I'M FED up with the kissing on TV recently. No, I'm not talking about sexually explicit programming. I'm talking about the fact that Vice President Al Gore and Sen. George W. Bush (R-Texas) have replaced President Clinton's bimbo eruptions with constant public displays of affection.
The media has encouraged this nonsense with its overanalysis of silly gestures at the expense of policies that affect women's lives. When the candidates and the media forsake the issues for a "Mr. Sensitivity" contest, they insult women voters.
Incessant discussion of "the kiss" brought political analysis to a new low. Al Gore's true motivation remains unknown, but an analysis of what Gore's policies would mean to American women was lost in "prime-time makeout sessions" ("Stop that Canoodling, The New York Times, Aug. 20).
George Bush, not to be outdone, went one better. Instead of kissing his wife, he decided to kiss Oprah when he visited her television show. This gesture topped off a program full of superficial questions like, "What was your favorite gift?" Bush responded with "cuff links."
Oprah is a pop culture icon. So it's not surprising Oprah would have the candidates appear, as they do on late-night shows. Understanding these men's personalities gives us insight into their reasons for running. The problem comes when journalists assume that trivia will directly influence women's votes.
A truly egregious example of portraying women as airheads came from yesterday's Washington Post. The article is titled "In Five Lives, Defining 'Women's Issues.'" So you might think the article would explore why women are voting overwhelmingly for Gore, and if they feel that there are issues that they care about specifically because they are women.
Instead, the article begins by asking women questions that Oprah asked, and then treating them as sole determinants of how these women would vote. Are we really supposed to believe that Bridget Healey of Scranton -- a real woman from the article -- will vote for Gore just because they both liked science?
It's no surprise that the candidates themselves would try to give a positive outlook to their campaigns, since women tend to complain more about partisan bickering than men. But now the media itself has picked up this theme and taken out any discussion of substantial policy issues.
It's also true that women care about the personalities of candidates in making their decision, but so do men. Male voters will frequently make their decision based on whether they think the candidate is "like them" and whether they like him ("Among Men, it's Bush the Maserati," The New York Times, Oct. 8). Yet this article emphasizes these decisions as a function of how the candidates defend their policies, not what type of car they drive.
It's difficult to define what a "women's issue" is. But both politicians and the media can find policy issues that women are concerned about this year. In its obsession with trivia, The Washington Post neglected the moment on Oprah when an audience member asked Bush what he thought about the Violence Against Women Act. Bush asked the woman to send him some information. This is a much more worthy part of Bush's character to print: that he doesn't have a position on a key piece of legislation up for a vote right now.
Gore doesn't promote true women's issues on the campaign trail. Instead, he spends his time in debates trumpeting his pro-choice credentials. Although women generally have deeply held feelings about abortion, we resent politicians assuming that we have one-track minds.
Rather, Gore would do better to discuss economic issues. The Paycheck Fairness Act, which he supports, would provide for better enforcement of pay equity, a problem for all women. Women also face a penalty in Social Security benefits when they take off to raise children. This is an important facet of the Social Security issue that should be factored in the current debate.
The media and the candidates do this country a disservice when they treat women like junior high school girls. Talk to us like you do to men: as if we're rational human beings who want to make informed choices. There will be millions of us in the voting booth on November 7th, and they can't kiss us all.
(Elizabeth Managan's column appears Tuesdays in The Cavalier Daily.)
Read More
PARTING SHOT: No man is an island
By Ava MacBlane | 2 days agoRetirement, as you can tell, has been treating me well. When people ask me now if I miss it, I laugh and tell them some things I definitely don't miss. But I don't always get to tell them about the things I really do miss.
PARTING SHOT: You never know unless you try
By Lexi Baker | 3 days agoMy time at the University was shaped by the people who showed me grace and kindness and by those who had confidence in me, even when I struggled to have it in myself.
PARTING SHOT: A love letter to Cav Daily and Connection
By Ava Proehl | 3 days agoMy time here taught me to look for the genuine, human connection in every moment.
