Liveblogging

I’m supershort on battery so may only get through part of this next session, but here we go…

Jeremy Adam Smith, creator of the blog Daddy Dialectic and author of the book The Daddy Shift, is introducing the panel by talking about the difference in attitudes about fatherhood among his grandfather, his father, and himself.

Panelists are:

Reeve Vanneman (he’ll be talking about The End of Gender Revolution?)
Oriel Sullivan (on Slow but Steady-ish Change)
Josh Coleman (speaking on The Ghost of Traditional Marraige in Contemporary Ones)
Mignon Moore (talking about Is Convergence Moot in Same Sex Copules?)
Amy and Marc Vachon, bloggers at Equally Shared Parenting and coauthors of a forthcoming book on the subject (on that)

Reeve Vanneman is up first:  There was a big shift in the 1990s, he notes, a stalling in gender revolution. But the question is, why?  Three possible reasons:

1. End of feminist protest: in the mid-1990s, media coverage of feminism declined…

2. Economics: in the mid-1990s, for the first time in a long time, men’s earnings increased.  They had stagnated in the 1970s, but during the early Clinton years, there were fairly broad-based increases in men’s earnings.

3. Culture: gender attitudes shifted (ie, when surveys asked questions like “do you agree that a working mother can have a warm relationship with her children?” the answer “yes” trended upward from the 1970s, then leveled off in the 1990s; other questions tracked were questions like “do you believe that men make better politicians”? etc)

In sum, we have evidence that there was a stalling of gender revolution in the mid-1990s. But we don’t fully know WHY.

ARGH! Hate to leave ya’ll hanging, but I’m running out of battery here…

We’re in the first panel, organized by Kathleen Gerson.  Panelists are Bob Drago, Shirley Hill, Jennifer Glass, and Erin Kelly.

For a blow by blow of who’s saying what in real time, check out Veronica (who is sitting right in front of me!) over at Viva la Feminista.  She’s using this very cool software called Cover It Live.  (Man, that lady teaches me EVERYTHING!)

Josh Coleman steps up to the mike and frames the conference by starting with how the women’s movement has made life better not only for women but for men.  Yet at the same time, and especially in this moment of recession, where men are being laid off in droves, women’s increased power is in some way a challenge to men’s identity.  The traditional markers of male identity–protector, provider–have been eroded.  As Michael Kimmel says, men are left with all of the empowerment and none of the power.  [??!!]  So there’s a crisis in masculinity out there.  (Ok, yes, reality check: women earn 80% what men do, etc etc.)

Questions the conference will ask:

How will recession affect relationships between men and women?

Will men express their masculinity by doing even less?

Is the gender revolution dead, or still evolving?

What’s going on with gender convergence in families and intimate relationships?

What’s going on with gender in the next generation?

Is our culture of individualism make marriages today more happy and resilient or more fragile?

What kind of work/family policies make families more resilient and what makes them more stressed?

What does the recent election tell about gender today?

Stay tuned….

Hiya from the Council on Contemporary Families conference in my hometown Chicago.  It’s 70 degrees and sunny, and only a gathering like this one could keep me inside.

This morning Virginia Rutter, Stephanie Coontz, and I offered a media workshop, where I heard some of the best ever rationale for why “popping it up” (meaning, learning to write/communicate your complex and researched ideas for a broader audience) is not “dumbing it down”:

Barbara Risman: “If your idea is truly smart, it can be conveyed without jargon.  It’s laziness to think otherwise.”

Josh Coleman: “Reducing a complex idea to a soundbyte is a form of wisdom in itself.”

Stephanie Coontz: “It’s not a compromise to your intellectual integrity.  If you can’t reduce your complex idea to one or two sentences, it may be because there’s a hole in your argument.  It’s not merely a matter of laziness but intellectual self-deception.”

Virginia Rutter: “If you can’t boil it down, maybe media isn’t the medium for you.  Maybe it’s meant for a smaller discussion.”

!!!

Liz Abzug takes the podium to wrap up the wrap up, hitting on numerous themes:

“I tell my students, who don’t understand why we still need feminism: You/we have a lot of unfinished business.  We have tools that we haven’t had — new technologies, all kinds of collective vehicles in art and music and song — and we can link this movement domestically and internationally.

We have to take the contexts that the second wave of feminism worked so hard to create and let a new genration use its own linguistics to create a new wave of feminisn.

There is energy — as you heard in this room — to move to the streets. We have to take the energy from the recent election of the current President, and the energy from the race of Hillary Clinton.  We must leave no woman behind, across socioeconomic status, race, everything.  We had some early mothers — Betty Shabazz — that gave birth to this new feminism.

We have to allow this catharsis, this transformation, and build on it through realistic measures like, yes, the stimulus pacakge. We need to make sure there are nontraditional jobs for women, childcare, etc in that package.

We have to use our creativity, connect through our actions, connect politics to art, connect women and power, poor women, rich women, everyone in between, of all races, nationalities, creeds, and backgrounds.  We have to decide, each for ourselves, how we want to be heard.

We have to use the modern technologies to express and seize upon this moment, to create the Feminist New Deal — a movement where we spark, lead, and inspire.

We need to collectively build on our foremothers.  We need to take the wisdom of the women who are older than us, and the wisdom of women who are younger than us.  We need to take the men along.

Something my mother [Bella Abzug] really understood when she founded WEDO:  Feminists internationally need to work on a common agenda.

There is quick movement in the new Obama Administration to work on women and girls rights.

We need to work together to finish the business of true equality, to create gender equity in the 21st century.”

With only 15 minutes left, it’s time to sum up.  (But how?!) Esther Broner remarks, “I feel like I’m with my daughter up here (reaches out to hold Ai-jen Poo’s hand).  I was interested in the “house” of academe, and you’re interested in helping those who are breaking down the house….” Ai-jen Poo’s closing comment is this: “Let’s build a movement, one that’s strong, and powerful, and has the ability to seize the moment…!”

Toni Blackman (pictured left) — the first ever hiphop artist to work in an official capacity with the Department of State — takes the stage, performing a song as she comes on.  “A lot of young artists don’t realize that you can have a message and not be corny,” Toni says, and then goes on to prove her point through reciting a poignant poem, “Invisible Woman,” in which she ends:

I may not be SEEN, but I’ll be damned if I’m not heard: The feminine voice in hiphop.

Video rolls (MUST SEE! MUST SEE!):

Invisible Woman/Je Suis Une Femme Invisible

Laura Flanders: Let’s talk about the stimulus.  What infrastructural contribution would you all offer to the stimulus package?

Audience member: There’s no way you can think about success for anyone when you don’t think of children’s development, of women and their environment.  You’ve got to look at issues of health and healthcare first.

Ai-jen Poo: We’ve got to demand childcare — all the things that have been on our shelf for the past 40 years.  All that unfinished business needs to get done, and none of it is there.

Esther Broner: You know, I think back to when my students didn’t know what to do with their children during class, so we all brought the babies to class.  There was childcare after that.  Where is direct action now?

Melissa Silverstein (from the audience): I remember when the Women’s Action Coalition began (a group that started in 1991 by artists, in response to the Anita Hill/Clarence Thomas hearings) and met at the Quaker Meeting House to do actions.  When it died out, I felt a force depleted in me.  I’ve lately been spending my time working on issues related to women and pop culture, movies, and tv.  I’d like to ask people to think about how most people, not in NYC, only get to see big Hollywood blockbusters.  Only nine percent of films are directed by women.  Women’s visions are missing from mainstream America.  I spend a lot of time online, in my little world.  I feel very connected yet at the same time disconnected.  So, how do we take our connectivity with each other, and our disconnectivity, as women?  As Ai-jen was talking about domestic workers, I started thinking about freelancers — we need to connect to each other, too!

Ai-jen Poo: The work around the economy is a great way for women to connect.  Women are the last hired and first fired.  How do we see the economic stimulus as providing a chance for us to start connecting in new and broad ways around a common vision that is expansive?  Because all of these issues are connected: There are the historic women’s issues — childcare, representations of women in popular culture — but then there are newer issues like job creation.  Why don’t we demand 10,000 jobs for women in, for example, community organizing, or in nontraditional women’s fields like construction, where a lot of the new job creation is going to happen?  We have to make the links.

Esther Broner: At the same time, if we don’t have strong labor unions, we will not have change.  There has to be pressure for change.

Audience member: Let’s start another — intergenerational — WAC!

Laura Flanders: WAC itself was intergenerational, actually.  But after President Clinton was elected, and after 1996, WAC waned.  People got tired of going to meetings.  There was a sense of “that was tiring, but we made it, we got Clinton elected, and now let’s leave it to them”.  There’s a similar potential with the current moment.  But we can’t leave it to them.  We can’t stop.  But what’s it going to take?

Esther Broner: We need to march again.  I don’t want to be invisible anymore.  I want my voice very loud, and heard.

Laura Flanders: Is it people in the streets again that we need?  Ai-jen, what do you need?

Ai-jen Poo: We need a lot of things.  We need a vehicle, we need a great communications infrastructure…

Esther Broner: We need another Bella Abzug.

[A long line of women stands at the microphone, ready to speak…Time is waning…Laura asks each one to speak, but speak quickly.]

Audience member: I don’t think we are where we need to be with women’s right to choose.

Gloria Feldt (from the audience): A movement needs to move.  Power and energy comes from moving, not from standing still.  I see some women who are incredible leaders here – what Esther did in her life, what Elizabeth has done, what Ai-jen has done.  And yet I hear ‘We’re not here to lead, we’re here to spark.”  Well, the hell with that!  How do we as feminists get beyond wanting to be in a circle and sparking?  How do we get to lead?

Mia Herndon (from the audience): When we’ve lead in the past, we left a lot of people behind.  There are a lot of young women who don’t support feminism now because it’s left a bad taste in their mouth.  When we’re talking about money and power, we lose sight.  So we have to remember that.

Rita Henley Jensen: What we haven’t focused on enough is misogyny, and the end of welfare.  The US has the highest maternal mortality rate among developed nation; African American women die in pregnancy 3,4,5 times more often than white women.  We carry the hatred in this country across generations.

Audience member: Often we talk about academia as where we find our feminist ephiphanies.  But often we forget that feminism also happens in the K-12 realm as well.  As a feminist educator and activist, I often feel very alone at these kinds of events.  Feminist teachers really work alone; we don’t have foundations that support us, or coalitions.  Feminist teachers should make coalitions with each other.  I’d like to see feminist organizations partner with feminist teachers to work on issues together.  And I’d like to see curricular change.

Audience member (family court judge in Brooklyn, who worked with Barbara Seaman in early 1970s): The key going forward is to be able to communicate and build a structure of communications….

Audience member (from Mexico): One of the founders of the women’s movement in Brazil is in the audience; and I was one of the founders of the movement in Mexico.  We had the first women’s studies conference, with 400 attending.  In the 1970s and 1980s, we had a lot of international feminist communications.  We have to again increase international communications among feminists.  And I agree with Gloria Feldt, who said that leadership must lead.  In recent years, we have deconstructed everything.  We now need to CONSTRUCT.  We need to ask ourselves: what kind of feminism do we have for a real, real new deal?

Audience member: We are at a time when the celebration of women’s power is exciting and fierce.  I’ve been thinking of an idea: We should start a boat that goes in international waters and takes women’s art, lectures, and stories from country to country.  We should come together and do an environmentally-sound lovecraft, make the ocean our mutual space, and use media to broadcast from there.

Laura Flanders: A real mothership.

Laura Flanders next opens it up to the audience for questions, speak outs, thoughts about the unfinished feminist business before us all.  No hands go up yet, so Laura provokes us a bit, Laura-Flanders style: “Are we going to let people like Larry Summers set our future?!”  While people are thinking of comments, Laura asks Esther what she thought might be different by now.

Says Esther Broner, “I was sure we’d have socialism at the least.  Even now, I wonder what they’re waiting for.  I never thought the rich would get richer and the poor poorer.  That’s not what we were studying for.  Women’s Studies is so egalitarian — you don’t see yourself as the final source.  You evoke from the people around you.  I thought that’s what our country would be like.  So I have to draw a deep breath and get out there and work again.  And that’s a little scary.  I was born in 1927.   I’ll be 82.”

Laura Flanders notes that Esther Broner has been part of every social movement that has existed in her lifetime and asks Ai-jen Poo what she thinks of the current divisions between movements, and the historical silo-ing of movements, that sometimes takes place.

Says Ai-jen,  “Each generation has built on previous ones.  Now IS the moment for thinking big, and bold, and seizing the day like we haven’t for a few generations.  All the groundwork that’s been laid by past generations will provide the seeds.  But it’s now for us to reshape the economy, a new deal, a real deal for everyone.  We’re going to have to have new coalitions, new alignments, breaking out of the idea that ‘this is the women’s movement’ and ‘that is the labor movement.’  All the pieces — the racial justice piece, the women’s rights piece, the labor piece — needs to build something greater than the sum of its parts.”

To “spark” the conversation, Esther Broner asks Ai-jen Poo to share her beginnings as a feminist.  Says Ai-jen, in a moving intergenerational tribute: “I got started as a feminist through Women’s Studies, and Esther Broner, you actually started one of the early programs, so thank you very much!”

Laura Flanders: “And Esther, tell us more about your start in Women’s Studies?”

Esther Broner:  “Anger is very important.  I got my start in the house of academe, at a time when all the addresses there were men.”

Ai-jen Poo: “My activism focuses right now on The Domestic Violence Bill of Rights.  There are over 200,000 women who are mostly women of color who do domestic work every day, supporting the families they take care of as well as their own families.  Historically, domestic workers have been excluded from nearly every labor law.  Their work isn’t considered ‘real’ work — it’s been thought of historically as ‘women’s work,’ and in particular, women of color’s work.  Yet this work helps to make ALL the work possible in New York, and deserves to be respected and protected. The historic victories of the New Deal exclude domestic workers.  We need a new new deal — a real deal — this times.”

Carol Jenkins of the Women’s Media Center introduces Laura Flanders.  Here are snippets from Laura:

Laura Flanders: “The second anniversary of the Elizabeth A. Sackler Center for Feminist Art: Every word of that merits celebrating!  How many institutions do we have in NYC with a woman’s name? (Applause)

You can learn a lot from women’s history.  I did a column recently on obituaries.  Did you read the one for Conchita Cintron.  She was a bullfighter who died last week at age 86.  She was once described as ‘a timid blue-eyed girl but she kills bulls without a cringe’.  Lesson 1: Don’t cringe when there are 12,000 pounds of BULL coming at you! I was recently reading an article in The New Yorker by Ariel Levy about Lamar Van Dyke and the lesbian separatist movement. Van Dyke herself is a woman who is doing what she pleases for as long as she remembers.  Now, that’s not easy to come by.  But wasn’t that the idea?

In the rest of today’s program, we’ll talk about what we’ve learned, how far we’ve come, what are the challenges, and what is THE IDEA today. Two ‘sparkers’ will help set us off in this conversation: Esther Broner, and Ai-jen Poo….