This morning I’m thrilled to bring you one of the amazing women from this fall’s “Making It Pop” bloginar: Jill Moffett. Jill, a PhD in Women’s Studies from the University of Iowa, has just completed her MPH and is currently working at the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill. She’s hard at work on a very important book about how women are reforming the U.S. healthcare system. Here’s Jill:

Even though I have two graduate degrees and a full time job at a major research university, I have am one of the millions of Americans who has no medical insurance. I’m trying to be patient and to not worry obsessively, since I’m pretty sure I’ll be getting benefits sometime in 2008. But being uninsured does make me extra careful to look both ways before I cross the street.

My fear of getting hit by a bus is only one reason why I am excited about the upcoming Raising Women’s Voices for Healthcare Reform Conference to be held in Boston in April 2007. The conference, put on by the Avery Institute for Social Change, the National Women’s Health Network, and Mergerwatch will provide a unique opportunity for women’s health activists to come together as a group and brainstorm about how to make women’s voices heard in the public debate about healthcare reform.

This gathering comes on the heels of a series of Webinars sponsored by the same coalition, which provided an overview of some of the critical issues in the debate and provided a forum for discussing how to address them. This type of hands-on, practical educational effort is an excellent example of feminism in action. As Byllye Avery – founder of the National Black Women’s Health Project noted during the first Webinar, it is crucial that women and women’s organizations get involved in this discussion, because if we don’t, our issues won’t be addressed by policymakers, politicians or the media.

The mainstream media would have us think that the only woman who has anything important to say about healthcare reform is Hilary Clinton, whose plan would have me legally required to purchase healthcare, an option which is hardly appealing given my meager salary and substantial student loans. As women’s studies professor Susan Feiner argued in her October article on Alternet, subsidizing health insurance purchase with tax credits is a plan which will still leave many women out in the cold.

Not only do women have much to gain from healthcare reform – after all, women visit doctors far more often than men do –but we also have some great ideas about what healthcare in America could look like. Breast cancer activists rallied together and not only managed to make doctors abandon the practice of the “one-step radical mastectomy,” but also succeeded in having breast and cervical cancer screening and treatment covered under Medicaid. Planned Parenthood clinics have long offered sliding scale prices and preventative care, and breastfeeding activists note that workplace lactation promotion programs will save corporations and the medical insurance system money.

This is why the Raising Women’s Voices Conference is so important. Although the mainstream media hasn’t paid much attention to the hard work that women are doing to reform the healthcare system, these efforts need to be highlighted. The conference won’t ensure that my medical bills are paid if I do get hit by a bus, but at least it might generate some awareness that Hilary’s isn’t the only woman’s voice that’s being raised in the discussion about how to fix this broken healthcare system.

Interested in guest posting on GWP? Email me (Deborah) at the address at the bottom of the page with your idea and I’ll send you some brief guidelines.

Just when you were craving another book that pits “bad girls” (ie, feminists, and those who have nonmonogamous sex) against “good girls” (the ones who don’t) comes Carol Platt Liebau’s Prude: How the Sex-Obsessed Culture Damages Girls (and America, Too!). While I’m guessing the parens and exclamation point are for earnest emphasis, I can’t help but think of Steven Colbert’s recent title, I Am America (and So Can You!) whenever I see this now. And so, I confess to taking the tone of it all a little tongue-in-cheek. That is not, however, the author’s intention.

The prolific and ever-savvy sex writer Rachel Kramer Bussel has written about the book over at AlterNet. Charges Rachel,

Liebau is not simply bemoaning the fact that it’s easier, and more socially acceptable, for young girls to be sexually active, but also that adult women dare to act this way as well.

…She makes the same tired mistake that so many do, assuming that “sexual freedom” means living in a world where sex doesn’t matter, to anyone. Whether we call that “do-me” or “wham, bam, thank you, ma’am,” there is so much more to true sexual freedom. But in her world, you’re either in a committed, monogamous relationship, or out there screwing anything that moves.

While I’m not all that interested in reading this book (and am grateful to Rachel for doing so for me), I am interested in the chapter titled “Do-Me Feminists and Doom-Me Feminism,” if only for the sake of seeing how recent feminist history, once again, gets played.

For more on this exciting trend, of course, see Wendy Shalit’s Girls Gone Mild.

Sorry. Couldn’t resist, after that last post about Glamocracy. It’s just too much fun, the neologisms this season.

Following on that last one, on the historical memory side of things, here’s another Carol weighing in today–Caryl, actually, over at Women’s eNews. Caryl Rivers advises Hillary at this point in her campaign (when the inevitable no longer is) to remember JFK:

People worried that, as the first Catholic president, he’d build a tunnel to the Vatican.

You face the concern that, as a female, you will either collapse in a crisis (the weak woman myth) or run roughshod over everyone (the dragon lady myth). Either way, you can’t be trusted with power.

…[P]lay the “change” card. Don’t let your critics get away with saying you echo the past, and represent the establishment. What would be a bigger change than the first female president in history? Your instinct is to be bold; remember, as a Wellesley student you challenged Sen. Ed Brooke–who had become a hawk on Vietnam–to his face and told him he was dead wrong about that war.

Sometimes, forget the lawyer part of you and channel the young rebel.

Another thing: Ignore the well-meaning advice of your sisters who say you are not feminist enough. We’d all love for the first female president to be Gloria Steinem, Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Alice Paul all rolled up into one. It’s not going to happen. Maybe someday, but not now.

No “first president” emerges from identity politics. JFK was as far from the familiar Irish Catholic pol as he could get; he talked Harvard and dressed Brahmin.

It’s not surprising that the first black candidate who is seen as having a real chance, Barak Obama, does not come from civil rights struggles but is seen as transcending race. His father was from Africa, not Selma. Let your feminism emerge in those policy initiatives you support after you get elected.

You don’t need to croon “I am woman, hear me roar.” At least, not yet.

Thoughts?

As those who know me know, I’m all for the innovative intersection of politics and glam, if it helps engage more women in a worthy cause. Like voting. And campaigning. And just the other week, Glamour magazine launched a blog with promise: Glamocracy.

As Broadsheet’s Carol Lloyd notes, “it’s a clever move when an estimated 25 percent of the voters are 18-29 and an increasing number of those younger voters are actively following the presidential elections.” Here’s Lloyd’s assessment:

The idea behind Glamocracy is simple but deft. Five women from different backgrounds (but all within the youngish Glamour demographic) blog weekly on the 2008 elections. Amanda Carpenter, a 25-year-old reporter for conservative Web site TownHall.com, and Asma Hasan, a 33-year-old Muslim-American who describes herself as a moderate and currently registered Republican, fill out the right flank, while Fernanda Diaz, a student from Columbia University and first-time voter, and Caille Millner, a 28-year-old African-American editorialist for the San Francisco Chronicle and unabashed Barack Obama booster, make up the left. Only Rebecca Roberts, a 37-year-old journalist (and daughter of pundit Cokie Roberts), claims journalist’s license and resists showing her political undergarments….Diaz’s post — about the candidates acting as if the youngest voters are “exotic animals” requiring full-time youth-outreach specialists and MTV-style events while regularly ignoring the international issues — taught me something I didn’t know. As might be expected, though, there’s plenty about candidates’ wives and daughters. So far, mercifully, there’s not a single fashion do or don’t.

Personally, I think it’s brilliant. I’ll look forward to watching it maintain its integrity, which, with these five writers behind it, should not be hard to do. They’re off to a great start.

As a follow up to Courseconnections’s comment the other day here about a correlation between the rise in teenage pregnancy and the Bush administration’s support of abstinence-only education, here’s Cynthia Tucker of The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, reminding us that the recent rise in teen births stands in stark contrast to more than a decade of decline:

[T]hat stunning drop was by no means mere coincidence. Activists and community volunteers who genuinely wanted to curb adolescent pregnancy — as opposed to those who just wanted to rail against abortion and inflict their rigid moral codes on others — worked hard to find programs that actually worked. They formed clubs for teen girls. They wrote scripts for role-playing, teaching teenagers how to say “no” to sex. (Those activists, too, believe in abstinence, but they’re not naive about its utility.)

High school teachers assigned homework in which students spent a week caring for crying, fidgeting, diaper-wetting baby dolls, so adolescents would learn how difficult and demanding infants can be. They handed out contraceptives, including Depo-Provera, an injection that proved effective with teenaged girls who were unlikely to remember daily pills.

Through the 1990s, that overlapping network of programs was supported and partially funded by the Clinton White House, which believed in a pragmatic response to social problems. While President Clinton supported a woman’s right to choose, he also said abortions should be “safe, legal and rare.” The same pragmatism brought federal support for crime prevention efforts, including federal funds for hiring police officers.

By contrast, the Bush White House has turned back to a conservative ideology that mocks government as the source of problems — unless taxpayer funds can be used to further far-right objectives. So Depo-Provera is out, but abstinence pledges are in.

Maybe it’s just coincidence that more adolescent girls are having babies. More likely, it’s the inevitable result of a raft of foolish policies.

I’ll say. A raft that sure don’t float.

One of the places I’m headed for Women’s History Month this March is Kansas City! I’m particularly excited, because the only other time I was in Missouri was in grade school, when my class drove down from Illinois to check out the haunts of Mark Twain. I can’t wait to go back, as a grown up (well, sort of) and see the place for real.

Here’s a description of what I’ll be doing there this time:

“In this talk, Deborah Siegel, author of Sisterhood, Interrupted: From Radical Women to Grrls Gone Wild, takes a fresh look at the fights and frenzies around U.S. feminism across four decades. From WITCH (Women’s International Terrorist Conspiracy from Hell) to Bitch magazine, much has changed in the world of feminism, its rhetorics, and its fights. But far more has stayed the same. Women young and old sometimes lose sight of how and why, or fail to see each other as engaged in the same larger battle. Instead, we are left fighting ourselves. Siegel reaches across the generational divide to show how younger women are both reliving the battles of feminism’s past, and reinventing it – with a vengeance.”

I wonder what Becky Thatcher would have to say about it all….

Next semester, instead of doing a webinar (or bloginar, rather), I am taking the “Making It Pop: Translating Your Research for Trade” workshop on the road. Here’s the description, which I’m happy to email to folks interested in passing it along to their departments or organizations as an attachment:

“Making It Pop: Translating Your Research for Trade,”
with author/blogger/journalist Deborah Siegel, PhD

Are you an academically-inclined writer who wishes to extend your reach? A researcher who longs to write something other than tenure reviews and grant proposals? A scholar who dreams of publishing a popular (“trade”) book, a magazine article, or even an op-ed? You’re not alone.

Too often, in addition to the standard institutional obstacles, academically-trained writers encounter obstacles to writing for popular audiences for which they are unprepared. To write for popular media in a competitive publishing climate, you must be able to craft engaging, accessible, non-technical prose that appeals to an audience far outside your area of expertise. These skills can be learned.

The Making It Pop Workshop takes the Making It Pop Webinar on the road. This 2-3 hour on-site workshop is designed to help researchers, scholars, and policy “wonks” bridge the translation gap and is tailored to meet participants’ needs. Participants are encouraged to come with ideas for research- or policy-based stories they aspire to turn into books and/or articles for hands-on workshopping.

Each workshop covers:
• Techniques for de-jargonizing and enlivening your prose
• Common pitfalls academic writers make when trying to write for popular audiences
• Why “making it pop” does not mean “dumbing it down” or “selling out,” and how to deal with institutional scorn

Tailored Options (each workshop can cover 1-2):

A. Writing a Book Proposal That Sells
• The difference between a book proposal for an academic press and a trade (or commercial) press
• How to know whether your book idea has commercial potential
• What’s entailed in rewriting a dissertation into a trade book
• The elements of a strong book proposal
• The importance of narrative, and what else editors look for
• The role of an agent

B. Publishing Shorter Pieces
• Genres for shorter writings (features, profiles, op-eds)
• How to submit pitches to newspapers and magazines
• How to work with a newspaper or magazine editor

C. Of Books and Blogs
• How to start a blog and/or participate in a blog community as a way to create a platform for your book
• Other ways to use the Internet to help promote your book

See what past participants have said about the workshop here. For additional information or to book, please contact Taryn Kutujian at taryn.kutujian@gmail.com.

Turns out spending a day sick in bed is a great way to catch up with websurfing. Here’s a little treat I came across from Mediabistro. It’s a video called “The Secrets of Book Publishing,” in which editors from Knopf, HarperCollins, Random House, and The New York Times Book Review join agents Henry Dunow and Gail Hochman to discuss the secrets behind books publishing. Moderated by author Susan Shapiro.

Enjoy!

I’m sick as a dog today, lying in bed with the covers pulled up to my nose (and my loyal cat at my feet). Can’t quite put a sentence together, so thought I’d just share a few quick links, following on yesterday’s post.

The Evolution of Dad Project weighs in on the Daddy Wars, noting, “The conflict isn’t being perceived between Traditional Dads and the Stay-At-Home Dads (which would be obvious manufactured companion to the ‘Mommy Wars’) but between dads who desire to have more of a work/family balance and their bosses, who are more typically dads themselves at a slightly older age and bred more on being more of a dedicated breadwinner.”

And the BBC reports on new research from the Institute for Social and Economic Research finds that mothers who work outside the home are happier than SAHMs, via Broadsheet

I hear cannons booming. Or maybe that’s just my head?

I love this piece by Stephanie Armour appearing in USA Today last week, right down to its title: “Workplace Tensions Rise as Dads Seek Family Time.” A synopsis:

Todd Scott leaves his job every day at 5 p.m. to be with his family – and even then feels guilty he isn’t spending enough time with Hunter, 4, and Anna, 1. By contrast, Scott’s boss, Steve Himmelrich, who has two children and is a more traditional-style dad, spends long days, free time and some weekends at the office. Both acknowledge these differing choices have been a source of tension between them. Their situation reflects the conflicts that are becoming increasingly common in workplaces across the nation, as fathers press for more family time and something other than a traditional career path. Dads are demanding paternity leave, flexible work schedules, telecommuting and other new benefits. They’ve also prompted several Fortune 500 companies to begin pitching such family-friendly benefits to men – and inspired a new wave of workplace discrimination complaints filed by dads.

The article cites a survey by Monster that found nearly 70% of fathers surveyed reporting that they would consider being a stay-at-home parent if money were no object. And–are you sitting down?–“the survey also found that working dads are increasingly tapping into benefits that until just a few years ago were used almost exclusively by mothers: 71% of fathers with a child under age 5 took paternity leave when it was offered by their employer.” This goes counter to what I’ve heard from researchers. Help me out here. Is this good news true?! (If it is, count me in for a happy dance.)

Analysts attribute the change to generation. Today’s fathers in their 20s and 30s don’t typically adhere to the philosophies or career tracks followed by previous generations. To wit:

For generations, “Fathers have defined success as big cars, big salaries, big homes. But dads now define success as a good relationship with their children and spouse,” says Armin Brott of Fathers At Work, an Oakland-based business that specializes in helping men find a balance between work and family. “It’s really a generational change, but it’s hard,” Brott says. “There’s tension, and there’s this sense out there that careers will suffer.”

Clearly, that sense needs to be corrected with some data. My dream is that organizations like Catalyst will soon be taking this on. Sounds like Fathers at Work is already on it. Their tagline is “Transforming Job-Family Conflict into Competitive Advantage.” And they offer companies workshops called “Balancing Father Stress and Professional Success.” I can’t wait to interview these guys for my next book.