We know that men dominate the op-ed pages, left and right. (My friend Catherine Orenstein is doing much to counter that.) But you would think that in a new media mode, like the video opinion site Bloggingheads.tv, and the related feature at the New York Times online, there might be an effort to correct the imbalance from the start. Right? Wrong. I just did a count and only 3 of the 20 bloggingheads debating issues of the day at the New York Times online are women. And there’s nary a woman on Bloggingheads.tv homepage. I don’t know how the heads are chosen, but come on. Can’t we do a little better?

For those of you unfamiliar with this new opinion format–and for the female among you who are ready to step up and offer yourself up to Bloggingheads.tv–here are some samples:

Battleship Hillary
Is Rudy Creepy?

I am inwardly jumping up and down with excitement at this news: feministing has won the Bloggers Choice Award for Best Political Blog–by a landslide! As the gals over there might say, hells yeah! Angryharry came in second, and DailyKos came in third.

My heartfelt congrats–and kudos!–to Jessica, Ann, Vanessa, Samhita, Courtney, and everyone else who works so hard to make feministing the sassy, savvy, edgy, witty, informative, provocative, intelligent blog that it is. And do check out the very prolific Jessica Valenti’s new book, already available for pre-order, here.

Just wanted to gush for a moment about the participants in my current “Making It Pop: Translating Your Ideas for Trade” class. I’m jazzed by the book projects they’re working on, and last night we had Seal Press managing editor Laura Mazer as our guest via conference call, fielding their questions. She was, as always terrific, and I definitely learned a thing or two (or ten) myself.

Meanwhile, I thought I’d start sharing here some of the “advice” that my guests and I are dishing out on the private group blog I’ve established for participants of the course, in the hope that it might be helpful to others of you out there. For what it’s worth!

A few participants asked me the question the other week, “What if I get scooped?” Meaning, what if you find out, as you’re working on your book proposal, that someone else is coming out with a book that sounds frighteningly similar to yours. Here’s my response:

NO one else has your brain, your particular constellation of experience and perspective. So even if you hear of someone else writing about the very topic that has become your heart and soul, TRY not to let it get you down. It’s hard, I know. I learned this the hard way.

Let’s say, however, that you just learned through the grapevine about something in the works that feels way too similar to your vision. There are infinite ways to regroup. Say you were working on a proposal for a cultural history of single women, structured chronologically from the early 20th century-present, and you just heard about a book coming out called Bachelor Girl, that is already in galleys, and that follows, gulp, the very same structure. (This happened to me. My cousin knew the book’s editor.) Instead of folding up your tent in defeat–which is, ahem, exactly what I did–you could considering transforming your idea into an anthology. Or into a compilation of writings about singleness written by single women through the ages. Or you could ask to see a copy of the galley and find out what that other author is *not* covering and make that your jumping off point. There is never just one book that can be written on a subject. If the topic is worth one book, chances are it’s worth more.

Reviewers like to review books in twos and threes, so overlap sometimes works to your advantage, if the timing is right. Also, remember that a newspaper or magazine article is not the same as a book. Often, the journalist who writes a piece that’s close to your topic, or your perspective, can become your ally (and review your book later on!). Chances are, he or she is not already writing your book. Because your book is YOUR book. It’s you.

That said, there is, as they say, very little that’s truly new, under the sun. Much of what we write and think and teach is a continuation of what’s already out there. So the trick is to tap into your particular contribution–from the start. What perspective/experience/angle do you have, because of who you are, that others don’t? Answer that, and you will never, ever, be “scooped.”

Does anyone know of any? Do they exist? Someone recently asked me for a list, and I’m not sure where to look. Thanks for any tips out there!

…but can’t envision your next step?

Once again, something–or rather, someone–I’ve come upon who is too good not to share. Her name is Shari Cohen, and she’s the Principal at Intersections Resources, her coaching firm.

I know Shari through her work at Demos, where she currently heads up the Fellows program. Shari has been helping leaders (including thought leaders) solve problems more effectively for ten years and brings the depth of a political sociologist, the breadth of a scenario planner, and the insight of a coach and a teacher to her work coaching individuals and organizations. And let’s just say she “gets” academics who decide to leave academia. She has a Ph.D. from Berkeley in political science.

Shari has worked with individuals in international development, health, philanthropy, advocacy, market research, technology, and publishing. (Organizational clients include the World Bank, Charney Research, Demos, SHARE, and the Carnegie Corporation.)

If you’re wondering what it’s like to work with a career coach, do give her a shout at sjc@intersectionsresources.net. Shari is generously offering a 20-minute sample session and a special rate on her five session package to readers of Girl with Pen. (Just mention that you heard about her through this post.)

And speaking of the 1970s (I’m on a roll here with linking this week’s posts!), the median age of marriage for women in 1970 was 21; for men, 23. These days, according to the Census Bureau, the median age of marriage for women is just shy of 26; for men, 27. The age goes up with advanced degrees. So it comes as little surprise that more and more of us are meeting our matches (or mismatches as the case may be) on the job. A 2007 Careerbuilder survey reveals that almost half of all American workers will date a colleague at least once.

And this week, a new book called Office Mate hit the shelves. I know one of the authors, Helaine Olen, and she has a very feminist-y sensibility, so I’ll be interested to see how that comes through in the book. Read more on the subject (and a quote from Jessica Valenti) in this San Francisco Chronicle article by Helaine’s coauthor, Stephanie Losee.

And more on Office Mate here.

So this Saturday I spent some time at the Freedom on Our Terms conference, commemorating the 30th anniversary of the National Women’s Conference in Houston back in 1977. A few great quips from the afternoon plenary:

Rosie O’Donnell on the Bush Administration: “What they’re feeding you is McDonalds. It gives you diarrhea and ultimately it kills you.”

Rosie on Mos Def: “Mos Def said the best line on Bill Maher: ‘From Bush to Clinton to Bush to Clinton, they’re passing around the Presidency like a party joint.”

Rosie on the solution to it all: “Ingest art.”

Liz Holtzman on Bella Abzug in Congress: “They made her take her hat off, but they couldn’t shut her up.”

The spirit of Bella infused the afternoon. It was moving. The goal of the conference was to create “a 21st century agenda for action,” updating the planks from 1977. Two young women, Lala Wu and Kate Collier, coauthored a fabulous-looking document for the conference, called “The National Plan of Action: Then and Now.” It’s a great status report. Tons of younger women were in attendance. But I was frustrated by the lack of real intergenerational conversation during the bits that I saw.

It’s easy to be a critic, and I know how much goes into planning this kind of event. So hats off to the organizers, and I know that hearts are in absolutely the right place. But it bothered me that the line-up of younger women at the afternoon plenary were left with only a few minutes each to talk about their organizations, and that there was no time left for them to dialog amongst themselves, or with older feminists. The reason for the time crunch? From what I could tell, the movement veterans slated to speak–and there were many of them–had used up all the time and things were running late. But maybe there was another reason too? Maybe Rosie showed up late? (I came midway through her speech.) In any event, it was frustrating not to hear more from the young women on the stage at the end.

The media panel I went to, on the other hand, was fantastic–Laura Flanders, Emily McKahnn from The Motherhood, Sonia Ossioro (Pres. of NOW-NYC, which recently landed a media coup of their own), and Lauren Brill, a kick-ass young stringer for the WNBA. The room was so full, we were sitting on desks and window sills. The crowd spanned the ages, and the discussion could have gone on for hours. I kind of wish it had. I would have loved to have heard more from some of those in attendance–Shelby Knox was there! I’m looking forward to more of this kind of discussion at this year’s Women, Action, and the Media Conference, on March 28-30, at MIT.

(Photo cred. Check out this and some great photos from Houston 1977 here.)

Steven Heller has an interesting bit in the NYT Book Review on a new book that explains the 1960s to kids. Writes Heller,

“The ’60s are often portrayed now as a permissive, hedonistic moment when sex, drugs and rock ’n’ roll reigned supreme. Though all that is true, they were also an incredibly volatile period when youth culture challenged politics and society in ways that continue to exert influence. The decade was more than a mere freak show of baby-boomer rebels. It was a time when young people acted positively, as individuals and en masse, to redress a slew of grievances. So it’s about time that today’s kids were introduced to the period in a manner that is not simply a reprise of camp clichés.”

The titles under discussion are a new book version of Puff the Magic Dragon and a book called America Dreaming, by Laban Carrick Hill. Full disclosure: my not-quite-hippie parents sang me Peter, Paul, and Mary songs and I still remember every single word.

A new book by Laura Pappano and Eileen McDonagh, Playing With The Boys: Why Separate Is Not Equal, challenges the popular perception that since girls now play soccer, all is now equal when it comes to women and sports.

Says Pappano in an interview at the publisher’s website, “The biggest challenge is that women are often afraid to challenge the status quo for fear of losing what “progress” has been made. The problem is that we have codified a system of organized sports which places male athletes at the center and female athletes at the periphery.”

And what about Title IX?: “Title IX opened doors for females to play sports, but it opened sex-segregated doors, effectively limiting women’s athletics to second-class status. Title IX never demanded equality – only improvement – and it is not well-enforced and budgets for female sports dwarf spending on men’s sports, particularly football. Ticket prices for women’s events are lower than comparable men’s teams- even when a team (like the University of Tennessee Lady Vols basketball team) far outperforms its male counterpart on the national stage. Publicity, television and print exposure for men’s teams remain the primary focus of college sports offices. This is not fair, particularly at institutions receiving federal funds. We need a wholesale re-thinking of the way organized sports are structured and supported.”

(The pic is Zoe Fairlie, daughter of my bestie on the west coast, Rebecca London.)

Paul Raeburn had a great post the other week up at HuffPo on older dads on the campaign trail. Yep, Sen. Christopher Dodd, 63, has two daughters, age 6 and 2, with his second wife Jackie Clegg Dodd. And Sen. Fred Thompson of Tennessee, 65, has two toddlers with his second wife, Jeri Kehn.

What exactly do we read in these tea leaves?, asks Paul. First, that these two candidates mirror a demographic trend. Older fathers are on the rise. That’s not too surprising. But here’s the rub: the children of older fathers face particularly high risks of schizophrenia and autism. Drrr. On a personal level, I hate hearing that stuff. But do check out Paul’s post. Paul is a journalist who writes quite smartly about various permutations of contemporary fatherhood. I keep trying to get him to guest post here, and sense that one day soon, he will!

Also on the dad front, check out Judith Warner’s response to Charlie LeDuff’s essay in Men’s Vogue, which she titles“Daddy Wars,” and which begins like so:

“One of the more pleasant outcomes of the slowly growing trend toward highly involved fatherhood has been, I’ve found, the ability to plainly see that total ninnyishness is not a uniquely female thing.” Read more.

(Photo cred)