With the election looming, we decided to write this one together. Call it our endorsement. Because we're women! Two generations of them. And between the two of us, we've held all kinds of roles: daughter, sister, wife, mother, employee, self-employee, employer of others and homeowner. We are upstanding members of society, participate in the economy and, in fact, we were both raised Catholic (more on that one later). Our votes are highly coveted, and there is smoke pouring out of our -- between the two of us- - four ears. Because, spoiler alert: We loathe just about everything the Romney-Ryan ticket stands for. So do most of the women -- all of whom are apparently assumed to be fair game for courting as well -- we know.
What we loathe even more is the idea that we can be categorized or stereotyped, especially when the box into which we have been placed is dead wrong. Because we are women who fit certain demos, we're supposed to buy the slate of lunacy they're selling. Nonsense. (Also, we're feminists who love fashion, baseball, cooking and reading. What box do we fit into now?) The fact that the Republican ticket has made the assumption that women will buy their nonsense is actually laughable, and quite probably a waste of their efforts. (Shhh. Don't tell 'em.) Why?
First, let's do some math. Supposedly, we women -- you know, the large monolithic group of us -- are most concerned about the economy. If that's true, and given the fact that most women these days, married or not, are also working, doesn't it make sense that the vast majority of us would want equal pay for equal work- - without being considered some crazy-ass man-hater for pointing out the insanity of paying women 23 percent less than men for the same job?
And then there's the right's anti-life positions. There. We've said it. For all their talk about being pro-life when it comes to a woman's right to choose, elsewhere on the dial, on everything from social programs to environmental protections, the ticket is decidedly against it. But don't take our word for it. Read what Thomas Friedman had to say this weekend:
In my world, you don't get to call yourself "pro-life" and be against common-sense gun control -- like banning public access to the kind of semiautomatic assault rifle, designed for warfare, that was used recently in a Colorado theater. You don't get to call yourself "pro-life" and want to shut down the Environmental Protection Agency, which ensures clean air and clean water, prevents childhood asthma, preserves biodiversity and combats climate change that could disrupt every life on the planet. You don't get to call yourself "pro-life" and oppose programs like Head Start that provide basic education, health and nutrition for the most disadvantaged children. You can call yourself a "pro-conception-to-birth, indifferent-to-life conservative." I will never refer to someone who pickets Planned Parenthood but lobbies against common-sense gun laws as "pro-life."
"Pro-life" can mean only one thing: "respect for the sanctity of life." And there is no way that respect for the sanctity of life can mean we are obligated to protect every fertilized egg in a woman's body, no matter how that egg got fertilized, but we are not obligated to protect every living person from being shot with a concealed automatic weapon. I have no respect for someone who relies on voodoo science to declare that a woman's body can distinguish a "legitimate" rape, but then declares -- when 99 percent of all climate scientists conclude that climate change poses a danger to the sanctity of all life on the planet -- that global warming is just a hoax.
The term "pro-life" should be a shorthand for respect for the sanctity of life. But I will not let that label apply to people for whom sanctity for life begins at conception and ends at birth. What about the rest of life? Respect for the sanctity of life, if you believe that it begins at conception, cannot end at birth. That radical narrowing of our concern for the sanctity of life is leading to terrible distortions in our society.
Even Connie Britton and Sarah Aubrey, the stars of the show Friday Night Lights, wish Mitt would quit it. His use of the show's slogan "Clear Eyes, Full Hearts," inspired them to pen a take-back-the-cause. Check it:
And "Clear Eyes, Full Hearts, Can't Lose" wasn't just about winning games. Rather, it was a rallying cry of hope and optimism in a community where everyone had a fair shot -- no matter their background, no matter their parents, no matter their gender. And no matter their politics.
So it has been surprising that the phrase has been usurped and co-opted by Mitt Romney and his campaign for their gain. And it got us thinking: What would the women of Dillon think about this?
Dillon is a classic American town filled with hard-working, middle-class Americans, who just want to lead productive, healthy lives. And the women we represented on the show -- the women we are in real life -- are like the millions of women across the nation. Women who want to make our own health care decisions. Women who want to earn equal pay for the work we do. Women who want affordable health care.
And finally, before we start to sputter (too late?), we take more than a little bit of offense about the way the right wing has taken religion in general, and Catholicism in particular, away from the rest of us. (Dorothy Kelley -- mother-in-law to Barbara and grandma to Shannon -- was a devout Catholic: What that meant to her was social service, volunteering and treating others like she might hope to be treated. And a penchant for Birkenstocks.) Especially infuriating is the way that Catholicism in particular (again, we both wore Catholic plaid for a sizable chunk of years) has been distorted to be predominantly about sex. As in: Gay or straight, don't have it. Unless, of course, you're out to make a baby. (If that's the purpose of marriage and/or sex, how come it's okay for senior citizens to marry? And, we're sorry, but but did Jesus ever say, "Thou shalt not have sex"?)
That's their version of morality. Period, end. The whole Do unto others thing? Meh. Ourselves, like many of us women, we define morality in a broader -- ack, dare we say more Christian? -- sense, and that has to do with a sense of social justice. For people and for the earth. (And for the people who find themselves affected and in need of help in the face of natural disasters.)
Us? We'll be taking that ideal to the voting booth with us, casting votes that are in our interest, and -- do unto others! -- the interests of others, as well.