Women And Leadership Course at GW's GSPM

Welcome to the 2010 Summer semester blog on women in political leadership. Content will include discussion about the books read in class as well as the politics of the day. Blogging is an important skill and vital to engaging more women in politics. This blog is intended as an educational tool to all women and men interested in promoting women in politics.

Wednesday, June 30, 2010

Learning to Be Tough Beneath a Hardhat

The link in the headline is attached to an interesting question and answer story in The New York Times about a female CEO of a construction company. Halfway through reading it I wondered why the short sentence on the paper's homepage advertised the article by focusing on her role as a woman because the questions did not focus on it at all. However, the second half of the question and answer session does focus more on her gender. I find both the questions and answers alarming and interesting at the same time.

First, I was absolutely appalled that the reporter asked her if being a female and a minority helped her to win government contracts. I do not think a reporter would ask a man this question even if the man happened to be a minority. I also was somewhat appalled when she answered that it may help her with a couple of points. Does it set women back to acknowledge that sure being a woman and a minority has some benefits (can you even call it benefits?) when it comes to quotas? At least she mentioned that this was not the only reason she received the contracts.

Next, I found it very interesting that she was CEO and her husband was a Vice President within the company. I wonder how they decided who would take on what responsibilities and titles since they opened the company together.

I was appalled again when Ms. Warrior admitted that she used to take one of her male employees with her depending on the group that she was going to talk too. Again, helpful or hurtful? Obviously Ms. Warrior is brilliant and strong enough to build her own company so why does she need a man to help her navigate particular groups of people?

Finally, I appreciated that she is looking for other women to fill the vacant leadership roles in her company. We have discussed in class that it often seems like women do not take care of other women and it is nice to see that taking care of other women is one of her priorities.

I think this article is a good illustration of a woman trying to navigate a profession that has typically been considered a man's profession. In fact, I would argue one of the "manliest" professions. I think it proves that women are interested in all kinds of professions and are able to be successful in all kinds of professions. However, I also think this article begs the question - are women our own worst enemies? When we admit that we take men with us to navigate certain situations or when female news reporters talk about other women's clothing are we simply perpetuating the problem? I think if we are not necessarily contributing to the problem we are certainly not helping it.

Dee Dee Meyers - Jumping to Conclusions?

I am still working through, Dee Dee Myers' book, Why Women Should Rule the World, and I do like the writing style and flow -- I have begun to develop some concerns with the rational behind her cry for inequality and abuse while working in the political arena. Don't get me wrong, I understand that there are many ways that women are much more challenged than men when it comes to succeeding in politics. The one that seems to standout the most is, the double edged sword that women are judged by, one that constantly puts them at odds with the voters, this idea that they should be judged at a higher standard then men, and that they have to prove that they are tough enough -- where men are assumed to be able to handle it.

We have seen this theme through each of the books we have read and in our class decisions. What was so interesting is that most of us did not realize that we did this (hold women to a higher standard then men) until we discussed it in class. It took many discussions and personal pondering to bring about the realization that I was just as guilty as all the people that are discussed as prohibiting women from being treated equally in all areas of our society. Quite the eye opener...

BUT, back to Dee Dee Meyers -- she does touch on the notion of women being judged differently then men, but her personal examples do not seem to substantially back her plea that she was mistreated because of her sex. When she described the conversation between her and Stephanopoulos and Seidman about the opportunity to come and work for Clinton in the White House as his press secretary. Yes, the job would be different than she had originally expected, and yes, her role was not as high profile -- but she was the first to admit that she did not have a great deal of experience and high profile wins to be a top candidate for the job. To me it seemed like she was being offered her dream job, and she was ungrateful because it was not being served on a silver platter. The situation to me seemed to have nothing to do with her sex but everything to do with her experience and qualifications. Clinton wanted to hire her -- so his team was going to make that happen. The problem was not that she was a female it was that her resume did not match up to candidates (and past office holders) per-usual of such an esteemed position.

Maybe I missed something, but to me she was offered the opportunity to launch her career at the young age of 31, and she was ungrateful about it.

I would love hear someone's counter to my personal opinion, because I have always really respect and admired Dee Dee Meyers, and some of the points she rises in the book are important and extremely well thought out. I am just irked by her personal saga of strife and oppression.

Tuesday, June 29, 2010

A possible discussion topic?

So, I had an epiphany today when the "UPS Man" came to my door with lots of big boxes and he was a woman!! Actually a few times lately the FedEx or UPS deliverers have been female and it has made me have an epiphany that perhaps I was wrong that women do not want the tough, dangerous, dirty, physical hard jobs, etc that are traditionally considrered male, as expressed in my diatribe on political correctness over the conversation of "manhole covers" language and the discussion it prompted on this matter from Sharon's views on women who would want jobs working in sewers, etc. Perhaps the epiphany for me was just discovering I was wrong about something, ha ha ha. Anyway, those UPS/FedEx ladies do a darn good job at a hard job.

And to make a complete non sequitir lacking any kind of a segue, I thought maybe we could discuss the changing role of marriage (as it has come up some in class, plus with our professor being a family lawyer I would like to hear her view on this too) and how things are shifting in society in general and perhaps with women's changing roles and lives. It has only been perhaps about 150 years (and really only in westernized cultures) that the idea of marrying for oh a little thing called love or marrying for gosh, dare I say happiness, has been fashionable and prevalent, and it will be interesting to see where it goes in the future.

I just leave that out there to start a discussion...

The Age of Nancy

I'm not posting this article to start a partisan discussion on Speaker Pelosi's merits, but I am posting it because it was interesting to find an article that doesn't mention her sex as it relates to her successes/failures in her post. Aside from the quote about heels and blow-dried hair, there are only two words that the writer uses that identify the Speaker as a female: "Grandmother" and "woman."

We talk all the time about whether we should emphasize our leader's sex - or not, in order to enforce a level playing. This article proves that (maybe) it's possible that our politicians can be rated based solely on their accomplishments or lack there of, versus on their outer appearances - especially when it comes to women. I appreciate that this NYT reporter was able to write a piece that avoided gender biases, more than most other articles we've read about the Speaker.

Likability versus Competence?

Thanks again to the NY Times Style section for a VERY interesting article about the science behind listening... Whoever thought that GPS voices were an area for sex-related division?!

The article, linked above, looks at the varying effects of the GPS voice selected, both on the driver and the passenger.

"Female voices are still used for warnings in many airplane cockpits and have earned the slang term Bitching Betty among pilots. Patricia Hoyt, who recorded the voice-overs used in many planes, recently revealed herself as Betty in a YouTube video in which she recites common phrases like “auto pilot” and “landing gear.” When GPS devices first appeared in cars, manufacturers chose male voices, which according to studies, command more respect than female voices. “When the key dimension is competence, the male voice is better,” said Clifford I. Nass, a communication professor at Stanford University and a consultant to many car companies. “When the key dimension is likability, the female voice is better.” As confidence in the technology grew, the primary consideration switched to friendliness.

“The main reason you have female voices in cars is not the technical qualifications like hearability,” said Dr. Nass. “It’s that finding a female voice that is pleasing to almost everyone is infinitely easier than finding a male voice.” Humans are more attuned to female voices from birth, he noted. “Even in the womb, a fetus will be able to distinguish a mother’s voice from all other voices and will not be able to distinguish the father’s voice.”"

How do these realities about voice and sound influence politics? Do Americans walk away from each political commercial swayed just by voice? Are women always less credible? How do we train ourselves to let go of these natural notions?

Sunday, June 27, 2010

Tiny But Tough

"It’s anybody’s guess why these anti-archetypes are striking a chord. Perhaps Americans feel powerless in an era of gushing oil, ongoing wars and a slippery economy, and want to believe that the little people can vanquish the big bad guys. If so, it might be a good sign for the small-stature Elena Kagan, who is, after all, said to wield a mean gavel."

That quote is from the conclusion of an article in today's Fashion & Style section in the New York Times. Of course, that section is somewhat notorious for its "observations" of the physical standards by which society judges women (and occasionally men), but I guess I found this one to be particularly interesting. The article implies and argues that now is the time that the "plus-size" and the "tiny" are embracing their inherent power. At one point in the middle of the article it describes how the tiny girl who can pack a punch, a.k.a the "violent femme", is "an enduring male fantasy." I was pretty disappointed that they felt it necessary to point out how the empowerment of women can be instantaneously sexualized as opposed to being important on its own.

What struck me the most about this article though, was something far more personal - it helped drive home one of those examples of how we are socialized to believe certain things. I am lucky enough to have a very strong-willed woman for a mother. Both her brothers and her parents were born in Macedonia, but she was born here. English was not her first language and by any account she was raised in a very Macedonian culture which became hybridized with U.S. culture in her teenage years. One of my favorite benefits that I have experienced from her background has been the funny bits of "Old Country" advice which was imparted to her, and which she occasionally imparts to me. One example of this is my mom's continual adage that "short women are the most powerful", now, I will admit that I never believed that... and kind of thought that she clung to that one because she is under 5'2". She was always very careful to give me a balanced perception of reality (like "tall women can be very powerful too") - but somehow despite the balance I managed to rarely embrace any of this "Old Country advice.

Despite my not-embracing it, I realized while reading the article above that my mom's "tiny but tough" was an idea that had in some way seeped into my being. I was, at least on some level, socialized to believe that "Tiny But Tough" was a common archetype -- not an "anti-archetype". It was one of those rare moments where reality and my personal ideas did not add up - thus revealing the importance and impact that upbringing and socialization, and variations therein, can have on our perceptions.

I guess it is moments like this where you can realize that perhaps the best chance we have for impacting cultural perceptions and changing the way "archetypes" are formed is if we can deconstruct our own beliefs and learn how to thoughtfully deconstruct the thoughts and beliefs of others in a way that would be beneficial to everyone.

Saturday, June 26, 2010

Continuing the Hillary discussion....

Of course we are all aware of the now infamous Rolling Stone Magazine article that got Gen. McChrystal fired. Interestingly, Gen. McChrystal did not include Hillary Clinton in his deprecating remarks about the Administration. Instead, his anonymous aides praised her, as she strongly supported McChrystal's plan for Afghanistan.

I think it is very interesting that Clinton received praise in the national security realm, which is typically not considered a female strength. Certainly Gen. McChrystal was not afraid to speak his mind, and she obviously impressed him. In the campaign, she did try to highlight her positions and experience on this front; and obviously in her role as Secretary of State she is only improving her credentials here. I don't believe those that say she is going to challenge President Obama in 2012 (although I would love it!!); but if she did, this could be a very useful angle for her to pursue, especially if U.S. foreign policy is still as dismal as it is at the moment.

Thursday, June 24, 2010

Thirty Ways of Looking at Hillary

I overall thought that this book of short stories / articles was interesting. I did not leave with any better understanding of Hillary or women in political leadership positions, I actually felt a bit more perplexed. It seemed like almost all of the writer captured in this quick read had a love - hate vantage point for Hillary. As often as she was called a chameleon or deemed as having multiple personality disorder, do the writers in these stories take multiple vantage points about Hillary. It seems that they do not have a strong sense of who Hillary "really" is.

My favorite short story about Hillary was, Lorrie Moore's, Boy and Girls. Moore observations are entertaining as well as thought provoking. I thought that Moore's statement, "Strangely, there is this to be said about Hillary Clinton: I often hear her defended better by men than by women. Men see her as a victim of sexism. Women less so." Actually, I don't know if I necessarily agree with her reasoning behind why men are better defenders of Hillary than women, but I do think that women of different generations have thing that draw them to her, while at the same time feel alienated by her. The question becomes, what is it going to take to get us to fully get behind Hillary, even if we think she could be a good leader (and I fully accept the legitimate arguments with her politics or voting stances: I have them too).

My personal observations for this common, but unique uncertainty of Hillary is:

Women of Hillary's generation and older appreciate her as a female doing a mans job better than most men, but cannot connect with her on her post feminism feminist vantage. Also, many older women might view her as a risk -- if she looses, then they loose -- all of their accomplishment for moving equality forward. And again as we have discussed before in class, women are tougher on women, and hold them to a higher unobtainable standard.

Women of my generation also appreciate Hillary for her determination and strength to "go where no women has gone before." Many young women have this type of burning desire within themselves as well. But, post feminism feminist, are not looking at Hillary as a women candidate on the surface (or at least that is what they tell themselves) -- secretly, I think that they are judging her on the same impossible expectations discussed above.

Each of these stories has a glimmer of this (hidden) standard that women hold other women -- especially women of power by. Hopefully women will not be their own determent when it comes to increasing women in leadership roles across all professions.

Saudi's First Women International Observers Monitor Sudanese Elections13/04/2010

By Badr al Qahtani
Khartoum, Asharq Al-Awsat - The uproar surrounding the Sudanese elections did not prevent the emergence of unique phenomena, and in the midst of it all these two Saudi women marked a new chapter in their lives and in the history of Saudi women. Jehan Falamban and Dina Madani took part in the elections in Sudan as international observers – a task that has never been undertaken by any other Saudi woman before.
Falamban, 36, who is an expert in international relations and works for the Organization of the Islamic Conference in Jeddah, monitored the Sudanese elections with her colleague Dina Madani in what was “a rich experience, as the Sudanese elections formed one of the most complex electoral processes that the world has seen, and around 16.5 million voters are taking part, half of whom have never taken part in a similar electoral process their entire lives.”
This “international observer”, who comes from a country where women do not take part in any official electoral process with the exception of the recent elections for the Saudi Chambers of Commerce, believes that the experience of taking part in monitoring the Sudanese elections is not enough. “We need to be part of more international and regional experiences in monitoring elections in order to gain more knowledge of the electoral process.”
Falamban attributed her desire to observe other electoral processes to the need to “make comparisons between the diverse cultures and internal conflicts of every country, which will help us in the future in observing international elections.” She added, “Now I have learnt some electoral basics such as how to request to engage in the elections and how to implement this, in addition to listening to the opinions of all participating parties impartially.”
Asked about what she witnessed in the Sudanese electoral process as an international observer, Falamban said that she noticed that the electoral process slowed to a slow pace in some electoral centers due to technical difficulties. She also alluded to the increase in the awareness of the Sudanese public – especially in Khartoum – with regards to the democratic rights that the Sudanese are proud to practice.
The signs of fatigue were apparent on Dina Madani, 27, who, after having finished a number of reports on observing the elections that will be presented to the head of the OIC delegation for observing the elections said, “We went to centers outside of Khartoum in Umdurman and we entered centers scattered around the suburbs.” She highlighted that being in Sudan to observe the elections helped the international observers to look at the real situation clearly and not to confine themselves to the information they would receive from the media which does not portray the entire truth.
Madani, who has a Masters degree in International Relations from the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy in the US said, “I have benefited and learnt the basics and the progress of the electoral process and its functions, in addition to the measures taken before, during and after the voting.” She indicated that they received some information before they arrived, which was built upon as soon as they visited the High Commission for the Elections.
In relation to the complexities that surround the Sudanese elections that the media described as confusing, Madani stressed that “the process is being carried out in the right way, despite the complexities of voting that have confused the Sudanese voter, with the exception of some technical matters in bringing the electoral boxes or not opening some electoral centers on time, and as far as we know it has no effect [on the results] particularly as the elections lasted three days.”
“We do not expect to pass the time without any obstacles but the hours are what tire us out as we leave [where we were staying] at 7am and do not get back until 7.30pm. The rest of the process was consistent.”
Falamban makes reference to the warm welcome given by everyday citizens and [political] party members to the participation of two female Saudi Arabian election observers. She said, "Everybody dealt with us openly, and they provided us with all the information that we needed before we could even ask for it from them, and they took the initiative to answer the questions we had in our heads, showing unique cooperation. Women also invited us to attend events that were related to the future of women [in Sudan]."
As for what Falamban and her colleague got out of the experience of observing the Sudanese elections, they both confirmed that they were carrying a great sense of responsibility on their shoulders with regards to representing Saudi Arabia as the first female Saudi Arabian electoral observers to observe a general election in another country. Falamban said, "I consider this participation to be an important point in my life that I will treasure in the far future, and it will be a story that I will tell my children and grandchildren."
As for her aspirations following this, Falamban said, "I hope that I find the same opportunity in Saudi public and private companies and institutes to support Saudi women – women who have gone to the West in order to receive a higher education." She also confirmed that Saudi women will not hesitate to represent Saudi Arabia whenever a suitable opportunity arises, whether this is to work as an [electoral] observer or in another field.
Falamban also expressed her admiration of Sudanese women participating in the recent elections, as well as the presence of the first female presidential candidate in Sudan. This comes after Sudan has seen a 25 percent quota for female candidates on the legislative and executive council and, according to Falamban, "they continue to demand more than this, and personally I hope that the quota for female candidates reaches 50 percent." She also said that she is looking forward to participating in southern Sudan's referendum on self-determination which is scheduled to take place in 2011.

Women's Health and Drugmakers R&D

This is a very interesting article about how there is more and more research money and then also therefore marketing efforts going into pharmaceutical development relating solely to women's issues.

This may be an interesting class discussion on why there was less focus on women's healthcare and needs in the past and why it is shifting in a positive direction now: Are women becoming more vocal and focused on in a positive way or are companies seeing them as the next big viable market segment?

http://www.fool.com/investing/high-growth/2010/06/23/drugmakers-finally-recognize-the-next-big-opportun.aspx

Wendy Brandes Comments on Why Fashion 'Torments' Women Leaders

The Washington Post has released "On Leadership: A weekly video series with prominent national and international leaders." The latest feature is an interview with Wendy Brandes. As pointed out in the video transcript, Brandes is a full-time entrepreneur who draws on her affinity for strong, powerful women leaders to fuel her own jewlry collection.

As Brandes strives to establish her business and promote its prescence, she reflects upon her own experiences with good as well as bad leadership and notes the success and failures of famous women worldwide. While her jewlry collection can be expensive, what differentiates her items is "the backstory of the women who have inspired them."

Brandes makes a few interesting points and observations in the WP video piece. A few of her comments on why fashion 'torment' women leaders include the following:
  • It can be dangerous in some positions to change your look too much because people will get distracted by that and it's much more an issue for women as it is for men.
  • In politics and business, you want one kind of presentation, and you need it to be very consistent, but it's hard for women to win because if you dress too fashionably people will complain about that, and if you dress too unfashionably people are going to complain about that too.

Brandes also explains that Hillary Clinton has just been tormented by fashion over the years. In Brandes' opinion, Clinton is not stylish. Clinton is focused on other things and it's okay, Brandes notes.

Prior to a career change into jewlry design in 2004, Wendy Brandes was established in the media and marketing profession for 15 years. She worked at the Wall Street Journal, People.com, and investment banking firm Lehman Brothers.

Australia has its first female PM

Big news of the day: Australia has a female Prime Minister.

I found this passage particularly interesting: "Government lawmakers believe Gillard has a better chance of winning back voters because she is a warmer personality who can sell policies more effectively.

Gillard will automatically attract a large female vote, especially when compared with conservative opposition leader Tony Abbott, who is anti-abortion and opposes sex before marriage. "I was so disappointed when Hillary Clinton didn't become president of the U.S., so I'm very happy that a woman is in power in Australia," said a pensioner named Anne in Sydney."

A few things from that passage merit highlighting-

1- the (I believe, false) belief that because she is a woman she will automatically get the female vote (look at where that got Hillary!)
2- she is described as having a "warmer personality"
3- how the Clinton candidacy is invoked, but not Palin's
Other thoughts-
1- She was appointed, not elected, although the article does state that she is heavily favored when elections do take place to win. Bear in mind though, in a Parliamentary system, voters vote for parties and not people (per se). For example, a ballot cannot be cast for Julia Gillard, but rather for her Labor Party. Perhaps that has an influence on the voters' comfort in electing a female PM (as in Britain and Israel that also have Parliamentary systems). Does this mean that our electoral system can be a contributing factor to the fact that we haven't had a female President?

2- We should pay close attention to the fact that one of the major issues that she is set to tackle is climate change policy. Perhaps her results (or lack thereof) could influence Obama's pursuit of such policies here.

Wednesday, June 23, 2010

Thirty Ways (emphasis on) LOOKING at Hillary

Sabrina's earlier post described a really excellent example of how a female political figure can be portrayed in the media without the physical coming into play at all. I had been thinking about our discussion of the coverage of Kagan's physical appearance just the other day when I realized that the 27th way of looking at Hillary in Thirty Ways Of Looking At Hillary was written by the same author of the original offending article in the Kagan discussion, Robin Givhan.

If anything, Givhan's chapter in Thirty Ways lends credence to the idea that Givhan was really attempting to get at something deeper with her Kagan article, and it seems like Givhan may just be a real defender of the political power of fashion in general. She ends her piece with a discussion of our obsession with male candidates looking "presidential" and pointing out that we don't really have a guide for what a woman Commander In Chief looks like, so Hillary cannot be faulted. I guess I find this logic flawed in general -- we shouldn't be basing our decisions on "looking Presidential" at all, right? Yet at the same time, most of us agreed that their are certain codes of dressing in the professional world that communicate specific ideas, right? It seems as though the issue of physical appearance gets more and more complicated the more we delve into it.

Ultimately, I think the issue with Givhan's logic, and her chapter in general, belies the issues that I had with Thirty Ways in general. While the chapters may address important issues and perspectives, it just does not feel like their are very many real revelations. The perspectives feel gossipy and the supposed 30 ways of looking at Hillary feel pretty concentrated in the kind of post-feminist argument against Hillary. I understand Hillary is a divisive figure in American political culture, but I was hoping that a book like this would dig deeper into the reasons we look at Hillary this way -- but maybe that is too much to ask of a compilation that is simply "looking" at Hillary.

I guess I wonder what it is about Hillary that makes her a prime subject for a this kind of analysis? Why don't we have a Thirty Ways of Looking at Sarah book? I mean granted -- Hillary's political career and position in American history is longer and in many ways more substantive than Sarah Palin's -- but Thirty Ways does seem to be focused on Hillary as a candidate. Interestingly enough, a Google search for "Thirty Ways of Looking at Sarah Palin" does generate a few hits including:
- 5 Ways of Looking at “Sarah Palin Feminism” « Shapely Prose
- Sarah Palin, False Prophet
- 30 Unique Dolls - The Sarah Palin Action Figure is Just The ...
Also in this search I found a review of Thirty Ways which offers a similar criticism:
http://www.alternet.org/story/75352/. Essentially any of these treatments seem one-sided in their approach and treatment. Can we really not see a diverse group of opinions contained in one volume or blog post on figures like Sarah Palin and Hillary Clinton? Or if the diversity does exist -- why can't it delve beyond the gossip and approach things in a truly analytical manner?

I must admit, their were at least two sections in Thirty Ways that I thought offered something really unique and importantly critical of how we look at Hillary -- namely, Judith Warner's "Confessions of a Hillary Hagiographer" and Cristina Henriquez's "Hello, My Name Is..." both of these delve into issues of identity and function as excellent examples of ways to look at Hillary.
If only the entire book consisted of such explications...

Kagan Coverage Continues

Seeing this article shot me back a couple weeks ago when we discussed the type of coverage that Kagan was receiving upon the announcement of her nomination. In contrast to many of the articles that came out then- this article from slate examines the nomination process, and Kagan's upcoming confirmation hearing. All substance, no fluff- the article tackles the hard issue of how a nominee for the supreme court gets through a grueling confirmation process. My favorite passage is:


"What she will likely talk about—if she's anything like other recent nominees—is that, if confirmed, she promises to become Kagan the Robot. She will find 100 different ways to assure us that when deciding cases she will do nothing more than mechanically apply the law to the facts. And this is where Kagan needs to throw away the script. The absence of any dialogue on substantive law at these hearings is regrettable, but the political theater of discussing judging as mere law-to-fact application is truly alarming in that it goes to the heart of the public's understanding of what it is Supreme Court justices actually do. That's why Kagan needs to talk to the American people honestly next week about the job for which she is applying and why she is so qualified to get it.


So, props to Sonja West for a truly objective look at the process- no skirt/pearls discussion at all!

The Daily Show's Woman Problem

Everyone should definitely check out the article included in the title of this post which highlights many of the inequities mostly on the production side of The Daily Show.

While from what I have read, The Daily Show has a better record of having women as guests -- according to the article above the behind the scenes treatment leaves something to be desired.

I think this article points to the need for a shift in the culture of media production, and not just the output. This was an issue that I have witnessed first hand in my experiences with other media entities -- you can sometimes have a number of women who are there and working, but the culture of the organization may not be conducive to listening to their voices. Of course, at times, this is all centered around one individual. The article above is interesting in its indictment of Stewart as a man who leads The Daily Show with "a joyless rage" off the screen -- far from what the audience sees every evening.

Clearly, as the article indicates, the double standard that impacts women in politics and other industries, can seep into the political (albeit satirical) reporting as well. Although not everyone agrees that it is a double standard -- which brings up the question, what can improve the situation? How do you shift the culture?
Often we see that adding more women is posed as a solution but - more women do not necessarily make the problem better as the article indidcates:

"But two female writers do not a female-friendly environment make.

"The writers want to be able to write for a female reporter — but not too female," says Weedman. She says it was hard to figure out what that meant exactly. "I would pitch something like, can I do a segment on women's self help or on fitness. And they didn't want anything like that…Ed Helms got to have his mole removed [in a segment], but they weren't going to do, a women goes to the gynecologist. They felt like at the time it wasn't their audience.""


What do others think of this?

Tuesday, June 22, 2010

A Few Remaining Thoughts on Kornblut

I was really disappointed that I had to miss last weeks class (I'll explain the reason why I was gone in my next blog post because I think it was pretty interesting and relevant to our class) when we were discussing Anna Kornblut's Notes From the Cracked Ceiling, and figured I would refrain for a couple days to see if any of the material you all discussed in class came up here on the blog - from what I can tell it sounds like the discussion focused on different types of feminism and generational differences, an issue that I thought was very interestingly highlighted in Kornblut's book.

I personally really enjoyed Notes From the Cracked Ceiling, not simply because of the material, but because of the kind of perspective she brought to the topic. I think her position as a journalist gave her an incredible and balanced insight into the candidacies of both Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin and allowed her to probe issues in a particularly fascinating way. The fact that she framed the entire book as an answer to a very delicate question (Why did these candidacies fail?) I think made it so that she provided the reader with a uniquely thorough description. I think her discussion of the presses unfair treatment was especially poignant and brought many issues that sincerely need to be addressed amongst her journalistic peers to the forefront.

On another note, I am not sure how many of you have read John Heilemann and Mark Halperin's book, Game Change, but I couldn't help but be reminded of certain passages of Game Change while reading Notes. Both books address many of the same specific incidents, although Game Change is a great deal more gossipy, and does not delve into the important identity dynamics or explanations that made the candidates in 2008 so interesting. I guess what was so encouraging to me about Notes was the fact that it was able to tackle these questions and issues with tact and fact. It made me wonder what would happen if a book that got as much buzz and acclaim as Game Change had actually addressed the important questions of the 2008 election, or really, what would happen if Notes From the Cracked Ceiling had been treated with the acclaim it deserved?

Politico article on Nikki Haley

This is a good article that explores a lot of the issues that we have been discussing, particularly- post-feminism. There are some points I think are worth highlighting:

First, Haley claims that her candidacy is not about gender or race, but then her supporters are found wearing pink t-shirts with a Margret Thatcher saying?! Is she trying to have it both ways? I believe that she is, but I think as a politician you have to exploit whatever advantage you have (within reason and the law!) in order to win. Good for her that she found a way to do it. The endorsements of Sarah Palin and Jenny Sanford having such a profound impact are also noteworthy.

Second, the author interviews a Haley supporter who says that she is not supporting her simply because she is a woman; rather because she is more interested in talking about the issues than whatever history her election may make. What is interesting about this woman is that she is a retiree. Perhaps this is evidence that post-feminism is reaching the older generations? Or that Republicans/conservatives just don't care about your sex if you believe what they do?

Third, the author claims that Haley is apparently benefitting from Southern notions of how a lady should be treated. Supposed evidence of this is the fact that when baseless accusations of an affair were launched against her, her support among men increased. I think the author hasn't made a forceful argument here. Isn't it more likely that her support increased because the men were disgusted by the fact that she was unfairly attacked? Why does it have to do with the fact that she is a woman? I don't think it does. That said, I am from New Jersey, so perhaps I don't understand the "Southern gentlemen" thing too well...

Fourth, according to Senator Graham, apparently "ideology is more in vogue than background." We have discussed this in class as well, and I believe a majority of us agree with this point in that we are more likely to cast a ballot based on ideology than gender, race, etc.


Monday, June 21, 2010

Iran hardliners softening?

In searching for some issues on women's issues, Iran popped up and I thought it woudl be an interesting discussion and juxtaposition against our culture in The United States. This article http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.fbcf8186298b2e778498b791229a7397.351&show_article=1

is very interesting, about how Ahmedinjad has recently come out against the traditional summer crackdown against women who are "badly veiled" in Iran. It's worth reading so I'll let anyone who will take the time here form their own view. It raises the issue for me of the sign of the times globally and is Iran perhaps starting to begin to change or not?

Response to Lady Gaga post

In keeping with the assignments from the syllabus, I will respond to this post about Lady Gaga. We are supposed to respond back and forth online here right?

Well it was a hard article to read as Sabrina said it went on and on. In a nutshell, it's hard for me to tell if "I just don't get it" because of being a man and/or being a little bit sadder but wiser (that's a nice way of saying seasoned). Anyway, I don't know if I don't get it, but I think I do. Basically to me Lady Gaga is no different than Madonna or Ozzy Osbourne were/are in their prime breaking all the taboos, acting like a crazy person, basically doing anything and everything to get publicity and attention and more fame and with it to sell more tickets, records, merchandising, etc. It's what celebrities who've become machines in and of themselves do, all the shenanigans and insanity makes them more controversial and gets them more attention and therefore more money and success. I think it's all an act in the name of business. And, she does it quite well!

I don't think this represents any form of feminism, more sadly, I think it represents how pathetic our culture is in deifying and idolizing celebrities, which I find absurd and superficial, but it's our culture. I just don't see how Lady Gaga is any more of a role model for young women than Ozzy Osbourne was/is for young men. To me they're just celebrities who provide awesome entertainment and antics, have great talent, and to me that's where it ends. I think this kind of thing is just the current expression of the latest generation and their culture at this point in their early 20's (Lady Gaga it said is 23 years old).

So do i get what this is about or is this just my poker face? :-)

Title IX at Quinnipiac University

Interesting article about the implications of Title IX at Quinnipiac University (link in title). While this article does not state the reasoning for disbanding the volleyball team, I plan to look and see if any other articles provide greater information.

It reminded me of a previous discussion about the benefits of female candidates going head to head in campaigns. Although this is about college sports, this article makes it seem like the women's volleyball team is at odds with the cheerleading squad, after their team was eliminated.

"Gaga Feminism"

While Lady Gaga might not seem to be the most relevant of topics.... This article is excellent. Dovetailing nicely from our discussion last week on different types of Feminism- the author takes a look at the impact Lady Gaga has on a younger generation's understanding of the world. My favorite passage is:

"If there’s anything that feminism has bequeathed to young women of means, it’s that power is their birthright. Visit an American college campus on a Monday morning and you’ll find any number of amazingly ambitious and talented young women wielding their brain power, determined not to let anything — including a relationship with some needy, dependent man — get in their way. Come back on a party night, and you’ll find many of these same girls (they stopped calling themselves “women” years ago) wielding their sexual power, dressed as provocatively as they dare, matching the guys drink for drink — and then hook up for hook up.

Lady Gaga idealizes this way of being in the world. But real young women, who, as has been well documented, are pressured to make themselves into boy toys at younger and younger ages, feel torn. They tell themselves a Gaga-esque story about what they’re doing. When they’re on their knees in front of a worked-up guy they just met at a party, they genuinely do feel powerful — sadistic, even. After all, though they don’t stand up and walk away, they in principle could. But the morning after, students routinely tell me, they are vulnerable to what I’ve come to call the “hook up hangover.” They’ll see the guy in the quad and cringe. Or they’ll find themselves wishing in vain for more — if not for a prince (or a vampire, maybe) to sweep them off their feet, at least for the guy actually to have programmed their number into his cell phone the night before. When the text doesn’t come, it’s off to the next party...."

The article goes on for a while, and really sheds new light on lady Gaga, as well as the development of "modern" feminism.

Sunday, June 20, 2010

Election 2008

Building on our class discussion last week, and in preparation for this week's reading, I read several articles analyzing why Hillary lost and Obama won the Democratic nomination. Please see the link in this post's title for one of the better ones. As I have been preaching, reason #1 in this article is Obama's message. Also of note is the fact that there is only one fleeting comment about her sex in this article.

Once we get deeper into this week's book, I'm sure there will be plenty more to say on this!

Now, Dad Feels as Stressed as Mom

"Now, Dad Feels as Stressed as Mom" (link in the headline) is an article in The New York Times that examines how fathers are now beginning to struggle with and balance the work-family life. According to the article, only 40 percent of families today have a stay-at-home parent. Therefore, the majority of families are having to figure out how to handle the domestic duties while both parents are working full-time. In addition, the article states that the number of hours people work has also gone up significantly. Finally, the article discusses how men struggle with asking for a flexible schedule or for family leave time simply because it is new territory for them and how women and men view their tasks around the house differently.

The content of the article could certainly be debated as to whether people agree that men are also struggling with the work-family balance. However, the article made me wonder about how to frame this issue. As we have discussed in class and the article even mentions that the struggle to balance work and family has always been classified as a woman's issue (and I would argue a woman with children issue). Well, what if how the issue was framed changed to be a gender neutral issue or a parent's issue. Do you think more would be done to create flexible work environments? In my opinion, probably so. As we have often discussed in class women do not yet have a critical mass in elected positions or in companies. So, why do we not use this struggle for men to our advantage and unite together to create more flexible work environments. This issue could even be expanded more broadly to people without children. As more and more baby boomers are aging their children are going to need time off to help care for them. This could be another argument for flexible time off. I think when an issue is narrowly classified as a woman's issue (or a woman with children issue) then it is harder for men and women without children to relate to the struggle women face. However, if we can take woman's issues and expand them to include those who do have critical mass than possibly instead of simply talking about the issue constantly something could be done to address the issue.

Thursday, June 17, 2010

PRECIOUS

Have you seen the movie PRECIOUS??

It is about the life of a teenaged woman in New York. She is an obese girl who was raped by her father and she had 2 children of him. The movie shows what a poor African-American woman had suffered and how unjust is life sometimes.

This film really touched me. It seems so bad how the world is dealing with this kind of stories. It just made me think what kind of public policy or law do we have to apply in order to condemn this kind of abusively acts.

I thought about the information Maloney gave us in her book:

· Someone is sexually assaulted every 2 ½ minutes in America

· Nine out of 10 sexual assaults are against women

· Three American women are murdered by their husbands or boyfriends every day.

Statistics show us how important is to have legislators leading with these matters. And somehow facts also are showing us how these important themes are leading by women. We want justice and we want that our lawmakers will pass bill to help the Justice system.

In South America, sexual assaults, domestic violence, and child abuse are horrible acts that are affecting us. In my country, these are the numbers:

· One out of 4 children have been abused by someone of their family.

· 64% of the women murders in 2009 were because of any kind of machismo violence

· Eight out of ten Ecuadorian women have suffered any kind of psychological, physical, and sexual violence in their lives.

Sexual violence happens everywhere. I am sure that this should concern us all. But, I am also think these themes has a bigger impact in women. In Ecuador Congresswomen are the ones who are passing laws and bills penalizing these acts. Why these topics are not having an effect on men?

President Obama Issues Proclamation Honoring 90th Anniversary of the Department of Labor Women's Bureau

President Barack Obama proclaimed June 11, 2010 as the 90th Anniversary of the Department of Labor Women's Bureau. Additionally, he called upon all Americans to observe the anniversary with ceremonies, program, and events that honor the Bureau's accomplishments, history, and contributions to working women.

As stated in the Proclamation, there are now more women in America's workforce than ever before, yet they still face significant obstacles to equal economic opportunity and advancement. The Women's Bureau in the Department of Labor was established by Congress on June 5, 1920, only 2 months prior to women gaining the right to vote.

For 90 years, the Women's Bureau has been a leader on the forefront for working women nationwide through its commitment to advancing employment opportunities, improving their working conditions, and helping women to achieve economic security.

Wednesday, June 16, 2010

Held to a Higher Standard

Towards the end of her book, Kornblut discusses how women often do not automatically support other women. In fact on page 160 she writes, "So support from women is not a given; at times it is hard to earn. Strategists who work with female candidates describe women voters - across the political spectrum - as a constant challenge even when the voters' ideas and values align with the candidate's." As I mentioned in an earlier comment, I do not vote for someone running for political office based on gender. However, I must admit that there is a small (maybe subconscious) part of me that does hold women to a higher standard than men. And not just in politics. I think one reason I do this is because I am afraid that a public "mistake" made by a woman could set all women back. For example, some might argue that Hillary Clinton failed to win the Democratic nomination because she was a woman and the American public is simply not ready for a president that is a woman. Arguments such as this one are nearly impossible to win. So, until the argument is that Hillary Clinton did not win the nomination because the country did not want Hillary Clinton leading the nation instead of because she was a woman I will probably continue to hold women to a high standard. I know this is probably not fair and could be damaging to women overall but I think we still have to prove that regardless of being a woman we are up for any job and can not only do the job as well as a man but we can do it better than a man.

Thoughts on the reading

One particular idea in Kornblut's book really struck me: beginning on page 83 the author talks about the lack of enthusiasm that young women had for Hillary Clinton. She explains that young women considered themselves "postfeminists" who "preferred not to view the world in terms of gender. Supporting Barack Obama was proof of their liberation:they were free to choose whomever they favored for president, unburdened by any old-fashioned notions of loyalty or sisterhood, a sign that women were now diverse and evolved enough to disagree."

I absolutely fall into this category. While I didn't support Obama or Hillary, I didn't consider it Hillary's sex a "consolation prize" when it looked like she was going to be the nominee. Nor when Palin emerged onto the scene, did I feel excitement because she was a woman. I simply do not view the world in that way, and I actually think that those that do are perpetuating part of the problem. I want the best person elected, regardless of their gender (or race, or whatever!) The struggles that women of earlier generations felt seem like historical relics to me. I think only once we stop labeling people, and stop getting all worked about about "firsts", can we move beyond the past and into the future.

'End of Men' author on Colbert Report

As I often do in life I'd like to inject a bit more humor in the blog mix here. Hanna Rosin the author of "end of men" was on Colbert Report 6.15 and it was great! They also discussed that in Australia and Ireland they have affirmative action for men to help lift them up. Could this come to America? If you can try to catch the interview, always entertaining and informative!

Tuesday, June 15, 2010

A PSA for Women?

Rosie The Riveter

Picture from GOOD article

I recently found an article entitled "Why Don't We Have More Women Politicians?"
You can read it here: http://www.good.is/post/why-don-t-we-have-more-women-politicians/

The article mentions many of the points we have discussed in class, which I found encouraging especially because that indicates that these ideas are gaining traction in the world outside of academia as well (which is always encouraging). The post mentions a few different organizations that help women run for office, and they get a few quotes from an employee at Marie C. Wilson's White House Project as well. One of the quotes from Erin Vilarde from the White House Project struck me as particularly interesting:

"When asked what female candidates can anticipate on the trail, Vilarde says, “Be prepared for your political party to not be as excited about you as they are about even a less qualified man.”"


Although this idea is something we have discussed as an obstacle, I thought the words "not as excited" depicted an interesting angle of the issue. If excitement within a political party really is an issue or obstacle that faces women -- isn't that an easy fix?

Perhaps what is needed is not just for more individual women to run to raise the profile of women, but to actually have a pro-women running for office public relations campaign. This may sound a little kitschy or ridiculous, but could something like that work? I personally think this could have some potential...

Would a Rosie the Riveter type campaign translate well for 2010? Maybe Patti the Politician? What do you all think?


In any event I definitely recommend checking out the article -- it also links to a really excellent site with the Rutgers Center for American Women and Politics (http://www.cawp.rutgers.edu/fast_facts/women_of_color/politics.php)

Monday, June 14, 2010

ABC News: 'Mean Girls' or 'Sisterhood': The Politics of Women

This article is super relevant to what we were talking about the other day in class!

I found this interesting because it really delved into a lot of different points/analysis. Here are my favorite parts of the article:

  1. But the fact that a female candidate criticized another female politician's appearance has opened up a Pandora's box of opinions on the "mean girls" debate and prompted the question, "Where is the sisterhood?"
  2. But many women in politics argue that Fiorina's comments shouldn't be read into as more than an embarrassing moment. The spotlight her comment has garnered, said Ann Lewis, a former aide to Hillary Clinton, shows that women are still held to double standards compared to their male counterparts.... "What's striking to me is that this is a standard that's being used for women candidates, not for the men. I have seen no columnist asking, now that he's a nominee, how does Rand Paul really feel about Mitch McConnell?"
  3. "For all the strides we've made as a nation, including electing our first black president, somehow it's still acceptable, if not High Five worthy, for the poison keyboards and the cable punditry to go straight after a woman in politics based on who her husband is, how she looks or what she's wearing," Conway said, adding that the coverage of Fiorina's gaffe has been overblown. "Part of that is women are relatively new to politics and people are figuring out how to cover them."

Mother of Five in Pearls

I am almost finished with Anne Kornblut's book, Notes from the Cracked Ceiling, and I really have enjoyed it thus far. The stories are inspiring as well as eye-opening about what it takes to be a women in politics. I loved the chapter on Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Mother of Five in Pearls. Kornblut's recap of her interview with the Speaker was so vivid that I felt like I had the conversations with Pelosi.

Pelosi in more of a joking manner said, "Having five children in six years is the best training in the world for Speaker of the House, it made me the ultimate multitasker and the master of focus, routine, and scheduling." And it got me thinking about a continual difference between myself and most of my male acquaintances. I am a always multi-tasking, it it be at work, the gym, at home "relaxing" on the couch, I am always working on at least two other task than the dominate task I am doing. Most men are not multi-taskers -- they are focused and driven on specific tasks and then move on to the next when the latter is complete.

I see this trait associate with females as a major plus for women in the political world. Politics is a whirlwind of a sport - things are coming at you from every direction, all listed as top priority. Being able to take them all on and manage them effectively is a necessary skill to have as a Member of Congress. Just like having multiple children close in age, you have to make sure you give each child undivided attention, while keeping an eye/ear close to the others. Often seen as a circus, rearing five children only months apart is more exhausting that the month before election day!

Also, I loved Pelosi's comment about national security, "Think lioness when you think of women in politics. You threaten our cubs, you're dead." That is a perfect metaphor for the strength and toughness of women, especially when it comes to issues and people that they love and cherish.

Finally, I think that it is excellent to focus on Pelosi's idea of women in politics as a sign of change. Positive change, that is! That should be the theme that women running for office focus on. Our current electorate is dying for some type of change, and women's views in the man's world of politics might be just that.

Sunday, June 13, 2010

And the hair saga continues...

I know we talked about this briefly in class the other day, but I wanted to call this to your attention. Carly Fiorina was on FoxNews Sunday this morning. The FIRST question Chris Wallace asks her is about her comment on Barbara Boxer's hair. He began by saying that she has been called "catty" and "a mean girl", and then asked her if she was going to apologize. Seriously, Chris? I think she had an excellent response- she said that she wants to apologize to the voters of California for allowing this to become such a distraction. Btw- her short haircut is the result of chemo that she had for breast cancer, so no wonder Boxer didn't retort. No good could have come from that.

This needs to end. To be clear, I am not defending Fiorina's comment- she was careless, and it was an unnecessary thing for her to say, but it should NOT be the first question out of Chris Wallace's mouth on a prominent national Sunday morning talk show. Really, I think there are more important things to talk about.

I think the gaffe taught Fiorina (and likely many other candidates) a valuable lesson. She is going to be extremely cautious when choosing her words going forward. It was clear that she was very on-message for the remainder of the interview, and she made some excellent points. Hopefully this will be the last that we hear about it.

Friday, June 11, 2010

End of Men response

Great point, great article. Ahhhh, the end of men! Scary! :-) ha ha. Well, it is quite a shift and the numbers don't lie, more women in college and advanced programs than men, this will definitely change things, I have seen it already with medical students which are now well over 60% female, compared to a generation ago only 10% or so were female at most. Why so many fewer men are in college is hard to say if it's quotas against them or just they've become less ambitious or less interested in their own development or who knows what.

I think it is a generational thing with Maloney vs. today. In fact, it may even reverse in a few years where you stand out as a man (this is definitely true in my field where there's about 2/3 women) whether this helps or hurts is tough to say, but things are changing for sure.

Pop culture and women's self-image online

Here is a relevant post to an article which is very interesting from some research this author did on women's self-image and how it is portrayed in the media. It's worth reading, but if you prefer the cliff's notes here goes: Basically she had an easy time finding negative information about women's self-image of their bodies and very hard time finding anything positive.

I thought this was apprapos to our conversation in class last night.

http://womensissues.about.com/od/womensbodiesminds/qt/WomenLoveBodies.htm

Women's History Month

Just thought I'd post this:

http://womenshistorymonth.gov/

In googling some stuff I came across this, OK so women's history month is March so you'll have to wait till next year, but the Smithsonian has some pretty good stuff on this.

Thursday, June 10, 2010

Obama Administration and Women - Article by Forbes

This came out about an hour before class started so I don't know how many of you have had a chance to read it: http://www.forbes.com/2010/06/10/womens-rights-obama-administration-white-house-council-on-women-girls-forbes-woman-leadership-equal-pay.html?boxes=Homepagechannels (One reason I bring it up is because at work I helped organize the Women in Finance Symposium that the article mentions and it's something I'm really proud of but also because...)

This pretty directly hits on some of the pieces of legislation that have never been passed in the US re. women's rights, beyond the commonly discussed ERA.

Also, we talked today about the importance of women in the legislature, but this looks at what the current executive branch is working on for women.

The closing of the article also makes an interesting point:

Looking at the larger political picture, which encompasses a disastrous oil spill, two wars, a high unemployment rate, a volatile stock market and, until recently, health care reform taking up the majority of the floor time, the argument could be made that the administration hasn't had much time--or political capital--for much else. [women's rights/issues] But O'Neil says now is the time to move forward. "Women are consistently told to wait in line and women are always being polite for some other priority to come ahead of women's equality, but if the president takes a leadership role, things will get done," says O'Neil.


Not much other commentary from me here, but definitely a topical article and an easy read.

there is something new i learned about patriarchy

I was talking with Ms. Sharon last week on the wishes and needs of human societies, and she advice me to looking for the system of patriarchy.
i found this like http://www.kahealani.com/articles/gender_roles.html it's about the same subject.

for me i want to read more and try to understand that, maybe we have many questions, but we have to look for the answers..

Women, for a Change?

I was excited to see the article, "Women, for a Change?" in the Metro Express daily paper today! The article was about disgruntled voters shifting their votes to favor more women candidates this upcoming election cycle. The article was very positive and referenced many strong women candidates from gubernatorial to state and u.s. races. Each of the females discussed in the article have a very good chance of winning and taking office. Debbie Walsh stated, "Many women are running and taking advantage of this moment in the political sphere."

This article reminded me of a conversation that we had in class two weeks ago about common values found in women are more appealing to voters and put candidates at a better vantage point. Values such as putting others first, better health care, support for women and children, volunteerism, etc. Voters want to get rid of the harsh, hardball politicians, giving women a obvious vantage point. At first I didn't know if I agreed with the discussion of "women's values" having a greater voter appeal, but after reading the article and thinking about what citizens are currently basing their votes on, I have changed my mind.

I am excited for the upcoming elections and I think that their will be a much greater presence of the women holding office. This will cause many of the hot-button issues to change. My guess and hope is that it will be more focused on what the American people want and need, and move away from the partisan fights and finger pointing. I think this will help soften voters disdain for the current political culture, and help build trust in the system again.

Woman fired from Citibank for attire

This is less about politics, but related. I'll paste the most egregious excerpt here from the NY Post (for more read the full article in title link):

"In blatantly discriminatory fashion, plaintiff was advised that as a result of the shape of her figure, such clothes were purportedly 'too distracting' for her male colleagues and supervisors to bear. The sexy single mom pointed out to her bosses "that other female colleagues wore similar professional attire," and that some dressed far more provocatively, the filing says. But her supervisors shot back that those women didn't have to worry about turning them on "as their general unattractiveness rendered moot their sartorial choices, unlike plaintiff," the papers say."

I found this because I often work with financial firms at my job. Just thought it's an interesting "other side" to the sexism in dressing discussion we've been having. Kagan was criticized for dressing "conservatively" whereas this woman has been punished for being too feminine (to put it in P.C. language!).

Looking through the pictures of her - there's no doubt she's a beautiful woman. But as long as she's dressing in work appropriate clothes, it's insane to say she needs to dress even more conservatively because the mostly male office she worked in couldn't handle themselves.

It's sort of disheartening to read something like this. Whether you're preference is for conservative clothing, pant suits or fashion, it's like you can't win.

In Sweden, Men Can Have It All

I couldn't help myself I had to post this --

Included in the title to this post is a fascinating article from the New York Times today on Sweden and how they have used quotas to impact a cultural shift towards more male responsibility. The article brings up "daddy leave" AND it quotes a GW professor. A great read!

Here is an excerpt:

"Sweden, he said, faced a vicious circle. Women continued to take parental leave not just for tradition’s sake but because their pay was often lower, thus perpetuating pay differences. Companies, meanwhile, made clear to men that staying home with baby was not compatible with a career.

“Society is a mirror of the family,” Mr. Westerberg said. “The only way to achieve equality in society is to achieve equality in the home. Getting fathers to share the parental leave is an essential part of that.”

Introducing “daddy leave” in 1995 had an immediate impact. No father was forced to stay home, but the family lost one month of subsidies if he did not. Soon more than eight in 10 men took leave. The addition of a second nontransferable father month in 2002 only marginally increased the number of men taking leave, but it more than doubled the amount of time they take."

Whitman High School Names Schieffer Its Grad Speaker

On Monday June 7, 2010, 89-year old Helen Thomas ended her longtime career as a White House correspondent and columnist. The announcement of Helen Thomas' retirement followed recent contoversial remarks she made about Israel in which she stated that "Jews should 'get the hell out of Palestine." According to reports, Thomas recently apologized to a Washington Post reporter and said she was "very sorry" and had "made a mistake," but failed to address the substance of her comments. Helen Thomas started covering the White House in 1960 and is recognized for covering U.S. Presidents as far back as John F. Kennedy.

Helen Thomas was also scheduled to speak at Walt Whitman High School's graduation exercises in June 2010. However, Whitman Principal Alan Goodwin announced this week that veteran CBS Television News Journalist Bob Schieffer will replace Helen Thomas. As the result of a mutual agreement with the Bethesda school, Helen Thomas withdrew her name as speaker.

Wednesday, June 9, 2010

A Super Tuesday For Women Nationwide

While I'm sure many of you have already read the news -- I figured it wouldn't hurt to share some of the results from yesterdays elections across the country on our blog.

I linked an NPR Blog post in the title that summarizes many of the results. One great quote from the blog is:

"If there's any theme that came out of yesterday, it was not a Bad Day For Incumbents. It was, instead, a Super Tuesday For Women. "

I also chose to link this article because the author includes a reflection in the last paragraph that is relevant to the theme of Congresswoman Maloney's book. The author, Ken Rudin, describes that his first on air piece was about a "Super Tuesday for Women" back in 1986 -- he adds:

"Twenty-four years later, I still remember that day, and that piece.

This year's "Super Tuesday" seems far more impressive."

Tuesday, June 8, 2010

Quotas in Ecuador

Ecuador was the first Latin American country to grant women full voting rights in 1924. Since then, Ecuador has been improving women’s political rights.

After our discussion in class about quotas, I decided to share with the class some advantages that my country has achieved.

In 2000, Ecuador passed a Law binding every political party to include 30% of women in their list. This percentage should increase 5% each election in order to reach 50%, proportion that we already have. The law also requires the political parties to observe the sequence and arrange in order to have: man-woman-man-woman, or woman-man-woman-man in each candidate’s list.

Currently, 33% of the Assembly Members are women, and 5 out of 13 Permanent Committees of the General Assembly are leading by Chairwomen (38.5%).

Since 2008, Ecuador has a new Constitution where we can find rights and principles that involves positive discrimination and positive actions based on gender. Ecuadorian Constitution also stimulates equal participation in all public offices. At the moment, there are 15 women in the President’s Cabinet. In the last Government, they were only 5.

I think that Constitutions and laws allowing quotas are making possible this kind of changes. Even though “quotas” is a hated word, I think it is a mechanism that helps improving women’s political participation.

The End Of Men

In many ways it seems like Hanna Rosin has been sitting in our class the past three weeks. Her article "The End of Men" (there is a link in the title) in The Atlantic Monthly touches almost every topic we have covered in class from stereotypes to quotas to the wage gap. It is a little scary. Throughout her article, Hanna Rosin argues that women are actually progressing much faster in society than we may think. Her article is the perfect juxtaposition to Carolyn Maloney's book.

Essentially, Rosin argues that women in general are more suited for the 21st century. At first glance, this argument seemed absurd. I thought how can one gender be suited better for a particular time in history? However, once reading her examples it sort of begins to make sense. To begin illustrating her point she examines the number of women earning college and professional degrees versus the number of men. Having attended a state university that had more women than men it was not all that surprising to find that more women graduate from college than men. Next, Rosin examines how traditional stereotypes of men and women have influenced their careers. For example, Rosin discusses that traditionally men are lauded for their strength and competitive nature. According to the author, this made men perfect for the manufacturing jobs and high-powered competitive careers like those on Wall Street in the 20th century. Unfortunately, for men, those jobs are disappearing during the recession. On the other hand, women are traditionally known to be more nurturing and flexible. This is why more women tend to be in the nursing and teaching profession. And according to Rosin, "Of the 15 job categories projected to grow the most in the next decade in the U.S., all but two are occupied primarily by women." In addition, Rosin points out that as of this year women outnumber men in the workforce for the first time. Anyways, the article is quite long and she goes on in great detail to talk more about how the stereotypes of men and women actually play into the careers.

While I think the entire article is fascinating and I am more inclined to agree with Rosin than with Maloney on women's progress I was especially interested with the quotes Rosin uses from current female college students. These female students do not seem the least bit concerned with being discriminated against because of their gender. In fact, they all seem to think that they will be the ones with the "high-power" careers while their husbands stay at home and take care of the kids. So, my question is do you think the issue of discrimination against women is more generational? Do the women who are now entering the workforce really have as hard of a time as Carolyn Maloney suggests? Or have the authors we have read simply worked in a different time in a different climate? I am not really sure.

The Maternal Wall

In Rumors of Our Progress Congresswoman Maloney raises the poignant question of whether or not we can truly call our current political and social situation progress. Defining progress is an interesting endeavor in itself which I think requires some reflection. Ultimately progress is a relative term, and when defining progress we need to consider the context and how fast we can truly expect change to happen.

One example of a situation in which we have not seen much progress seems to be in the legal profession - an issue which we have discussed in class on a few occasions.

In the book Congresswoman Maloney mentions the "Maternal Wall" and details the story of Dawn Gallina and the RAOC (An acronym which I am definitely going to start adopting in my day to day life) that ruined her career at a law firm. Dawn Gallina's story took place in 1996 -- however it is quite apparent that not much has changed.

While reading through some blogs today I stumbled upon a story of a New York law firm that has a shockingly bad record with dealing with mothers -- you can read about it more here:
http://abovethelaw.com/2010/06/kl-gates-closed-to-associate-mothers/
I definitely recommend at least looking at the facts of the story they listed.

Despite all of our conversations and readings -- I was still really shocked by this incident. The Above The Law blog seems to have treated the issue with a fairly flippant tone. It almost sounds as though the only recourse they feel they have is to just make light of the situation, if that is even possible. The blog Jezebel has a post about this as well entitled "When The Mommy Track Leads Out The Door" http://jezebel.com/5558387/when-the-mommy-track-leads-out-the-door

I wonder if it is fair to treat these very serious incidences with such tones? Doesn't the use of the word "mommy track" diminish the importance in some way? What are the practical things that we can do to ensure progress? Although I am not involved in the legal profession and am in no real position to comment on its inner-workings, it seems as though we must be able to find some way to change things? But how? What do you all think?

Ultimately, I guess this is just another example of why we definitely need to carefully heed Congresswoman Maloney's calls for us to question our current standards of "progress".

Monday, June 7, 2010

Dressed to Dissect?

Sabrina's post and the subsequent conversation about Dowd's article got me thinking again about something I saw in Newsweek last Friday* that extends this issue of physical appearance and self-presentation in another direction. The title of the Newsweek Article is "Conservative Hotties and Gender Hypocrisy: Why It's Hard to Have It Both Ways".

The Newsweek article discusses a list of the "20 Hottest Conservative Women In The New Media"** posted by the Right Wing News. The article provides names and photos of these 'top rated' women but no readily available additional biographical information (most of the photos are fairly sexual in nature, as the blog Jezebel pointed out today***).

In regards to Sabrina's question - Personally I feel as though people should be allowed to dress however they would like and that people should not necessarily have to adhere to any guidelines of conservative/creative professional dressing. Moreover, I think that in an ideal situation the focus would be on substantive qualities and ability. Of course, I am not so naive as to believe that people's appearances do not dramatically impact perception and I understand that they are inherently relevant to the decision making process.

I think the other way of looking at the question that Sabrina posed is:
Should the impact of your outfit be something you can be judged on instead of your ability? Of course this is something we discussed in some depth with regards to the articles on Elena Kagan, but what about for people who are not taking on a position of prominence? What about people who are being specifically pointed out for their "hotness"? Can "hotness" ever be a real advantage?

By focusing on the "New Media" the Right Wing News article is inherently targeting lesser known figures (Of course they did include people like Laura Ingram, Ann Coulter and Michelle Malkin on their list - all relatively famous female conservative figures who are likely accustomed to the kind of intense criticism that comes from holding a position of prominence). On the one hand, being featured on a list like this is certain to generate some degree of publicity for these writers - but perhaps not the kind of critical attention they deserve.

Graham's Newsweek post addresses this question by saying:
"It’s great that there’s such a vibrant female presence in the conservative commentariat—Coulter and Malkin in particular have a stature that’s equaled only by the likes of Rush Limbaugh—but by any sensible standard, it’s clear-cut sexism: women trying to compete on the same intellectual playing field as the men being ranked for how sexy they look in their online profile, not how scathingly they dissect Obamacare."

I think Graham raises an important point -- by focusing on people who work hard to be included on "the same intellectual playing field" the "20 Hottest Conservative Women" erases any potential advantage that a list like that could provide. Essentially, it seems to be the case that no matter whether you are considered 'drab' or 'hot' - a focus on appearance that replaces a hard analysis of your work is never acceptable, no matter what kind of position of leadership you may be in. So can "hotness" be an advantage? Maybe it can be... but it should not the primary measure by which any individual should be measured.


* The Newsweek post is included in the title of the blog post.
**http://rightwingnews.com/2010/06/the-20-hottest-conservative-women-in-the-new-media-2010-edition/
***http://jezebel.com/5557442/the-persistent-perviness-of-pundits-on-pin+up-bloggers

Response to a few posts

Will try to be brief here, getting back in the groove after being away and really enjoyed the posts. So to respond to a few:

1). "Babies" Haven't seen it but I have been wanting to for quite a while, I will make the effort to now, it does seem that the natural maternal instinct is the stronger of the 2 parental instincts and the relationship with the child is usually stronger w/the mother since its a special relationship, not that the fathers don't have a strong bond but this seems to usually be the case. I agree that the luxury of a more "advanced" (I use that term cautiously) society like ours affords more of an ability for fathers to get more involved as the basics of survival are more readily taken care of, but who is to say that anything is lacking from how the less developed cultures raise their kids? A question for the ages there.

2). "Dressed to Distract" Great post! What can I say on this I think we covered it 2 weeks ago, I just remember Rudy Guiliani defending Sarah Palin at the '08 GOP convention asking "when has a man ever been asked that question" about her fitness for office with her family responsibilities, not to mention how much nonsense goes into the appearance factor.

3). Joe McGinnis trying to stalk the Palin's like some sickened paparazzi. It is pathetic in a sense but it's amazing to me how the "Palin-haters" do nothing but continue to fuel the fire of her mystery/fascination/fame/myth/aura whatever it is, so I love it! I think it's great he moved in and she built a huge fence and the Palin's get more and more book sales and TV gigs and paid speeches and on and on every time some angry detractor does something like this. It just astounds me that they haven't either collectively or individually figured out that if you want someone like a Palin to go away the best thing is to ignore them, not throw rocket fuel on the white hot embers. Somehow though, I don't think he'll be getting an invite over for a beer and a Mooseburger!

Sunday, June 6, 2010

Dressed to Distract

I can thank Maureen Dowd's article in today's NY Times as the catalyst for today's post. If have not read her op-ed, titled "Dressed to Distract"- you should. (See link in title of post)

I think that this article is an interesting follow up to the one written about Justice-Nominee Kagan several weeks ago. Once again, it discusses the influence of a woman's dress on the public's perception of her.

My favorite quote from the article is, "“She has to manage her wardrobe so these men can manage their libidos?” said her lawyer, Jack Tuckner". The question is clear- do women have an obligation to dress with others in mind?

For sake of argument- let's narrow the universe to workplace attire. When you wake up in the morning, a lot goes into your decision of what to wear that day. Should the impact of your outfit, or your body on others be part of your decision making?

I know how I feel- but I am actually more interested in hearing your thoughts.

Thursday, June 3, 2010

Could it be instinct or necessity?... I don't know!

I saw the documentary, Babies last night! I laughed throughout the entire movie. The film follows the earliest stages of the journey through life of four babies from Tokyo, Mongolia, Africa (Namibia), and the United States. It really showed that though we are raised so very different across the world there is still a universal understanding and commonality for all of us. Here is a link to the main site about the film: http://focusfeatures.com/film/babies/

I did find it interesting and wanted to raise a question (I am not sure where I really stand on the notion). “Is the stereotypical role of women instinctual or was it created out of necessity (for survival)?”

I noticed the role of the mother in all four of the babies that were filmed, was the dominate role, at least in the beginning of the child rearing (the film followed each baby to age 1). This was especially true in the more primitive upbringings. For example, the African baby lived with her other 8 siblings as a part of a Himba tribe. The men of the tribe were never seen throughout the entire film. I asked my friends what they thought about that and one said, “Well you could tell that they were well fed, I assume that the men do the hunting and bargaining, while the women stay in the village and rear the children.” This to me seemed natural, especially given the circumstances that the family lived in. The fathers interestingly enough in the more devolved cities (Tokyo and San Francisco) were much more involved in the rearing of their baby. They had resources and lifestyle opportunities that were not available to the other to families.

This got me thinking… that as our society changes and we are exposed to more and more opportunities to share the responsibility of raising a child, the role of the father becomes much greater. The difference that I felt was evident in the movie was the unique bond and connection that the mother had with her newborn. The fathers from Tokyo and San Francisco both participated in the birth of their newborn, but it was apparent that both mothers were dominant in the interaction. This is when I felt like it was more instinctual… that maternal instinct.

What do you think, because obviously I am unsure and seem to see them both as a natural reason why specific stereotypes have been created around the roles of both men and women.

Again, you have to go see Babies!

Image, Stereotypes and Privacy

After our discussion in class about image and stereotypes and how the media is focusing much more of this things in women, I began thinking in the connection they have with what Kunin in “Pearls, Politics, and Power” calls “privacy”.

Even though women and men have suffered a loss of privacy, there are more women’s stereotypes than men’s and that is why people expects more “traditional” women as a candidate.

For a single woman running for office the question she will get is if she is a lesbian or why is she have not get married? For a woman with children the question will be who is taking care of the children?

These things would be brought up immediately and if you do not fit on the “image” of what people want you to be, you will become a “treat to the establishment” as Kyrsten Sinema said on the book.

What it came to my mind is if those stereotypes are bigger when you are a woman, lesbian, single, African American, Hispanic, etc? In these cases the loss of privacy will be worse than candidates with “good image”?

I was thinking in that when I read Tammy Baldwin’s response when somebody asked her if being a lesbian was an issue for her. She said: “We certainly live in a country and a world where homophobia still exist, but frankly, sexism still exist, racism still exist. Being a woman, being a lesbian, all those issues you have to deal with. There are clearly some people who would never dream of voting for me because I’m a woman and because I’m a lesbian”(p. 30).

She is saying that she has to deal with 2 things: 1) being a woman and 2) being a lesbian. The question is if a man who is openly gay has to deal with just one thing: being gay?? In that case, we (women) have to deal with our gender first and then with all the other things uncommon for society. So, yes, gender does make a difference”! (p.82).

Author Joe McGinniss Moves Next Door to Sarah Palin

Sarah Palin has a new neighbor. Infamous author Joe McGinniss has a new residence next door to Palin's lakeside home in Wasilla, Alaska. Reportedly, McGinniss will rent the place for up to five months.

McGinniss has already written an expose on Palin, and plans to write a book on the Former Alaska Governor and GOP vice presidential candidate. His book is scheduled to release in the fall of 2011 and is presently titled - "Sarah Palin's Year of Living Dangerously."

One of the challenges of being a women or man in politics in that you are constantly in the public eye. It comes with the territory. McGinniss recently issued a statement ensuring the he "will be highly respectful of his subject's privacy as he investigates her public activities." Meanwhile, with McGinniss living about 15 feet away, Palin has installed a new large fence around her home to help guarantee privacy for her family.

Wednesday, June 2, 2010

Hows & How-Tos

For me personally, Madeline Kunin's Pearls, Politics and Power resonated with me far more than Marie Wilson's Closing the Leadership Gap did. While trying to pinpoint what it was about Kunin's book that particularly inspired me I took the time to carefully read through everyone else's posts on the blog. I found everyone's insights to be incredibly stimulating and loved hearing the parts that stuck out to everyone else and seeing how they compared with what stuck out to me. Like Emily mentioned, I too found Kunin's call for changes in education, laws and culture to be particularly inspiring. I think Kunin was very successful at detailing some specific thought processes and actions that can be undertaken in order to effect change. However, as Emma pointed out, her focus on running for office as the main avenue for enacting this change did seem to exclude what could be some other possible routes. I think the notion of professional development in itself is very important for cultivating strong women leaders and is an example of a tangible action that could make a big difference.

I think the biggest challenge for me in reading books about this topic and in thinking about how we can get more women in leadership and discussing the issues and barriers is that I am a fairly action oriented person. I like to think about the nuts and bolts of what can be done to improve the situation. I hate leaving questions like "how?" and "why?" unanswered. While Kunin did a good job of directing the conversation towards answering "how" it was far from a 'how-to manual' on the topic. (I should note that I recognize that these issues require individualized approaches and that a solution to one aspect of a problem may not be applicable to the solution to another aspect).

One quote from Kunin that I really loved was her description of the challenges of getting young women involved: "That is the challenge," she says "to convince oyung people not only that the tools of social change are available but also that they must be used by more women if we are to change the policies that frustrate them" - Kunin p.200. The word "tools of social change" got me thinking about social media in general. I think harnessing the power of social media could be an excellent way to truly engage a younger generation. This could be a solid "how-to" to compliment Kunin's "how"s. For example take the issue that Sharon brought up in her post: "Does the fact that women earn significantly less money on the whole when compared to men have any bearing on the dearth of female politicians?" Kunin mentions at times the problem that many people have noted that younger generations don't necessarily understand the significance of issues that other generations fought for. I guess for me personally the issue of equal pay is not something that I have encountered in my life and I know many women my age who feel the same way. For many of us who have graduated from college in the past few years getting any paycheck has been our primary focus. However, I recognize the importance of the issue of equal pay -- I feel like through open and frank conversation facilitated through things like social media the challenges of different generations can be addressed and examined. If only every young woman who had political inclinations could have the opportunity to blog and discuss political issues with other individuals willing and eager to achieve the same goals -- maybe that would help change the face of government today.