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

A CFP to share – but hurry. The deadline is June 12!

The 18th Annual Women’s Studies Conference
“Girls’ Culture & Girls’ Studies: Surviving, Reviving, Celebrating Girlhood”

To be held on the campus of Southern Connecticut State University Friday and Saturday, October 17 and 18, 2008

The 18th Annual Women’s Studies Conference at Southern Connecticut State University explores girlhood. What does it mean to be a girl? Who defines girlhood in an age when puberty and sexualization are happening at younger ages? How do girls assert their own identity in an increasingly medicated and consumerist culture which targets girls as a prime audience? Why are U.S. girls preoccupied with perfection? What challenges do girls across races, classes, religions, nations, and cultures face in an ever more globalized world? What is the relationship between girls and feminism? What effect can feminism have on constructions of boyhood and masculinity and how in turn can this affect girls?

In the 18th annual SCSU Women’s Studies conference, we will take a close look at girls’ culture and girls’ studies, among the most vibrant areas in women’s studies. The Conference Committee invites individuals, groups, scholars, feminists, activists, girls and all to submit proposals that address topics related to all aspects of girlhood.

More info available here.

Taking a break from all the heavy stuff to share a moment from my weekend, post-NCRW conference. Marco and I took our first mambo lesson yesterday from Glenda Heffer (aka La Mambera), who is dancing here in this video with her partner Mambo D. We are not quite looking like them yet. Ok, so we will never dance like them. But hey, we’ve learned the basic step – it’s a start.

Ok, now I, too, have been feeling sad as the next Hillary supporter about our gal’s loss. But are there really going to be Hillary supporters out there sporting t-shirts with “NObama”? I have a hard time believing it. And if I see one, you better believe I will have something to say.

Do check out Gail Collins’ thoughtful oped in today’s NYTimes, “What Hillary Won,” and Bob Herbert’s too (thank you Catherine!). I’m moved by them both. Herbert reminds us not to overlook the wonder of this moment:

“Racism and sexism have not taken their leave. But the fact that Barack Obama is the presumptive nominee of the Democratic Party, and that the two finalists for that prize were a black man and a white woman, are historical events of the highest importance.”

Indeed, we should not overlook this moment. Nor should we take it for granted. Doing a search for this t-shirt just now made me crazy. I found SO much anti-Obama propaganda online — xenophobic stickers, racist cartoons, and worse. As of today, I stand with Obama. And we have so, so much work to do.

Part of our work, of course, is to continue to analyze the impact of race and gender on this campaign. And I hope those of you in the area will join me at a forum on June 17th, “From Soundbites to Solutions: Bias, Punditry and the Press in the 2008 Election,” from 9am-noon, sponsored by The White House Project, The Women’s Media Center and the Maynard Institute for Journalism Education. The forum is free of charge and open to the press and the public and will take place at the Paley Center for Media, 25 West 52nd Street (Between 5th & 6th Ave). Register here.

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!

NCRW Panel on Corporate and Academic Diversity – Post#2

Moderator Ana Duarte McCarthy (pictured) leads the next bit of the session by noting that less than 3% of senior management and corporate officers are people of color. The numbers for women are extremely low. What is it that isn’t working? And what can we do about it?

Melinda Wolfe responds: “Until organizations recognize that women bear children and are primarily the caretakers for them, there will continue to be barriers for women to move up. Some women might come off the track; there are times when women take the scenic route but want to get back on and make a difference, but our systems don’t allow that. There are still huge underlying unconscious bias factors that go on in these institutions, that without critical mass, will continue. In some ways we’re at a dangerous inflection point, in that there are now more people who’ve heard about diversity and think that they get it. But they don’t. Because they think that they get it, their behaviors are more insidious.”

Anne Erni responds: “Several years ago, several of us worked with Sylvia Ann Hewlett on her Brain Drain study. We found that nearly 43% of women in corporations want to step off the track for a while, and 93% of them want to get back on. But less than half are successful in finding fulfilling fulltime roles. So some firms created models, like Lehman’s Encore program, to address. It’s been successful. The key is getting men to empathize. Many of these guys marry women on the Street [Wall Street, that is – GWP], so they are more likely to get it. There were also incentives: people would get paid for referring women who wanted to on-ramp.”

Ah, how money talks. Poignant conversation about race going on next. A woman from the audience comments that she’s often the only African American student in the room. How do we move past that? Rosemary Cocetti shares a personal story about her son, who is an athlete, and a great writer, and who experienced straight out racism at college. His professor didn’t believe that a paper he submitted was his. Ironic, given that Cocetti is the diversity officer on campus. Actually, less ironic, more telling of how far we have to go. On the corporate front, how do coworkers deal with it the first time they see a colleague wearing a head scarf? The dilemma of being the first.

Stomachs are rumbling and the panel is wrapping up. A question asked earlier by Meryl Kaynard, Lehman Brothers, who is sitting next to me, has yet to be addressed. Rats, as this was my question too. The question: What’s going on in terms of Generations X and Y? And I want to know: to what extent does the comfort with a more global community–the one in which we’ve come of professional age–shape our expectations for inclusion here at home?

Ok, signing off now. Fear of carpel tunnel kicking in!

I’m back here at the Kimmel Center at NYU, blogging the session called “Diversity and Inclusion in Corporations and Academia,” moderated by Ana Duarte McCarthy, Lehman Brothers. The panelists are talking about how they each got into diversity work at their corporation or university. Here’s how:

Subha Barry, Merrill Lynch:
“One of the best ways to see the diversity awakening is to see it happen around you. For me, it happened in my community. When I first moved to Princeton, NJ, I had to drive to Edison to go to Indian grocery stores, as there were no such stores in Princeton. And I thought, think about the amount of business we leave on the table simply because we don’t recognize the diversity around us.”

Melinda Wolfe, American Express: “Whether it’s Goldman Sachs, Credit Suisse, Citigroup, or Merrill Lynch, the investment banking world is dog-eat-dog. It’s only been recently and through the efforts of the people around this table and others that we have been able to work cooperatively around diversity. Across firms, those of us who work in this field go around with linked arms. It’s not typically what you see among competitive firms. But we all recognize that it takes truly a village to fix this one.”

Rosemary Cocetti, Georgetown University
“I got into my position because the President of the university created it and offered it to me.”

Anne Erni, Lehman Brothers
“I was on the trading floor, one of the few women who continued to move up. Most of my friends dropped out and became SAHMs. I got a call one day—the Friday of the last week in August—and I was taken aside and told by my boss: ‘Men run in packs. Women don’t. Go create your pack.’ Eventually, I was asked to leave the floor and become Chief Diversity Officer. And I told him, yes. You got me at hello.”

Ana Duarte-McCarthy next asks the million dollar question: What Makes Diversity Efforts Work? Some responses:

Melinda Wolfe: “If you don’t have breadth, depth, and leadership, your organization’s effort at diversity is not poised for success.”

Anne Erni: “The firm set aside an 8-figure bonus pool to reward inclusion. When you’re on Wall Street, you’re entire focus during the year is on how much bonus you’re going to get. So we challenged each division to do an analysis and a plan. The head of each division then presented the outcome of their plan. Six months ago, we completed the fourth round of reviews. In the beginning, you could tell some of them had just been handed the powerpoint script and were struggling about whether to say ‘gay’ or ‘lesbian,’ ‘African American’ or ‘black’. My colleague asked one guy who was stumbling to close the book and just tell him from his heart what inclusion meant for him. The next year, he won.”

Moving now to some Q&A…

This morning I’m pleased to bring you another rockin guest post from Virginia Rutter, sociology prof at Framingham State College, who is, in my estimation, quite nice. And a sassy writer to boot. Enjoy! -GWP

It Isn’t Nice, by Virginia Rutter

“It isn’t nice.” That is how I explained my extremely negative response to Todd Purdum’s Vanity Fair article on Bill Clinton and to TP’s press interviews this week. It isn’t nice to go around speculating about people’s sex lives (at least in public), but TP did. It isn’t nice to speculate about their health either. TP did.

Todd Purdum dedicates his first several paragraphs drawing tawdry atmosphere—we get the whiff of “Air Fuck One” that whisked Bill’s attendant “motley crew” to a wedding last summer in Paris. This sets the tone. And then for balance, there’s a line or two about, oh jeepers y’all, I’m not saying there is any evidence of philandering. Golly, I just want to tell you that some of Clinton’s old staffers worry about it. And then more paragraphs of tawdry atmosphere.

(1-800-CALL FOUCAULT is how my friends in the English department respond.)

One of the nice things, to me, about leaving behind the 1990s was leaving behind this kind of pants-sniffing political story telling. (Is that a not-nice thing to say? I’ll ponder that.) Remember, the story telling we have this decade is about the big lies we know about – on the economy, the war, on civil liberties, not little hypothetical lies we heard someone say someone said something about. That’s just not nice.

But here is what was pathetic: In interviews, TP is all like, I wasn’t insinuating anything about Bill Clinton’s behavior. The facts I am reporting are about how some Clinton staffers are worried about some people who are talking and thinking it might be possible that maybe Bill is, has, or will mess around. The news: someone feels anxious thinking about sex.

(1-800-CALL FREUD is how my friends in the psychology department respond.)

In interview after interview, TP keeps to his message, I repeat I am not insinuating about Bill’s sex life, I have no information about that. Sounds (ironically), a little bit like “depends upon what the definition of is is.” That’s soooo 1990s. That’s not nice—wasn’t then, isn’t now.

Here’s the deal, TP: write your “sleazy” story whatever way you want, whatever way your editors will tolerate or goad you into. If you can tolerate not being nice, and it passes muster in your business, go ahead. And, if you do it in the service of asking the hard questions, about financing his foundation, his livelihood, well, reasonable minds can accept that. But don’t also be pathetic.

And that brings me to the health stuff. The TP anxiety report extends the apprehension among well meaning FOBs about the psychological impact of his heart by-pass surgery. Makes you cranky. Impulsive. Changes your personality. No doubt big medical interventions, similar to a trauma, influence–or have the odds of influencing–state of mind. But if you are going to speculate about that, some other facts in evidence merit consideration—aka speculation—too. What else could influence Bill’s state of mind and make him irritable or impulsive? Let’s see, there’s the trauma of the 2000 election, the doubledarktrauma of the 2004 election, the traumatimesinfinity that has been the Bush administration. You could say, well we should all be a little irritable (aren’t we?)—but as irritable as the regular folk are, think about this happening when the party and the government are your baby.

And then there is the issue of gender. Just like there are no good gender scripts available for a woman in a powerful position and how best to respond when people market a nutcracker in her image (and the like), there are equally no good gender scripts available for a man in a powerful position to respond to this kind of treatment of the woman he loves.

What I mean by gender scripts is that nearly all women—whether feminist or not—are raised with ideas about delicacy; nearly all men—whether a former president or not—are raised with ideas about protectiveness. What can give a person irritatsia is when the scripts are uncertain. Bill Clinton is a feminist man who has forged a partnership with a woman who is his equal; he has given real support to her. He hasn’t been perfect. But the gender trap in this situation isn’t his clinging to old ideas of male privilege, it is not having a way to reconcile all those expectations about gallantry with the expectations Bill has bought into about equality in his marriage. And if you are a man reading this you may recall times when you have felt damn irritable, maybe even sometimes reactive, when it seems impossible to get it right.

From the look of Todd Purdum’s Vanity Fair piece, it seems impossible for Bill to get it right. Turns out it is impossible for any of us to get it right. Including TP. And I think that understanding that is being nice.

NCRW Plenary – Post #7

Ok, it’s Q&A time—generally the best part of any panel IMHO. And here we have Sandi Morgen taking the mike, expressing deep frustration about the “down tone” of this panel. We have an African American running for President, people! Applause. Says Morgen, “Women’s organizations that take a down tone right now are not helping to build the coalition that we need right now to build.”

Kim Gandy responds, asking for recognition that it’s only been a few days, and that there’s a group of people who are hurting out there (HRC supporters), and in a little bit of mourning—just as it would be in the case of the reverse. She calls for an understanding of that. And then she references a column she wrote last night about her daughters who were too young to pay attention to the 2004 election, but who were engaged in this one. Says Gandy, “They saw a woman and an African American run against each other for President. For them, forever, that’s what a Presidential election is. That’s who runs for President. My daughters will grow up never knowing a time when only white men could be considered serious candidates for president. And that is truly groundbreaking.”

Interesting convo about race and gender follows….Feminism’s uncomfortable history with race….How did women of color make their choices in this election?….An audience member says that Frederick Douglas was the only one of all the people at Seneca Falls to truly address a human rights agenda and frame women’s rights as human rights….

Ok, I’ve got to sign off. ‘Til tomorrow!

NCRW Plenary – Post #6

Marie Wilson, The White House Project, who has a history of being a good trend predictor, predicts that this is the cutting edge of the women’s time. (Agree? Disagree?) Snippets:

“This election has been research on the hoof, if you will.”

“Things have changed permanently because of HRC’s run. To begin with, we’ll never have to poll the question ‘would you vote for a woman president?’ again. Because they did!”

“If HRC had come out of the gate talking about bringing people together, it wouldn’t have worked for her. It worked for Obama. But HRC had to come out ‘tough’ and ‘competent.’ She got into fierce mode—‘I will fight for you.’”

“The sexism in America came flat out. So now at least you can talk about it. That’s always a step forward.”

“Because of HRC, three-year-old women are talking about politics.”

“We need research. The Humphrey Center in Minnesota is doing research now on a new women’s political movement, and that we need to do much more.”