Gender Bias in Theater

Recent research shows that there is gender bias in the playwriting arena. "There is discrimination against female playwrights in the theatre community," said Emily Glassberg Sands, who initiated this new research. Research also finds a shortage of good scripts written by women.

Sands, a Princeton economics student, conducted three separate studies on gender bias in theatre. The first examined the playwrights themselves. Results revealed that there were twice as many male playwrights as female playwrights, and that men produced more plays.

The second study looked at artistic directors and literary managers. Sand sent identical scripts to artistic directors and literary managers nationwide to determine if there was a difference in the number of ratings submitted with men's names vs. women. Yes, results of the study found that women's scripts received lower ratings.

The third study was Broadway. It was found that women write less than one in eight Broadway shows.

For more information to include more results of this study, please visit The New York Times and see the full article on "Rethinking Gender Bias in Theater" at http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/24/theater/24play.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1279973420-wZ9DIaN5kKF/nMqiFeXOpQ.

July Is Women's Motorcycle Month

July is a time to celebrate Women's Motorcycle Month. This traditionally male-dominated passion, is being enjoyed by more women. According to recent statistics, "one of every 10 motorcycle owners is a women." The Ohio Department of Transportation reports that "the number of women motorcycle riders is increasing at a higher rate than the number of male riders - 28 percent versus 7 percent."

Today's women motorcycle riders are also more educated. Recent data shows that one-third of the current generation's women motorcycle riders have college degrees, and are more likely to hold a managerial or professional job than their male counterparts. Some famous women motorcycle riders are: Elizabeth Taylor, Courtney Cox, Angelina Jolie, KD Lang, Queen Latifa, Cher, and Lauren Hutton.

My Revolution From Within

I read famous women's activist, Gloria Steinem's book, Revolution From Within, as the supplement to my final paper. To say the least it was the perfect ending to my journey though this course. This book in many ways is a self-help guide to finding your inner-self -- a task that is not easy to do. I am sure that you have thought about who you are and what you stand for, but that as Gloria explains is just the beginning of self discovery.

I’m not talking about just our roles or social identities. We all identify ourselves as a friend, brother/sister, employee, boyfriend/girlfriend, husband/wife, partner, father/mother, son/daughter, all at the same time, but these are just an aspect of who we really are (these are often roles we play because we have been socialized to do so, but maybe they are not the true us). In essences, what I learned as I raced through the pages of her book, is that these identities don’t represent who we fundamentally are inside. Our inner-self is who we really are on the inside.

To know your inner self is to know your purpose, your values, your visions, your motivations, your goals and your beliefs without having society tell you what all of those things should be. Not as what you have been told by others, but what you have discovered for yourself. Knowing your inner self requires a high level of introspection and self-awareness, which Gloria humbly displays in this book -- this is her journey and a pathway for others to use as a guide on their own journey.

This knowing of self has a deep connection with feminism. It actually is one of the most fundamental parts of the feminist movement, which often is not discussed. Women must understand their strenghts/weakness in conjunction with understanding how society views these same characteristics , behaviors, etc... These may not directly conform with what YOU represent. What I think was the most profound thing I walked away with from this book is that I am the owner of my own life and I need to live my life for myself. A life that is defined by me, not what is defined by our society. This is going to take A LOT of work, but I am excited to make the journey just as Gloria Steinem unveiled in her book, Revolution From Within.

Tokens

"That incident taught me that even if you are a token, you have an important function to fulfill. Many times since, when I have been the only African American or the only woman in a situation, I have spoken up for greater representation. But I have always first made a point of contributing my thinking to the work at hand. The value of a group is that each member brings the benefit of his or her life experience. If you hold back, not only is the group deprived, but you have lost an opportunity to contribute." - Dr. Dorothy Height

For my final paper, I read the book Open Wide The Freedom Gates by Dr. Dorothy Height. While I found the entire book insightful and encouraging this passage in particular stood out to me the most and I wanted to share it with everyone. I think this passage sums up what we have been talking about in class. Often in class we said that we did not necessarily feel comfortable standing up in particular situations because of our age or because of our position at work or we did not see the discrimination against women. However, in many ways I think we are all tokens. We may be the only woman or man, the only person of our particular race or sexuality, the only southerner, westerner, or northerner. And yet it is because of our "token" qualities that we have certain ideas, certain ideologies, or certain points of view. So, instead of hiding behind our "token qualities" as a reason for not speaking up we should embrace Dr. Height's suggestion and share our thoughts, experiences, and suggestions. I believe that it is only by sharing these parts of ourselves that we can truly begin to get to know one another and create the kind of change that we want to see.

Wear a Pink Sari and Carry a Big Stick

The article "Wear a Pink Sari and Carry a Big Stick" posted on Slate.com is completely different from any topic we discussed in class. This article examines women's gangs that are rising in India to combat corruption in government and to defend women against injustices. The particular gang in the article was founded and is led by a 40-year-old woman named Sampat Pal Devi. According to the article, the gang started in 2006 as a way for women to look out for victims of domestic violence. When the gang would find out that a woman was a victim of domestic violence they would arrive at the house and demand that the husband stop the abuse. If the abuse continued, the gang of women would return to the house with bamboo sticks and "'persuade'" (as the article states) the husband to stop. Today, Sampat Pal Devi has a huge following of nearly 20,000 women and similar groups are cropping up around India. Some of these groups are even more violent and one group even killed a serial rapist and murderer after the courts failed to convict him.

Honestly, I was shocked to read this article. You do not often read about all-women gangs or groups of women resorting to violence. We talked a lot in class about how more women in leadership roles would create more positive change in the public and private sector. We talked about women being seen traditionally as collaborators and communicators. We did not talk about women who used weapons and fear to get their message across. In a heavily patriarchal society like India could women have brought about this sort of change without violence? Or do the men in power only respond to these women as a legitimate force because they can relate to the methods they are using? Is it taking women so long to rise to power in the United States because they are not using the methods traditionally used by men?

As a woman, I completely understand why these women are banning together and fighting corruption and injustice in India. However, I completely disagree with their methods. What is this teaching future generations? That force and fear is the only way to create change? Their continued methods of force and fear only seem to perpetuate the problem whereas by fighting this corruption and injustice in a peaceful manner could break the cycle.

Are companies tipping the scale to choose men for their jobs?

When we were debating the Paternity Leave Law in Ecuador a fact came into the light. Private and public companies were tipping the scale to choose men for their jobs. Why?? Because having men in office was easier for companies. They didn’t have to pay them for maternity leave and breast-feeding. They did not have to worry if they get pregnant in any case.

Passing the law in Ecuador gave us a better family environment in any job, but also took a little bit of weight out of women’s scale.

When I read in Tarr - Whelan’s book about the “mommified”, that example came to my mind, but also, I shocked when I read this passage:

“Among peoples ages 27-33 that have never had children, women’s earnings approach 98% of men’s. Many women will hit the glass ceiling but many more will crash into the maternal wall. Ellen Goodman is right. Young women are closing the wage gap, but only until they have children”.

Is this true? If it is, can we change it?

My husband and I want to have children, but we want the family - work balance also. I think we will be able to do it, but this could happen only if we break the myths and change the bias. Can we do it? I think so. I found comforting ideas in this book that make me think that is not only a desire to do it. I think it is also our obligation to the new generation that is coming.

Will the Dodd-Frank Bill Change the Number of Women in the Boardroom?

While I haven't had a chance to read the full text of the Dodd-Frank Bill which is set to pass in the Senate later on this afternoon -- it sounds like it may contain some interesting and promising elements for the future of women and minorities around the Board room tables in America.

The bill calls for the creation of an Office of Minority and Women Inclusion -- below is the blurb in the House Summary of the Bill:

"NEW OFFICES OF MINORITY AND WOMEN INCLUSION
At federal banking and securities regulatory agencies, the bill establishes an Office of Minority and Women Inclusion that will, among other things, address employment and contracting diversity matters. The offices will coordinate technical assistance to minority-owned and women-owned businesses and seek diversity in the workforce of the regulators."

You can read more of the summary: http://financialservices.house.gov/Key_Issues/Financial_Regulatory_Reform/comprehensive_summary.pdf

While I don't see anything that specifically indicates that quotas will be implemented -- a few different news sources are saying that is the direction the bill is going in.
For example, the BBC posted an article about Women in the Board Room in the UK and a new report released about new statistics and it mentions that quotas are in the works here. You can read that article here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-10648355

I have to say, I was pretty skeptical that quotas would ever gain traction at any level of politics, governance or leadership in the U.S. when this class started -- but it seems as though it really may be happening.

What do you all think of this? Anyone heard any thing else about it?

Madeleine Albright's Collection of Brooches on Exhibit at the Smithsonian Castle

View the extrordinarily impressive exhibit titled: "Read My Pins: The Madeleine Albright Collection." There are 300 pins on display at the Smithsonian Castle worn by the former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations (1993-97) and U.S. secretary of state (1997-2001).

The pins are grouped by theme in 19 glass cases: flowers, bugs, flags, animals, etc. Highlights in the collection include "glass shards" to signify the glass ceiling Albright broke through to become the first female secretary of state, "an angel" commemorating the victims of bombings at U.S. embassies in Africa in 1998, and "a bee" that Albright wore to Middle East peace negotiations. Another brooch of note includes one that incorporates a piece of the Berlin Wall.

There is no doubt that there is the power of a pin, but it's not always easy to determine what each pin means. Messages can indeed lie within a brooch. In a recent article, Albright points out that "without intending it, I found that jewlry had become part of my personal diplomatic arsenal. Former President George H.W. Bush had been known for saying 'Read my lips.' I began urging colleagues and reporters to 'Read my pins.'" It's noted that Albright's pin's often served as conversation starters as well as bridge builders.

For more information about the exhibit, visit www.si.edu/exhibitions/read-my-pins. The Collection of Brooches are on display through October 11, 2010. Albright also has an accompanying book named "Read My Pins: Stories From a Diplomat's Jewel Box."

Film Director Kathryn Bigelow Makes History

Kathryn Bigelow recently made history when she became the first woman to win the Best Director Oscar. Bigelow's movie, "The Hurt Locker," also won Best Picture and Best Screenplay. "It's a moment of a lifetime," says Bigelow. According to critics, Bigelow's "The Hurt Locker" is the best war movie made in years. It's also ironic that it was up against Bigelow's ex-husbands movie, "Avatar." Both "The Hurt Locker" and sci-fi movie "Avatar" had nine nominations."The Hurt Locker" won six Oscars.

On July 11, 2010, "60 Minutes" on CBS aired a special broadcast interview with Bigelow. In the interview, Bigelow stated "There's really no difference between what I do and what a male filmmaker might do. I mean we all try to make our days, we all try to give the best performances we can, we try to make our budget, we try to make the best movie we possibly can. So in that sense it's very similar. On the other hand, I think the journey for women, no matter what venue it is - politics, business, film - it's a long journey," she said.

Bigelow makes it clear that she hates being considered a "female" director. Ex-husband James Cameron points out that "It's an irresistible story to finally be able to award the first directing Ocscar to a woman. I'm sure Kathryn will be ambivalent about this because she'll be of a mind that, wait a minute, I want to win for the work, I don't want to win because I'm a woman."

Leslie Stahl, reporter for "60 Minutes" remarked "I don't know anybody who has seen this movie who says, 'I can't believe a woman directed this movie.' The violence, the 'machoness.'" Jeremy Renner, actor who plays Sgt. James in "The Hurt Locker" responds, "What does having a set of ovaries have to do with directing the film? It's through her eyes that she sees. Not through her mammaries or anything else that defines her as a women."

"The Hurt Locker" was shot almost entirely in Jordan, a portion of it in a Palestinian refugee camp. The movie is Bigelow's eighth movie and she is 58 years old. Cameron notes, "the idea of war and conflict fascinates Bigelow. And so it's something that's out there in the world that she's trying to understand. I think she also takes pride in the fact that she can outgun the guys, you know. That just in pure technique, just pure game, she's got more game than most of the male directors out there."

Does the Generation Difference Actually Exist?

Today someone forwarded me a recently released report from the Berger-Marks foundation on generational differences amongst women in the labor movement. The report documents the findings from a conference of women union organizers and members. Apparently their has been a fairly large rift amongst different generations of women in unions, stemming from differences of judgment, expectation and perception. One of the main findings of the report was that for these women their were certain outside forces that made them distinctly different from one another -- I think the best example of this came when they asked the women participating in the conference the following: "When you graduated from high school, what were your expectations of yourself?"

The differences were very interesting, the "U35" or under 35 years old group came up with the following list:
Career driven, College, marriage, then kids, Balance work and home, Do your own thing, Have it all by mid-20s (old by 30)

The over 35 group came up with the following:
Be the opposite of our mothers, Be intellectual, Get a job, Be successful, Be self-sufficient Go, go, go–but where?

Despite these great differences, the women at the conference ended up coming up with a tangible plan for how to solve many of the problems unique to women in the labor movement that was inclusive of all generations. What this report ended up reminding me of was Delegate Dumais' assertion that it was not necessarily an issue of generation that really stuck out as the main difference between everyone: She emphasized the idea that Maryland has a citizen's legislature and that every single person brings a personal history with them, which I don't think was to say that generational differences do not exist but rather that they do not factor into every individual in the same way. As simple of an answer as that may have seemed, I know that all too often I get caught up in the idea of generational differences without thinking about the fact that generation means different things to different people.

Maybe it is possible that in specific instances generational differences are very significant, like in the example of the Labor movement -- but I think one of the most important lessons to take from this is not just to isolate differences -- but to build coalitions based on our diversity of opinions.

If you are interested in looking at the report in more detail you can find it here:
http://www.bergermarks.org/resources/SteppingUpSteppingBack.pdf

Jobs in which women make more than men

I came across this article during my daily search of HuffPo and wanted to share it. Unfortunately the link to the DoL website didn't work for me so I was unable to see what their findings had to offer. But I thought this small article/photographs were interesting because, in each of the fields that women earned more than men, I was not surprised (except perhaps with science technicians). These are domestic jobs in which women have always dominated. The article claims that this is because women are in "lower paying industries." If only I could access the website, I'd like to see what the disparity is between women and men in higher paying industries, such as engineers.

The few statistics mentioned were fascinating - younger women in their 20s see less of a wage gap than women in their 30s/40s. I assume that it is because as they are first entering the workforce, women and men are viewed as equals in terms of hiring; yet once they move up the ranks, their qualifications and job preferences change and potentially place them in different positions than men. Any other reasons that you think this may be the case?

Will Women Save the Economy?

The Washington Post has a great article this morning about a study that was released that shows that women and minority business owners were booming before the recession began. A few of the interesting points the article brings up include the fact that by 2007 "minorities owned one in five small U.S. businesses, and women owned almost one in three." and that "The largest numerical increase in the five-year span was in businesses owned by women, up 1.3 million, to a total of 7.8 million. That represented a 20 percent increase."

The article touches a little on the impact of the recession but mostly highlights the great advances made before hand. I wonder if we will find that the struggling economy will have discouraged or encouraged this trend of women starting more businesses. I have very little knowledge of the inner workings of business but I can see how an argument can be made that the recession would allow more women to start their own businesses, however at the same time it could discourage women from leaving a secure job they already have to pursue a dream. In some ways this ties into the point that Ilana made in her post about how women are less likely to fight the wage gap during a time when even having a job is an accomplishment.

Obviously the faltering economy impacts everyone -- but it sounds like an obstacle like this may be providing women a greater opportunity for success. The article points out that "In an era when such high-profile female business executives as Carly Fiorina and Meg Whitman have entered politics, an increasing share of U.S. businesses are run by women. A study published last year by the Guardian Life Small Business Research Institute projected that small businesses run by women will create one-third of all new jobs."

So it seems like the numbers for women business owners in the future are getting increasingly more optimistic. If women really will be owners of 1/3 of the jobs opportunities and if the 30% Solution that Linda Tarr-Whelan describes and relies on really works than the potential for change in the future of the business world seems abundant. And what about having business women running for office? Will that increase the numbers? I think everything we have discussed and read in class points to yes. Tarr-Whelan's point about the sales from women owned businesses sales making up the equivalent of the GDP of China -- than maybe it really is true that more women owned businesses could save or at least jump start the economy.

One more side note that was included in the article which reminded me of a class discussion we had about women in construction -- the article points out that "More women are starting firms in nontraditional fields; they own about 11 percent of construction firms, for instance." Essentially it seems like the tide of change is definitely approaching.

See the article in the title of the post for more details.

Sarah Palin: Will She, or Won't She?

This is a really interesting and in-depth analysis of Sarah Palin, and whether or not she is going to put her hat in the ring for the 2012 Presidential Race. Covering her media strategy, organization, endorsements, and the risks, the article takes an honest look at the realities, challenges and benefits to a Palin 2012 ticket.

Perhaps the quote that most stood out to me was at the very end...

“Losing hurts her brand,” said Democratic new media consultant Kombiz Lavasany. “A perpetual draft movement is better.”

I am not sure that I agree with this. The Palin brand is all about fighting the man, and fighting him despite the fact that the man will likely win. Additionally, I am not convinced that the larger goal of the Palin brand is politics. Her book sales, tour and media appearances help to bolster her public brand- without even a mention or relation to public office.

So? What do you think? Will she, or won't she?

More on the pay gap

Once women reach the almost impossible goal of becoming parter at a law firm, they are still paid an average of $66,000 less than their male counterparts. Sure, when you are making upwards of $1 million, that is not going to have a noticeable impact on your quality of life, but it is an injustice nonetheless.

I disagree with most of what the author recommends as possible solutions. He says the following: "Women, and men of conscience, need to bitch and moan and agitate and force change upon a system that resists. Clients need to start punishing law firms who support gender inequality. New associates need to proactively avoid firms that are committed to maintaining the old boys network. And successful female partners need to branch out and start building their own firms so that in a generation Alpha & Ladies LLP can compete with the Cravaths and Skaddens of the world."

This is all lovely IN THEORY, but is not really realistic and will take way too long. First, anyone who has a job now is not going to bitch or moan about anything. They are going to be eternally grateful that they are employed at the moment, and put their heads down. Along the same lines, new associates are going to take jobs wherever they can get them, so there is zero hope of any boycott. Third, branching out on your own is tremendously difficult, and cannot be the solution. For an all female firm to compete with the Cravaths of the world, will take decades, if not more. What I do agree with the author about is that clients hold the power. If the General Counsel of a Fortune 500 company demands that the company’s matters are staffed by women, etc., then this will force the firms’ hand because they cannot endanger hundreds of thousands of dollars of revenue. Law firms and lawyers generally are nothing without clients: they do not want to lose their clients and will do things within reason (which this certainly is) to assure that their clients are happy.

It is truly unbelievable that this pay inequality still occurs. I never experienced it as an associate because our pay was set lockstep by class year, and quite obviously I didn’t make it to the partner level by the time i left big-firm life. I am sure however that this problem is not unique to partnership, and undoubtedly goes on where pay is not automatically set by your class year, such as at mid-size and smaller firms. Once women reach the almost impossible goal of becoming parter at a law firm, they are still paid an average of $66,000 less than their male counterparts. Sure, when you are making upwards of $1 million, that is not going to have a noticeable impact on your quality of life, but it is an injustice nonetheless.

I disagree with most of what the author of the post recommends as possible solutions. He says the following: "Women, and men of conscience, need to bitch and moan and agitate and force change upon a system that resists. Clients need to start punishing law firms who support gender inequality. New associates need to proactively avoid firms that are committed to maintaining the old boys network. And successful female partners need to branch out and start building their own firms so that in a generation Alpha & Ladies LLP can compete with the Cravaths and Skaddens of the world."

This is all lovely IN THEORY, but is not really realistic and will take decades to attain. First, anyone who has a job now is not going to bitch or moan about anything. They are going to be eternally grateful that they are employed at the moment. Along the same lines, new associates are going to take jobs wherever they can get them, so there is zero hope of any boycott. Third, branching out on your own is tremendously difficult, and cannot be the solution. For an all female firm to compete with Cravath, will take decades, if not more. What I do agree with the author about is that clients hold the power. If the General Counsel of a Fortune 500 company demands that the company’s matters are staffed by women, etc., then this will force the firms’ hand. Law firms and lawyers generally are nothing without clients: they do not want to lose their clients and will do things within reason (which this certainly is) to assure that their clients are happy.

It is truly unbelievable that this pay inequality still occurs. I never experienced it as an associate because our pay was set lockstep by class year, and quite obviously I didn’t make it to the partner level by the time i left big-firm life. I am sure however that this problem is not unique to partnership, and undoubtedly goes on where pay is not automatically set by your class year, such as at mid-size and smaller firms.

Women Lead The Way book

Just wanted to post some thoughts on Linda Tarr-Whelan's book. Overall I thought it was a very good read although she did bloviate quite a bit, in spite of which she made some saliant and interesting points about how the times are changing and what trends look to be sculpting the future. Most of all I like her discussion on the win-win mindset that does seem to be a bit more prevalent in a female leadership style (did she study Steven Covey's, "7 Habits of Highly Effective People" here?). I liked most of all her chapter on "Lifting as we climb" and I believe this win-win mindest and lifting as we climb applies to all people and transcends gender in leadership to the whole population. Her quoting of that African proverb was great, which bears repeating here, "If you want to go fast, go alone; if you want to go far, go together." I think that really sums it all up. What better way to say it?

It was also interesting seeing some of the statistics she cites in the book for example that men barely make up a majority of the work force now and that in the future white males will only account for 15% of the new entrants in the work force. The other trends we've studied in this course put all this in a neat framework to understand, especially when coupled with other statistics on how many men compared to women are pursuing education and advanced degrees.

Her emphasis on the female leadership trait of collaboration, consensus and communication I think is generally more correct than not, it isn't to say men cannot be this way or that women cannot; but I would agree that it seems more common among females than males.

Some of her data and facts I'd like to see contrasted to other data. For example, her info on her home state of South Carolina and the terrible rates of social and health problems, economic problems there, etc and so forth are compelling, however, she assigns a lot of this to the fact that that particular state has few women in leadership positions, and I would like to see that compared with other states social/economic problems and compared with how many or what percent of women are in leadership roles or not. It would be interesting to see if it has as much to do with lack of female leadership roles as it does the legacy of other economic, demographic, education, financial and on and on kinds of trends and factors rather than solely gender leadership.

Apropos to our class discussion w/our guest

A very interesting and insightful discussion in class last night w/our guest, and timely too, here's another example that just happened in the news today:



A North Carolina pastor was relieved of his duties as an honorary chaplain of the state house of representatives after he closed a prayer by invoking the name of Jesus.
“I got fired,” said Ron Baity, pastor of Berean Baptist Church in Winston-Salem. He had been invited to lead prayer for an entire week but his tenure was cut short when he refused to remove the name Jesus from his invocation.
Baity’s troubles began during the week of May 31. He said a House clerk asked to see his prayer. The invocation including prayers for our military, state lawmakers and a petition to God asking him to bless North Carolina.”
“When I handed it to the lady, I watched her eyes and they immediately went right to the bottom of the page and the word Jesus,” he told FOX News Radio. “She said ‘We would prefer that you not use the name Jesus. We have some people here that can be offended.’”
When Baity protested, she brought the matter to the attention of House Speaker
Joe Hackney.

New Palin ad

Please click on the title to find the link to the ad.

Sarah Palin's PAC released a video of her talking about a "mom awakening" in the past year and half; how Washington better watch out for all of the "mama grizzlies"; and trying to rally the troops for the 2010 elections. It is very Palin-esqe, in that it is not fancy and very down-to-earth. She is clearly trying to appeal to Joe-Mom.

I think this is an interesting approach for Palin. I wonder why she has decided to make this type of ad. Why is she reaching out to mothers specifically, as opposed to women in general? On FoxNews today, I saw a statistic that mothers make up approximately 20% of the voters in this country. Pretty sizable, indeed. But I don't think that tells the whole story.

Another issue: Is this the first time that a political ad has been so focused on mothers? None come to my mind. For example, the Willie Horton ad was directed more scaring the heck out of parents generally, as opposed to mothers specifically. Can you all think of any examples that I am missing?

More Women = More LGBT Candidates?

A few weeks back Sharon wrote the following question on the board:

"Will the focus on appearance such as hair, clothes, etc. become less significant & less of an focus for the press as more lesbians run for office?"

I think the majority of us agreed that a person's sexual orientation would not change the way the media treated them - but then Sharon brought up the case of Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin. I knew that I could not recall any coverage of Tammy Baldwin's appearance -- but thought I would check it out in some detail. Now I know this is not entirely scientific - but on an anecdotal level, it was pretty interesting.

First I decided to do a few Google searches: "Tammy Baldwin is wearing", "Tammy Baldwin appearance", "Tammy Baldwin clothes" and a few other iterations... I came up with no coverage relevant to her appearance. I opened it up and searched "Tammy Baldwin lesbian" but found not a single obvious reference to her appearance at all. I decided to take it a little more academic and pooled together some terms in with her name in LexisNexis searching for the past five years -- I found no article that mentioned her appearance in a positive, negative, sexual or any way. Granted -- my research methods for this were not incredibly sound, but I spent over an hour looking through articles and couldn't find a thing. On the one hand, I found this sort of heartening -- she was being examined for her standing not her appearance. But how interesting to think that the press has really spent so much time attacking other female figures for not looking feminine enough or looking like a lesbian, and then when we actually have a lesbian in an elected office the press won't touch her appearance.

I think some of this may be a function of the fact that despite the gains in openly LGBT candidates and elected officials, they still represent a small percentage of the current governing body -- far smaller than even women, and so therefore the press does not have a uniform means of covering them. This got me thinking about a few other things as well -- since more and more people who were minorities in elected office are making gains -- when one group makes more gains, does that mean that other groups will as well? Or, phrased another way, does more women in office mean more LGBT candidates too?

In the picture posted at the top of the post which I got from the Rutgers Center for American Women in Politics (http://www.cawp.rutgers.edu/) you see states ranked by color for the amount of women they have in their state legislatures.

In addition to this I found a site that has all of the Out officials listed by state:
http://www.glli.org/out_officials

By clicking through all of the states here you can see that on the whole it appears as though states that have more women in office have more openly LGBT candidates. Now I am not saying that this is concrete evidence or anything -- but I think it is interesting to look at some of these trends. I wonder if as women really do make more gains, if more LGBT candidates will make it into office and then if after that appearance will not be as much of an issue. Again, not the most scientifically supported claim, but an interesting thing to look at nonetheless.

Networks for Women?

Both Emily and Wendy wrote very thoughtful and reflective posts this week which I think require some extra consideration. They both raised some crucial questions for our consideration:

- Have the authors of these books stood up for a reason?
- What does a woman have to stand up for?
- Why do some women make it to the top and others cannot?

On the surface I think it may seem as though these questions are only related through our course discussions, but if you dig deeper I think they are all interconnected in an important way. Specifically I think that one of the main issues and obstacles that women face is the lack of a good culturally condoned outlet for communicating. We talked about this before hand in class when we discussed women trying to get into "men's clubs" but I think it is actually something slightly different than that. While exclusive clubs do function to communicate and share vital ideas they are not necessarily resources of support.

To address Wendy's question about the authors of the books we read, I realized that none of the books we've read have addressed in too much specific detail if the author or subject had something that they felt they had to step up for, we kind of see how different events and experiences lead to their decision to lead or to pursue leadership careers - but, correct me if I am wrong, but none of the books really addressed why they felt they had to stand up, just how it came to be that they were there. I think the reason that has not been explained in any of the books is because it is not an easy thing to communicate. It is not natural to say "I chose to lead because I felt strongly about something" - or is that the wrong way of looking at things?

With Wendy's second question I decided to look back through my notes from class and back in May we discussed Five Reasons Women Make Better Candidates from Phil Van Treusen. At the time when we first discussed that idea I was not sure if I personally believed that their was something inherently biologically different about women that made us better leaders or more effective candidates, I just assumed it was something based more on how women are raised. I think since that class my opinion has really changed, I think now that their are tangible differences in the way that women naturally lead, as evidenced by all of the reading and discussion from class -- so what is their to stand up for? I think the encouragement of a diversity of approaches. I think every woman should feel empowered by the fact that they have that different biologically determined perspective.

So, when finally looking at Emily's very poignant question - I started to think about these things all together. I think Emily was spot on in saying that some women reach it to the top because they are able to balance life and work and goals and needs, but in addition to that I think that is a skill that has not really been integrated into everyone's upbringing. If only their were some way to educate every young girl to recognize their own capacity - if only their were some way to share tips on those balances to everyone.

I wonder if an early education leadership program would do the job? Or would creating actual networks for women to share and communicate help. I am a part of one such network here in D.C., but it is mainly focused on people who share my personal political beliefs (the Women's Information Network). That network functions as a sort of e-mail list serve with group meetings and different interest based networks - all designed to give women an outlet and a network of connections here in D.C. Do you all think something like that could work for all women and not just those who share similar political beliefs? I am leaning towards yes, but I wonder what the first steps could be.

First Female Secretary of Commerce Dies at 89

Juanita M. Kreps, a Duke University economist and administrator who became the first woman to serve as U.S. secretary of Commerce, died on July 5, 2010 in Durham, N.C., after a lengthy illness, as reported in a Duke University press release.

Kreps served as Commerce secretary from 1977 to 1979 during the presidency of Jimmy Carter. She is credited for directing the Commerce Department toward a more active role in promoting international trade. Further, she initiated a historic trade agreement between the United States and China in 1979.

Other than teaching economics at Duke, Kreps also was dean of the Women's College and assistant provost, from 1969 to 1972. In 1973, she was named vice president of the university.

Kreps was born on Jan. 11, 1921, in Lynch, Ky. Educational acheivements include a bachelor's degree from Berea College in Kentucky in 1942 and her master's degree (1944) and doctorate (1948) in economics from Duke.

Her funeral will be held on July 9, 2010 in Durham. Survivors include a daughter, a son and four grandchildren.

Ginni Thomas

This story touches on some of the issues that we've discussed in class. Most prominently, is how a husband's business plays a role in his wife's career. Here we have the example of Ginni Thomas, who in the headline is described as Justice Thomas's wife. As if she is no one without him as a reference point. Rather, she is the founder and president of a group called Liberty Central, which is a tea party think tank/advocacy group. The article cites people who say that her affiliation with Justice Thomas has helped her group gain prominence, or at least "gets you to open the email, if nothing else." Apparently though, Mrs. Thomas has made an effort not to ride on her husband's coattails, having been described as "not wearing it on her sleeve." In an interview with The Washington Examiner, she said, "My favorite times are when people who have worked for me for over 10 years come to understand only later than I am the wife of Justice Thomas.”

And of course, no article about a prominent successful female could be complete without a cookie reference! “And, in the run-up to the House’s passage of the Democratic health care overhaul in March, in the weeks before Liberty Central’s roll-out, Thomas baked homemade cookies for tea party leaders organizing activists’ visits to congressional offices to lobby against the bill, said Debbie Dooley, a national coordinator for the Tea Party Patriots.”

I find this very interesting, because here we have a case of a high educated, obviously very intelligent woman who has held a number of impressive Washington jobs, and practically the only thing that can be said about her is who her husband is. And it would be one thing if she wanted that to be the case, but she quite clearly has gone so out of her way to make sure that it isn’t. It is very frustrating. Personally, I want to avoid the same thing. I saw my mother go through her whole life being “Jack’s wife”, and it drive her nuts. My husband is obviously not a Supreme Court Justice, but he is excelling in the field that I want to be in. I don’t want to work anywhere when our paths will cross for exactly this reason. I went to the same schools as he did, got better grades for the same degrees, and will have an extra Master’s on top, but I will undoubtedly be, Aaron’s wife. No way.

Study on Gender Equality Shows that Men Still Dominate

The Pew Research Center recently conducted a poll of 22 countries. The results showed that equality between men and women is supported globally. However, men still get more favorable opportunities than women.

The study found that fewer women than men cheer on parity in Britain and Japan. In France, all women and 99 percent of men agreed on equal rights for the sexes. Egypt, Jordon, Indonesia, Kenya, and Nigeria are the nations found to least support gender equality.

In France, 75 percent of survey participants said "they had a better life there than women." Final poll results revealed that gender equality as an ideal is slowly becoming the norm for the majority of the world, but has not reached the level of reality.

ForbesWomen.com reports "But even in countries that said men and women should have equal job opportunties, most admitted that men still get better opportunities than women."

See below link to review the July 1, 2010 article posted on Forbes.com or see the write-up in the New York Times.

http://blogs.forbes.com/work-in-progress/2010/07/01/equal-rights-gender-men-women-jobs-pew-research/

A cause to stand up for…

I was thinking in our last class discussion about the motives to stand up for and I tried to find the answers in the books we have read.

Have the authors of these books stood up for a reason? I think they did. Each of them stood up at least for one women’s cause.

At this point, when I look through these women’s lives I distinguish their leadership. That is why to stand up for a cause was not just their choice. It was their obligation. After all the discussions we have had in class we still asking ourselves what do a woman have to stand up for?

I think everyone of us has principles and values that will make us fight to defend them. Nevertheless, we are going to be on the arena at some point. We are becoming political managers, leaders, and political communicators. Therefore, we should stand up not only for our causes, but also for the greater good. We should fight for other people’s rights. We should defend human rights.

This class gave us a lot of opportunities to learn not just women’s causes, rights, problems and dreams. It gave us examples of how wonderful women made a difference by standing up for our liberties. They did for us. We can do it for someone else. Don’t you think?

How... really how, do women climb to the top? Work-Life-Balance

Something that I just have not been able to nail down from our class discussion and through the books we have read is, “Why do some women get to the top of the career ladder while others fall off or get stuck halfway up?”

I am always surprised by the statistics that Sharon puts up on the board during class… “Women earn 57% of Bachelor’s degrees” … “The number of female CEOs on the Fortune 500 is less than 5% percent.” This is coupled with the slow progress in the number of female directors, officers and high-paid company earners. I want to better understand why women leaders under development continues to lag in comparison to men in professional careers.

I seem to feel that a key difference may be that women at the very top all have one thing in common: They have found ways to manage “work-life-balance” which seems to give them that extra something needed to succeed.

Many women, myself included, want to rise to the very top of my profession, but I would not do this at the expense of having a family. As we discussed men, are more singularly focused on just excelling in their career, where many women have a variety of passions and interests that they dedicate time and energy to. Having a top of the field career and a family is extremely intense, and often where women are lacking in critical mass.

Something that I continuously try to push myself towards is implementing ‘work-life balance’ for what it is – not perfect or the same day by day, but attainable. To love my family, to love my social life, and to love their work; passionately with one maybe consuming me more at a specific time and then flowing into another taking the lead focus another. There is no either/or, there is no right or wrong way to create your own personal balance. Accepting ‘and filled them with energy to build this balance is an ultimate goal.

It seems that the women that do make it to the top always believe in themselves and believe that what they do makes a difference. Many women do not embrace their value add in the work world enough. From what we have talked about in class and read these women at the top put aside their own fears to make things happen. They actively spoke up for themselves, took chances and seized opportunities. Often fear drives many women to set an unrealistically high bar that would pretty much stop anyone from achieving their goals.

I wish this course would have all the answers to figure out what it takes for more women to raise to the top of the ranks, but that is unrealistic. What this course do provide is the awareness and scope of what was before, what is now, and what needs to be next for the success of women.

"New In Town"- A New Take

This past weekend, my roommate and I rented "New in Town" for a light and funny evening. I had never actually heard of it- but it looked like your typical romantic comedy.

Not to spoil the movie for any of you, but the basic premise is that a young, single female business executive is shipped off by her company to a small town in Minnesota. There, she is expected to turn around the company's plant, and if she succeeds, she will be promoted to VP. While in MN, she begins dating the local union leader- just as she is called back to Miami for her promotion. So. she leaves MN and her relationship, and moves back to Miami.

Sounds innocent enough, right? Well... I don't know if it this class, or just my own personal bias, but two things immediately stuck out at me while watching.

1) At the beginning of the movie, as her company executives are trying to decide who to send to MN, "Lucy" is quickly offered up by her male co-workers. They state, "Lucy can go- she is single, and doesn't have a family!". While I feel like many people would find this inappropriate- I think that it is just a reality of the current workforce. Lucy, without a spouse or children is the obvious choice for this short term detail to MN. Moving an entire family is very expensive, and moving an employee away from their entire family is bound to make them unhappy, and less productive.

2) Spoiler Alert... At the end of the movie, Lucy gives up her post as a Vice President and her fabulous urban lifestyle to move back to MN. Why you ask? Primarily because of the man that she was dating. Without discussion or compromise, Lucy gave up everything, and returned to Minnesota. Now, I'm not sure what this says about me,but I find it highly unlikely that I would give up my entire career and life, to move back to a place I hated... All for a man I had just started dating. Now, perhaps I am being critical- but doesn't a portrayal like this move us backwards?

I don't know if anyone else has seen this- but if you have, please chime in! (Or, does anyone have another example of a movie that tackles this either well, or poorly?)

Too Hot to Handle

Short article and while it mentions many issues that we continuously discuss (physical appearance, women assuming power, male reactions, etc.), it was frustrating to read - so I decided to post and see what you all think.

First off, it is outrageous to read that there is a public acceptance for linking sexuality with politics - and it's taken a step further when particular female politicians' names are associated with this. I believe it's insulting to suggest that these women have "excited" politics with their appearance, yet no mention to their capabilities or leadership qualities. And the fact that other publications, as mentioned in the first paragraph, are using this association to boost readership perpetuates the problem. How can progress be made when such actions halt it?

Second, I'm curious as to why GOP women receive more attention for their looks than Democratic women? Is there a legitimate reason for this that I'm missing...?

ABC 7 News Honors Working Women

For the past 16 years, ABC 7 News in Washington, D.C. has been honoring extraordinary women who make a difference at work, at home and in our community. Alison Starling, co-anchor of Good Morning Washington and ABC News at Noon took over the popular series named Working Women in November 2006. Kathleen Matthews is credited for starting the series.

The series profiles accomplished, respected women in the Washington metro area who contribute to the community in unique ways. Starling, a native Floridian, continually produces and writes these reports that showcase exceptional women.

Women recently featured on the series include Arlington National Cemetery's Press Officer Kaitlin Horst, Culinary Historian Susan Delbert, and Chemical Engineer/Artist Amy Lin. To view these remarkable women and others, find the Working Women page on the ABC 7 News website (www.wjla.com) under the heading "On Your Side."

Is Obama the first female president?

An interesting read from politico... I remember we talked about this 2 weeks ago:

Dept. of originality
A reader emailed last night puzzled by echoes among three columns:

Martin Linsky, Newsweek, February 25 2008:

It has been a rarity in modern political life: a wide-open race for the nomination of both parties. But whatever happens from here on out, this campaign will always be remembered for the emergence of the first serious woman candidate for president: Barack Obama. Obama is a female candidate for president in the same way that Bill Clinton was the first black president. It was Toni Morrison who first had the insight. In a 1998 essay in the New Yorker, the Nobel Prize-winning author described Bill Clinton as "the first black president," commenting on his saxophone playing and his displaying "almost every trope of blackness." Obama doesn't play the sax. But he is pushing against conventional—and political party nominating convention—wisdom in five important ways, with approaches that are usually thought of as qualities and values that women bring to organizational life: a commitment to inclusiveness in problem solving, deep optimism, modesty about knowing all the answers, the courage to deliver uncomfortable news, not taking on all the work alone, and a willingness to air dirty linen....

Ralph Alter, The American Thinker, June 5 2009

In the same sense that Toni Morrison claimed Bill Clinton was our first black president, Barack Obama could be thought of as another groundbreaker: our first female president. He displays every trope of femininity more than any female "who could ever be elected in our children's lifetime" (to borrow Morrison's phrase about Clinton). ...Obama is filled with sensitivity (one might even
say, empathy), he would rather talk than fight, is highly (yet selectively) compassionate and to top it all off, he has a finely tuned sense of fashion. B.O. attempts to collaborate with Europeans, South Americans, Muslims and nearly everyone except the citizens of red state America. Oh, and his position onabortion and women's rights is nearly identical to that of the Choicers at NARAL and NOW. ...While some might choose to describe BO as our first metrosexual President, the clincher is that, consistent with all outward appearances, the Obama administration fights like a girl.

Kathleen Parker, yesterday:

If Bill Clinton was our first black president, as Toni Morrison once proclaimed, then Barack Obama may be our first woman president.Phew. That was fun. Now, if you'll just keep those hatchets holstered and hear me out.No, I'm not calling Obama a girlie president. But . . . he may be suffering a rhetorical-testosterone deficit when it comes to dealing with crises, with which he has been richly endowed. It isn't that he isn't "cowboy" enough, as others have suggested. Aren't we done with that? It is that his approach is feminine in a normative sense. That is, we perceive and appraise him according to cultural expectations, and he's not exactly causing anxiety in Alpha-maledom....

I think this all has most of all to do with the well-established risk of trying to write like Maureen Dowd, who launched the meme in a February 24, 2008 column.

Posted by Ben Smith 09:39 AM

Equal Rights for Women? Survey Says: Yes, but . . .

Found this disturbing article in the New York Times... pretty interesting read about a Pew poll where most people say they support equal rights for men and owmen, but that men should ger preference when jobs are scarce or in education or even in the right to work outside the home - not very equal, is it? Pulled the main pieces here:

• "In nations where equal rights are already mandated, women seem stymied by a lack of real progress, the poll found."
• "One hundred percent of French women and 99 percent of French men backed the idea of equal rights. Yet 75 percent also said that men there had a better life, by far the highest percentage in any of the countries in which polling took place."
• "Nigeria, in fact, was the only surveyed country where more than half (54 percent) said women should not have equal rights; 45 percent of respondents favored equal rights."
• "Showing how widely accepted the notion of equality has become, even more men than women in Britain and Japan supported equal rights. (Scandinavian countries, which often score highest on gender equality, were not part of the survey.)"
• "Only in three countries did a majority of those surveyed say that women and men have achieved a comparable quality of life: Mexico (56 percent), Indonesia (55 percent) and Russia (52 percent)."
• "Only in South Korea (49 percent) and Japan (47 percent) did more people say women are better off than say men are, or that they are the same. It may be that men there “resent being married to their company, and also that there are fewer expectations of women,” Professor True said. “But that’s not equality.”"
• "Half or more of those asked in India, Pakistan and Egypt say a university education is more important for a boy; in China, Japan, Jordan, Poland and Nigeria, that number was at least one-third."
• "Likewise, a strong core in several countries said men had more right to a job than women. More than 50 percent in 10 of the 22 countries said that when jobs are scarce, they should go to men."

NOTE: The article noted that it wasnt just people developing nations that felt this way, but also citizens of wealthy ones.

There's a lot of commentary about these issues in the news and on this blog, but it's interesting to see some statistics about what people believe on the surface (Q: equal rights for women and men?) versus what that means in practice.

Former Gov. Robert Ehrlich Selects Mary Kane as Running Mate

Former Republican Governor Robert L. Ehrlich has chosen his onetime cabinet member Mary D. Kane as a running mate in his bid to reclaim the governor's office from Democrat Martin O'Malley. This validates that women are being sought after to lead in the polical arena.

Ehrlich first announced his lieutenant governor selection late on Wednesday, June 30, 2010 to his nearly 30,000 Facebook Fans. Social Media tactics were immediately followed by traditional methods such as news media and e-mails to supports. "Kane has a great mix of experience in government and the private sector, and knows the joys and challenges of raising a family in Maryland," the former governor said in a statement," said Ehrlich in media reports.

Kane, 48, is a Montgomery County resident who served as Maryland secretary of state for 18 months. Reportedly, she has deep ties in the Washington suburbs, an area of the state where Ehrlich is looking to make gains. Kane is also a first-generation American and the mother of three college-aged children. She is also the wife of John Kane, a former state GOP chairman and owner of a giganic moving and storage company.

In a recent interview, Kane said she was "honored to join Ehrlich's campaign to bring new ideas and proven leadership to state government." Further, in a statement, Kane said her rearing as the daughter of Irish immigrants instilled values in her such as "a profound appreciation for what is possible in Maryland: unlimited economic opportunity, safe neighborhoods, and unparalleled quality of life."

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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...