Last week I went to see “How to Succeed In Business Without Really Trying” at the Al Hirschfeld Theatre in New York City. The new production stars Daniel Radcliffe and John Larroquette.

I was familiar with the play having seen an amateur production a few years ago. It’s about a young man, J. Pierpont Finch, who smirks his way to the top of a corporation using a book with the same name as the show. The songs are catchy and while the play is very dated in terms of gender roles (more on that in a minute) that doesn’t make it worth skipping.

Radcliffe, at 21 is twelve years younger than Matthew Broderick was when he played the same role in a 1995 revival, and comes across as more fresh faced and earnest. He’s pitch perfect (pun intended) and an absolute delight to watch as Finch. Radcliffe’s American accent is spot on, and his comic timing is impeccable.

Advertisements for the play are reminiscent of the aesthetics of “Down With Love“, and I hoped that also meant sending up the sexual politics of the time with a wink and a nudge. It was an accurate impression. The cast was wonderful and I found a lot more humor in the play than I had appreciated before.

The way gender roles are dealt with in this play is in some ways inherent to the script, but different productions can and do make choices about how much of it to play straight and how much to poke fun at and satirize.

Rosemary
The character of Rosemary is Finch’s love interest and sings longingly of how she would be Happy to Keep His Dinner Warm in New Rochelle. The first time I heard this song I was very uncomfortable. I couldn’t decide if the point was that Rosemary’s supreme ambition in life was to be a housewife with no interests outside her husband or if her desires were supposed to represent what all women wanted. Perusing other productions on YouTube, another character interpretation is just that she’s just desperate for male attention. When Rose Hemingway took the stage in the current production and began to sing this song, I felt a palpable discomfort, which ceded to a few stifled giggles. Hemingway’s Rosemary is simply completely infatuated with Finch and might as well been singing about how he’s her “freshly baked love dumpling, fuzzy huggy squeezer and big old pokey bear.” It was really cute, and while faithful to how silly most of the characters in the play are at heart – much less insulting.

Heddy
Heddy La Rue is a more problematic character. She’s stupid (or at least we are meant to laugh at her ignorant gaffes) and has seemingly no sexual ethics. She claims to love Bigley but makes advances on Finch and then marries Womper at the drop of a hat. It’s unclear if she’s a libertine who wants to enjoy as much of her youth and beauty as she can – like say, Clementine Johnson from “Reno 911!” or if it’s her way of accessing power and status, or if she doesn’t really understand what she is doing. The sexy secretary is an old cliche and I don’t think cheesecake (or beefcake) is in and of itself always sexist. But I really feel bad for Heddy as a character – the play dumps a lot of abuse on her and it’s not explained if she understands that almost all of the other characters don’t respect her, either because of the lust or jealousy she invokes in them.

A Secretary Is Not A Toy
This song always makes me squirm. The men of World Wide Wickets are advised not to get involved with their secretaries because they have talents other than being fondled and flirted with, and on top of it you will be fired, with a bunch of silly puns and double entendres to make it rhyme. I’m at a loss as to the original intent of the song, or why it was funny – watching the video from the movie is painfully uncomfortable – and try as I might I can tell it was meant to be humorous but… I’ve got nothin’, and I think that says a lot for how much times have changed. However, I do like what the current production did with the song. I don’t like slapstick humor, at all, but the choreography suggesting the male characters were trying to cover up their arousal (and possibly more) was brilliant and hilarious. In addition, guffaw inducing visual aides were added to the song. In total it was a lot like “Its’ Easy MMMKay” from South Park: Bigger, Longer and Uncut, a spot on parody of how silly it is to say something that shouldn’t have to be said, but somehow must be said.

Paris Original
I’ve loved this song since the first time I heard it in my high school auditorium. It’s pretty much a feminist anthem about the Beauty Myth – no, really. Rosemary is ecstatic that she has found a dress that will make her beautiful enough for Finch to take notice of her. It’s like the fantasy of being thin, only using an article of clothing as the magical talisman rather than a change in weight. If I only had the perfect dress, (or car, or phone, or styling gel) I would be so attractive and and my dream guy (or lady) would fall head over heels for me. And then as quickly as the madness came on, your money is spent, the glow fades and you realize you’ve been had. The party continues on, playing out as it probably would have no matter what you (or anyone else) were wearing.

Cinderella Darling
This song opens Act 2, when Rosemary is considering quitting her job and breaking up with Finch because although he has declared his love and proposed to her, he put a (brief, week long) hold on their romantic relationship to focus on his career. The women in the cast will not stand for this rebellion. They sing to her, begging and pleading not to leave. Not because they care for her and will miss her friendship, or because Finch is a great guy and deserves a second chance, or even because she has a good job and shouldn’t let a personal relationship interfere. They tell her to stay because it’s so rare that a woman can fill the dream of marrying her boss, and if she leaves now, they will all lose hope that their bosses will ever propose to them because her actions would discourage them. Rosemary must stay and live out a fairy tale, because some of them will not get to experience one, except vicariously through her. It’s all so ludicrous I can’t decide to laugh or face|palm, but know this: Cinderella Darling is an excellent illustration of how patriarchy works. When all women are given is crumbs of respect, they will fight over and for them, and shame and ostracize anyone who dares ask for more – because she might cut off their supply of crumbs. This is not an indictment of women. It’s a thoroughly rational response.

In some ways, the drudgery of making a living as a white collar employee hasn’t changed much from How to Succeed through Dilbert and Office Space (which both will one day be just as dated) and that’s one of the reasons people still like this play. It’s actually more relevant now, more people work in those kinds of environments because there are a lot fewer jobs in manufacturing than there were in the 60’s, so more people are in on the jokes. And in spite my criticisms above, it was really cool to see Harry Potter singing about TPS reports.

One of the most maddening expressions in common use is “Lies, damned lies and statistics.” Statistics can be used to mislead people, but that doesn’t make them automatically invalid. In part I’m defensive because I did better in statistics than any other mathematics classes I ever took and because it’s the type of math that I really grok. But also because I am at a loss for how to respond to arguments that are inherently anti-intellectual. Statistical significance is not terribly difficult of a concept to grasp. That the general public can’t is maddening.

That being said, I find this graphic very interesting. It’s from the New York Times, and I found it on Sociological Images.

It’s kind of counter intuitive that women and Hispanics could be both the happiest and saddest people in the country. But, off the cuff, I have a few hypotheses for why this might be:

-Women smile more because they both get more rewards for it and more social derision if they don’t smile.
-Previous studies report that Latin@s have stronger ties to their families than people from other ethnic groups. This could result in an increase in happiness.
-Women and people of color are more likely to experience discrimination and poverty – accounting for higher rates of unhappiness.

The picture this data creates would be very easy to distort. Simply ignoring one half or the other would create an incomplete picture that could lead to false conclusions. And that might be the closest to a “damned lie” you cold tell with this set of data.

Finally, something I think that’s very interesting is that single people report similar levels of happiness to married people. This lends support to the idea that an increase in the age of marriage over the past century is a good thing. The people who are unhappiest are the ones who have had to end a marriage or who are in the process of doing so.

I quite enjoyed Benjamin Dueholm’s article about Dan Savage’s sexual ethics. Amanda at Pandagon did a good job of explaining why his argument about the free market fell flat, but the thing that bothered me the most was his questioning that

[F]or Savage, no matter how we direct its expression, our sexual self is our truest self.

I think that if Dan Savage was saying that, and I’m not completely sure that he is, the reason that he advises people to get out of relationships where their sexual needs are not met is to avoid future heartbreak. Savage knows that if a person has strong sexual desires that are unmet they will suffer silently and alone, or they will cheat and possibly destroy the relationship. This is why he encourages honesty and for people to seek out a compatible partner – because people shouldn’t force themselves to stay with an incompatible partner who makes them miserable, and breaking up is difficult enough without the feelings of inadequacy and humiliation that may accompany being cheated on.

This Aspiring Honest Nonmonogamous Dude (AHND) takes greater pains than most of Savage’s correspondents to praise his girlfriend, not only in general but specifically with regard to their sex life. They have already spent several happy years together. He is anxious about his surplus of desire, but apparently nothing else. Yet that consideration trumps all others in Savage’s answer. Sexual compatibility—in terms of libido or in terms of tolerating nonexclusivity—is the coin of the realm. Love, emotional compatibility, the possibility of a life together, not to mention irrecoverable years already spent—these must all be staked against the value of a fully deployed libido. But what, exactly, is the upshot of “calmly winding down” a relationship with a high risk of infidelity? Potential romantic partners, unlike firms in the classical free-market model, are not infinite in number, and a life of comparison shopping is not free of cost. If the aspiring HND dissolves this years-long transaction in order to find a partner who is just as lovable but less jealous, or who shares his libido at every point, he will likely have a lonely road ahead of him.

Dueholm seems to be ignoring the destruction that would be caused if HND cheated after he had married his girlfriend or had children with her. For some reason he is discounting how much potential unhappiness that would cause in the future when compared with a relatively uncomplicated breakup today. As a minister who counsels people about their relationships I fail to understand why he would think that way. And for someone who is so fond of economic terms, he has a hard time understanding the idea of a sunk cost.

I never understood the argument against genetically modified food. I’m not sure how species of crops created with new methods are any different from the bananas and strawberries I love today that were created from less palatable fruits over many generations of careful cultivation. After watching Food Inc., I had a better idea of why Monsanto has a bad reputation. The way they enforce their patent on the most common type of soybean in the United States makes earning a living almost impossible for farmers. But does that take away from all the successes of genetically modified foods? What about golden rice? I remain unconvinced that genetic modification of crops is inherently a bad idea, and I find the rhetoric about “Frankenfood” childishly silly

However, when I heard that the scientists at Monsanto may have unleashed a hellish horror on the world from their labs, I was alarmed. Dr. Don Huber, a retired professor from Purdue University wrote a letter to the USDA about the discovery of a new pathogen found in Monsanto Roundup Ready crops (crops that remain unharmed when sprayed with pesticides). If I am understanding him correctly, this pathogen evolved in response to the use of genetically modified crops, the way that MRSA evolved in response to misuse of antibiotics.

The discussion around Huber’s letter is intense, and it should be. If there really is some new “microfungus” pathogen that can attack plants and animals, and it’s in our food supply, this is very dangerous. I started thinking about mad cow disease and swine flu and SARS and the Ebola virus!! All my friends who had warned me about genetically modified food were right! It should be labeled! How could I have been so naive?

Dear Lord, where is Rene Russo!?

But after a few days of not seeing the story in the mainstream media, I wondered if things were as bad as Huber is presenting them. Now, I know that there are scores of important stories not covered in our media. But in general, they seem to be at least semi-competent at covering food safety and all over anything that can create panic in the masses. (Panic sells more beer and Strawberry Pop Tarts.) Contamination of common staples
like spinach, or the latest gross out of who found what in their fast food are usually top stories. Why not this?

There is some evidence that Huber is misrepresenting what he found, or just plain wrong. I’m hoping for all of our sakes that he is. And I think that before everyone goes wacky, we should at least understand what we are up against.

What is frustrating me the most about this controversy is the way that anti-science forces have muddied the waters in previous scientific debates. If science were not so abused by the likes of climate change deniers, anti-vaxxers and others it would be easier to follow what was going on. But the checkered history of Monsanto and the way some people abuse science to drum up panic makes it difficult to choose a side. I don’t want to be a rube easily led by the megatheocorporatocracy (hat tip) but I’m also hesitant to jump on a band wagon that may be carrying Jenny McCarthy and James Inhofe. I don’t know how many people are alarmed by Huber because what he’s saying really is alarming, and how many people just don’t like the idea of genetically modified food and now they have found their reason to crow. In an age where any two groups of people who disagree on an issue can rarely agree on any facts in common, I hope the dust will clear soon.

If you follow me on Twitter, you will see that one of the descriptive terms I use for myself is “podcast addict.” They are an integral part of my exercise routine, daily commute and errand running. In no particular order, I’d like to review some of my favorites. To see all of my podcast reviews, click here.

RH Reality Check is a comprehensive resource for information about the intersection of reproductive and sexual health issues and politics. Their podcast, “Reality Cast” is hosted by Amanda Marcotte and is always informative and entertaining. Usually the first segment covers the most important relevant news stories of the week, followed by an interview. The guests have included the authors of some really great books including No Excuses and Girl Drive. (And a bunch more that are on my reading list.)

The interviews are also often with women on the front lines of the fight for reproductive rights. This week the interview was with Dr. Anne Davis, an OBGYN who explained the research on women who halt second trimester abortions after they have begun because they changed their minds. Other topics have included the problems with the creation of a judicial bypass to allow pregnant minors to get access to abortion, a fascinating look into the life of Rosa Parks and the early history of the civil rights movement, and the pro-voice movement.

Marcotte ends each show with a Daily Show Moment of Zen type stinger she calls “The Wisdom of Wingnuts.” Sometimes you just have to laugh at how ridiculous anti-choicers can be.

I like Reality Cast because often the stories discussed are ones that the mainstream media has been ignoring. If you are a fan of Amanda Marcotte you will be pleased to see her unique and sharp analysis brought to this podcast. I would recommend it to anyone who is interested in feminism or reproductive justice.

The New Black Woman wrote a post, asking, “Why are white feminists silent on Limbaugh’s attacks on FLOTUS?”

In case you haven’t heard, Rush Limbaugh called First Lady Michelle Obama fat.

I’m fairly new to blogging, and I didn’t write about it because while I think we do need to combat racist memes in the media, when I first heard about this I saw this more as juvenile name calling that blatant racism. After reading The New Black Woman’s post, I can acknowledge that this initial understanding was influenced heavily by White privilege – I assumed that any reasonable person would realize that Rush Limbaugh is a racist piece of garbage without the class that Michelle Obama has in her little finger. What I didn’t think about was how a Black person would see it differently. And I think that’s the heart of the reason that White feminists haven’t called him out for racism about this comment. It’s (wrongly) perceived more as spitballs than cannon fire.

I would agree that everything Rush Limbaugh says about the Obamas is tainted with racism, however subtle, and I have left it to organizations like Media Matters to shine the spotlight on his rancid pronouncements. They’ve called out these comments at least four times so far. Chris Matthews has also made an issue of this on Hardball.

I do not know what should be done about hate mongers like Rush Limbaugh. I dread the thought that ignoring him makes it look as if I agree with anything he has said. He has a huge amount of power and influence and I would be much harder to take down than say, Don Imus. I’m not sure how to go about any sort of activism in opposition to his vile rhetoric without rallying his supporters or wasting my efforts. Can his reputation be tarnished anymore that it is? He’s not exactly an uncontroversial figure.

These past few months, I’ve seen a lot of feminists using twitter as a way to spread awareness about issues. Sady Doyle started #mooreandme to bring attention to insensitive comments about rape victims by Michael Moore and Keith Olbermann, and #DearJohn to call out the Republicans for trying to take away access to reproductive healthcare. Amanda Marcotte started #ThanksPPFA to praise Planned Parenthood for giving women that care. Maybe there should be hash tag to call out Rush Limbaugh? Or to respond to racist attacks on Michelle Obama? On the Obamas in general? Racism in the media at large?

Last week, Ian Murphy, a blogger at the Buffalo Beast, called Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, posing as conservative millionaire, and Tea Party funder David Koch. Walker believed that he was Koch, and admitted, among other things his strategies for busting the public unions of Wisconsin, that he had considered hiring people to disrupt the peaceful protests with violence and that he saw defeating the unions as akin to defeating communism.

This Sunday, on CNN’s Reliable Sources, the pundits complained that many in the media praised Murphy as a hero and bemoaned the fact that he was not demonized as Lila Rose, James O’Keefe and Hannah Giles were for trying to make people believe that Planned Parenthood and ACORN actively aided traffickers of underage girls.

KURTZ: Amy Holmes, MSNBC led with this hour after hour. The focus was on the embarrassment of Scott Walker. Nobody seemed to mention that this guy lied, that he committed a journalistic fraud, pretending to be someone else. Why?

HOLMES: Right. Well, I think because it fits their ideological framework. And I looked at this, and he was hailed as “Most Intriguing Person of the Day” by CNN. And you didn’t see the hand-wringing over journalistic ethics like you did, say, in the ACORN case, when those two young people used the same sorts of tactics of being an impostor and sort of — some people would say tricking people into participating in this. And there, there was a huge discussion about journalism and is this fair, is this right?

In this, it was, like, he’s a hero. He accomplished a feat, as you just heard.

KURTZ: I was also struck by CNN saying he was the “Most Intriguing Person.” If anybody who worked for CNN did what this guy did, they would have been fired.

Jim Warren, you want to get in on this?

WARREN: Yes. I mean, on one hand, I thought it was fascinating and revealing, what was going on in the governor’s mind in a certain sort of cynical pragmatism that was playing out on his side.

At the same time, I didn’t see this guy as performing any vaguely legitimate form of journalism. He was perpetuating an absolute hoax, starting with misidentifying himself. Although I think there are times when mainstream legitimate journalists can misidentify themselves. But, boy, it has to be for higher causes — maybe saving lives or actually revealing some huge systemic government fraud. In a case like this, just to embarrass, no.

KURTZ: And Steve —

PEARLSTEIN: He’s not a journalist. He’s a blogger. That doesn’t mean there’s not two overlaps between those two, but there is a difference between them, and you just identified one of them.

KURTZ: Well, look at the way it was picked up. We talked about MSNBC playing this. Fox News barely mentioned it, although Greta Van Susteren was interviewing Governor Walker, so she asked him about the call.

And as Amy points out though, when the ACORN sting happened — you remember James O’Keefe and the pimp and the prostitute — liberal commentators all attacked them, but Fox News played them up and that story up in a way that was much more favorable.

So how much of this is ideological.

HOLMES: Right. And the ACORN folks, they said that they were activists. They were very explicit about their point of view, where, in this case, oh, well, maybe he’s a blogger, maybe he’s a journalist. It doesn’t really matter and he doesn’t get any kind of criticism for his methods.

KURTZ: Are you giving — saying we should judge people like this by a different standard because they are not card-carrying newspaper journalists, they’re just bloggers, or they have online news sites?

PEARLSTEIN: Well, Howie, you sort of dismiss it with the question, well, they are not card-carrying. He’s not a journalist because he doesn’t behave like a journalist.

How do I know he doesn’t behave like a journalist? He does pranks like that. Journalists don’t do that. I’m not saying there’s not a legitimate function for it, but that’s not what journalists do.

Here’s the difference between Ian Murphy and Lila Rose.

Ian Murphy started with the premise that Scott Walker would talk to David Koch, but not to him. He knew the two had political ties, and wanted to find out more about their relationship and whether or not Walker was participating in illegal activity. All he really found was political dirt – but he never claimed otherwise. He presented the audio unedited to the world, and while his opinions are well known, he didn’t make any claims that the audio could not support.

Lila Rose started with the premise that Planned Parenthood aides and abets pimps who traffic underage girls. When she found no evidence of this, she insisted that it did. The films have been shown to be heavily edited, so it’s difficult to know what really went on.

Finally, there’s something satisfying about punching up. Ian Murphy was attacking a man who is trying to take the collective bargaining rights away from state employees like teachers, nurses, and prison guards. Lila Rose is attacking an organization that gives contraceptives and cancer screenings to poor people. If there’s a reason he seems more sympathetic to you, that’s probably it.

This recent article by Mark Regnerus of Slate has been making the rounds. Christopher Ryan is quoted at the end but stated on facebook that he disagrees with it and Violet Blue explained why it makes her uncomfortable (blog contains NSFW advertisements.)

I agree with Violet that the premise is inherently “slut shaming.” That is, it challenges the idea that women’s sexual autonomy is a good thing.

If women were more fully in charge of how their relationships transpired, we’d be seeing, on average, more impressive wooing efforts, longer relationships, fewer premarital sexual partners, shorter cohabitations, and more marrying going on.

This conclusion, upon which the entire article is based is stated as if it were self evident. It’s not. What people say is their ideal age for marriage is within a year of the average age most people do get married. I don’t think you can blame this year gap entirely on women having premarital sex. Economic factors like the price of student loans, the job market for young people and cultural factors like the acceptability of delayed marriage also play a part.

Regnerus is also extremely vague. What are more impressive wooing efforts? Our cultural fascination with engagement rings and extreme proposals has created an unrealistic standard for men to live up to. But I think Regnerus was saying that if women had their way they wouldn’t be having sex without those types of grand romantic gestures during early courtship. This is patently ridiculous – he’s painting grown women as little girl children demanding grand gestures and valuing sex with a partner no more than a sex worker does with her clients.

And that’s the heart of what I disagree with about this article. To reduce all sex to a commodity is dehumanizing. It removes all other factors from a persons behavior. Under this model a man never has tender or loving feelings for his partner, and a woman is incapable of lust. There is no such thing as mutual affection and pleasure, only a calculated transaction. Some people might view their sexuality in these terms, but it is patently false to insist that every human person does, not to mention the way this erases gay, lesbian and polyamarous people.

Imagine if we commodified other types of interpersonal interactions the way we do sex. What if we were shaming people and blaming advances in telecommunication for how it’s lowered the “price” of a conversation. In the olden days it took months for letters to travel across the ocean. Now with fairly cheap cell phones, people don’t wait for important events to communicate. They can call to say hello and chat at any time! It used to be you had to wait until Sunday afternoon or evening to make a long distance phone call without ruining your budget. Now people can Skype every night! Not feeling outraged? Me neither.

The role that the acceptability and reduced risks of premarital sex might play in delaying marriage is probably a good thing. It’s inadvisable for someone to make the serious life long commitment of marriage just because of lust and curiosity. Those who would say otherwise are usually pushing an agenda be it religious or natalist, but never with the interest of the young person held first.

Jill, a 20-year-old college student from Texas, is one of the many young women my colleagues and I interviewed who finds herself confronting the sexual market’s realities. Startlingly attractive and an all-star in all ways, she patiently endures her boyfriend’s hemming and hawing about their future. If she were operating within a collegiate sexual economy that wasn’t oversupplied with women, men would compete for her and she would easily secure the long-term commitment she says she wants.

Get that? Jill doesn’t want to marry her boyfriend because she loves him. She wants long term commitment – the unspoken assumption is that any man would be sufficient. This is what I talk about when I say that these narratives portray women as incapable of love. It’s disgusting.

And Regnerus doesn’t stop at misogyny – he is decidedly man hating as well:

Don’t forget your Freud: Civilization is built on blocked, redirected, and channeled sexual impulse, because men will work for sex. Today’s young men, however, seldom have to. As the authors of last year’s book Sex at Dawn: The Prehistoric Origins of Modern Sexuality put it, “Societies in which women have lots of autonomy and authority tend to be decidedly male-friendly, relaxed, tolerant, and plenty sexy.” They’re right. But then try getting men to do anything.

Do you understand that men? If you are getting laid, you are incapable of contributing to society. But it’s not your fault for being lazy, it’s those nasty women’s fault for having the sex with you that you thought you both wanted. The evil sex is why there has been no scientific, artistic or social progress made by men since the birth control pill was made available in 1960.

It’s really incomprehensible to me why feminists are the ones who supposedly hate men in this discussion. People like Regnerus can argue for stripping women of their autonomy and paint men as loutish slaves to their sex drive and it’s not immediately understood as hateful to both men and women. Instead, people nod along as if he’s speaking some great truth about human nature. He’s not. He’s simply repeating outdated tropes that have yet to fade into obscurity with the passage of time.

First Amendment Solutions Sunday is a series of posts with a quick link round up of actions you can take to exercise your First Amendment rights to help feminist, environmentalist or otherwise progressive causes.

Here are three reasons to call your Senator this week:

1. The League of Conservation Voters released its annual scorecard for Senators this week. How did your Senator do? Call to congratulate them for a job well done or urge them to do better next time

2. Congress voted to give themselves a few more months to decide what to do about the Patriot Act. It’s not too early to get yourself on the record with your Senator about opposing Civil Rights violations in the name of security theater.

3. The House of Representatives voted to defund Planned Parenthood. Call your Senators and tell them you stand with Planned Parenthood.

Other ways to get involved:

I was deeply disturbed by the sexual assault of Lara Logan, a reporter covering the revolution in Egypt, and the subsequent victim blaming that went on in the media. I have decided to make a donation to the women’s shelter and rape crisis center in my neighborhood. Women are victims of violence all of the world, not just when it makes international news.

Planned Parenthood New York City is having a rally this Saturday February 26th. Plan to attend here.

Finally, former Senator Russ Feingold is starting a new political action committee, Progressives United. It’s not clear yet how it will function – will it be similar to Move On or something else entirely?

Despite the surprise stalling on the renewal of the Patriot Act earlier this week, on Thursday, there were enough votes for it to proceed. You can see a list of how each member of the House of Representatives voted here.

Something I have not been blogging about but have been meaning to get into is contacting my representative after a vote and letting them know that I was pleased with their vote or that I was disappointed. I’m going to do that today. You can find out how to contact your Representative here. An email, phone call or even a tweet might be a good strategy in this case because the reaction should come soon after the vote. Contact information for Members of Congress is here.