Friday Femme Fatale: Sugar Daddy's and Dynasties

by Jen Nedeau

category: Friday Femme Fatale

Published December 20, 2008 @ 12:42AM PT

This week's Friday Femme Fatale covers quite a lot of ground. From the debate about whether Caroline Kennedy could be the next Senator of New York to a request to end the Global Gag Rule by Christy Turlington, in addition to a deep look at gender bias in the media and a story about a social network for "Sugar Daddys" - there never seems to be a dull moment in the world of women's rights.

First, I will admit I am overdue for a post about the pending New York Senate seat that is stirring up discussion about who should replace Sen. Hillary Clinton when she takes on Secretary of State in the Obama administration. However, until I can get a few moments to wrap my arms around the dynamic opportunities there, here is some food for thought from Andrew Sullivan: Is Caroline Kennedy less qualified to be a New York Senator than Gov. Sarah Palin was to be Vice President of the United States?

Kennedy, a contender for the Senate seat appointment is running against a gaggle of qualified candidates, several of which happen to be female, namely Kirsten Gillibrand and Carolyn Maloney. Activists within the Democratic party, New York politics and the women's rights movement are all taking a variety of positions on the idea that name identification alone could allow someone to get appointed to Congress. While I think Sullivan makes a spurious argument in his piece, it is something for all Democrats to think about - whether or not they want to get "Palined" by the next New York Senator:

In fact, Sarah Palin was more qualified to be vice-president than Caroline Kennedy is to be a Senator. Both are celebrities, but Palin made her own way herself, winning election as mayor and governor without the kind of raw nepotism now on display in New York State. The model now, of course, is similar - finding a way to get elected without actually exposing your inadequacies.

Speaking of women in the media, Deborah Howell writes a compelling narrative about gender bias in the media in a Washington Post article titled: "Getting Women Into the News." Her piece is a must read for those who aren't sure what to believe about this weighty subject and it's implications for the future of journalism:

Women and men read The Post in roughly equal proportions, but female readers don't read it as frequently and the paper is failing to draw women with younger children. Readers who follow women's sports or their daughters' teams complain that women's sports don't get the ink they deserve.

The Post, like most of the news media, is dominated by coverage of men from the A section to Business and Sports....That is partly because the world's newsmakers -- whether sports figures, religious leaders, military officers, public officials or criminals -- tend to be men. So women do not see themselves portrayed as fully in The Post.

Her piece hits on the idea that not only do we need more women media makers, gate keepers and media professionals, but that perhaps - with women as the largest consumer base - the media needs to re-configure its news coverage and how it presents itself to be more compelling to women.

Christy Turlington leverages her column in Marie Claire this week to raise awareness about the Global Gag Rule request that President Obama "get rid of a policy that kills women around the world." I applaud Turlington for using her column in this popular women's magazine to reach the masses about the importance of family planning on a global scale:

Thankfully, on Election Day, we did not choose four more years of conservative, unsympathetic leaders. Under the previous administration, we simply made it far too difficult for women outside of the U.S. to access reproductive-health and family-planning services. Case in point: In 1984, the Reagan administration established the Mexico City Policy - widely referred to as the Global Gag Rule because it denies foreign organizations receiving U.S. family-planning assistance the right to use their own non-U.S. funds to provide legal abortion or counsel, or even to refer to abortion or to lobby for the legalization of abortion. President Clinton rescinded this policy in 1993, but President George W. Bush reinstated it on his first day in office in 2001.

Let's call on President Obama to rescind it again.

 

Finally, the Daily Beast features Melissa Beech (writing under a pseudonym) who makes the controversial case for young women to engage in what she calls a "mutually beneficial arrangement" in her piece titled, My Sugar Daddy. She writes:

From the outside, a mutually beneficial, or sugar daddy, relationship seems immoral. Maybe even the distant cousin of-dare I say it?-prostitution. But truth be told, women have used their wiles and charms to get ahead for years.

There's even a social networking website that connects sugar daddies and their beneficiaries. This man told me about it: SeekingArrangement.com. He had been referred to it by a close friend who was a hedge fund manager. At his urging, I logged onto the site and looked at his profile. It didn't have a picture, for privacy reasons. But it did contain information: his marital status (single), the industry he worked in (media and communications), and-a key element-his salary (seven figures). I was encouraged by the fact that the website vets its clients and offers only Certified Sugar Daddies, whose tax returns have been carefully examined so you know what you're getting. I also learned that he was attracted to bright, smart women-he wasn't in the market for the dumb bombshell. His profile said he wanted more of "a Jackie Kennedy than a Marilyn Monroe." I fit the type.

While Beech makes a shallow attempt at power feminism, her argument falls flat on its face because it does nothing to change policy toward greater equality for women. However, it is an interesting read nonetheless because it may be a path some women could choose, which we need to be aware of and make sure we are supportive in helping women find another route to success beyond finding a "sugar daddy."

Lastly, there are only ten days left to vote for the top three Ideas for Change before moving on to the next voting round. Make sure to vote for the Women's Rights ideas that you care about today.