I saw it in the headlines again: The Year of the Woman. I thought, “Again?” Or should I say “Still?” Let’s see. To define a term, it’s often helpful to find out what it’s not.

It’s not the year of the soccer mom or the hockey mom. The WalMart mom is likely to be part of the 47%, so it’s not her year, either. It’s not the year of any mom, that is, unless it’s the mom who is worried about getting or keeping health care coverage for her children.

Is it the year of the young woman, the woman in her childbearing years? She may need health care, and if she’s struggling to find full time work, she might not have coverage. If she’s not using birth control or if it fails, she may need prenatal care. In some cases, she may need to terminate the pregnancy.  What if she miscarries? She’ll need medical care, counseling or therapy, and reassurance that she can try to carry to term again – or not, if she wishes.

Is it the year of the senior woman? The one looking at Medicare and wondering how the new plan will affect her access to doctors, prescriptions, home health care? This woman needs to understand her options and vote accordingly.

And that’s where the so-called “year of the woman” comes in. Pundits are asking, “How will the women vote?” Oddly, they’re considering the women vote to be one block of voters voting en masse Democratic or Republican. That’s not the way women think.

If it’s really the year of the woman, let’s respect each and every woman. Let’s make sure that she knows she can get pregnancy tests, pap smears, prenatal care, and other reproductive health care if she needs it, whenever she needs it, without question. Let’s make sure she’s the last word in whether or not she needs an invasive vaginal ultrasound — not someone in a suit speechifying bad science under a marble dome.

Let’s make sure the woman that votes today knows that rape is rape and rape is violence against women. Let’s make sure that people who would blame the victims of such violence are not the people making laws that decide on medical procedures for those very victims.

I don’t want today’s mother or grandmother to worry about the safety of her children or grandchildren because of backwards attitudes in official places. I don’t want a victim of violence to have to sacrifice a year of her life carrying a child to term unwillingly. I don’t want an older, wiser woman to have to limit her visits to the doctor because she runs out of vouchers.

If yet another Year of the Woman is really happening, let’s make it a year to remember. Let’s make it clear that we won’t be the little woman of some mythical olden day; we are adults with the same rights and responsibilities as the other gender. Let’s make it the year that we women recognize ourselves as strong, intelligent, and independent voters.

Dear Mr. President;

Four years ago, I suggested it was okay, even advisable, to show your strength. Taking the high road doesn’t always mean letting the competitor have the advantage.  Wednesday night, I worried. Thursday through my workday, I worried.

I’m still worrying.

President Obama, you remain calm in the face of stress. You think through your decisions in order to make the right ones. You understand the seriousness of your job. The gray hair and frown wrinkles show that you’ve internalized the conflicts and challenges you’ve faced, that you’ve aged much more than you might have had you remained in the Senate.

Mr. President, you are a skilled listener and negotiator. Your body posture gives nothing away. You might seem to agree with an enemy even as you’re planning to disagree publicly and take action to prove it.

In a campaign debate, these strengths can appear as weaknesses. Each time Mitt lied, we saw you tense up a little – only a little. Those who don’t understand might think you didn’t notice or that you – gasp! – might agree or give in.

But Mr. President, we heard you the next day in Madison. You reminded your followers that taking on the opposition means acting, not shouting. It means voting, not booing. It means pointing out the ridiculousness of considering PBS a moocher. Big Bird, one of the 47%? Say is isn’t so!

Now, Mr. President, it’s time to stop being polite. It’s time to show the world what your competitor already knows; you are a force with which to be reckoned. You are willing to stand up, speak up, and rise up swinging. You’re willing to stop putting up with the dangerous garbage spouted by the Republican Ticket and their Tea Party Pals.

So Mr. President, show that strength. You don’t have to hide it. When Mitt tries to leave you speechless, speak right up and show him.

Show him that you are the President, and you intend to remain so.

Todd Akin, the idiot, er, candidate from Missouri who claimed women can “shut that whole thing down” when raped, has done it again. He opened his mouth yet one more time and showed that he views females to be inferior beings.

He complained that his opponent, Claire McCaskill, “came out swinging” and seemed “aggressive” in their debate. This threw him a little, took him unawares. He thought he remembered McCaskill in her 2006 campaign being “…very much sort of ladylike.” Apparently he didn’t expect the little female to be strong competition to an old-fashioned guy like him. If you ask me, he didn’t expect McCaskill to be strong, period.

Remember the movie Field of Dreams? Annie Kinsella accuses an ultra-conservative PTA mom of having lived through two 1950s and jumping straight into the 1970s without ever experiencing the peace, love, rock and roll of the 60s. Akin is stuck in the past somewhere, too, in an unrealistic vision with unrealistic plastic people.

When a candidate is strong, that’s good. If a candidate has enough knowledge and skill and strength to come out swinging in a political debate, that scores points in the candidates favor.

Male or female, I want my senator to be intelligent, articulate, and yes, strong. Male or female, that legislator needs to be able to come out swinging when it’s necessary. Ladylike? I’d rather see someone with strength, knowledge, and ability to work in a team.

Ladylike? I think we’re looking for womanly, myself. No apologies for being female, and no tolerance for inaccuracy and idiocy and condescension.

Hm. That sounds a lot like Tammy Baldwin for Wisconsin as well as Claire McCaskill for Missouri. Come November 6, I know who deserves my vote.