Not only am I constantly voicing my opinion that I think we need more women in politics, I basically developed a massive girl-crush on Hillary Clinton during the 2008 election and it’s no secret that I supported her over Obama. But lately, several events have made me question—and I practically cringe even writing this—if 2008 would have been the right time for a woman to step into office.

2012 has in many ways been defined politically by various “women’s issues.” In the past few months alone, there have been contraception hearings, Rush Limbaugh called Sarah Fluke a prostitute, various GOP candidates attacked Planned Parenthood, a vaginal probe law was passed in Virginia, and debate about the Senate’s upcoming domestic violence bill began. To my relief, Obama has been nothing short of a feminist idol during these controversies, standing up on behalf of women all over the country. This brings me to why I’m glad we don’t have a woman in office. Many of the issues that will be at the forefront of this election and have characterized the latter half of Obama’s presidency concern women…yet, they haven’t (for the most part) been portrayed by the media as feminist issues.

Aside from Rush Limbaugh’s crazy you’re-a-slut-Sandra-Fluke-because-I-don’t-agree-with-you rant, the word “feminist” has rarely entered the political jargon surrounding these topics, and when it has, it has been used in a generally neutral or positive way. I attribute this partially, if not entirely, to the fact that a man has led many of the fights in the past few months for gender equality—President Obama has created a fine model for a male feminist.My fear is that, had a woman been in office these past few months, her presidency would have been characterized by the feminist causes she would have chosen to support or reject, something that I believe would have led to her presidency being remembered for her gender, solely, rather than her actions.

Furthermore, and I truly hate to say this because I wish it weren’t true, I think some of these issues might not have been taken as seriously because they would have been written off as “feminist issues”—and let’s face it, in the past few years “feminist issues” have not been given much serious attention.

Of course when we do have a woman president, there is a strong chance she too will be involved in political debate over “women’s issues.” In fact, I would hope a woman president might give more attention to such issues.

However, I think it is deeply important that in a time where the word “feminist” is often the f-word, President Obama has shown what it means to tirelessly defend all human’s rights, regardless of gender.

Whether to garner female votes in the upcoming election, or simply because he felt it was right, I think Obama can be credited with making the media take his feminist agenda seriously this winter.  And so, with much surprise and some reluctance, I have to say that I think everything may have worked out for the better in 2008, at least in this area. Don’t worry though, I’m still on the hunt for our first Madam President.

Filmmakers Frederick Rendina and Oren Rudavsky focused on the factors that inhibit girls around the world from getting an adequate education, through chronicling the stories of several girls in Uganda and Nepal, two countries emerging from violent civil wars.

To Educate a Girl begins with Manisha, a daughter of a brick-carrier in Nepal, who has been unable to attend school due to her duties at home and her family’s poverty. In Nepal, school costs money and Manisha’s parents can neither spare her labor nor pay for her schooling. Manisha’s situation is not unique. A part of a low caste called the Dalit Caste, Manisha is one of thirty-five girls in her small village who are unable to attend school.

In Uganda, we meet six-year-old Mercy, whose mother and grandmother dropped out of school early in their lives due to pregnancy. Mercy’s mother explains that the man who impregnated her left her soon after she became pregnant. Mercy is desperate to go to school. Eventually, her dream comes true when her mother is persuaded by an organization called Girls Education Movement (GEM) that marches students proudly through the village on their first days of school, in an effort to encourage other children to come. After coming home from her first day of school, Mercy is smiling from ear to ear, showing her mother her notebook and telling her stories from the day.

Although most of the girls in the film are extremely poor and have few educational or professional role-models, they are extremely ambitious and goal-oriented from very young ages. Fourteen-year-old Sanju from Nepal says that it is her dream to become a famous scientist. Another Nepalese girl aspires to be a heart specialist. Sarah, a Ugandan girl whose parents were killed in the civil war, also hopes to become a doctor.

In a world that is constantly seeking ambitious people interested in science and medicine, fields that lack women, it was fascinating to see that nearly all of the girls polled aspired to hold jobs in science or medicine, while in the U.S. and Western Europe, where education is easily accessible to girls, many girls turn away from these fields.

Although it is difficult to pinpoint an exact reason for their interest in these fields, one can speculate it may be due to these girls’ experiences in their communities. Most of the girls come from homes that lack electricity, running water, and other modern advances, and live in villages where medicine and healthcare are not always available. Perhaps, the girls in To Educate a Girl are drawn to these fields because they have seen firsthand the necessity for more professionals in these areas.

As for their remarkable ambition, perhaps their upbringings can be thanked for this too. A recent study done by researchers at Princeton and Indiana Universities concluded that people who studied for a test through reading facts in a more difficult type font for the brain to process did better than those who studied the facts in an easier type font to process; in other words, those who had a more difficult time studying ultimately performed better.

While it may be too early to compare academic records between girls in developing nations and those in developed nations, and filmmaker Oren Rudavsky explained that many of these girls don’t make it past elementary school, it is clear from To Educate A Girl that a lack of resources is not deterring many girls from learning, and in fact could be motivating some of them.

After the screening, filmmakers Rudavsky and Rendina discussed how many girls have to study in the dark due to lack of electricity and many of the schools still lack enough teachers, leading to crowded classrooms. In the film, we see girls learning on dusty floors. While these conditions are certainly not ideal, perhaps this hardship somehow contributes to making these girls so driven.Unfortunately, the nations chronicled in the film lacked more than just resources. Many of the villages were rooted in sexist ideology that prevented girls from get adequate schooling. Mercy explains that she has been afraid to attend school, because she thinks the other kids will beat her up. Sanju says that her parents are reluctant to send her older sister to school, because they feel that it would interfere with her getting married.

Many adults in the film also discuss the fact that it makes more sense to educate sons than daughters, since daughters will ultimately leave the house and family one day. The filmmakers said that in many developing countries girls who get their periods don’t attend school for fear of being laughed at by the boys—and in this way, helping girls attend school requires not just the cooperation of the girls and their families, it requires assistance from boys in the community as well.

Some organizations hoping to further girls’ education appear to be working strongly against these opinions. Members of Young Champions, an organization in Nepal, is shown having an argument with a woman in front of her house about her decision to not send her daughter to school. Other organizations in the film molded their message to fit cultural norms.

In a particularly moving scene when the children are marching through Mercy’s village on the first day of school, the GEM spokeswoman talks to the villagers about the reasons to send their daughters to school. Among the many reasons that will appeal to a Western audience, another stands out: the spokeswoman says that an educated daughter’s dowry will be worth more.

Many questions arise from To Educate a Girl. Are the very obstacles making it difficult for many girls to learn ultimately also, in some cases, creating more determined students? Is it better to change attitudes in a region and assume that obliterating the obstacles will soon follow, or to work within cultural norms to achieve a goal? In the film, at one GEM headquarters in Uganda, kids hold up signs that say “If you educate a girl you will educate the world.” To Educate A Girl perfectly demonstrates this. With girls so ambitious and relentless in their search for higher learning, it is easy to see how a small investment in girls’ education can pay off immensely.

Don’t: Call someone a prostitute and request that they post a sex video online because you disagree with their opinions. Yeah, I’m talking to you, Rush Limbaugh. Just because Sandra Fluke disagrees with your position on birth control and believes it should be covered in Obama’s healthcare plan does not, in fact, mean she owes you a sex tape. In fact, I can’t really think of any situation in which a woman would owe you a sex tape, Rush, but that’s another matter.

Do: Show solidarity with women’s issues if you’re president during a so-called “war on women” by offering to speak at the commencement of a prestigious women’s college. Obama recently announced that he will be addressing students at the 2012 Barnard commencement ceremony, an offer that will most likely gain him support with women voters, many of whom are feeling quite shaken (understandably) after the recent contraception hearings—and, you know, the Fluke sex-tape request business.

Don’t: Tell the women in your commencement speech that their job should be to influence “man and boy” through the “humble role of housewife.” Obama may want to consider this piece of advice as he prepares his Barnard commencement speech—Adlai E. Stevenson uttered these exact words when he gave the commencement speech at Smith College in 1955. Spoiler: he wasn’t elected President.

Do: Be willing to vote against your party’s agenda when you believe it’s right. Olympia Snowe has shown herself to be unshakable in her beliefs, voting against her party during the contraception hearings. She was the only Republican to vote against the birth control exempt amendment. It’s too bad she now feels she has to quit the senate because she’s fed up with how partisan it has become.

Don’t: Criticize another Presidential candidate for voting in a certain way, when you yourself didn’t even show up for the vote. That’s right Obama, we know you weren’t there during the vote on an Iran resolution that you blasted Hillary for, and while the election may be over, Congresswoman Snowe’s admirable ability to stray from party lines makes us remember what we like to see in a politician’s voting record.

Do: React with humor when someone spills five beers down your shirt, even if you are the most powerful woman in Germany. That’s right, Angela Merkel—here’s to you for taking that incident so lightly. Your public image will forever remain unstained—which is more than we can say for the back of your suit. Cheers.

Don’t: Massage the shoulders of the most powerful woman in Germany at a G-8 summit, because you think that’s the appropriate way to treat women. While Angela Merkel handled the beer incident with a short giggle, she did not respond in kind when George W. Bush performed this awkward massage in 2006—and who can blame her? If you’re curious, you can view footage of Bush Jr.’s misguided gesture here.

As has been pointed out by many over the course of the past few days, there were no women on the first panel of witnesses at the contraceptive hearing on February 16. “What I want to know is, where are the women?” asked Congresswoman Carolyn B. Maloney at the hearing on Thursday. “When I look at this panel, I don’t see one single woman representing the tens of millions of women across the country who want and need insurance coverage for basic preventive healthcare services, including family planning. Where are the women?”

Where were the women? Congresswoman Maloney was one of several representatives who advocated for the placement of Georgetown University law student Sandra Fluke on the panel to testify, but were denied. Republican Congressman Darrell Issa argued that the contraceptive hearings are a matter of religious freedom, rather than a women’s health issue, and that therefore there is no need for a woman on the panel. In my opinion, it matters not whether this is an issue of religious freedom or women’s health (although I believe it is probably a little of both)—neither is an excuse for an all-male panel. In fact, I find it ridiculous that in 2012, a serious issue such as this (which obviously effects women) would be considered without any female witnesses. It seems completely archaic.

As I mentioned earlier, I recently attended a talk and book signing for an anthology, Voices of the Women’s Health Movement compiled by Laura Eldridge and the late Barbara Seaman. Barbara, who passed away in 2008 was a women’s health advocate as well as a close family friend and mentor to me, and it was wonderful to get to hear women speak about topics she was so passionate about. Unfortunately, the stories of Barbara’s early struggles that were discussed seemed all too fam

iliar.

Barbara Seaman led the fight to warn women about the dangers of the contraceptive pill in the 1960s, a campaign that led to the Nelson Pill Hearings in 1970 and a patient package insert. Upon first entering the Nelson Pill Hearings, Barbara and her female compatriots were shocked to find that the only witnesses on the panel were men—who, of course, had never taken the pill. Barbara, Alice Wolfson and her colleagues jumped up, asking why there were no women testifying (sound familiar?).

At one point, Alice Wolfson is said to have stood up and yelled, “Why [did] you [assure] the drug companies that they could testify? Why have you told them that they could get top priority? They’re not taking the pills, we are!” Senator Nelson replied, “We are not going to permit the, uh, proceedings to be interrupted in this way… If you ladies would, ah…sit down…” to which Alice said, “I don’t think the hearings are any more important than our lives.” For the rest of the Nelson pill hearings, Barbara and Alice protested outside of Congress and from the audience. It is due to their activism that the dangers of the pill were ultimately taken seriously. I have grown up hearing this archaic story of sexism my entire life—and although I realized the heroism and activism on the part of Barbara, Alice, and their colleagues, I never felt that the story was all that relatable.

The idea that our government would consider discussing contraceptive drugs for women without consulting women always seemed insane and outdated to me. Now, I am watching it happen once again, and all I can think is how far we haven’t come.

In 1970 it took the strong words of women such as Barbara and Alice to ensure that the tens of millions of women across America were heard. In the past few days criticism from women like Congresswoman Maloney has led to several women witnesses being placed on the next panels. This is good news, but what will it take for this mistake to never be made again? What will it take for our government to recognize the importance of women’s voices, and never forget them again? When will girls my age be able to look back, sigh and say, “How far we’ve come.”

Signing up for driver’s ed was relatively easy. I went with a couple of friends to a nearby high school where classes were being offered, showed my school ID, and gave my contact information. In a few short months, I will (hopefully) be a licensed driver.

Since I’ve grown up in New York City, the idea that driving will signify a major change in my life is pretty foreign to me. Furthermore, the concept that driving once empowered ambitious, independence-seeking women to free themselves from the rigid constructs imposed on them by a gender-biased society is one I often don’t consider at all.

Who can blame me, right? From Elle Woods in her pink convertible to any suburban mother in a granola bar commercial, we’re continually shown images of women driving. So we sometimes forget that driving has long been an outlet for independence both in our country and abroad.

In 1909, Alice Ramsey became the first woman to drive across the entire country. That was eleven years before American women had the right to vote. In a time when certain attitudes were changing, but laws weren’t, driving was an opportunity for women to exercise their independence. Those of you who watch Downton Abbey need look no further than the driving-obsessed sister, Edith Crawley. In 1918 England, Edith is so excited to learn to drive that she takes a job driving a tractor on a local farmer, despite the fact that she is of noble birth and certainly does not need the money. The appeal of the independence of driving is just too thrilling for Edith to pass up. (A side-note, but very important one: for those of you who do not watch Downton Abbey, please start watching immediately…I am mildly obsessed). For some women, the struggle for the right to drive has not yet been overcome. The most commonly talked about example is probably Saudi Arabia, where women legally still do not have the right to drive cars.

This is especially interesting considering that women got the right to vote (in name, at least) several months ago in Saudi Arabia. In Afghanistan, while the number of driving permits for women has increased dramatically since the fall of the Taliban, many women are still discouraged from driving. Similar travel restrictions were in place in Jordan until 2003, and in the Congo, driving, especially as a profession, is generally left to men.

Although women in our country gained the right to drive a very long time ago, and exercise this right frequently, there are still some stereotypes that surround women drivers. In fact, when I googled “women driving” in an attempt to further research this blog, the first thing that came up was not Alice Ramsey’s trip across the country, but many nasty websites ranting about what bad drivers women are. Specifically, I came across this lovely article from Askmen.com, which suggests you cite these reasons why women can’t drive the next time you and your girlfriend get into an argument. Great advice, Askmen.com!

The stereotype that women can’t drive extends further than men’s magazines, however. And although I mentioned earlier that our country has some female NASCAR racers, after interviewing Julia Landauer, nineteen-year-old NASCAR racer, I learned that the field of female NASCAR racers is quite small and as a result, tends to stick together.

What does the ability to drive truly mean? I understand that it often means access to a new social life for teenagers, but truly, what does the right to drive signify? I think driving means independence, freedom, and responsibility. It means that your society trusts you to be careful of the lives of others and to be cautious with your own freedom. To be completely honest, my mother actually never learned to drive—and through her, I’ve certainly witnessed what a limit this can put on a person’s freedom. So, I guess as I start my driver’s ed classes, I’ll have a whole new appreciation for exactly what it means to be behind a wheel.

While it may not be as clear-cut, I think the fact that many women in this country feel that it’s a big struggle to have both a family and a job becomes a more relevant feminist issue every day. In fact, I find myself thinking about this issue more as I grow up, prepare to leave home, and adjust my goals accordingly.

Recently I read an article in The New York Times called “New Goal for Women? Rising Above Having it All,” by Katrin Bennhold. The article discusses the pressure women put on themselves to have it all—a happy family, a good career, a great body—and argues that setting these impossible-to-reach goals is what’s ultimately holding women back from gaining positions as global power brokers. Bennhold asserts that men are able to achieve high-power positions in part because they are realistic about their goal-setting: they focus on their careers and nothing else.

But what about the gender-biased nature of our society? Bennhold argues that, while flawed systems such as childcare make it more difficult for women to progress in their chosen careers, we can’t hold those systems entirely accountable. Bennhold cites Sweden, where social programs such as the childcare system are greatly advanced and gender-neutral, yet women still aren’t rising to highly powerful positions.

Reading Bennhold’s article got me thinking more about goal-setting, goal achievement, and their possible linkage to women’s progress. Is it really true that women set more ambitious, and harder to achieve goals than men do? Do we stretch ourselves too thin? Ought we just admit that we can’t have it all?

I don’t know, but I can tell you that unrealistic goal-setting starts early.Ever since elementary school, I’ve heard girls my age call themselves perfectionists, while I’ve never heard a single boy utter those words about himself. As a general rule (and I stress the word general—there are definitely exceptions to this), the girls I know set higher academic standards for themselves than most of the guys I know—something reflected in the growing academic standing of girls all over the country. Apparently some colleges are even being forced to practice a form of “gender affirmative action” for boys, because they have so many overqualified female applicants.

As a general rule, the girls I know also set higher physical standards for themselves. They lament their lack of exercise, make weight-and appearance-related New Year’s Resolutions (something Bennhold mentions as an example of overreaching goal-setting). Perhaps girls are simply more self-evaluative. We certainly are more critical of ourselves. Girls I know criticize their own appearances, regret social decisions, and beat themselves up about their grades more than boys. So, maybe girls do set unrealistic expectations for themselves. Can you blame them, though? Our society seems to be in a sort of cultural limbo when it comes to portrayals of women. We are bombarded with sexual images of women in provocative positions with unattainable bodies, who seem to indicate that our role in society is to look good, yet we are also told to be strong and smart and reach for the highest career paths we can.

To top it all off, the media loves to tell us that men can’t be caretakers, whether it be through bumbling husband characters in commercials, or sitcom portrayals of working dads who spend their free time watching football on the couch with their buddies, rather than with their kids. This combination of images leaves us with a paradoxical, imagined woman as our role model.

Do I want to be thin, pretty, smart, powerful, and motherly? Of course. Is it time that I come to terms with the fact that it may be impossible to achieve all of that? Maybe. Then again, every bone in my body tells me that doing so would mean giving up in some way. When I interviewed Barnard President Debora Spar in 2010, she told me that she believes the increased choices for women today come at a price.  “All of this choice can create a fair amount of anguish,” she said. “Life for women is better now, but it’s often more complicated. Women in the ‘50s knew what they could or couldn’t do. We’re in a danger zone right now…Girls need to realize you can have it all, but it won’t always work out perfectly.”

So, maybe all us perfectionists need to consider that for a while.

Okay, I’ll be honest…this isn’t the first time I’ve noticed this. But this time I’m going to do more than, well, just complain. I can hear the sighs of relief as you all thank God this isn’t another weekly kvetch.

Instead, I’ve decided to make a list of keep-worthy resolutions that focus on a bit more than the exterior. In writing them out, I’m hoping I’ll be inspired to take on a few.

1. Instead of boycotting brownies, why not try boycotting questionable companies. My favorite “ooh their clothes are pretty but their policies are creepy” company is probably American Apparel. Their founder and CEO has been a part of so many scandals I’ve stopped counting. Most recently, I believe it came out that he had a sex slave? So perhaps, this is the year to finally start shopping elsewhere for that classic mesh leotard.

2. Instead of counting calories, start counting votes. Whether or not you’re 18 or older, now’s the time to start catching up on the issues and the candidates. With the Republican race for a Presidential candidate and the New Hampshire primary looming on the horizon, why not learn a little bit more about the candidates. For example, did you know Newt Gingrich wants to putreflective mirrors in space facing the earth, in the hope that we can reduce our electricity bills that way? Or that Ron Paul doesn’t believe in paper money?

3. Instead of spending endless hours watching DIY videos on how to get your hair to look like Lady Gaga’s, support lady pop stars by reading theFbomb’s weekly Support Women Artists Sunday posts. This is a great weekly post that brings attention to emerging and well-known female musicians.

4. Instead of watching Mean Girls for the tenth time to plan a new pink outfit, take a stand against bullying. Whether it’s standing up for a peer in school, or joining an online community to fight against the epidemic, as I learned a month ago, you CAN make a difference with one small action. But, if you do opt to watch Mean Girls again, you should get a full double dose of Tina Fey and read her book Bossypants afterward. Woman knows funny.

5. Trade in one of your lady mags for the Daily Beast’s Women in the WorldSection. This is BY FAR one of the most comprehensive sites for news on what’s going on with women all over the globe.

6. Instead of just wishing you had the Williams sisters’ abs, try out a new sport. If your school doesn’t have teams, join a league in your neighborhood or take a sports-themed class, like racquetball at your local gym. Who cares if you aren’t ready to go pro—as I learned in eleventh grade, playing a sport you’re not great at can actually be really fun. Everybody loves an underdog.

7. Instead of just stocking up on the latest beauty products Vogue tells you to buy, support companies that promote a more all-encompassing image of beauty. While I definitely have some issues with Dove and Bare Minerals’ claims that they depict beauty in every shape and size, I like that they attempt to put forth a fresh image.

8. If you’re lucky enough to plan your next vacation in a sunny place where you can veg out, apply or suggest that a teenage girl you know apply to one of these programs. While I definitely know the merit of a nice long nap in the sun, you’ll have a whole slew of summer breaks in the future to tan on your patio. Programs like the Girls Leadership Institute and Running Start are open only to teens, and having attended both of them, I can tell you they’ve had a big impact on my life. Maybe an even bigger impact than that awesome tan I got last summer…believe it or not.

9. Instead of resolving to gab less with new guys you meet (this is an actual Cosmo resolution suggestion), watch other people gab by watching some youtube Ted talks. Ted is a great organization that promotes short, entertaining speeches of “ideas worth sharing.” Although most Ted speakers are adults, I did a Tedx talk last year, and there are a lot of teen-focused Ted events.

10. Instead of choosing a diet that you think will benefit your butt in that new leather skirt you got for Christmas, choose a diet that will benefit your community. I recently watched the documentary film Food Inc. for a Politics of Food elective course I’m taking at my high school, and was astounded to find out that most of the food I eat, in addition to going through some pretty gross processes before it reaches me, is hurting plants, people, and animals in our environment. If you’re interested in this subject, I’d also recommend Michael Pollan’s book The Omnivore’s Dilemma, which I am in the process of reading. I guarantee some not-so-pleasant, but very important surprises.

Hopefully, this list of slightly harder hitting resolution suggestions will inspire you, as researching it inspired me! And while it’s going to be hard to give up my American Apparel tube socks and McDonald’s fries, I’m going to try my best to keep some of these resolutions. Happy 2012!

I was expecting a few things from the film. First, I was expecting a kick-butt performance from Ms. Streep. Second, I was expecting to learn more about Margaret Thatcher’s political and personal story, since I don’t know that much about her. Third, I was expecting to be thoroughly entertained.

Unfortunately, only one of my three expectations was really fulfilled. Meryl Streep’s performance was above and beyond what I had hoped for. She did an incredible job conveying subtle aspects of Margaret Thatcher’s character, and portraying her throughout at different ages. I also just have to give props to Meryl Streep for taking on this role and helping to bring to light the story of a political trailblazer.

Sadly, I feel the film didn’t give Meryl Streep much of a chance to delve into certain aspects of Thatcher’s character. The film touched on events that occurred during Thatcher’s time as Prime Minister, but glossed over many.

I wanted to see more explanation of how Thatcher came to believe in her conservative politics, whether she ever questioned them, and how she became interested in politics in the first place.The film alludes to Thatcher’s early ambitions with a scene where she dreamily watches her politically active father deliver a speech, but skips over Thatcher’s time at Oxford, showing us her run for Parliament before we know why or when she became interested in politics.

Instead the film focuses mainly on Thatcher’s life as an old woman, after her husband has died, as she is beginning to lose her mind. In most of the movie, Thatcher is coping with the loss of her husband. She hallucinates that he is with her when he is, in fact, dead, and for most of the film refuses to throw out his belongings.

At the end of the film, she finally lets her hallucinations go, as she imagines her husband walking out the door. However, this is done with much crying and saying that she is scared to be alone. I thought the film’s choice to include these hallucinations was especially interesting, as it highlighted Thatcher’s dependency on her male counterpart, rather than focusing on her independent strength.

One positive aspect of this portrayal is that it debunks the idea that Margaret Thatcher was, well, an Iron Lady. Showing Thatcher as vulnerable and reliant on her husband humanizes her to some extent. However, it frustrates me that it is necessary to portray a female leader as dependent on her husband to humanize her or make her seem likeable.

I found myself wishing that the film had focused on a stronger, more independent Thatcher, rather than trying to make her hard exterior soft on the edges.

Maybe it’s because I can be a bit of an iron lady myself sometimes, but I think Thatcher would have been even more likeable and relatable, had more of her firmness and independence been portrayed. I was expecting a lot from this film, and frankly, I left somewhat disappointed. While I commend Streep and the others who worked on this film for highlighting the life of such an interesting woman, I hope that someday filmmakers will not feel the need to soften such a powerful character simply because of her gender.

This weekend I found myself thinking a lot about this topic, as I attended a debate conference in Boston where I witnessed many female participants confuse “Western Business Attire” with “Western Clubbing Attire.” Although the conference had a strict dress code outlined in the information packet given to participants at the beginning of the weekend, no one seemed to pay much attention to it, and thus a parade of ultra-high-heeled, short-skirted teenage girls descended on the tournament.

As one of the few more modestly dressed participants, I found myself looking critically at these girls and feeling as though they must not be serious participants. I also found myself feeling a little Amish in comparison, but that’s beside the point.

After standing with the rest of my debate team for a while and watching as girl after girl teetered by in 8-inch heels, I came to a realization. Who was I to laugh at or judge these girls for what they were wearing? Sure, they could use a lesson in not wearing sequined pumps before 8 pm or white mini-dresses after Labor Day, but that didn’t mean they weren’t serious debaters. In fact, many of them ended up being serious competition.

While I was in Boston, Silvio Berlusconi, Italian prime minister and weirdo-philanderer extraordinaire, stepped down from office in light of recent economic struggles within Italy, but not before leaving a legacy of Bunga Bunga parties, and more importantly, “pumpkins turned parliamentarians,” to quote Berlusconi, himself. I’m talking, of course, about the mistresses Berlusconi appointed to positions within the Italian parliament during his terms as Prime Minister. These women, in addition to being examples of Berlusconi’s general ridiculousness, stick out like sore thumbs in the parliament because they tend to be, and dress, well, hot.

As long as men continue to dominate politics within this country and abroad, women will forever be forced to censor their attire. With powerful men exploiting attractive women every day, women in politics cannot afford to flaunt their figures, for fear of seeming to exploit them, themselves or appear to be a Berlusconi-esque Parliamentarian. Society sends the contradictory messages that young women should both dress sexy as a way of gaining attention and drop that sexy if they want to be taken seriously.

And so, hundreds of teenage girls debate in mini-skirts, yet women in politics are severely under-represented. Where do these tight clothed debaters go? My guess is that they are, however shallow it may be, in part dissuaded from certain fields by the “dowdy” role models they see within those careers. Don’t me wrong, I’m not telling Hillary to put on a tube-top, I’m just hoping the next, young batch of female politicians won’t be afraid to show a little skin.

In response to allegations of sexual harassment, GOP Presidential candidate Herman Cain stated in a recent stump speech, “We look forward to focusing our attention on the real issues impacting this country” to which he reportedly received thunderous applause. Bravo, Mr. Cain—you’ve successfully confirmed for some Americans that sexual harassment is not a real issue.

In other creepy sexual harassment news, the recent death of Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi has brought forth some stories about his “interest” in (hint: obsession with) former secretary of state Condoleezza Rice, specifically a meeting in which he showed her a video montage of photos of her set to music he’d had personally composed about her.

“What was going through my head was ‘How long do I have to sit here and how quickly can I get out of here?’” Rice recently said in an interview with George Stephanopoulos about her meeting with Gaddafi in 2008. Apparently, Gaddafi told Rice he’d had Libya’s best composer write the song for her, which he titled “Black Flower in the White House.” He also reportedly made a scrapbook. According to a 60 Minutes/Vanity Fair poll, approximately one in six Americans and a quarter of women report experiencing sexual harassment in the workplace at some point in their lives.

According to a recent Washington Post/ABC poll, 7 in 10 Republicans believe that the allegations against Mr. Cain do not matter when choosing a Presidential candidate. Apparently these people don’t see a link between using one’s position of power as a way to further one’s desires and being a fair leader of the free world.

What can we take away from this week’s current affairs developments? Whether you’re an employee at the National Restaurant Association or the Secretary of State for the U.S. government, you may experience sexual harassment in your job. What else do these stories indicate? Chances are it may not be recognized as sexual harassment.

Despite the fact that three anonymous women pressed charges against Cain, the media continues to talk about the scandal as something Cain can “recover from” politically, and there still seems to be some doubt among voters as to whether or not the allegations matter.

Although Condoleezza Rice herself has described Gaddafi’s actions toward her as “eerie,” the story has mostly been presented to the public as a weird, and slightly hilarious incident. The Colbert Report went so far as to imagine what Gaddafi and Rice’s wedding might be like.

I’ll admit it: both instances are ludicrous in their own way and easy to make fun of. Gaddafi was a ridiculously theatrical person, and his interest in Condoleezza Rice certainly seems out of left field and bizarre. Herman Cain seems to be the butt of many jokes these days, between his singing and bizarre campaign ads, so I can see how it was easy for the American public and media to lump this scandal in with the others. But, amidst our laughter, surprise, and general indifference, I hope we can find some time to recognize that sexual harassment is a crime, and there isn’t much funny about being on the receiving end.