he wants to do.  Maybe we humans really can't learn from history.

WHEN ALMOST NO ONE WANTS IT

By Ruth A. Sheets

Since the election of Donald Trump, by Electoral College, the Trump administration thinks that somehow they have a mandate to do anything, and I mean anything.

When a candidate loses an election by 3 million votes, yet still "wins," it does not indicate any kind of mandate.  It is a time when the elected official should be trying to court the American people and learn what they, more than the 25% or so who put Mr. Trump over the top,  feel they need and want.  This has not happened. 

Net Neutrality?  There is no evidence that a majority of Americans want to end net neutrality and want a few corporations to have a say as to what and how much goes over the internet, and for how much.  Congress has passed a law giving permission to corporations to even sell your personal information to other companies if they choose.  I did not see/hear anywhere that Americans want that, yet, Congress and Mr. Trump did it anyway.

Tax Reform?  Has anyone officially weighed in on whether they are in favor of the huge tax cut for the richest Americans proposed by Mr. Trump's tax reform plan (the (ACHA as well)?  Do Americans want the largest corporations to have such a low tax rate that they will hardly be obligated for taxes to cover the public resources they use up?  Of course not.  Does anyone believe these corporations will in a positive way, invest the windfall in more jobs?  Not likely. 

Health Care?  When the ACA was being worked out, many individuals and medical organizations, as well as the insurance industry were asked for their input.  There were public hearings.  However, citizens were told by people with bigger mouths than the average that this law would be tragic and would bankrupt us all.  Of course there was no evidence, but so what.  The people, mostly Middle America bought the lies and no Republican lawmakers voted for ACA (Affordable Care Act).  They named it Obamacare and dismissed it at every turn, trying to repeal it 60 times and parts of it even more often.

Something strange happened when coverage began, though, people started to like what it offered them:  lower premiums, health care they had not had for a long time (if ever), the ability to have their children on their plans to age 26, pre-existing conditions covered, contraception covered, assistance with maintaining better health through regular monitoring, prescriptions covered, Medicaid expanded to help more of the "least of these.".  You get the picture.  People were actually being served.  Now, who wants it eliminated?  Who wants it changed to uninclude the aspects mentioned above?  Mr. Trump, of course, and the House of Representatives who have already voted to do just that. 

The Senate currently has 13 men meeting together in secret to make up a new health care law to please a small sector of their supporters to "Repeal and Replace."  They call their work in progress "the American Health Care Act."

Like nearly everything else the Republicans in Congress come up with, the bill's title means exactly the opposite of what the law will actually do.  It will not provide health care to any but those who already have it through their jobs.  It will lower or eliminate the number of people served by Medicaid.  The House bill allows insurance companies to determine who and what will be covered.  Pre-existing conditions will only be covered if the company says it will be.  Serious, potentially expensive health care will be handled by some kind of inadequately funded state pool for those horrible sick people, implying they are sick by their own actions. 

If you want maternity care, or reproductive health care of any kind and you are not covered on your job, too bad.  That's on you.  Nearly everything is a pre-existing condition, even having had a C-section in the past. 

Who came up with this appalling bill (which, of course, we have not seen yet), 13 white men who could not possibly care less about people's health care.  They care only that they help the corporations who support their campaigns and look like they are cutting money from the budget.  (Even the insurance companies are not pleased with the House bill.)

Mr. Trump and his few supporters have way too much power and influence.  They are trying to push through legislation to please a particular minority who will, alas, be hurt by it too.  

The one thing that is certain.  If the bill were going to be good for all Americans, it would not be drawn up in secret by a few Senators who really don't know much about health care.  Something that might help here would be a law stating that the Congress must participate in whatever bill they pass.  They would get no other financial support for health care, and have to use their "hard-earned" bucks to pay out of pocket the thousands of dollars many health conditions cost.

If they have a disabled child, they will have to pay the cost the way any other citizen without another plan would pay.  You or your wife pregnant, no problem, you pay for all of it.  You can't afford another child, pay for the contraception.  Shot while practicing for a baseball game, no problem, pay out of pocket the percentage you must pay for the deductible and whatever percentage you agree is the one insurance companies can charge.

If you put yourself in the place of the people being served by the health care programs in this country, you will ditch the plans you are working on, and start over with hearings, a variety of people in the room helping to develop the legislation.  Serious discussion and input from a wide range of Americans of all backgrounds would take place, and you would welcome it because that is how a democracy should work. 

I don't see this happening, but  I hope your actions and the people you injure by your indifference and need to bow to Mr. Trump, who knows nothing about health care and cares less, will, in time, come back to bite you and you will feel some of the pain they have been feeling.  Americans don't want your brand of health care.