Primary Day in New Mexico

During this morning's news report of the Primary Day returns, I learned that New Mexico will elect a female Governor come November! In each of the candidate's acceptance speeches, they spoke very sternly about their opposition. I couldn't help but think how unnatural it was to watch. We are more accustomed to see women supporting other women, instead of them to go at each others' jugulars! It will be interesting to watch the campaign tactics that both women use as they prepare for November 2.

FYI - NM results are historical - it's ONLY the "third woman-against-woman gubernatorial general election" race (see link in Title). Shocking...

Longtime PR Activists Passes Away

As a member of the Public Relations Society of America (PRSA), I was surprised to learn about the recent loss of Betsy Plank. Known as the "First Lady" of Public Relations, Plank was an extraordinary women with a countless list of accomplishments in both the political as well as the service sector.

In addition to being the first to receive three of PRSA's top honors, Plank also was awarded the Arthur W. Page Society's Distinguished Lifetime Achievement Award, and the Institute for Public Relation's Alexander Hamilton Medal for major contributions to the practice of PR.

A trailblaizer, Betsy Plank also opened doors in public relations education. She helped to establish the Public Relations Student Society of America (PRSSA), founded the Plank Center for Leadership in Public Relations at the University of Alabama, and PRSA's premier scholarship endowment fund. Serving as co-chair of a national commission to develop guidelines for the undergraduate public relations curriculum, she demonstrated her dedication to society and to the profession.

Most importantly, Betsy Plank was a forerunner and social activist . For example, she participated in the 1965 Civil Rights March from Selma to Montogomery. Further, she was a board member of the United Way, the Girl Scouts USA, and founder of The Chicago Network, an exclusive association of Chicago professional women.

Born in 1924, Betsy Plank was a true leader and "pioneer" in the PR profession. To learn more about Betsy Plank, along with more of her many accomplishments and accolades, visit the PRSA web site at www.prsa.org.

A Second Look

While I may be getting a little behind the curve here since everyone has mostly moved onto talking directly about Pearls, Politics and Power, I think that their are some things that came up in last weeks discussion that are worth reviewing in more detail once again and with the perspective that Kunin (and additional mulling over) brings to the table.

At the beginning of class last week we talked about Robin Givhan's article in the Washington Post on Elena Kagan's apparel at her Senate meetings. Since then I had been thinking a lot about the many points we brought up during class and decided to go back and review the article with a critical eye and our conversation and the readings in mind. You can read the article for yourself here if you had not taken a look at it before:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/21/AR2010052101670.html .

This secondary review was highly beneficial to me - especially in light of the definitions of sex and gender brought up at the end of our discussion and some other elements of last weeks conversation. While looking at the article once more I gained some new perspectives:

First, in contrast to our analysis of the article as a negative portrayal from our class discussion, I found many portions of the article to be indicative of the idea that the author was trying to use a focus on appearance to analyze the political power of appearance. One line from the article in particular struck me as supporting this idea:

"People make choices about their appearance for all sorts of complicated reasons. And often, they glom on to a cliche because they find it reassuring and easy. They wear the dress of a particular social tribe because they want people to make assumptions about who they are -- because letting folks come to a conclusion on their own is often easier than having to explain."

Indeed at times Robin Givhan seems to be placing a lot of trust in the idea that image leads to political assumptions and does seem to be attempting to use that assumption to analyze Kagan's appearance in a politically relevant manner as opposed to a politically damaging or superficial one. Obviously the distinction between those two ideas hinges on very minute details and can lead to confusion and debate. It turns out that we are certainly not the only ones to have found Givhan's article worthy of debate or discussion, many blogs picked up on the article last week and has forced Givhan to defend herself against allegations of sexism. Givhan has even issued a statement indicating that she did feel that her article was sexist and saying that "the column speaks for itself." (http://mediamatters.org/strupp/201005250057)

Of course, as we discussed in class, Givhan's article and line of reasoning is particularly interesting when framed in comparison to Wilson's quotation from the section Hair, Hemlines and Husbands that Sabrina brought up at the beginning of our discussion: "Any focus on the superficial will always erode authority; the phrase "just another pretty face" is not for nothing" (Wilson, p.39).

The idea that image and appearance can be politically powerful is an important one (a position that a number of us in class agreed with), but it does seem that Wilson disagrees. I think, like many issues with image and the media, there is a thin line that exists between the discussion of physical image as politically powerful and the discussion of physical image as trivializing. I wonder if Wilson would agree with this assessment of the tenuous relationship between positive and negative treatment of image? I have heard the argument made before that no exceptions exist - any focus on what a woman in power is wearing, how they accessorized or how they style their hair immediately "erodes authority" - but I'm not sure if that is Wilson's belief. While I personally do not agree that any reference or even any large focus on image, clothing, etc. is inherently negative -- I definitely do agree that such a focus can be negative.

I think the questions we need to ask are: When does a focus on the physical turn negative? When does it begin to erode authority? When can we say that coverage is politically powerful and how does it explore that power? Is this an issue that is particularly damaging for women or is it relevant across the sexes?

While I do not claim to be totally qualified to answer all of those questions, I can make some educated guesses. I think the focus on the physical turns negative when it is used in a diminutive way. Maybe unless the physical is specifically associated with the embrace of power or it is indicative/symbolic of some more substantive power then it is not worth the focus. Physical appearance begins to erode authority and power when it replaces the more substantive qualities as the main story.

Taking some of the answers to those questions and looking at Givhan's article may change our initial understanding of it. Upon a closer look it seems as though maybe Givhan is really is trying to portray Kagan's appearance as a political choice and one that demonstrates a sort of embrace of power. However the question of how successful Givhan is at achieving a meaningful analysis of Kagan's implementation of these apparel politics is important to consider.

The title in itself, Elena Kagan goes on Supreme Court confirmation offensive in drab D.C. clothes, demonstrates the tension between the utility of image for political purposes and the diminutive. The use of the word "offensive" in the title alludes to the idea that maybe Kagan is using her appearance as a political power play. But does the emphasis on the "Drab D.C. Clothes" work to undermine the power of making a statement with your physical appearance? Perhaps anchoring that title with an adjective like "drab" really does undermine any of the power afforded by the word offensive. I feel as though their is a chance that Givhan was using that title to conjure up the two different understandings of the function of image in politics.

Delving beyond the headline, the first three paragraphs seem to go out of their way to mention male supreme court nominees. The first sentence of the second paragraph starts with "The other men and women" (note which sex is listed first - the reversal of which being something that Kunin makes reference to in her example of the kind of subtle implementation of female authority) and the next paragraph starts with a reference to Justice Alito. Later on in the article they also address the fact that style and Supreme Court justices may just be ideas that are at odds with one another.

Givhan attempts to discount the fact that this is a gendered argument by posing a hypothetical situation of a male nominee with too short pants and woman in expensive designer clothes:

"How discombobulated would folks be if a male nominee walked the Hill wearing a Thom Browne suit with trousers that ended at the ankles or if a woman strode purposefully down the marble corridors in a pair of platform Christian Louboutin heels and a Marni sack dress? There'd be nothing profoundly inappropriate with any of that other than the images wouldn't square with the preconceived notion that sobriety equals intellect. Bland equals responsible. Matronly equals trustworthy."

Here we have direct evidence of Givhan attempting to point out the social cues and mores that fashion and clothing represent. It seems as though Givhan is simply trying to use Elena Kagan as a current example of this power - not simply a superficial denunciation of her "drab" style.

At the same time, although Givhan's article may speak for itself it cannot be examined in a vacuum. Specifically Kagan herself has been the target of other articles that could be interpreted as superficial or not relating to her politics or capability to serve as a Supreme Court justice -- i.e. the early articles and media hype surrounding Kagan's sexuality. I think it is possible that Givhan's article would not have gained so much negative traction if she had treaded a little softer (i.e. avoiding loaded words like "drab") and perhaps exhibited more caution especially for an individual who has already received similar criticism.

Ultimately, I think that Givhan's article was channelling some of the lingering questions and interest in Kagan's sexuality. By diverting the focus from sexuality to fashion, Givhan may have been doing everyone a service by giving people an outlet that they are more familiar with discussing in public (i.e. women's roles and clothing) which could lead to a more fruitful dicussion of some of the more unchartered territory like the possibility of an openly LGBTQ person serving in some important political position, an issue which Kunin brings up and one that I think is incredibly important for us to consider more detail in order open up the possibility of running for office to any/all/every kinds of young women.

What do you all think?

-AMD

Professional Development

Another thought that occurs to me after Reading Pearls Politics and Power is that one reason more women do not run for elected office might be the lack of professional development. I know Kunin writes about trainings for women interested in running for elected office but there seems to be little professional development for women in their current political/government jobs. I can say from my experience that I never received feedback from my superiors about my job performance (even when I asked) and most of my mentors came from outside of my office and outside of my field. It seems that most of the people I came across in politics/government only focus on the here and now rather than what is next. I think if women in high-powered political/government positions took the time to establish a mentoring or professional development program then more women might choose to run. Furthermore, these programs would establish a support network for women and a way for women to receive encouragement and advice for women already in the field. I think the trainings Kunin discusses are a good start but they are not enough to keep women engaged and feeling supported.

Pearls, Politics and Power - How I was Inspired

I really enjoyed this week's reading. I thought that Kunin had many inspirational tributes to women that have struggled to make it in the political world on all levels. Each story made me very proud to be a women, and deepened my passion for wanting to evoke change in our current political system. Testimonials from women who have actually have lived politics tell it best... and I am a sucker for most inspirational publications.

I found Kunin’s last chapter most helpful for me to put some meat behind all true essence of the book. "How do we prepare more young women for public life?" She offers several suggestions, some which are stronger than other. First, teach community service and support programs to do the same (interestingly, the Teach for America program, which Kunin references as a good model, was started by a female, sure not a coincidence). Teach for America, though is very dear to my family's heart. My sister participated in the organization for two years and grew more in those two years than in the rest of her life.

It was also mentioned to - reinvigorate feminism as an exercise in collectively imagining what is possible, politically speaking, for women, and make public office a civic virtue. I think this is seriously wrong. Women should be treated as citizens with a civic duty to abide by the law, pay taxes, participate in community activities, work for the betterment of this country, etc. NOT to feel that they have let fellow women or this country down for following their inner passion (not in politics). I was a little red in the face when reading this... but glad I kept going, because I really resonated with the last piece.

The proposition that I appreciated the most was the notion to educate young women to exercise power, encourage community participation, and to show them that if they have the passion there is a place for them at the table. I feel very fortunate that in my life experiences I have continually been encouraged to reach for the stars, coupled with awareness to never view myself as superior or beneath anyone else, but view myself as an equal. As an equal I must work as hard if not harder than everyone around me (man, women, black or white). Very similar to the values that this country was founded on... We all have our challenges, but turning those challenges into opportunities is the secret to real moments of success.

An avenue that I have decided to focus on in my life to make that next step towards my goals a reality is through education. I really liked one of Kunin ending quotes, “Education, the culture, and laws have to change, to open the doors wider to the halls of power and to reprioritize the decisions that are made within those halls to achieve the government that more accurately reflects the will of the people.” Easier said than done, of course, but makes me want to succeed that much more! Great reading choice!

Enacting Change

In her book, Pearls, Politics, and Power, Madeleine Kunin includes the following quote from Hillary Clinton, "'You don't have to run for office to make a contribution in politics.' That would be my first point, because not everybody wants to run for office, but there are so many ways that women can influence the political process and the policies that affect their lives." (pg. 169). I find it interesting that Kunin includes this quote in her book because after reading her book I did not get the impression that this is a statement that she would agree with. Instead, Kunin seems to imply that women can enact change only through elected office. In several places in the book she uses the issue of breast cancer as an example. She writes, "Making a donation for breast cancer research is good, but obtaining funding of millions of dollars for research in the federal budget is so much better." (pg. xi). I completely disagree with Kunin. I believe that change actually happens much more often outside government before change happens inside government. For example, in my opinion, the Susan G. Komen Foundation has done a lot more for breast cancer research and breast cancer awareness than any elected official male or female has ever done. This is not the only instance of greater change happening outside of government. Both the Civil Rights Movement and the Women's Movement started outside of government and were not led by elected officials. Furthermore, I think we should also examine the number of women that work in politics outside of elected and appointed positions. How many women work as staffers on the Hill or in federal agencies? While these womens' voices may not be heard publicly they are certainly heard by their bosses who are making the decisions. Kunin never even mentions these women. While I think Kunin makes some valid points and I agree that we should work to get more women elected, I do not think we can simply discredit all of the work that women outside of elected and appointed positions do to enact change.

Skeletons in the Closet?

After our discussion in class on Thursday night about women leaders having fewer"skeletons in their closet"- I began thinking about where I had read about that idea before...

I realized that following a Capitol Historical Society breakfast, the issue caught some media attention. The link above (in the title) covers a conversation between female congressional leaders- and whether or not they have the time to actually maintain an affair.

While the article is only anecdotal- I thought that it was worth sharing, as it mirrored the conversation we had in class.

Thoughts on this?