Friday, May 9
Once again, my stomach was ruling the course of my day. I felt queasy, tired and irritable. My stomach hurt for most of the day, which was unpleasant. I was thinking about the books out there on Celiac disease and gluten intolerance, and they are all pretty much about diet and recipes. There are no books out there, that I have found, that really focus on the symptoms, replapses and lifestyle issues that affect those dealing with the disease. There are no books that really explain what it’s like to live with Celiac before cutting the gluten out, and what it’s like once you attempt to cut out gluten.
I figured, when I do put this blog into a book, I will have to really focus on that – because it’s really what’s been dominating my life this year – the struggles with following such a strict diet, the sickness and mood issues that come with it.
I spent the first part of the day in meetings, including a wine tasting to evaluate the progress of the 2007 vintage. It was really interesting to taste where the wines are now and to see where they are going. The whites, that are already in the bottle, were vibrant but still a little tight. But they were lovely. And the diffent blocks of vineyard selections of Pinot Noir were supple, lush, with good fruit – albiet with some intrigue that for a moment makes you wonder - is this off? But it’s not. It’s actully too soon to really evaluate these wines because they are still evolving in the barrel.
The winemaker indicated he was pleased with where the wine are at this point, and taught us about what’s going on with the wine at this point, and our vineyard manager chimed in with information of what happened in the vineyard during the last vintage to help us with our assessment and learning. It was a really great exercise.
In the afternoon I got a phone call from a friend of mine from back east. We worked for the same distributor and came out to Pinot Camp back in 2004. I always admired him for his great palate and wine knowledge, he’s a cool guy and like a big brother. He and his wife were in town with his boss to meet up with their suppliers. I met them for dinner at Tina’s in Dundee. Some other friends were there from two other wineries, so it ended up being one big wine industry dinner. I had scallops wrapped in bacon, a greens salad with hazelnuts and the duckbreast with cooked greens and risotto. The table ordered a bottle of pink bubbly, a Riesling, a Pinot Noir and then a fun Bordeaux blend from Red Mountain in Washington.
After, we went to the back room at Nick’s in McMinnville. We met up with another wine country couple. It was good fun to hang out. I was happy to hang out with my former co-worker and to get to know his wife. She’s a remarkable woman – a professional cellist. I told them that they had to come back and that they had a free place to stay. So, hopefully they’ll come back with their daughter.
To end my day, I was on my way home, driving down 99/The Pacific Highway toward Tigard and I thought more about this election. I was actually upset with women in America. I know you shouldn’t vote for someone just for their gender, just as you shouldn’t vote for someone on one issue. But, for the women who are backing Obama at this point, I can’t help but to wonder if they subconsciously believe that only a man can lead our country.
From the beginning of time, women have been put in a place below men. We still make .75 to each $1.00 men make. Interestingly enough, though, there are more women in higher education in America then men. And yet I think some women still subscribe to archaic ideas, whether they realize it or not. Perhaps I’m wrong. But, I struggle with understanding why women, who are in the majority in the US, would not wholeheartedly support the first woman who can actully beat the challenger! Why aren’t they stepping up and putting Hillary in that position?
And then I wondered, are there some women who are judging Hillary unfairly, like the catty women who look you over in the gym and fire away mean glances oozing with their judginess? I certainly hope not. Now is the time when I hope women can come together and support the sacred feminine - our important position in society as the nurturers, caregivers, compassionate beings and powerful mothers -we are the ones that carry and deliver life. It’s time, ladies. IT IS TIME.
We are in the majority. It is time to hear our voice. We are women – hear us roar and let us take care of our wounded nation. Women out there….sisters, daughters, mothers, grandmothers – tune in! Do your part. Make Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton proud!
In 1848, at the Seneca Falls Convention in New York, Anthony and Stanton began the 70 year struggle to secure the right to vote for women. Today, 160 years later, headed toward a new Convention, we could put a New York female Senator in the White House as President.
And think about this for a moment. There are still nations of the world, specifically within the Middle East, that continue to deny women the right to vote. Wouldn’t it be marvelous to make those sexist world leaders in the Middle East have to deal with a woman leading the most powerful nation in the world? Putting a woman in the Oval Office would force change that is global. I don’t think there’d be the same impact by putting a man with the name Barack Obama in that position. Nuff said.
And to that end, I found an interesting article addressing why some feminists are not supporting Clinton for Obama: democrats_feminists
I really don’t think there’s enough change by putting yet another man in the White House, which also restores the idea that the White House needs a prim and proper Jackie-O little wife to keep things status-quo. It’s too damn bad that Michelle Obama isn’t running for office instead of her husband. Now THAT would be interesting.
Most of the liberal women I know who support Obama vs. Clinton are doing so based on their different records regarding support of the war, rather than anything to do with gender. I’m not sure it’s fair to expect women to support a woman out of gender solidarity if Clinton does not appeal to them as a candidate.
If you’ll forgive my saying something that may sound very odd, and which is not in any way meant to be critical of you … in a way, isn’t it kind of more sexist to assume that a woman in the White House will be a great catalyst for change? That idea supposes that women operate very differently from men. Then again, perhaps I have an unusual idea of what gender equality is. Ideally, I’d like to see Clinton and Obama considered as people with values and skills, not as a white woman and a black man. If Clinton falls in with the policies and procedures of the status quo (which many people fear she will, based on her voting record and her husband) she’ll be the same kind of leader we already have, her gender notwithstanding.
Anyway … I guess I feel that voting women who are considering their vote based on the candidate, rather than gender solidarity, are making a valid choice, and are actually making a choice that supports women … because they’re exercising their right to think for themselves, rather than voting based on the simple fact that a candidate shares their chromosomal makeup.
Hello David,
Thanks for taking the time to share your perspective.
I would like to point out that most of the women I’m talking to, who are on the fence about both leaders, the ones who find Clinton and Obama as equal candidates, those are the ones I target in my commentary.
It’s very easy for men to play the card – we should vote for the best candidate, not gender or race or whatever. I do that – which is why I am registered Independent and not by party. I would never vote based on a party, but on the best candidate.
I believe women, and men for that matter, should vote for the best candidate. If Hillary was not a viable candidate, then there would be no discussion, no debate. But the fact of the matter is that she is a viable candidate.
I think it is important, at this time in history, for women to consider gender in this election, sexist or not. The only sexist part of presidential politics, in my opinion, is the fact that women have not been able to make a case for leading our country until now.
I do believe women lead with more compassion then most male politicians. I saw this all of the time growing up in Washington, DC, especially with so many of my friends who worked on the Hill or in the White House. Unfortunately, sexism in our society continues to keep women’s voices in the background. I don’t think Nancy Pelosi should be considered a token woman leader in her position. Nor do I think Hillary should be the token woman president. I believe they deserve to be in their positions of power.
It kills me that Hillary has been judged for what outfit she wears or for her laugh. The media has been responsible for much of that. But, there are still so many men, and apparently women, out there who don’t take women seriously enough to lead. My uncle is one of those people. He actually thinks that men are smarter than women. It’s appalling to me.
So, yes, growing up as a woman who was told she could be anything she wants to be, only to learn the foil of that myth, well, yeah, I think women need to step it up and support their gender. Sorry.
Kind regards,
Leah
I absolutely wouldn’t argue that Clinton is a viable candidate. I just think that if a woman doesn’t think she’s the better of the two candidates strictly from a political/leadership standpoint, it doesn’t make sense to support her simply on the basis of gender solidarity. I guess I kind of think of it, probably wrongly, in terms of family … if my mother, whom I adore, were running for office against another woman whom I felt to be better qualified, I’d vote for the other woman, even if it meant disappointing my mother. To me, what someone really thinks is more important than loyalty. To my dubious credit, I think that about people who interact with me, as well … I’d rather that someone do what feels right to them, rather than support me simply because they “owe” it to me for some reason. I realize that in saying this I have gotten a bit off topic, but the basic concept underlies why solidarity of any kind baffles me a bit. Then again, I’ve always been unrepentantly disenfranchised, in every possible sense of the word.
I agree that criticizing Clinton’s dress, mannerisms, or anything else about her personally is beyond contemptible, and highly reflective of the fact that we haven’t really come all that far regarding gender equality. It’s too bad that the media has such an impact on politics … it’s such a circus sideshow.