The Tribune

1972 is usually regarded as a seminal moment in the American women’s movement for greater equality of opportunity, since that was the year of what has simply become known as Title Nine.

Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 protects people from discrimination based on sex in education programmes or activities that receive federal financial assistance.

In practice, this legislation, which was controversial at the time it was enacted, has afforded countless new opportunities for American women in sports, business, the arts, and many professions where access was previously severely limited. Another of those professions was politics.

In many ways, Title Nine capped a decade of advances in women’s rights, including removal of barriers to their admission to the most prestigious private colleges and universities in the country and effectively mandating much more equal gender access to America’s most heralded graduate and professional schools.

Two years ago, the US celebrated the 100th anniversary of the passage of the 19th amendment to the American constitution, which guaranteed that “the right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex”.

In light of these long-overdue advances in women’s rights, it comes as little surprise that the current US Senate includes 24 women among its 100 members. Four states – Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire and Washington – now have both Senate seats held by women. The US House of Representatives includes among its 435 members 122 women, making females 27.8% of the total.

While these totals do not duplicate the roughly 51% of the American population that is female, they do represent significant advances. Furthermore, 12 women will be serving as governors next year, duplicating the current percentage of female senators.

It’s no secret that women elected Joe Biden in 2020, playing just as decisive a role in that presidential election as they had four years earlier, when only 54% of women voted to support Hillary Clinton, then running as the first-ever female presidential candidate of a major political party.

Female politicians are making notable gains in another important category – notoriety. Liberals and cynics are never surprised when Republican candidates and operatives seek to mock, diminish or vilify female opponents, either openly or subliminally, on the basis of their gender.

Consider some of the favorite GOP targets in the past ten years: Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren (dubbed “Pocahontas” by Donald Trump in 2016); New York Congresswoman Alexandra Cortez-Ocasio, often slammed as a socialist, communist, radical leftie or worse; Hillary Clinton herself, targeted and investigated by headline-seeking Republican congressmen for issues ranging from financial impropriety (Clinton Foundation, Whitewater) to personal scandal (suicide of aide and admirer Vince Foster) to diplomatic malfeasance (insufficient security at a US facility in Libya where ambassador was killed).

And how can we forget Michigan governor Gretchen Whitmer, who just coasted to easy re-election, but was the target of a kidnap scheme by misguided Trump supporters not long ago during her first term. Or how about the Number One GOP target over the past couple of decades and most powerful female politician in US history, California Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi. The January 6 mob that invaded the US capitol certainly had her in their sights as they rampaged through the legislative complex, goaded by incessant Republican campaigning against her.

GOP women in high places are hardly immune from gender-based rhetorical attacks. Remember when most of the American liberal press ridiculed and lambasted Maine Senator Susan Collins for her controversial decision to support the Supreme Court candidacy of anti-abortion candidate Brett Kavanagh despite the compelling testimony of a female professor who described his sexual predation of her in vivid terms on national TV? Collins was clearly expected, as a politically centrist woman, to be outraged by both the allegations against Kavanagh and his passionate anti-abortion beliefs, which were ineptly camouflaged during his contentious confirmation hearings.

Failed Arizona gubernatorial candidate Kari Lake, a staunch Trumper and election denier, is attracting a lot of snarky criticism these days. So are two ardent hard-right supporters of Donald Trump who are just now engaged in a verbal fist fight. Reps Marjorie Taylor-Greene of Georgia and Lauren Boebert of Colorado both represent largely rural deep red districts in western Colorado and northern Georgia respectively. They are notoriously pugnacious, but heretofore not with each other. In fact, they have often marched together as loyal foot soldiers in Trump’s MAGA (Make America Great Again) army.

Now they have fallen out over the question of Kevin McCarthy’s desperate attempts to become Speaker of the House with his narrow Republican majority. Greene favors him; Boebert doesn’t. Their feud has been tabloid and cable news fodder for days.

“I’ve been aligned with Marjorie and accused of believing a lot of the things that she believes in,” said Boebert. “I don’t believe in this (McCarthy’s worthiness to be Speaker), just like I don’t believe in Russian or Jewish space lasers, and the rest of her nonsense.”

Boebert’s remark referenced a 2018 Facebook post in which Greene reportedly opined that California’s recent devastating wildfires were controlled by politicians and Jewish bankers.

Greene quickly fired back. “She (Boebert) childishly threw me under the bus for a cheap sound bite,” Greene snapped. Americans expect conservative fighters like us to work together to Save America and that is the only mission I’m 100% devoted to, not high school drama and media sound bites.”

But for all the Republican pillorying of Pelosi and the Democratic derision of Greene and Boebert, some feel that their status as targets derives from their political clout and influence. Insignificant congresspersons rarely endure as opposition targets.

As they have gained political influence, American women have also earned the right to endure political attacks.

World cup final that delivered on the advance hype

Sometimes a sporting event will actually live up to the hype that preceded it. This was the case with Sunday’s World Cup final between Lionel Messi’s Argentina, which last won the title in 1986 with the help of Diego Maradona’s “Hand of God” goal, and defending champion France, still widely regarded as the world’s best and deepest national team.

Many soccer analysts see Messi as not only the world’s best current player and perhaps the best of all time, but also as the best athlete in any sport. For months, stories have proliferated about how Messi needed this World Cup triumph to cap his spectacular career. Argentina, generally the only team in the Western Hemisphere that is consistently capable of standing up to the Goliath that is Brazil, has been plagued during the past 36 years by inconsistency when it counted most in major tournaments.

In Sunday’s supremely entertaining and exciting final World Cup match, Argentina began by dominating the defending champions, who were perhaps weakened by a virus that was reportedly raging through their training facility for nearly a week prior to the finale. Argentina outhustled and outplayed “les Bleus” from France at every turn, making the champions look stolid and unimaginative in both offense and defense. Goals by longtime Messi sidekick Angel di Maria and Messi himself propelled Argentina to a 2–0 halftime lead.

After the break, the French still appeared listless despite some major substitutions before and after halftime in an attempt to inject some life into their performance. They remained largely ineffectual until the moment in the 79th minute when an Argentine defender’s carelessness near his goal gave the French a penalty shot -- and new life. Kylian Mbappe converted – of course he did – and then he capitalised on another Argentine defensive misstep less than two minutes later by rifling in the tying goal.

Messi and Mbappe matched goals in the 30 minutes of overtime, forcing a penalty shot competition to decide who would prevail. Argentina did win in the end as a couple of younger French stars missed shots or had them saved by the Argentinian goalie Emiliano Martinez, who had a fabulous tournament.

The win for Messi was and will remain the major story of this World Cup, but Morocco’s advance to the semi-finals and fourth-place finish in the 32-team field was the first for an African or Arabic team. England lost to France in the quarterfinals, but there’s a sense that the Lions could be back with a vengeance in four years when the tournament returns to North America.