Tuesday, May 3, 2016
Bernie Sanders Still Gets No Respect (But He Should)
To say the least, this has been a bizarre year for politics. I mean, who would have predicted that a brash New York billionaire, who has been married three times and has a tendency to make outrageous claims and use schoolyard taunts on his opponents, would be the presumptive nominee for the Republican party? And who would have predicted that massive numbers of people (many of them young, first-time voters) in both red states and blue states would become passionate supporters of a 74-year old self-identified Democratic socialist from Vermont, best known for his thunderous oratory against corporate greed?
When the 2016 election season began, many Republicans expected former Florida Governor Jeb Bush (who had a famous name, conservative credentials, and millions of dollars in SuperPac support) to quickly become the party leader. And although some Democrats had their doubts about Hillary Clinton's electability, she too had a famous name, she had served as a senator and a Secretary of State, and few doubted that she would become her party's nominee.
Last year at this time, none of the pundits were predicting that Donald Trump would eliminate all the "establishment" candidates and win decisive victories in a majority of primary states; in fact, most of the pundits treated his candidacy as a media stunt, or even a joke. Similarly, I can't recall anyone who took Bernie Sanders seriously when he challenged Mrs. Clinton. The mainstream media had just about anointed her as the Democratic nominee, and nobody expected Senator Sanders to be around for very long; after all, who but a small bunch of old hippies would support some 74-year old guy from a small New England state who talked about a "political revolution"?
As it turned out, both Mr. Trump and Senator Sanders touched a chord with frustrated, angry, and alienated voters. Their styles were very different, and in many cases, their issues were different too; but their voters were equally certain that these two non-traditional candidates were the only ones who spoke the truth. As a result, Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders have each had a major impact on the presidential race. Mr. Trump has now, for all intents and purposes, sewn up the Republican nomination-- much to the chagrin of the Republican establishment. Mr. Sanders, for a number of reasons (some not of his making) is far behind in pledged delegates, but he has received millions of votes, raised an amazingly large amount of money from individual donors (typical donation $27, and he refuses to have a SuperPac), and won a respectable number of states. Although Mrs. Clinton and the Democratic establishment wish he would just go away, he shows no signs of doing that. (Note to fans of Hillary: I have nothing against her. I just find the case that Bernie is making much more compelling.) Meanwhile, even in the face of long odds, Senator Sanders has vowed to fight on.
That shouldn't surprise anyone who knows him. I've followed Bernie's career for years, and he has a long record of consistently fighting for what he believes in-- for example, he has been a champion of workers' rights, and has long railed against income inequality. Contrary to claims by his opponents he's anti-business, he is not at all opposed to capitalism-- but he is opposed to corporations that treat their workers with disdain while negotiating huge bonuses for their executives; and he is opposed to corporations that manipulate the tax code to avoid paying their fair share, or park their assets in the Cayman Islands. Frankly, as someone who has worked for companies where all of us consistently produced at a high level yet we rarely got even a small raise (while the company's executives got lavish salaries and perks), I can relate to his message. And I'm not the only one.
To be honest, I never expected Bernie to get as far as he did. And much as I like him, I never really thought Bernie would be able to win the nomination. But I did expect that once he began winning some states and attracting large and enthusiastic crowds to his rallies, the mainstream media would cover his campaign more thoroughly. They never did. On a regular basis, I saw reporters and anchors either ignoring him or giving him a bare minimum of attention. I even saw anchors mocking his stump speech, or cutting him off whenever he began to talk about corporate greed. And more often than not, when anchors did interview him, it was to ask when he was getting out of the race. And yet, night after night, when it came time for Donald Trump to give a speech, the same media outlets faithfully covered his every word, even if much of what he said was also his standard stump speech (with a few insults or rude remarks thrown in from time to time), and even though he had not yet come close to winning the nomination of his party.
It's fairly obvious that the mainstream media have their favorites. Donald Trump, with skills he honed in reality TV, often provides a boost to network ratings-- or as Les Moonves, the chairman of CBS, admitted: "Donald Trump's candidacy may not be good for America, but it's damn good for CBS." (Actual quote. Not an urban legend.) Bernie Sanders, on the other hand, has inspired millions of young voters, raised issues seldom discussed by traditional politicians, and run a dynamic and exciting campaign-- but he's not telegenic in the way Mr. Trump is, and he's not a ratings machine. So he doesn't get the coverage Mr. Trump gets. In a way, that's a sad commentary... both on the state of our politics, and on the state of our media.
Sunday, April 24, 2016
Why Paul LePage is Wrong about Addiction
There are times when politicians completely mystify me. I'm not naive: I've been a broadcaster and a news reporter, and I've taught Political Communication for a while, so the exaggerated claims or the promises that are impossible to keep don't shock me. I understand that during primaries especially, candidates need to say what they think their audience wants to hear. But there are certain times when politicians who are not in campaign mode make a statement that is so outrageous, or so cruel, that I have a difficult time wondering how they sleep at night.
Exhibit A is the current Republican governor of Maine, Paul LePage. Maine has tended to be a purple state: even its Republican members of congress are generally moderate. But Governor LePage seems to pride himself on being somewhere to the right of Attila the Hun. This is the same governor who has claimed that immigrants bring diseases to his state (not much evidence of that, by the way); who has asserted that black drug dealers come to Maine to impregnate innocent white girls and get them hooked on drugs (police statistics have noted that nearly every drug dealer arrested in Maine has been white); and who once said he would like to "tell Obama to go to hell." This seems to make him very popular with some conservatives, but I doubt that his latest action will win him much praise: he just decided to block bipartisan legislation that would provide a life-saving medication called Naloxone (better known as Narcan) to addicts who have overdosed on opioids. Narcan gives the addict a second chance at life, and that may be one good reason why legislators from both parties unanimously passed a bill to make it more readily available to pharmacists (who would now be able to dispense it without a prescription); these Maine politicians recognized, as legislators in about thirty other states did, that addicts need treatment rather than punishment.
But for Governor LePage, addicts are criminals, and that's all there is to it. Not only that, but he believes taking drugs is a choice, so those who do it must suffer the consequences. In other words, the thousands of Mainers addicted to drugs don't deserve to be helped if they overdose, since they're inevitably going to go right back and do the same thing the next time. He said as much when he vetoed the bill: “Naloxone does not truly save lives; it merely extends them until the next overdose. Creating a situation where an addict has a heroin needle in one hand and a shot of Naloxone in the other produces a sense of normalcy and security around heroin use that serves only to perpetuate the cycle of addiction.”
I find those comments both ill-informed and heartless. I have never done drugs, but I've lost a number of music industry colleagues to addiction; some of them were people I really liked a lot, and if there had been a medication to save their life, I would have been glad to see them get another chance. I understand that many addicts do go back to using again, and as a former counselor, I have seen how frustrating it is to try to treat people who still do not accept that they have a problem. But while I saw first-hand that many addicts were not about to quit, I also saw some who were fed up with their life and determined to make a positive change. And yes, there were success stories: several friends of mine have been clean and sober for years, and one of them even decided to get a Master's degree in counseling in order to help other addicts.
Believe me, I am not trying to minimize the problem of drug abuse in our society -- I am well aware that addicts steal, they lie, they disappoint those they love. And yes, many addicts will be back on the street using again. But as I said, there are always exceptions; there are always some who know they need to stop, some who desperately want to get clean and sober. I would hate to write off an entire group of people, since it's impossible to predict whether this time, the addict is serious about seeking treatment. Shakespeare said "the readiness is all," so perhaps this time, the person will be ready to turn his or her life around.
But not in Paul LePage's world. Governor LePage's message to addicts seems to be "you made your bed, and now you can lie in it." One wonders if he would say that to someone in his own family. One wonders if he would say that to a grieving parent whose child overdosed and was unable to get the medication that would reverse it. In many states, governors are realizing that just locking up addicts, or demonizing them, doesn't help them to change. But Governor LePage seems happy in his black and white world, where there are no shades of gray-- just good guys and bad guys; a world where people who suffer from addiction can expect neither compassion nor mercy.
Exhibit A is the current Republican governor of Maine, Paul LePage. Maine has tended to be a purple state: even its Republican members of congress are generally moderate. But Governor LePage seems to pride himself on being somewhere to the right of Attila the Hun. This is the same governor who has claimed that immigrants bring diseases to his state (not much evidence of that, by the way); who has asserted that black drug dealers come to Maine to impregnate innocent white girls and get them hooked on drugs (police statistics have noted that nearly every drug dealer arrested in Maine has been white); and who once said he would like to "tell Obama to go to hell." This seems to make him very popular with some conservatives, but I doubt that his latest action will win him much praise: he just decided to block bipartisan legislation that would provide a life-saving medication called Naloxone (better known as Narcan) to addicts who have overdosed on opioids. Narcan gives the addict a second chance at life, and that may be one good reason why legislators from both parties unanimously passed a bill to make it more readily available to pharmacists (who would now be able to dispense it without a prescription); these Maine politicians recognized, as legislators in about thirty other states did, that addicts need treatment rather than punishment.
But for Governor LePage, addicts are criminals, and that's all there is to it. Not only that, but he believes taking drugs is a choice, so those who do it must suffer the consequences. In other words, the thousands of Mainers addicted to drugs don't deserve to be helped if they overdose, since they're inevitably going to go right back and do the same thing the next time. He said as much when he vetoed the bill: “Naloxone does not truly save lives; it merely extends them until the next overdose. Creating a situation where an addict has a heroin needle in one hand and a shot of Naloxone in the other produces a sense of normalcy and security around heroin use that serves only to perpetuate the cycle of addiction.”
I find those comments both ill-informed and heartless. I have never done drugs, but I've lost a number of music industry colleagues to addiction; some of them were people I really liked a lot, and if there had been a medication to save their life, I would have been glad to see them get another chance. I understand that many addicts do go back to using again, and as a former counselor, I have seen how frustrating it is to try to treat people who still do not accept that they have a problem. But while I saw first-hand that many addicts were not about to quit, I also saw some who were fed up with their life and determined to make a positive change. And yes, there were success stories: several friends of mine have been clean and sober for years, and one of them even decided to get a Master's degree in counseling in order to help other addicts.
Believe me, I am not trying to minimize the problem of drug abuse in our society -- I am well aware that addicts steal, they lie, they disappoint those they love. And yes, many addicts will be back on the street using again. But as I said, there are always exceptions; there are always some who know they need to stop, some who desperately want to get clean and sober. I would hate to write off an entire group of people, since it's impossible to predict whether this time, the addict is serious about seeking treatment. Shakespeare said "the readiness is all," so perhaps this time, the person will be ready to turn his or her life around.
But not in Paul LePage's world. Governor LePage's message to addicts seems to be "you made your bed, and now you can lie in it." One wonders if he would say that to someone in his own family. One wonders if he would say that to a grieving parent whose child overdosed and was unable to get the medication that would reverse it. In many states, governors are realizing that just locking up addicts, or demonizing them, doesn't help them to change. But Governor LePage seems happy in his black and white world, where there are no shades of gray-- just good guys and bad guys; a world where people who suffer from addiction can expect neither compassion nor mercy.
Sunday, April 17, 2016
Why Can't We Put Our Differences Aside?
Back in 1998, linguistics professor Deborah Tannen wrote a book I've always liked. It's called "The Argument Culture: Moving from Debate to Dialogue," and in it, she talks about how our discussions are increasingly "agonistic"-- that is, they display what Tannen calls "a pervasive warlike atmosphere that makes us approach public dialogue,
and just about anything we need to accomplish, as if it were a fight.'' Examples of agonism are all too prevalent in daily life, where even the simplest disagreements can escalate into the verbal equivalent of World War III. We can find plenty of agonistic behavior on cable TV and talk radio, where members from each side shout at their opponent as if the other side is utterly insane and unworthy of being heard. We can also find examples of argument culture when fans debate their favorite rock band, or when partisans debate hot button issues like abortion or immigration. Even online, it doesn't take long for what started as an exchange of viewpoints to spiral out of control and become a series of mean tweets or angry Facebook postings (I assume there are now emojis for varying levels of disgust or contempt).
The other day, presidential candidate Bernie Sanders went to Rome to speak at a conference; while by all accounts, Senator Sanders is a non-religious Jew, he has great admiration for the work of Pope Francis in speaking out about climate change and global poverty. The senator has said he disagrees with the pope on theology, but he sees the good in what the pope is trying to do as an advocate for social justice. After he gave his talk at the conference, the senator and his wife (who was raised Catholic) were able to have a brief meeting with the pope-- an exciting and unexpected event that was a high point in the visit. (While the senator has met many famous people over the years, meeting a pope is undoubtedly a unique experience, no matter what religion you might be.)
The online and cable TV criticisms began almost immediately: he was trying to distract from the fact that he is losing to Hillary Clinton; he was pandering to the Catholic vote; he praised a man who opposes marriage equality and has other controversial moral stands; he shouldn't have gone to the conference in the first place. I took a different view of it all-- and no, I am not speaking as one of Bernie's partisans. Rather, I saw what he did as typical of him-- he took the opportunity to participate in a conference on global economic issues, a subject he cares deeply about. As for his excitement at meeting the pope, I met Ronald Reagan once and while I wasn't a fan and I never voted for him, being in the same room as a sitting US President was pretty exciting, I have to admit.
More importantly, I thought there was a good lesson in what occurred: Senator Sanders has some very real disagreements with the pope, yet he also sees some important areas of agreement. Rather than being an absolutist, he focused on what was good about Pope Francis, instead of dismissing him because he can't agree with everything the man says. And I am not just singling out Senator Sanders. I know a number of good folks, some of whom are friends of mine on social media, who have very strong views on the issues, views that differ from mine; yet they are able to resist the temptation to turn every discussion into an argument. It's a trait that I admire.
Unfortunately, as I've noted in previous blogs, that trait is all too rare. But wouldn't it be a nice change of pace if we could resist the tendency to be part of the argument culture? How difficult would it be to just be happy for someone, even someone we may not always agree with, when something good happens in their life? I may not be a big fan of the pope, but I'm glad that Bernie Sanders got to meet him. I may not be a big fan of Donald Trump, but I know people who have attended an event and told me how excited they were to be there. My point is that life is short, and we seem to occupy so much of it with annoyance and frustration. I wish we could put the agonistic behavior aside even for a few minutes, and just let someone's happy moment be there, without feeling the urge to criticize it. Contrary to the combative way too many ideas are presented in the media, not everything needs to turn into an argument. Sometimes, the right thing to do is to share in the other person's happiness. There will be plenty of time for argument later on.
The other day, presidential candidate Bernie Sanders went to Rome to speak at a conference; while by all accounts, Senator Sanders is a non-religious Jew, he has great admiration for the work of Pope Francis in speaking out about climate change and global poverty. The senator has said he disagrees with the pope on theology, but he sees the good in what the pope is trying to do as an advocate for social justice. After he gave his talk at the conference, the senator and his wife (who was raised Catholic) were able to have a brief meeting with the pope-- an exciting and unexpected event that was a high point in the visit. (While the senator has met many famous people over the years, meeting a pope is undoubtedly a unique experience, no matter what religion you might be.)
The online and cable TV criticisms began almost immediately: he was trying to distract from the fact that he is losing to Hillary Clinton; he was pandering to the Catholic vote; he praised a man who opposes marriage equality and has other controversial moral stands; he shouldn't have gone to the conference in the first place. I took a different view of it all-- and no, I am not speaking as one of Bernie's partisans. Rather, I saw what he did as typical of him-- he took the opportunity to participate in a conference on global economic issues, a subject he cares deeply about. As for his excitement at meeting the pope, I met Ronald Reagan once and while I wasn't a fan and I never voted for him, being in the same room as a sitting US President was pretty exciting, I have to admit.
More importantly, I thought there was a good lesson in what occurred: Senator Sanders has some very real disagreements with the pope, yet he also sees some important areas of agreement. Rather than being an absolutist, he focused on what was good about Pope Francis, instead of dismissing him because he can't agree with everything the man says. And I am not just singling out Senator Sanders. I know a number of good folks, some of whom are friends of mine on social media, who have very strong views on the issues, views that differ from mine; yet they are able to resist the temptation to turn every discussion into an argument. It's a trait that I admire.
Unfortunately, as I've noted in previous blogs, that trait is all too rare. But wouldn't it be a nice change of pace if we could resist the tendency to be part of the argument culture? How difficult would it be to just be happy for someone, even someone we may not always agree with, when something good happens in their life? I may not be a big fan of the pope, but I'm glad that Bernie Sanders got to meet him. I may not be a big fan of Donald Trump, but I know people who have attended an event and told me how excited they were to be there. My point is that life is short, and we seem to occupy so much of it with annoyance and frustration. I wish we could put the agonistic behavior aside even for a few minutes, and just let someone's happy moment be there, without feeling the urge to criticize it. Contrary to the combative way too many ideas are presented in the media, not everything needs to turn into an argument. Sometimes, the right thing to do is to share in the other person's happiness. There will be plenty of time for argument later on.
Sunday, April 10, 2016
Steve Miller Was Right
When I was a rock and roll disc jockey, I always liked the Steve Miller Band, largely due to its versatility. The band's music during the '60s and '70s ran the gamut: "Living in the USA," "Brave New World," "Going to the Country" and "Space Cowboy" were widely played by the album rock stations where I worked, while "Fly Like an Eagle" and "The Joker" were big at top-40. And then, in the early 80s, Steve reinvented himself with dance-music hits like "Abracadabra," a song that went to #1 on the pop charts. Miller also ran into radio censorship with his 1977 song "Jet Airliner"-- the original album version included one line with a certain four letter word (the one that begins with sh- and rhymes with "hit")-- but the radio version substituted the word "kicks" instead, keeping the airwaves pure for yet another day.
Given his long and productive career, I was pleased when I learned Steve Miller would be inducted into the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame. But then, while he was backstage, he decided to give his opinion about the Rock Hall, and some people were shocked by what he said. I was not one of them. While I understand that some of his frustration was because his band-members were not given free tickets to the ceremony and the Rock Hall used some of his work without a signed agreement giving permission, I thought the rest of his rant was totally on-point.
For example, he spoke of a flawed, unpleasant and arbitrary process, one that ignores talented and very qualified artists and provides no reason for the decisions the judges make. And while he did not elaborate on those flaws, I can totally empathize as a Rush fan. Look at how many years Rush got ignored-- excluded time and time again, while artists with fewer accomplishments were inducted. I am not taking anything away from many of the wonderful performers who did get in-- but Rush should not have been kept out for so many years.
At some point, the guys in Rush made their peace with the fact that certain of the judges (and, it was rumored, Jann Wenner himself) hated the band and refused to even consider them. It took some of the old guard retiring and/or being replaced by some newer judges before things changed and Rush finally got a fair hearing. (And trust me, many of us-- myself among them-- had tried for YEARS to get the judges to change their minds, without much success.) When Alex gave his hilarious "blah-blah-blah" speech at the award ceremony, I couldn't help but think it referred not only to inductees who gave endlessly long and boring acceptance speeches (talking to you, Quincy Jones); it referred to all the naysayers who for years had given ridiculous excuses for why Rush did not deserve to be in the Rock Hall.
And yet, even today, you and I can name plenty of bands who are still being ignored. We don't know why-- while the fans can vote, the criteria the judges use are mysterious. They seem not to like certain genres, and as Steve Miller pointed out, they also seem not to induct many female performers. And while I know his comments are being portrayed rather negatively in some publications, I'm glad he pointed out once again what I have always wondered: what is the reason why certain bands with long and impressive track records are still being ignored, year after year? I never understood why it took Rush so long to get the respect they deserved, and my hat's off to Steve Miller for asking that same question about some other very deserving bands.
Given his long and productive career, I was pleased when I learned Steve Miller would be inducted into the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame. But then, while he was backstage, he decided to give his opinion about the Rock Hall, and some people were shocked by what he said. I was not one of them. While I understand that some of his frustration was because his band-members were not given free tickets to the ceremony and the Rock Hall used some of his work without a signed agreement giving permission, I thought the rest of his rant was totally on-point.
For example, he spoke of a flawed, unpleasant and arbitrary process, one that ignores talented and very qualified artists and provides no reason for the decisions the judges make. And while he did not elaborate on those flaws, I can totally empathize as a Rush fan. Look at how many years Rush got ignored-- excluded time and time again, while artists with fewer accomplishments were inducted. I am not taking anything away from many of the wonderful performers who did get in-- but Rush should not have been kept out for so many years.
At some point, the guys in Rush made their peace with the fact that certain of the judges (and, it was rumored, Jann Wenner himself) hated the band and refused to even consider them. It took some of the old guard retiring and/or being replaced by some newer judges before things changed and Rush finally got a fair hearing. (And trust me, many of us-- myself among them-- had tried for YEARS to get the judges to change their minds, without much success.) When Alex gave his hilarious "blah-blah-blah" speech at the award ceremony, I couldn't help but think it referred not only to inductees who gave endlessly long and boring acceptance speeches (talking to you, Quincy Jones); it referred to all the naysayers who for years had given ridiculous excuses for why Rush did not deserve to be in the Rock Hall.
And yet, even today, you and I can name plenty of bands who are still being ignored. We don't know why-- while the fans can vote, the criteria the judges use are mysterious. They seem not to like certain genres, and as Steve Miller pointed out, they also seem not to induct many female performers. And while I know his comments are being portrayed rather negatively in some publications, I'm glad he pointed out once again what I have always wondered: what is the reason why certain bands with long and impressive track records are still being ignored, year after year? I never understood why it took Rush so long to get the respect they deserved, and my hat's off to Steve Miller for asking that same question about some other very deserving bands.
Saturday, April 2, 2016
Equal Pay for Women: Still a Controversial Idea
I never realized until about 1979 that throughout my radio career, I was paid less than my male colleagues for doing the same job-- and not just paid a few dollars less, but paid substantially less. When I first started out, I didn't know that; I assumed that my low salary was because I was inexperienced. I had no way of knowing that inexperienced guys were offered a higher starting salary than I was. And then I found out.
I don't remember the exact circumstances, but I do recall the way it unfolded. I was a music director (and assistant program director) at a very powerful AM station, back when AM radio was still influential. I was having a casual conversation with my FM counterpart one day, and he mentioned he was asking his boss for a raise. Somehow, his weekly salary came up in conversation and I was shocked to learn he was making more than $200 a week above what I was being paid. We both had the same amount of experience (in fact, I had a little bit more), we both did the same work, our stations were both owned by the same company. And yet, he got a bigger weekly paycheck than I did. Needless to say, I was not amused.
So, I went to the station's general manager and asked why I was making less than Bob was. He looked at me as if I had said something utterly ridiculous. "But Donna," he replied, "you're making excellent money for a woman." I reminded him that I didn't get a discount on my rent for being a woman, nor a discount on any of my other bills, so why would I want a discount on my pay? He seemed unconvinced that this could be an issue. "Don't forget," he went on, "that Bob has a family to support, and you don't." And as if that weren't enough, he added, "I know your boyfriend, and he makes a good salary; so I'm sure you don't really need as much money as Bob does."
There are few things in life that render me speechless-- I am, after all, a former d.j. and an experienced public speaker; but at that point, I didn't know what to say. And when I had some conversations with other women in broadcasting, I found many had similar stories to mine. But as I said, this was back in the 1970s and 1980s. So, surely things must have dramatically improved since then, am I right? Well, as it turns out, not exactly.
As New York Times reporter Claire Cain Miller noted several weeks ago, "Women... are now better educated than men, have nearly as much work experience and are equally likely to pursue many high-paying careers... [but] women's median annual earnings stubbornly remain about 20 percent below men’s." And her article was not based on opinion--she found plenty of data to support her assertions. For example, researchers who analyzed census data and wages have found a troubling phenomenon: whenever women enter a previously all-male field in increasing numbers, the pay in that field soon declines; conversely, whenever a field that had previously been dominated by women begins to admit more men, the pay goes up. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/20/upshot/as-women-take-over-a-male-dominated-field-the-pay-drops.html?_r=0
At times it seems to me that society still believes what women do just isn't as important (or as valuable) as what men do. There's still a perception that if a woman can do it, it can't be all that difficult. Okay fine, there are more women in science, more women in medicine, more women in law and politics than there were when I was growing up. That's a good thing. But studies suggest that even though we talk a great game of equality, women in these fields are still being paid less than the men they work alongside, even when they are keeping the same hours and doing the same jobs.
And then there's women's sports-- I've argued on social media that the way the mainstream press ignores even the best women's college teams (like the University of Connecticut's championship Lady Huskies basketball team) is unfair. True, the men play a more "in your face" kind of game, with lots of slam-dunks and trash talking; but the way the women play the game is far from dull. The best of the women's teams display an impressive level of skill and athleticism; and believe me, the Lady Huskies could give some of the men's teams a run for their money. Yet all the attention goes to the NCAA Men's Finals, and year after year, the women are treated as an afterthought.
Thus, I was not surprised when five members of the US Women's Soccer team decided to file a complaint against the US Soccer Federation, demanding equal pay with their male counterparts.
It's not a frivolous complaint: the US women, who have won more games over all, won three World Cups, and attracted huge TV ratings, are paid an average of $99,000 annually; the US men, who have repeatedly been eliminated from the World Cup, earn $263,000. The women's team received a $2 million bonus for winning the World Cup; the men's team, which made it to the round of 16 and were then eliminated, still earned a bonus of $9 million.
I don't know about you, but I find these numbers outrageous. And the fact that we are still having this conversation in 2016 is equally outrageous to me. I've heard all the reasons about why it's okay to pay women less than men under certain circumstances, but what about if the woman is doing exactly the same job (and in some cases doing it better)? Could someone please explain why giving women equal pay for equal work is still such a controversial idea?
I don't remember the exact circumstances, but I do recall the way it unfolded. I was a music director (and assistant program director) at a very powerful AM station, back when AM radio was still influential. I was having a casual conversation with my FM counterpart one day, and he mentioned he was asking his boss for a raise. Somehow, his weekly salary came up in conversation and I was shocked to learn he was making more than $200 a week above what I was being paid. We both had the same amount of experience (in fact, I had a little bit more), we both did the same work, our stations were both owned by the same company. And yet, he got a bigger weekly paycheck than I did. Needless to say, I was not amused.
So, I went to the station's general manager and asked why I was making less than Bob was. He looked at me as if I had said something utterly ridiculous. "But Donna," he replied, "you're making excellent money for a woman." I reminded him that I didn't get a discount on my rent for being a woman, nor a discount on any of my other bills, so why would I want a discount on my pay? He seemed unconvinced that this could be an issue. "Don't forget," he went on, "that Bob has a family to support, and you don't." And as if that weren't enough, he added, "I know your boyfriend, and he makes a good salary; so I'm sure you don't really need as much money as Bob does."
There are few things in life that render me speechless-- I am, after all, a former d.j. and an experienced public speaker; but at that point, I didn't know what to say. And when I had some conversations with other women in broadcasting, I found many had similar stories to mine. But as I said, this was back in the 1970s and 1980s. So, surely things must have dramatically improved since then, am I right? Well, as it turns out, not exactly.
As New York Times reporter Claire Cain Miller noted several weeks ago, "Women... are now better educated than men, have nearly as much work experience and are equally likely to pursue many high-paying careers... [but] women's median annual earnings stubbornly remain about 20 percent below men’s." And her article was not based on opinion--she found plenty of data to support her assertions. For example, researchers who analyzed census data and wages have found a troubling phenomenon: whenever women enter a previously all-male field in increasing numbers, the pay in that field soon declines; conversely, whenever a field that had previously been dominated by women begins to admit more men, the pay goes up. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/20/upshot/as-women-take-over-a-male-dominated-field-the-pay-drops.html?_r=0
At times it seems to me that society still believes what women do just isn't as important (or as valuable) as what men do. There's still a perception that if a woman can do it, it can't be all that difficult. Okay fine, there are more women in science, more women in medicine, more women in law and politics than there were when I was growing up. That's a good thing. But studies suggest that even though we talk a great game of equality, women in these fields are still being paid less than the men they work alongside, even when they are keeping the same hours and doing the same jobs.
And then there's women's sports-- I've argued on social media that the way the mainstream press ignores even the best women's college teams (like the University of Connecticut's championship Lady Huskies basketball team) is unfair. True, the men play a more "in your face" kind of game, with lots of slam-dunks and trash talking; but the way the women play the game is far from dull. The best of the women's teams display an impressive level of skill and athleticism; and believe me, the Lady Huskies could give some of the men's teams a run for their money. Yet all the attention goes to the NCAA Men's Finals, and year after year, the women are treated as an afterthought.
Thus, I was not surprised when five members of the US Women's Soccer team decided to file a complaint against the US Soccer Federation, demanding equal pay with their male counterparts.
It's not a frivolous complaint: the US women, who have won more games over all, won three World Cups, and attracted huge TV ratings, are paid an average of $99,000 annually; the US men, who have repeatedly been eliminated from the World Cup, earn $263,000. The women's team received a $2 million bonus for winning the World Cup; the men's team, which made it to the round of 16 and were then eliminated, still earned a bonus of $9 million.
I don't know about you, but I find these numbers outrageous. And the fact that we are still having this conversation in 2016 is equally outrageous to me. I've heard all the reasons about why it's okay to pay women less than men under certain circumstances, but what about if the woman is doing exactly the same job (and in some cases doing it better)? Could someone please explain why giving women equal pay for equal work is still such a controversial idea?
Friday, March 25, 2016
When Internet Bullies Come Out to Play
There were several news stories that caught my eye this week. One was political, while the other was not. But both had a similar theme: how easy it is to use social media to vilify or bully someone, often with no consequences for the person (or persons) doing the bullying.
Let's start with the non-political story, which began innocently enough, when Microsoft invented an artificial intelligence, a chat-bot named Taylor, or "Tay." The bot was created with the 18-24 year old demographic in mind, and was supposed to be able to communicate like a teen-aged girl. (What made the predominantly older, male Microsoft developers choose the persona of a young, female teen is a subject for another day; but it seems kind of creepy when you think about it.) Anyway, Tay could have been another interesting experiment in the ongoing effort to improve upon AI, but it didn't take long for problems to arise. Evidently, Microsoft's development team did not anticipate that there are trolls online, folks who find it amusing to teach a bot to make insulting comments. Tay was programmed without any filters, and without any plan for blocking hateful remarks. In fact, Tay was designed to simply interact with whatever was said to her, often by just parroting it. (The Microsoft site said Tay was designed to "learn from" conversations with other users, who engaged with her on platforms like Twitter, Kik, and GroupMe.) It all sounded interesting, but rather than learning how to discuss movies or fashion or sports, Tay was "taught" to make racist, neo-Nazi, and sexist comments. Before things went so wrong, reviewers who tried to interact with Tay found her responses sometimes clever but usually awkward-- having a chat-bot react appropriately to human conversation is still a work in progress. But it did not take much effort for certain users to "teach" Tay how to use expressions you might expect from a member of the Ku Klux Klan. Within 48 hours of her debut, Microsoft had to take Tay offline.
http://www.vox.com/2016/3/24/11299034/twitter-microsoft-tay-robot-hate-racist-sexist
And then there was the political story, the one where Donald Trump tweeted out an unflattering photo of Ted Cruz's wife, juxtaposed with a beautiful shot of Mr. Trump's wife Melania, a former model. (This was in response to an anti-Trump SuperPac ad that had shown Melania in a semi-nude photo taken back in her modeling days, with a snarky comment that implied she wasn't classy enough to be a First Lady.) Mr. Cruz took to Twitter to call Donald Trump a "coward" and later suggested on social media that "real men don't attack women." Meanwhile, throughout the campaign, Donald Trump has taken to Twitter many times to bully those with whom he disagrees-- he has vilified them, insulted them, and made accusatory remarks. And yet, he has millions of followers, none of whom seem to mind the often-harsh tone of his tweets. And whether it was Cruz's side or Trump's side that started it, attacking each other's wives is something new, and not a very positive development. There has always been an unwritten rule that the wives and children of candidates should not be subjected to political attacks; yes, now and then some have been, but it's not the norm. For the most part, candidates have remained respectful when it came to the families of their opponents... until now.
What I found noteworthy about both of these stories was they once again demonstrate how quickly online communication can descend into rants, accusations, and insults. I generally enjoy being on Twitter and Facebook, but sometimes when I post my perspective on some current issue, I am still surprised by how vehement and angry (and rude) some of the replies are. I've been called all sorts of names, just for expressing an opinion. I understand it intellectually-- on social media, you can say things you'd never say to a person's face-- but I admit I still find the behavior puzzling. (Yes, I've been known to use all sorts of "bad words," but you won't find me calling the people who disagree with me nasty names-- my mother would be spinning in her grave if I cursed someone out, especially someone I don't even know.)
As for the chat-bot, while I am not a fan of the Siris and Alexas and Cortanas and other friendly female voices in the realm of artificial intelligence, I can always choose not to use them, and I know that some people find them convenient. But I fail to see what's entertaining about disrupting something Microsoft's programmers tried to create. No, I am not eager to see the robots taking over, like in some bad science fiction movie; but there are undoubtedly some positive uses for AI. And whether or not Tay was a good idea, it was an experiment that deserved a chance. You may say, "Well, it had a chance and it failed." That may be true, but I still don't think it was funny for internet bullies to teach her to talk like a Neo-Nazi. Or perhaps I'm just lacking a sense of humor.
The late communication theorist Marshall McLuhan envisioned a world united by media, what he called a global village. At times, the internet does unite us, or at least make it possible for us to reach out more easily. At times, we are living in a world made more connected, where ideas are exchanged, and friends from many countries can interact across the miles. But at other times, the internet is a place of divisiveness, argument, and bullying-- where candidates can insult each other (or each other's wives), where a simple comment can lead to a series of rude remarks, and a chat-bot can be taught to say she hates blacks and Jews. Sometimes, we are welcomed, and sometimes we are attacked. Perhaps Forrest Gump was right when he said that life (and certainly our social media life) is like a box of chocolates: you never know what you're gonna get.
Let's start with the non-political story, which began innocently enough, when Microsoft invented an artificial intelligence, a chat-bot named Taylor, or "Tay." The bot was created with the 18-24 year old demographic in mind, and was supposed to be able to communicate like a teen-aged girl. (What made the predominantly older, male Microsoft developers choose the persona of a young, female teen is a subject for another day; but it seems kind of creepy when you think about it.) Anyway, Tay could have been another interesting experiment in the ongoing effort to improve upon AI, but it didn't take long for problems to arise. Evidently, Microsoft's development team did not anticipate that there are trolls online, folks who find it amusing to teach a bot to make insulting comments. Tay was programmed without any filters, and without any plan for blocking hateful remarks. In fact, Tay was designed to simply interact with whatever was said to her, often by just parroting it. (The Microsoft site said Tay was designed to "learn from" conversations with other users, who engaged with her on platforms like Twitter, Kik, and GroupMe.) It all sounded interesting, but rather than learning how to discuss movies or fashion or sports, Tay was "taught" to make racist, neo-Nazi, and sexist comments. Before things went so wrong, reviewers who tried to interact with Tay found her responses sometimes clever but usually awkward-- having a chat-bot react appropriately to human conversation is still a work in progress. But it did not take much effort for certain users to "teach" Tay how to use expressions you might expect from a member of the Ku Klux Klan. Within 48 hours of her debut, Microsoft had to take Tay offline.
http://www.vox.com/2016/3/24/11299034/twitter-microsoft-tay-robot-hate-racist-sexist
And then there was the political story, the one where Donald Trump tweeted out an unflattering photo of Ted Cruz's wife, juxtaposed with a beautiful shot of Mr. Trump's wife Melania, a former model. (This was in response to an anti-Trump SuperPac ad that had shown Melania in a semi-nude photo taken back in her modeling days, with a snarky comment that implied she wasn't classy enough to be a First Lady.) Mr. Cruz took to Twitter to call Donald Trump a "coward" and later suggested on social media that "real men don't attack women." Meanwhile, throughout the campaign, Donald Trump has taken to Twitter many times to bully those with whom he disagrees-- he has vilified them, insulted them, and made accusatory remarks. And yet, he has millions of followers, none of whom seem to mind the often-harsh tone of his tweets. And whether it was Cruz's side or Trump's side that started it, attacking each other's wives is something new, and not a very positive development. There has always been an unwritten rule that the wives and children of candidates should not be subjected to political attacks; yes, now and then some have been, but it's not the norm. For the most part, candidates have remained respectful when it came to the families of their opponents... until now.
What I found noteworthy about both of these stories was they once again demonstrate how quickly online communication can descend into rants, accusations, and insults. I generally enjoy being on Twitter and Facebook, but sometimes when I post my perspective on some current issue, I am still surprised by how vehement and angry (and rude) some of the replies are. I've been called all sorts of names, just for expressing an opinion. I understand it intellectually-- on social media, you can say things you'd never say to a person's face-- but I admit I still find the behavior puzzling. (Yes, I've been known to use all sorts of "bad words," but you won't find me calling the people who disagree with me nasty names-- my mother would be spinning in her grave if I cursed someone out, especially someone I don't even know.)
As for the chat-bot, while I am not a fan of the Siris and Alexas and Cortanas and other friendly female voices in the realm of artificial intelligence, I can always choose not to use them, and I know that some people find them convenient. But I fail to see what's entertaining about disrupting something Microsoft's programmers tried to create. No, I am not eager to see the robots taking over, like in some bad science fiction movie; but there are undoubtedly some positive uses for AI. And whether or not Tay was a good idea, it was an experiment that deserved a chance. You may say, "Well, it had a chance and it failed." That may be true, but I still don't think it was funny for internet bullies to teach her to talk like a Neo-Nazi. Or perhaps I'm just lacking a sense of humor.
The late communication theorist Marshall McLuhan envisioned a world united by media, what he called a global village. At times, the internet does unite us, or at least make it possible for us to reach out more easily. At times, we are living in a world made more connected, where ideas are exchanged, and friends from many countries can interact across the miles. But at other times, the internet is a place of divisiveness, argument, and bullying-- where candidates can insult each other (or each other's wives), where a simple comment can lead to a series of rude remarks, and a chat-bot can be taught to say she hates blacks and Jews. Sometimes, we are welcomed, and sometimes we are attacked. Perhaps Forrest Gump was right when he said that life (and certainly our social media life) is like a box of chocolates: you never know what you're gonna get.
Thursday, March 17, 2016
Defining the Modern First Lady
I know we
are not supposed to speak ill of the dead, but I admit to being puzzled by the
outpouring of grief at the death of Nancy Reagan. I understand that she
was the beloved wife of a very popular president, and her devotion to him was
frequently praised. And I especially understand that for conservative
Republicans, she represented a golden age, when the country was led by Ronald
Reagan, a president they believed could do no wrong. In this version of
history, Nancy is remembered as the perfect First Lady: elegantly dressed,
always feminine, someone who gave beautiful parties, upheld traditional gender
roles, and always put her husband first.
There is nothing wrong with any of that, but it omits a few other facts. By most accounts, Nancy Reagan was an indifferent and even unloving mother to her kids-- her devotion was only for her husband, and her children often felt excluded. (They eventually reconciled with her in her later years.) Her elegant style, while praised by her supporters, also brought criticism: she was accused of being extravagant, or at least tone-deaf: as ordinary Americans endured a recession in the early 1980s, she spent large sums of money on decorating the White House, and she also entertained lavishly; she seemed to feel the most at ease in the company of the wealthy and powerful. Like her husband, she was slow to acknowledge or address the AIDS crisis; her reaction to the specter of drug abuse was to tell kids to "Just say no"; and of course, there was the astrologer she relied upon to help set the president's schedule.
But in fairness to Nancy Reagan, being a First Lady is often a thankless task. As presidential historian Lewis L. Gould once noted, "Americans are ambivalent about presidential wives. First ladies must perform diverse duties without error, and any deviation from perceived standards brings instant criticism. At the same time, the role undergoes constant adjustment as the public’s view of women evolves and the presidency itself changes.” And that is what strikes me as so bizarre: on the one hand, women have come a long way, such that today it is no longer unusual to see women business executives, or doctors, or astronauts, or members of congress. But on the other hand, the role of the First Lady is still stuck in the 1950s.
If a First Lady previously had a career, she is expected to willingly give it up; and no matter how accomplished she may have been prior to being in the White House, she is not supposed to mention it. Now that she is the First Lady, the focus turns to what kind of gown she is wearing at special events (and which designer created it), as well as which charity she supports. A First Lady is expected to have her own favorite cause and to champion it (for example-- Lou Henry Hoover, wife of Herbert Hoover, promoted the Girl Scouts, while Laura Bush, wife of George W. Bush, promoted literacy programs). But if a First Lady tries to discuss policy or take a stand on a current issue (as Eleanor Roosevelt or Hillary Clinton did), she is often harshly criticized for doing so. And if she is perceived by the media or by the public as having too forceful a personality, that too will earn her lots of scorn.
It is thus not surprising that the more traditional First Ladies, the ones who embrace the role of Hostess (and Wife) in Chief, who are content to remain in the background, who always look lovely and never say anything controversial, are often the most popular. That may be why those who remember Nancy Reagan so fondly believe she brought dignity and grace to the position of First Lady. It's all reminiscent of the era of "Camelot" in the early 1960s, when the equally elegant and photogenic Jacqueline Kennedy was First Lady and became a fashion icon for the nation; a former journalist, she acknowledged to a reporter that her husband would not allow her to keep her career nor be in the spotlight more than he was. So, she accepted her new position as queen of the domestic sphere, and always managed to look glamorous no matter what she was doing.
I understand that for some political wives, giving up their career and their identity in order to live in the White House (and be a fashion icon) sounds like an amazing life. But the constant scrutiny, the endless criticism for daring to step outside the boundaries of the role, and the inability to openly speak out on current issues... all of this means it's not a life for just anyone. Frankly, I don't know why in 2016 it would be such a problem if a First Lady kept her career or did something other than host parties and advocate for her favorite charity. And what if we have a woman president-- what will we expect of her husband? It's an interesting time to think about what it means to be a First Lady, or for that matter, a First Gentleman. Do we want elegance and glamour? Do we want someone who stays in the background? Or is it time to let presidential spouses define their role for themselves, rather than having a 1950s version of society define it for them?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)