If anywhere near Central Michigan University, here’s where to catch us on March 17 and 18! For more information, e-mail Jill Taft Kaufman at taftk1j@cmich.edu.
Last week I put a page out to women’s leadership researchers. And my friend Laura Sabbatini over at Catalyst helpfully responded, reminding that their July 2007 report, Double Bind: Damned If You Do, Doomed If You Don’t, covers many of these issues. Writes Laura, “Think about the think-leader-think-male stereotype and how men are perceived as ‘natural’ leaders by default. Because men don’t have to prove that they can lead, any ‘communal’/feminine behavior is considered positively (that is, as an add on) when performed by a man, or definitely more positively than when it is performed by a woman.” The report is available online.
Laura also sent along a few research articles that have “some good supporting evidence in terms of the same behavior being perceived as different when performed by a man or a woman.” For those seeking to dig deeper, check out:
-“Role Congruity Theory of Prejudice Toward Female Leaders” by Alice H. Eagly and Steven J. Karau
-“Same Behavior, Different Consequences: Reactions to Men’s and Women’s Altruistic Citizenship Behavior” by Madeline E. Heilman and Julie J. Chen
J.K. Gayle sent along the following, to add to a discussion in which “feminized,” when applied to Obama, becomes coded racially–and, suggests Dr. Helen, perhaps to mean socialism:
-Over at Rachel’s Tavern – “Serious Question…for Everyone About Racial Double Standards”
-And at Dr. Helen – ” Is Obama Feminized?”
I’d add that Patricia Williams has done some great writing on these topics in her column at The Nation. Def worth checking out.
(Thank you, as always, L and J.K.!)
Girl Sailor has had so many awesome posts lately, I don’t know which to link to first. So I’m just going to point GWP readers over there, for fare like “A Woman of Amazon Proportions” (on guess who), “Reading Infidel in DC,” and an email about the observance of Women’s History Month sent by the Chief of Naval Operations via his administrative staff to all Navy Personnel.
In addition to being an active blogger, Girl Sailor is an ensign on active duty in the U.S. Navy.
Happy Women’s History Month, GS, with love, and deep gratitude, from GWP.
WOMEN’S HISTORY MONTH GUEST POST: With 1st-wave feminism on my mind this morning, I’m thrilled to bring you a guest post that connects current goings-on to the past, by May Sinclair PhD, author of Infamous Eve: A History. May asks, “Are Clinton and Obama giving us an opportunity to re-live a version of the events that surrounded the 14th and 15th Amendments?” A California Real Estate Broker, May earned her doctorate in the Philosophy of Metaphysics soon after her 50th birthday. She’s an award-winning author, has written extensively about ancient disciplines connected with symbolism, and teaches private workshops on Dream Interpretation and Analysis from a Jungian perspective. She is someone I seriously hope to meet in real space one day! May blogs at My Thoughts on History. Here she is! – GWP
Back to the Future?
Is the grand Universe offering us an opportunity to deal with a lesson in our history not previously understood? Are we re-living a version of the events that surrounded the ratification of United States Constitution’s 14th and 15th Amendments? Those events greatly concerned and involved two of our most important historical figures. Elizabeth Cady Stanton is the woman responsible for initiating women rights in this country and Frederick Douglass, who was born into slavery, is a major figure in the effort to release the United States of America from the horrors of slavery. They worked closely together, but in July, 1868 they had to face the fact that their primary objective of freedom for all did not survive when the legislators of the day banned together to block the powerful union of women and black people to only offer males the vote.
The 14th amendment said: “The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.” The idea was to make sure freed slaves were not prevented from voting, but it only gave franchise to males rather than all citizens.
But then the Supreme Court case of Minor vs. Happersett allowed the individual states to determine which males got to vote anyway.
The cause of the amendments failure:
-1. The rights of women were not included.
-1. The Federal government did not prevent the individual states from initiating voter qualification laws like literacy tests and pole taxes.
Are we being beguiled into allowing the seemingly towering objective of gaining the highest office in the land by either a black man or a woman to deflect away from the primary objective and divide us so that no one really gains anything and those of us in this country who love it and care about equality are again torn apart in an attempt to undermine the power women and blacks exhibit together?
May Sinclair can be reached at infamouseve@msn.com.
It’s always an immense pleasure to be invited by an organization to speak about Sisterhood, Interrupted, but when it’s the Alice Paul Institute–located at Paulsdale, birthplace and farm home of 1st wave icon Alice Paul–the pleasure is double. (Thank you Kris, Dana, Rhonda, and Becky!)
The crowd was intergenerational to the nth degree, spanning at least six decades–14 to 74, I’d say. My host Kris Myers and I brushed up together on ERA history during the car ride to Paulsdale, as Alice was its original author back in 1923. The talk was held in the Double Parlor of the historic home, in front of the fireplace. Being there put the whole conversation in a context that went back to early 20th century. Kris talked about generational differences between Alice Paul’s generation and Carrie Chapman Catt’s. I talked about the recent ones. We talked A LOT about the election.
The audience included founders of the Institute, South Jersey NOW members, mothers and daughters–and the group discussion afterward just rocked my world. I think I managed to get the whole exchange on video (hope my fussing with my MacBook wasn’t too distracting, to those of you who were there?!). I’m really interested in recording these intergen. convos this month whenever I can. I want them to have “legs,” as we say, beyond my little talks. Stay tuned.
And hey, speaking of, if you know of any interesting additional footage of women across gens talking about feminism out there, I’d love to hear!
I’m kicking it off with a fireside chat at Paulsdale, in Southern New Jersey, the home of suffragist and feminist heroine Alice Paul. Rushing off….Will let you know how it goes!
A beautiful remembrance of a beautiful person, by Jennifer Baumgardner. Barbara’s loss will be deeply, deeply felt.
Following on the heels of oppression olympics comes a spin with far more freshness–and potential gender bendery? I’m talking, of course, about the way that Obama is now being tongue-in-cheek referred to as a female candidate for president in the same way that Bill Clinton was talked about as the first black president. Check out Newsweek’s piece, “The First Woman President?” for the latest iteration, by Martin Linsky, co-founder of Cambridge Leadership Associates and a faculty member at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government. As Linsky notes:
[Obama] is pushing against conventional—and political party nominating convention—wisdom in five important ways, with approaches that are usually thought of as qualities and values that women bring to organizational life: a commitment to inclusiveness in problem solving, deep optimism, modesty about knowing all the answers, the courage to deliver uncomfortable news, not taking on all the work alone, and a willingness to air dirty linen. Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, is taking a more traditional (and male?) authoritarian approach.
…As a woman, Clinton feels constrained to portray herself as tough, competitive, willing to take on the bad guys. She has to be more male than men, in the same way that women are reluctant to leave the office early to pick up their children at day care because they fear they will not be thought of as serious about their careers, while men are applauded for doing so.
Obama can raise possibilities that are off the table for Clinton. She needs to tell us that she can solve our problems. Obama seems comfortable in what we think of as a female role: not overpromising what he can accomplish, and telling us that the work of change is ours as much as it is his.
What do the women’s leadership research gurus out there think of the way all this is being framed? (Paging my girls at Catalyst! See also comments by rhetoric scholar J.K. Gayle on previous posts.)
Again, kudos to feministingfor the heads up. Image cred.
As feministing notes, the media portrayal of the black man vs. white woman thing is oppression olympics defined. Note the graphic in this article oh-so-subtley titled “Black Man Vs. White Woman” appearing recently in The Boston Globe. Urrgghh.
For a more interesting take on identity politics in this election, check out the brilliant Ann Friedman’s latest over at The American Prospect, in which she notes that just because the Democratic candidates are a woman and black man does not mean this is the first election to hinge on candidates’ identities. Identity isn’t the problem, pretending it doesn’t matter is.
(Thanks to Court for the heads up.)
So China’s vice minister of the National Population and Family Planning Commission has ‘fessed up that the nation’s one-child policy doesn’t seem to be working so well. We are SO not surprised. Interestingly, all this comes as China is trying to soften its human rights image as Beijing prepares to play host to the Olympics in August. As reported in the New York Times (“China to Reconsider One-Child Limit”) this morning:
China’s fertility rate is now extremely low, and the population is rapidly aging, especially in urban areas. Experts have warned that China is steadily moving toward a demographic crisis with too many old people in need of expensive services and too few young workers paying taxes to meet those bills.
Good riddance to the policy, I say. Because here’s some backstory:
In the 1980s, officials routinely forced women to abort fetuses that would have resulted in above-quota births, and both men and women were often forced to undergo sterilization operations.
Enforcement of the policy has softened markedly in recent years, with most areas relying on fines to ensure compliance. But scandals over forced abortions continue to arise periodically. The restrictions also have deepened a severe imbalance in the ratio of boys to girls in the population because many families have used selective abortions to ensure the birth of a son, the traditional preference.
‘Nuf said.
Not that I’m anti-having-an-only-child, of course! I, for one, very likely will, having found love late in life as I have, and I think an only sounds great! And China, of course, is just a very roundabout way to refer to Only Child: Writers on the Singular Joys and Solitary Sorrows of Growing Up Solo the anthology, which is jumping the numbers on Amazon again now that it’s out in paperback–whohoo! My coeditor Daphne and I got together yesterday to do a little happy dance. Though she fell asleep in the cafe. She’s 7 months pregnant with #2.
