Thursday, January 3, 2008

Men, Power, Speaking Up, and Speaking Out

I remain slightly stunned that Hillary came in not second but third in Iowa last night. And at the way she is painted the establishment candidate. And at the strength of the venom against her. More election commentary coming soon from guest poster, sociologist Virginia Rutter. In the meantime, a quick bit on two books, just out:

Men Speak Out: Views on Gender, Sex and Power--a new anthology edited by Shira Tarrant--compiles the voices of 40 men who explore issues of masculinity, sexuality, identity, and positive change. The book lays issues on the table that are sure to stimulate a lively debate. It's starting already at myspace and facebook. Check it.

Next up, Making Love, Playing Power: Men, Women, & the Rewards of Intimate Justice, by family therapist and organizational consultant Ken Dolan-Del Vecchio, debunks superficial theories about communication styles and geder roles and, according to the book's description, "gets to the real reason so many relationships are in trouble — misuse of power." The book reveals how gender, race, sexual orientation, and money set the foundation for personal power, and how power as domination drives most conflicts whether between nations, interest groups, or individuals. Join Ken at Bluestockings Bookstore in Manhattan on February 13 for a reading...!

1 comment:

J. K. Gayle said...

Thanks for the book p/reviews.

On Obama besting Clinton in Iowa, Jim Aune at The Blogora thinks its all rhetoric. The one has a "winning formula" while the other "can't give a decent speech."

So Jim gets us re-reading Karlyn Kohrs Campbell's essay in the first issue of Rhetoric & Public Affairs: "The Discursive Performance of Femininity: Hating Hillary." Rhetoric & Public Affairs 1 (1998): 1-20.

Karlyn says "Hillary Rodham Clinton's style of public advocacy typically omits all of the discursive markers by which women publicly enact their femininity. Her tone is usually impersonal . . . her ideas unfold deductively . . . all kinds of evidence is used. . . . she is impassioned but very rarely emotional. . . . [She is unable to] feminize her rhetorical style, to perform a culturally defined feminine role publicly. . . . [while her audiences have a] failure to appreciate [her true power to persuade]. . . . If we reject all those who lack the feminizing skills of an Elizabeth Hanford Dole, we shall deprive ourselves of a vast array of talent" (pages 1, 6, 15).

Do Mr. Obama and Mr. Edwards need feminizing skills of Ms. Dole? Why does Ms. Clinton have to have them?

What do other readers at Girl with Pen think?