Top 10s from Robin Morgan - MUST READ!

Well if you're not awake this morning already, this one will wake you up. Robin Morgan has a new piece just up (remember Goodbye to All That #2?) over at the Women's Media Center. In "When Sisterhood Is Suicide and Other Late Night Thoughts," Morgan is at her absolute best.

She begins by offering 10 nice things first, as follows:

Ten Nice Things to Say About Sarah Palin:

1. She’s a lifelong NRA member and crack rifle-woman, but hasn’t yet shot a single person in the face.
2. She’s so unafraid of power that a majority-Republican legislative committee is investigating her abuse of it.
3. She’s broad-minded, willing to have evolution taught alongside creationism.
4. She gives “the personal is political” new meaning: Axing the public-safety commissioner for not firing her ex-brother-in-law (Trooper-gate); firing “foes” suspected of “disloyalty” (Library-gate).
5. She knows how to delegate, involving “First Dude” husband Todd in more governmental decisions than any male politician’s spouse has dared since Hillary tried to give us healthcare in 1993. (First Dude’s defying a subpoena from those meanies mentioned up in #2.)
6. She has executive experience: As mayor of Wasilla, then-constituency 5,000 souls, she presided over a population almost as vast as that of some urban high-schools.
7. She’s an existentialist: Bridge-to-Nowhere-gate, Highway-to-Nowhere-gate. She never “focused much on Iraq”—after all, “the war is part of God’s plan”—and she dismisses McCain’s reluctance to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge as being like “Eastern politicians” about environment. (Check out Wasilla’s dead-Lake-Lucille-gate.)
8. She brings home the earmarked bacon—plus moose, caribou, wolf, and any other animal stumbling haplessly across her rifle-sight as she leans out of the ‘copter on another heli-hunt. But! Does she rely solely on godless government for her $500 million U.S.-subsidized natural-gas pipeline? No! Last June, at the Pentecostal Assembly of God Church, she declared, “God's will has to be done to get that gas line built!”
9. She displays refreshing curiosity, as when she asked, “What is it exactly the VP does?” (Don’t scoff: Are you smarter than a 5th grader?)
10. She’s multi-talented—studied journalism, tried sportscasting, can slickly scan a teleprompter (unlike her running-mate). She’s a jock (Sports-Complex-gate.) She was a beauty queen (as all of McCain’s wives were; how ‘bout that?) She’s patriotic—well, except for attending that secessionist Alaska Independent Party conference during the seven years when First Dude was a party member pulling down DWI convictions on the side. Best of all, she’s a born-again feminist, a “feminist for life.” Which I guess makes me a feminist for death.

Morgan then offers "Ten Blunt-Crayon Hints for the Media"--including tips like "Do investigate Palin’s opposition to listing polar bears and other animals as endangered. Do not call her one: no chick, bird, kitten, bitch, hen, cow. Also no produce: tomato, peach, etc." And finally shares her list of:

Ten Reasons You CANNOT Support McCain-Palin

1. Yourself. Do not cut off your womb to spite the Democrats. (Also do not sit this election out or play write-in-vote games. And tempting though it may seem, do not blow a vote for the Green Party.)
2. Iraq. McCain’s been a hawk since evolution made raptors.
3. The Economy. For years McCain chaired the Senate Banking Committee that brought us the current financial meltdown. He opposed the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which would have made it easier for women and other workers to pursue pay-discrimination claims. (Come to think of it, why the focus solely on equal pay for equal work? Whatever happened to equal pay for comparable worth?)
4. The Supreme Court. McCain vows to stack the court with “clones of Alito and Roberts.” There goes . . . well, everything.
5. Choice. McCain has lodged 125 anti-choice votes. He boasts he’ll overturn Roe v. Wade. And as for the claim that if Roe is overturned it will “merely” throw reproductive rights back to the states, understand that McCain supports a constitutional amendment that would ban abortion outright, nationwide.
6. Realism. If you’re a young feminist, do not get disillusioned by Obama’s drift to the middle—depressing but standard for winning. Do consider running for office—politics is not a spectator sport. And if you still can’t grasp why older feminists zealously backed HRC, please read Susan Faludi‘s brilliant “Second Place Citizens” for context. It’s crucial.
7. Old Wounds. Remember that McCain’s answer to a supporter asking him about Hillary, “How do we beat the bitch?” was “Good question!” Remember that at the Sturgis motorcycle rally, McCain mortified his wife by saying she should enter the Topless Miss Buffalo Chip contest. Remember that, responding to a comment Cindy made about his thinning hair, he guffawed, “At least I don’t plaster on makeup like a trollop, you c**t.”
8. Palin. McCain’s pick of Palin demonstrates contempt for American women and insults the intelligence of anyone who supported Hillary, since Palin is her (melting) polar opposite. It denigrates qualified Republican women (Senators Snow, Collins, Dole, and Hutchinson must be suffering silent apoplexy). It’s actually abuse of Palin herself, a sacrifice tossed to the ravenous fundamentalist base, now the butt of public humiliation for her abysmal lack of qualifications.
9. Feminism—remember that? McCain-Palin politics are antithetical to every feminist policy most U.S. women support. Palin is an anti-abortion-rights, pro-“abstinence only” enemy of sex education and stem-cell research who denounced as “outrageous” the state supreme court’s decision to strike down Alaska’s parental-consent statute; who believes survivors of sexual assault and incest should be forced to bear the attackers’ fetuses to term; who let Wasilla charge survivors for rape kits and forensic exams; who cut funding for teen-pregnancy services; who stated she’d oppose abortion for her daughters even if they’d been raped; who’s against same-sex marriage (because such love is “curable”) and against gun control—but apparently all for shotgun weddings (poor Bristol’s gonna marry that dork, like it or not).
10. Settling for Greatness. Sure, we wanted to vote for the right woman. Sure, we’ll have to wait a bit longer for her. Meanwhile, in Obama we can have a chief executive who reflects our politics, and who—especially since he may have both houses of Congress behind him—just might turn out to be one hell of a great president.

...and ends with "Five Ways to Still Make History." Read the whole sassy thing, here, and pass it on!

The New Hockey Momism

I've been curious. What do GWP readers think of the term "hockey mom" as this year's most popular way to describe a demographic of the women's vote? If you have a sec, check out Catherine Price's post, "I Am Not a Hockey Mom," over at Broadsheet and let us know what you think.

President Barbie Is Back

This just in, via The White House Project:

Just in time for the first presidential debate, The White House Project is thrilled to announce that President Barbie is back on shelves! Exclusively at Toys R Us, this is President Barbie's third term in office since Mattel and The White House Project joined together in 2000 and 2004 to let both little girls and boys know that a woman can be President. As Marie Wilson says, "To make change, you've got to go where the people are. More and more girls think they're going to grow up to be president and call a join session of Congress because their dolls can." To give a child in your life their very own President Barbie, click here.

Have any of the mamas out there bought Prez Barbie for their girls? Would be curious to hear your thoughts!

(Tina Fey glasses sold separately.)

New HuffPo Forum: Women on Palin

Do check out this forum compiled by Feminist.com's Marianne Schnall over at HuffPo today. Marianne asked a number of women (and I'm honored to be one of them!) to answer 3 questions about Sarah Palin and the election. Explains Marianne,

As a woman, I have been feeling a bit overwhelmed and shaken by this election season, the highs and lows of it all. On the one hand, I have been feeling powerful -- everyone is talking about women and our decisive influence in this election. Even the cover of the September 22nd issue of Newsweek is asking, "What do women want?" It's a good question. So many important themes and dialogues have been raised during this election season -- about identity politics, what we expect from a woman leader, sexism in the media, diversity in the feminist movement, what masculine and feminine values are, and about Sarah Palin and the "Palin effect." It all made me want to talk to other women, to get clarity, to gain insight. I tried to think about what I, personally, could do to contribute to this dialogue.

I can't wait to read what the others wrote--the others being Isabel Allende, Joan Blades, Eve Ensler, Melissa Etheridge, Gloria Feldt, Kim Gandy, Elizabeth Lesser, Courtney Martin, Kathy Najimy, Amy Richards, Deborah Siegel, Eleanor Smeal, Gloria Steinem, Loung Ung, Alice Walker, Jody Williams, Marie Wilson.

Come stop by and add your 2cents!

Hillary, Sarah, and Beyond...

No matter what we think of Palin (um, barf), you gotta admit it's an interesting year for women in leadership. And next Wednesday, Sept. 24, the National Council for Research on Women and Dēmos are presenting a special forum on women’s transformative leadership. Emphasis on transform. Distinguished women leaders will explore the difference women’s leadership can make to bring about real change across sectors. Deets:

12:00 – 2:00 pm
Location: Dēmos - 220 Fifth Avenue between 26th and 27th Streets, NYC

Speakers:
Linda Basch, President, National Council for Research on Women
Michelle Clayman, Managing Partner and Chief Investment Officer, New Amsterdam Partners
Linda Tarr-Whelan, former U.S. ambassador to the U.N. Commission on the Status of Women and Distinguished Senior Fellow, Demos
Deborah Walsh, Director, Center for American Women and Politics at Rutgers University

Moderator:
Ana Duarte McCarthy, Chief Diversity Officer, Citigroup

For media accreditation, or RSVP, contact: Lisa Rast, email: lrast@ncrw.org

GUEST POST: Palin in Prada or Platforms and Maverick was Hot!

I'm late to posting today, but I think you'll agree that this one is well worth the wait! Guest Girl w/ Penner Madeline Wheeler is a newly single mother of two and writer of the social action theater piece Revealing Frankie, a memoir of childhood abuse. She is currently the Coordinator for the Palmer, MA Domestic Violence Task Force. Madeline earned a BA from Harvard and credits the positive changes in her life to the Woodhull Institute for Ethical Leadership. Here's Madeline! - GWP

U.S. War Against Women:
Palin in Prada or Platforms and Maverick was Hot!
By Madeline Wheeler

First of all, I don’t care what Sarah Palin wears (Valentino apparently) and for those of us who grew up in the 80’s, Maverick is Tom Cruise, volleyball, tower fly-bys, and pilot in angst. And though, as of late, he is 4th on the overpaid actors list, he was Top Gun!

Now, after watching McCain ads depicting wolves crossing the tundra, worrying that Arianna Huffington might faint from outrage (her righteous indignation hits home)--not to mention that Matt Damon is seriously frightened--and hearing the word “vetted” jettisoned around the water cooler like a word-of-the-day bake off...I needed an espresso shot of reality. Yesterday, I paid for gas with a credit card and I just finished counting my change--the mortgage is due next week.

With truth blurred by a fury of lexis and linguistic limbo, and the media playing under the bar, the issues facing Americans are not dissipating. The heavy hitters remain: the economy, reforming healthcare and ending war in Iraq. But I’m wondering who will address the silent war against women happening on our own soil? Apparently, not Palin.

According to a 2006 Alaska Network on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault report, Alaska’s rape rate is 2.5 times the national average. Child sexual assault is almost six times the national average and Alaska ranks first in the nation with the highest homicide rate per capita for female victims killed by a male perpetrator. As an Interpersonal Violence (IPV) prevention advocate, I wouldn’t want to be wearing those shoes!

I’m for ending the war in Iraq safely and responsibly. I’m also for ending the war against women in the United States! Currently, we have more battered women’s shelters and violence prevention programs than ever, yet violence against women has reached epidemic proportions. Nationally, intimate partners murder over three women every day--3.56 to be precise.

Each morning we face the reality of war in Iraq with loss. But it is time for the cobbler to check his own shoes. If you can’t see the war against women, do the math. According to a 2006 CDC report, nearly 2 million IPV injuries occur each year among U.S women ages 18 and older, and close to 1300 deaths…bringing our five-year, six-month war against women death toll to approximately 7,155. This carnage does not include women murdered by strangers or otherwise.

If you need a dollar and cents account to seal the deal, the CDC reports that IPV costs exceed $5.8 billion each year, $4.1 billion of which is for direct medical and mental health care services.

According to the npr.org “Toll of War” website, since the invasion of Iraq, U.S. casualties have mounted to 4,148. The NPR website posts a timeline of U.S. troop fatalities against key events, along with eloquent remembrances of the fallen.

Objectors will say that the plight of American women cannot be compared to attacks on foreign soil. I’m not saying the death of troops, allies or civilians in war is acceptable, but it is expected. When considering the war, we must cling to the hope that courageous lives weren’t lost in vain, and that Iraqis have a future once only dreamt of. What, however, can we say to the increasing murder of innocent U.S. women in their own homes and environs? Wherein lies any hope or argument?

Iraqi Foreign Minister Zebari and the U.S. have set the preliminary date for American troop withdrawal as June 2009. Although President Bush long resisted “timetable” vocabulary, the Whitehouse is preparing to return our 140,000 troops.

American women, however, will not be leaving their homeland any time soon.

Jewish Women International’s (JWI) Executive Director, Lori Weinstein, currently champions a petition to urge candidates to make domestic violence a priority issue (www.jwi.org). JWI and the Interfaith Domestic Violence Coalition pleaded with the Democratic Party to “provide strong leadership on the issue of domestic violence, calling for expanded language in the 2008 platform.” The 2004 Democratic Platform included just one sentence--“We will help break the cycle of domestic violence by punishing offenders and standing with victims.” The 2004 Republican Platform didn’t fare any better, not mentioning it at all.

Do the 2008 Platforms meet the challenge?

After pouring over the 64-page Democratic Platform, I was pleased to see improvement over its predecessor; after all, Senator Biden championed the Violence Against Women Act of 1994, which he considers his ”proudest legislative accomplishment in 35 years in the Senate.”(www.biden.senate.gov) The 2008 Democratic Platform states, ”Ending violence against women must be a top priority. We will create a special advisor to the president regarding violence against women. We will increase funding to domestic violence and sexual assault prevention programs. We will strengthen sexual assault and domestic violence laws, support the VAWA, and provide job security to survivors”--A far wolf’s cry from the 2004 meager mention.

The Republican Platform refers to” battered women” in defense of the Crime Victims Fund established under President Reagan. However, it states “Bureaucracy is no longer a credible approach to helping those in need. This is especially in light of alternatives such as faith-based organizations which tend to have a greater degree of success with problems such as substance abuse and domestic violence.” Finally, it states, “Crime in Indian country, especially against women, is a special problem demanding immediate attention.” I’ve culled the 67-page document twice and this is all I can find in reference to domestic violence (www.gop.com).

Considering the Republican platform and the state of domestic violence in Alaska, I think it’s obvious, when it comes to the U.S silent war on women; Palin’s boots were made for walking.

Girl w/ Cool Shirt

Check out this new shirt from feministing, based on a phrase Ann Friedman employed in an American Prospect article titled "McCain's Sexist VP Pick." Nicely done.

Life After Hillary

I've definitely been having a hard time understanding the poll earlier this week that showed 25 percent of Hillary's supporters voicing their disappointment by voting for John McCain. I mean, I'm hardly the first to say it, but excuse me, just what kind of feminist protest is that? (See previous post if remotely unconvinced.)

In her Aug. 25 op-ed in the NYTimes ("Second-Place Citizens"), Susan Faludi attempts to explain not this insanity but merely these Hillary supporters' disappointment by offering a suggestive comparative analysis to an earlier moment in time--the 1920s, after women won the vote. Check it out, if you haven't. She raises some excellent points.

A Young Hillary Supporter Reflects

Jamie Maffeo is a student at Saint Ann's School in Brooklyn and will be in tenth grade this coming fall. At age 15, Jamie has become one of Writopia Lab's most prolific writers. She is a writer of poetry, memoir, and fiction, and has garnered multiple regional and national awards from Scholastic Art & Writing Awards in all three genres over the last three years.

We very much welcome (thoughtful!) comments on Jamie’s post. An aside: A former Hillary supporter myself, I’ve nevertheless been having mixed feelings about Hillary’s name being on the convention ballot and am still trying to understand the politics of it all. I find myself very moved by Jamie’s conviction below. - GWP

Hail to the Runner-Up!

In a recent writing workshop when Debbie asked me to write down three things, no matter how minor or grand, that I would like to change, only one thing came to mind. With each tap of my pencil I came to the realization that it was the only significant matter I wanted to write down. Quickly I wrote, “I would like to change the fact that Barack Obama became the presumptive democratic nominee-I wish Hillary Clinton had won instead.”

Over the past months I have become enraptured with Hillary Clinton’s intelligence, experience, and ability to continue fighting even with the bellicose nature of the press coverage. Not only was the press treating Barack Obama with obvious delicacy but they were also treating Hillary Clinton appallingly. For example, whereas Hillary Clinton was harshly criticized for showing emotion at a press conference, Barack Obama came out smelling like a rose after using the same words that Massachusetts Governor Patrick Deval used in one of his speeches as if they were his own. Regardless of what I saw as the clear press bias towards Obama, I was not and am not captivated by his empty speeches no matter how grandiloquent.

Many of my friends, however, were. After watching late night primaries, caucuses and debates I began to voice my opinion in school. I had never been as interested in politics and former elections as I was now: getting into arguments with close friends and shouting out in history class. I was tired of hearing the same mantras:

“But Obama wants change.”
“I’m sick of the Clintons.”
“Hillary has no personality.”

I would return their attacks with equal aggression saying, “Yes I get that Obama wants change but how is he going to make change? All of his speeches were bombastic and eloquent but they had no substance to them!” I would continue, wistfully, “She is just so intelligent. She has so much more experience then Obama. I just wish Obama had waited until 2012 or 2016 to run.”

I would emphasize the issues. I agreed with her universal health care plan. Hillary wanted to stop health care providers from turning away clients due to pre-existing conditions. She wanted mental illness to be covered. I also liked her plan to solve health care problems by starting now as a senator and not waiting until 2009. Hillary had great ideas about fighting global warming by using cars that run on fuel cells, bio fuels, and electricity. She wanted cars to get more mileage to the gallon then ever before so that the cost of driving will diminish. To conserve energy Hillary wanted buildings to be constructed that are more energy efficient. How can you argue with that?

Hillary talks facts and her solutions are realistic. She has had the motivation and dedication and after Obama became the presumptive democratic nominee I felt somewhat cheated as her supporter, wishing the press had been more just. With Hillary no longer in the race, my interest waned and I began to only casually glimpse at newspaper articles here and there. Slowly my day-to-day Obama versus Hillary arguments died down as the race turned to Obama versus McCain.

Now, days away from the August 26th National Democratic Convention, I’m getting excited again, because Hillary Clinton will speak at the convention.

I look forward to a count at the convention and am thrilled that Hillary Clinton’s name will be put on the ballot. A delegate count will give Hillary’s delegates the opportunity to cast their vote for this outstanding woman and will give me, a young Hillary supporter who cannot yet vote, the chance to honor my presumptive candidate with some R-E-S-P-E-C-T.

Newsflash: Glass Ceiling Intact in State Exec Branch

Following on the heels of that last one, this just in from the Center for Women in Government & Civil Society, University at Albany, SUNY:

A new report, Glass Ceiling in Gubernatorial Appointments, 1997-2007, provides new gender, race, and ethnicity data and a national and state-by-state trend analysis on the demographic composition of gubernatorial appointees in state governments, 1997-2007.

The report indicates that the glass ceiling remains intact for women appointed policy leaders in the executive branch of most state governments. Over the 11-year period, women's share of policy leadership posts increased by a modest 6.8 percentage points to 35 percent. With respect to race and ethnicity, even as substantial changes in the race and ethnicity composition of the U.S. population continue to be recorded, the demographics of executive branch policy leaders changed very little between 1997 and 2007.

The report is available for download here. Read it and weep.

She's Out There...

So check this out:

From the filmmakers of Mad Hot Ballroom comes a new social justice cause documentary, what's your point, honey?

The doc puts a "new face on political leadership" by introducing 7 possible contenders coming down the pipeline, while revealing the inequalities that still exist today. The aim is to start the conversation -- again. Teens and tweens, weave in and out to present the next generations' take on the topic, giving the film punch. On the doc’s trail is a soon-to-be published book, She's Out There! The Next Generation of Presidential Candidates, presenting a "doc in book form" to a mass audience.

Runtime is 87 minutes, and the film includes a 30-page study guide written by two faculty members at PACE University. Here's the trailer -- spread the word!:

More Research on Ladies Who Boss

As an addendum to the post I wrote about the new Catalyst study earlier this week just came in from GWP's resident sociologist, Virginia Rutter:

Related research: In "Working for the Woman? Female Managers and the Gender Wage Gap" (October 07 issue of the American Sociological Review), Philip Cohen and Matt Huffman demonstrate that the greater representation of women in management jobs narrows the wage gap among non-management workers. When ladies are boss, all the ladies do better. But for it to really make a difference, women need to be in the higher levels of management. In fact, the authors reference the "title inflation" phenomenon: they saw evidence of a concentration of women in lower management--and that concentration doesn't give the workers much relief in terms of the gender wage gap. Reason I like this story--and the one on board membership here--is that it gives us concrete evidence for the glass ceiling, and why breaking through matters.

And btw, for Philip Cohen's latest, check out his post last month at HuffPo ("Women May Be Losing Jobs Too, But They're Different Jobs") in response to the NYTimes piece on how hard economic times are affecting women's employment rates. -GWP

More Lady Board Members, More Lady Bosses

I'm still catching up on things that were released while I was away mooning over honey. And here's one I particularly wanted to share, as it's from one of my favorite orgs, Catalyst.

According to a new study released on July 23, Advancing Women Leaders: The Connection Between Women Board Directors and Women Corporate Officers, the more women on the board, the more women higher ups. To wit:

-Companies with 30 percent women board directors in 2001 had, on average, 45 percent more women corporate officers by 2006, compared to companies with no women board members.

-Companies with the highest percentages of women board directors in 2001 had, on average, 33 percent more corporate officers in 2006 than companies with the lowest percentages.

-Companies with two or more women members on a company’s board in 2001 had 28 percent more women corporate officers by 2006 than companies with one woman board member in 2001.

Seems rather significant in this era when folks continue to scratch their heads and ask "where are the women in senior management?" The study drew on data from the 359 companies that were in the Fortune 500 during the years under investigation, 2000, 2001, and 2006. For more on the results, click here.

Women - and a New Report! - at the DNC

I'm thrilled to announce that a report I took the lead on for the Women's Media Center, the White House Project, and the Maynard Institute for Journalism Education, will be released and distributed at the DNC in Denver on August 25. The report, "Bias, Punditry, and the Press: Where Do We Go From Here," includes recommendations for the media and consumers of media and will be available for download after its official release.

Additional happenings of interest going on at the DNC, all conveyed via Carol Jenkins (thanks, Carol, for the heads ups!):

-On August 25, there will be a reprise of the WMC/WHP/MIJE forum, From Soundbites to Solutions: Bias, Punditry and the Press in the 2008 Election, on which the report is based. This time the panelists will be Michel Martin of NPR, Jonathan Alter of Newsweek, Patricia Williams of The Nation, Rebecca Traister of Salon, Jamal Simmons of CNN, and María Teresa Petersen of Voto Latino, among others. Video clips from the original forum, which took place at The Paley Center, can be accessed from the WMC website.

-On Tuesday, August 26, Senator Hillary Clinton will address the delegates. That is the 88th anniversary of the day the Nineteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution became law, which gave women the right to vote in 1920. Senator Barack Obama accepts the nomination on Thursday, August 28th, before a public audience of 75,000 people. That is the 45th anniversary of Martin Luther King, Jr.'s "I Have a Dream" speech.

-On Wednesday, August 27, the WMC is hosting a panel with Women's eNews at which six leading congresswomen (Loretta Sanchez-CA, Rosa DeLauro-CT, Carolyn Maloney-NY, Gwen Moore-WI, Lois Capps-CA confirmed so far) will discuss WEN's The Memo-- a status report of six areas that the candidates and delegates must address. The congresswomen will address the media's handling of women and the economy, immigration, women in the military, international issues, war and peace, and health. Do check out my fellow PWVer Pramila Jayapal's Election Dispatch on Immigration and Jennifer Hogg's Election Dispatch on Women in the Military.

-And finally, this year, the convention is chaired by Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, the highest ranking woman elected official in the country, co-chaired by Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius, Texas State Senator Leticia Van de Putte, and Atlanta Mayor Shirley Franklin. The CEO of the Democratic National Convention Committee is Leah D. Daughtry.

Where I'm Teaching Next: Woodhull, Sept 5-7

Last weekend's nonfiction writers retreat at the Woodhull house in Ancramdale was very energizing, and I wanted to send a shout out to all the participants (hi Lara! hi May! hi Leeat!). I absolutely loved working with everyone. And here's info on the next one:

Raise Your Voice
The Woodhull Institute Prepares Women to Be Leaders on the Page

Women are underrepresented as nonfiction authors and opinion writers. In a long weekend of writing instruction and one-on-one critique from expert instructors Kristen Kemp, Catherine Orenstein, and Deborah Siegel, participants gain fundamental knowledge of Op-ed pieces, features, book proposals, and pitching ideas.

When/Where: September 5-7, 2008 (Ancramdale, NY)

Early Registration: $455

Regular Registration: $495*

Learn more and register today! Substantial discounts are available to alumnae and members.

Beyond Cindy v. Michelle

In an article in yesterday's Newsday, Lisa Witter issues a rousing plea to the media to unfetter our potential first ladies' intellect on the campaign trail. Excerpts:

The new focus on Obama's hair and hemlines comes right on the heels of the gender-biased way the media covered Clinton's campaign. If we let this go on, we risk losing an important opportunity to have a national dialogue about sexism. We should be holding the media accountable for perpetuating stereotypes. If a white woman is strong, she's considered cold - as the coverage of Cindy McCain has shown. If a black woman is strong, she's obviously angry - so go the accusations about Michelle Obama....

While America's women and girls lost the opportunity to see themselves reflected in the top job this round, what we can't do is lose the opportunity to change the way women - and first ladies - are portrayed. It's a tough line, no doubt. For the most part, we want to feel and look beautiful. We love our families and feel proud about our personal and professional accomplishments. But if we let the conversation about the first ladies focus mostly on the role and status of the conventional "Mrs.," we've lost a huge opportunity to reframe gender and marriage dynamics in our country. We all need to take it upon ourselves to strike up a conversation about how we can end sexism in America. Contact the press when they get it right - and not so right. And I'm going to write Michelle Obama to let her know that when she portrays herself as strong, I feel strong, too.

Well said, Lisa. For more from Lisa, do check out the just-released book she coauthored, titled The She Spot: Why Women Are the Secret to Changing the World and How to Reach Them. Lisa is chief operating officer of Fenton Communications, and an inspiration to many. I definitely recommend her book!

Watching Michelle

For those obsessed, like me, with how the media is and will cover Michelle Obama, do check out the new blog Michelle Obama Watch. The site is designed to be “a repository of all of the criticism, praise, and general chicanery thrown at Michelle Obama between now and November." And for any who missed Michelle Obama on The View, here's the clip:

Consuming Michelle

So here's to the latest women about to be demonized in the media: Michelle Obama. My heart goes out to her, and so will my pen (or keyboard, whatevs). Meanwhile, check out this piece in Women's eNews by Sandra Kobrin, "Michelle: Hold Your Head High; We Got Your Back."

And by the way, for an expanded version of Courtney's comments from yesterday's forum on media coverage of the 2008 elections, do check out "Generation Y Refuses Race-Gender Dichotomy" in AlterNet today. An excerpt:

The million-dollar question: How, with a generation bent on individuality and multiplicity, do we confront racism, sexism and all the other insipid -isms that have been brought to light by this unprecedented campaign? To my mind, we must continue to use novel interventions -- like the Women's Media Center's great montage "Sexism Sells, but We're Not Buying It," the brand-new blog Michelle Obama Watch, and the evergreen experts at Racialicious -- to educate people. We must use humor -- as my group blog Feministing often does, as the brilliant Sarah Haskins does on Current TV, as Ann Telnaes does through cartooning over at Women's eNews. (Note: It's not just the boys -- John Stewart, Stephen Colbert, and the Onion crew -- that know the power of a laugh.)

We must take our roles as media consumers dead seriously, calling television executives and newspaper editors on their misguided choices and celebrating them when they get it right. In an increasingly corporatized media landscape, it is your dollar, not your disgust, that will most readily get big-wig attention. Don't buy sexist magazines, don't tune into to racist radio, and don't watch reductive, recycled infotainment being pawned off as news.

But most of all, it seems to me, we must continue to push for a deeper, more authentic conversation overall. We must let the mainstream media know that we don't want to debate "reject" or "denounce" for 24 hours or go on witch hunts for Geraldine Ferraro or Samantha Power. We want to understand what these women were trying to say. We want to explore the real issues. We want to, as my co-panelist Juan Gonzalez of Democracy Now so brilliantly put it, call into question the whole idea of empire. The debate shouldn't center on the quandary: How can we make our empire more effective? But, do we want to be an empire in the first place?

And we must demand that our candidates rise to the occasion, as I believe Obama did so beautifully with his speech on race following the Reverend Wright controversy. He brought that conversation to a new level, and we are all better off for it. We need to continue to push for that kind of brazen truth-telling -- about gender, certainly, about class, for sure. That's what politics is supposed to be about -- not partisanship or strategic spinning, but honesty and uplift. Call me naïve, but that's what the young are supposed to be, right?

Hillary Studies, Post-Primary

Well, the primary race may be over, but our fascination with Hillary--with the prospect and reality of a Hillary--has really only just begun. I find myself eagerly tracking the post-mortem analysis, hungry to make sense of it all. If you see any particularly interesting analysis out there, please to send it along. Just a sampling of what caught my eye over the weekend:

Clinton's Real Victory
6/7/08
Washington Post: As someone who trains women across the country to lead across all sectors, it has been easy for me to see, firsthand, the impact of Clinton's candidacy...

Clinton Bloc Becomes the Prize for Election Day
NY Times: Now that a would-be first female president is ending her quest for the White House, the race is more about women than ever before...

And lastly, this letter of gratitude, from Ilana Goldberg, head of the Women's Campaign Fund (thank you, Purse Pundit!):

Dear Hillary -

I say this to you almost daily, but since it's normally to you on the TV screen, I thought I should find a way of saying it where you might actually receive the message: Thank you.

Thank you for what you have done. For your sheer tenacity, strength, and stick-to-itiveness. Thank you for working so hard every day when you must have been exhausted. For showing us what leadership looks like: doing something well, with grace, in good times and bad. Most of all, I thank you for not quitting.

Your many supporters will tell you what your race means to them and history will write what it means to the world, but it also means so much to me and to the little world I live in. I thank you on behalf of the women who have been so special in my life:

For my daughter - who is, as of yet, just an idea in my mind. But I imagine her one day reading the story of this historic campaign. I am so grateful that the story she will read will be of a complete campaign, with the biggest numbers possible - states, votes, and delegates. That story will show that our first woman presidential contender was truly competitive - nearly won competitive - and show a little girl her own vast possibilities in this country. Thank you for giving her a history worth reading.

For my mother - who is one of those women who work tirelessly to support her family, worries over rising healthcare costs and frets that her grandchildren may not have social security. She's always been passionately interested in politics, but never before found a politician who she felt saw and understood her. She'll be 65 next year and she wrote the first political check of her life to you. Thank you for validating the day-to-day concerns that she faces.

For my grandmother - who was, as it was noted at her memorial, "a woman ahead of her time." I think of her every time I see one of your senior women supporters who were born before women first got the vote and were out on the streets filled with hope that they would inaugurate one in their lifetimes. Thank you for showing them that their efforts to make women loud and proud actors in American politics created real change.

For my best friend - who would listen to me talk about just about anything in the world for hours - except politics - until you started to run. Little by little, day by day, she became more engaged in your campaign and what it meant to the country and our place in the world. She started out reading your emails and went on to lobbying her husband and friends to change their votes. Thank you for awakening an incredible woman to her role in the political process.

For my former junior staffer- who did not necessarily believe that sexism was still an issue alive and well today. She watched pundit after pundit behave in ways that even she could not deny were ... crude. Then she saw it pass as kind of acceptable. And then she saw it happen again and again. Finally, she took up her pen and now Chris Matthews and the MSNBC brass know her name ... well. Thank you for reminding her of how much work we all still have to do.

For me - who has been, at times, described as direct, forward, forceful, pushy and a few other choice adjectives. Thank you for helping make the world a little safer for aggressive, ambitious women. Because isn't aggressive just one way of saying "she gets things done" and isn't ambition just another word for "dream?" Thank you for pushing for my dream - and that of so many others - to elect a phenomenally talented and capable woman to lead our country and change our world.

As you promised from the outset, you have, and will continue to, make history.

Thank you, for all us.

Sincerely,
Ilana Goldman
President, Women's Campaign Forum

16 Months of Sustained Misogyny

A must-read today from Judith Warner in today's NYTimes ("Women in Charge, Women Who Charge") in which she argues that in a nation indifferent to the sexist attacks on Hillary Clinton over the past 16 months, no wonder a film like “Sex and the City” is a hit. Writes Warner:

How antithetical Hillary’s earnest, electric blue pants-suited whole being is to the frothy cheer of that film, which has women now turning out in droves, a song in their hearts, unified in popcorn-clutching sisterhood to a degree I haven’t seen since the ugly, angry days of Anita Hill and … the first incarnation of Hillary Clinton. How times have changed. How yucky, how baby boomerish, how frowningly pre-Botox were the early 1990s. How brilliantly does “Sex” – however atrocious it may be – surf our current zeitgeist, sugar-coating it all in Blahniks and Westwood, and yummy men and yummier real estate, and squeakingly desperate girl cheer....

Read the full piece here.

ADDENDUM: As per urbanartiste's comment, I have yet to see the movie yet and I do expect I'll enjoy it, having been an SATC addict, nevertheless!