What has been especially interesting in the furor over the New Yorker cartoon (I’m sure we’ve all seen it by now–nonetheless, helpful clip to the left) is that the main focus has been on Barack Obama’s image as a Muslim terrorist and not on his wife. In some ways, this is unsurprising. After all, there’s a history of the “Obama-Osama” slip-ups–though “slip-up” gives Fox News too much credit–and he is the presidential candidate. Nonetheless, and maybe because I’ve felt already inundated with the Obama imagery, the cartoon of Michelle Obama shocked me much more. As Sophia A. Nelson writes in a superb article in the Washington Post today, the New Yorker satires an “Angela-Davis-Afro-wearing, machine-gun-toting, angry, unpatriotic Michelle Obama.” I use the word satire, because clearly it is meant to be one. At the same time, the New Yorker was willfully obtuse on this one. No virgin voyagers on the high media seas, the meta-New Yorker must have known how images can be misconstrued and used to deepen prejudice. (Just take a look at this report from Media Matters on reactions from conservative WorldNetDaily readers.)

But the Michelle Obama cartoon seemed a much more egregious satire to me. Besides a “terrorist fist bump” here and an “unpatriotic” there, I have never seen Michelle Obama painted in such a way that so clearly undermines the strong, professional, intellectual image she has maintained throughout the campaign. As Nelson points out in her article:

“Sad to say, but what Obama has undergone, though it’s on a national stage and on a much more prominent scale, is nothing new to professional African American women. We endure this type of labeling all the time. We’re endlessly familiar with the problem Michelle Obama is confronting — being looked at, as black women, through a different lens from our white counterparts, who are portrayed as kinder, gentler souls who somehow deserve to be loved and valued more than we do. So many of us are hoping that Michelle — as an elegant and elusive combination of successful career woman, supportive wife and loving mother — can change that.”

This is clearly an issue for the feminist blogger world. So here are my questions:
1. Which image were you more shocked by?
2. Do you feel that the feminist and race implications of the Michelle Obama image have been underreported?

– Kristen

Crossposted at Transitioning

Image Credit

Hi everybody, Kristen Loveland (of Transitioning, formerly called The Choice) here helping to fill in for Deborah a bit over the next two weeks with some cross-posts. It’s always best to start your week off with a little contemplation about how much those pesky, pervasive, much-(statistically)-vaunted “sex differences” between men and women hold water beyond the oversimplified pop study and advertising board room (let’s all take a minute to painfully remember Mel “sugartits” Gibson’s What Women Want movie). In a brilliant move over at Slate, Amanda Schaffer and Emily Bazelon take on the latest literature by the “sex difference evangelists” in a six-part series (click through to read them all and thanks to Daphne Uviller for sending this over!) Looking at everything from language to empathy to hormones to Larry Summers, they ask why there is so much focus on the Mars/Venus dichotomy, and so little on the many variables within a gender. And most happily, instead of taking all the stats and studies at face value, they dig into these researchers’ findings beyond the intro paragraphs.

For instance, they get to the bottom of how significant the difference in empathy is between men and women, noting that by 1987 sex differences were actually only “comparable to the difference in average height between 15- and 16-year-old girls, “though this didn’t stop psychologist Susan Pinker to use these studies to argue “that women have a powerful ’empathy advantage.'” But most significantly, and something I always try to keep in mind when the New York Times flashes the latest stats across its front page, Schaffer and Bazelon point out:

“Of course, what people say about themselves on questionnaires tells a limited story in any case. Psychologist Nancy Eisenberg made this point most dramatically in the 1980s, when she demonstrated that the empathy gap, which appeared in studies that relied on self-reporting, all but vanished when other measures like physiological responses or changes in facial expression were considered. Men and women differ in ‘how empathetic they would like to appear to others (and, perhaps, to themselves),’ she wrote—and that’s not the same thing as real underlying sex differences in empathy.”

Any weekend spent with my sister (my complete opposite in countless ways) very clearly brings the differences within gender home to me. This weekend, this very neatly played out in our contradictory reaction to the very advertising and consumer campaigns that target those so-called differences. Lacking soap, I very naturally picked up my brother’s Old Spice “Vitality” body wash to use. It smelled quite nice, I thought, though I’ll wait for the day when a “woman’s” body wash is tagged as the dynamic “Vitality” as opposed to “soothing,” “calming,” or the it’s-hard-being-a-woman “re-energizing.” As soon as I ran down stairs, feeling quite vital, thank you very much, I was subject to a very big sisterly campaign of: “I can’t believe you just used man-wash. You smell like a man now. Who uses man wash?” Clearly, it was not something she would have even contemplated. Even in our decisions as to how much we will abide by the consumer-minded gender roles, the reactions are variegated, dare we even say, unexpected.

Image Credit

Claire Mysko here, reporting from the BlogHer ’08 conference! My first session today is on political commentary with Jennifer Pozner of Women in Media and News and Catherine Orenstein of the Op-Ed Project.

Jennifer opened the session with this question: How many of you have engaged with media outside of your blogs? Most people in the room raised their hands, but those who didn’t said they haven’t engaged because they are nervous about putting themselves “out there” and exposing themselves in their communities especially when it comes to politics. Jennifer made the point that as women, we must be willing to engage in a competitive landscape. The media landscape does not look the way we want it to. Women are marginalized and “hard news” is still seen as the realm of men (white, privileged men for the most part).

Jennifer gets tons of hate mail after her TV commentary. Perhaps not so surprising (but still pretty depressing), most of those comments are usually about her physical appearance and almost never about what she actually said.

The more popular your blog is, the more likely it is that mainstream media outlets will come to you. When you get that call, you have to be prepared. Jennifer mentioned the brother-in-law test. If you can get your brother-in-law to understand your point and frame your argument in a way that he gets it, you’ll know that you are better prepared to address a broad audience beyond your niche.

Catherine Orenstein posed five questions:
1. what is credibility?
2. how do you create an argument that is a contribution?
3. What is the difference between being right and being effective?
4. how can you see what you care about as part of a bigger picture?
5. how can you see your knowledge and experience in terms of its value to others?

Some stats: 85% percent of op-eds are dominated by men, 84% of political pundits are men, 84% of Hollywood producers are male, 84% of Congress are male. Get the picture?

Plenty of women are blogging, but not in the places where it has the most influence. One out of 20 political bloggers are women. Sadly, these numbers convey the idea that women’s voices don’t matter and that women aren’t leaders.

Three things happened when Catherine published her first op-ed: She got a book deal, she was went on national television, and she was invited to speak with a Clinton adviser. In other words, there are incredible opportunities presented to those who do put themselves out there. If you’re not writing your own story, someone else will. And probably not in the way you would tell it.

Public conversations are happening in an echo chamber. Catherine compares this to what happens in the movie Being John Malkovich when John Malkovich goes through the John Malkovich tunnel. That’s what public debate looks like these days.

Women don’t submit op-eds. Shouldn’t we all be projecting our opinions into the prominent forums? So here are Catherine’s thoughts on some of those questions.

What is credibility: Accountability to knowledge. What are you an expert in and why?
Creating contribution: What would be valuable? What’s the evidence (statistics, quotes, news information, research).
What’s the difference between being right and being effective: She shared a letter she received after she wrote an ope-ed that was critical of Sex & the City. “It’s Sex & the City, not Jobs & the City,” the writer pointed out. “Your version: Boring.” Catherine realized that she had alienated a large portion of the audience she wanted to reach. What she learned is that before she concludes an argument, she needs to put herself in the shoes of someone who disagrees with her. Remember two words: empathy and respect. Assume that the other party is both intelligent and moral.

This content is cross posted at 5 Resolutions.

Heads up over here about another guest poster coming to you next week, one who I am thrilled (THRILLED!) to announce will be contributing regularly here at GWP with a column featuring reviews of newly released books, called “Off the Shelf.”

Elline Lipkin (pictured left) is a poet and nonfiction writer. Her first book, The Errant Thread, was chosen by Eavan Boland to receive the Kore Press First Book Award and was published in 2006. She is currently working on a book about girls for Seal Press and will be a Visiting Scholar with the Center for Research on Women at UCLA in the fall. She recently taught at UC Berkeley where she was a Postdoctoral Scholar with the Beatrice Bain Research Group.

Watch for Elline’s review next week of Pamela Paul’s latest,
Parenting, Inc, a book that investigates “the whirligig of marketing hype, peer pressure, and easy consumerism that spins parents into purchasing overpriced products and raising overprotected, overstimulated, and over-provided-for children.” Parents, yes, and especially, perhaps, mothers.

And with that, I am signing off for reals–to go get married!!!

I am so very proud of a writer named Michael Heller today. Check out this review by Tim Wu in Slate:

The last decade has produced enough books challenging received wisdom to fill a small—and stupendously popular—library called the Compendium of Counterintuition. Here we find Malcolm Gladwell’s Blink, which teaches that snap judgments are sometimes more accurate than studied observation. James Surowiecki’s The Wisdom of Crowds, almost a companion volume, argues that a bunch of random idiots can sometimes do better than experts. Chris Anderson’s The Long Tail makes the point that selling unpopular stuff can be a way to make lots of money.

The newest addition to the collection is Michael Heller’s The Gridlock Economy, which does for property rights what the Long Tail does for product marketing. The difference is that Heller, unlike most of the authors of counterintuitive books, is actually a leader in the academic field he is scrutinizing. As one of the nation’s leading property theorists, he has accomplished a feat. In an area that has generated very few nonacademic books, Heller has managed to pull off one of the most perceptive popular books on property since Das Kapital.

The review is titled “Move Over, Marx.” And the book’s author is not just any ole ex. He’s my ex-husband.

Michael worked enormously hard, I know, writing this book, and I am just kvelling over here to see him receive laurels so richly deserved. I’m looking forward to reading the book, and I urge folks to check it out.

Congratulations, Professor Heller. You are the best first husband, ever! I wish you all the joys in the world.

Last weekend’s nonfiction writers retreat at the Woodhull house in Ancramdale was very energizing, and I wanted to send a shout out to all the participants (hi Lara! hi May! hi Leeat!). I absolutely loved working with everyone. And here’s info on the next one:

Raise Your Voice
The Woodhull Institute Prepares Women to Be Leaders on the Page

Women are underrepresented as nonfiction authors and opinion writers. In a long weekend of writing instruction and one-on-one critique from expert instructors Kristen Kemp, Catherine Orenstein, and Deborah Siegel, participants gain fundamental knowledge of Op-ed pieces, features, book proposals, and pitching ideas.

When/Where: September 5-7, 2008 (Ancramdale, NY)

Early Registration: $455

Regular Registration: $495*

Learn more and register today! Substantial discounts are available to alumnae and members.

Argh – I didn’t make it here today. But heads up on some FABULOUS guest posting about to come our way from Claire Mysko who will be live blogging from BlogHer, and Gloria Feldt and Kristen Loveland and others who will be crossposting and guest posting galore! I’m off tomorrow and will do my best to post a “g’bye” here before I go. Til then…

Three quick hits this afternoon (courtesy Rebekah Spicuglia) regarding new info about women’s health here and abroad:

Saving Mothers, One at a Time
7/15/08
NY Times: According to a 2007 study of global maternal mortality rates, more than two-thirds of deaths among Malawian women of reproductive age are linked to pregnancy or childbirth – a larger proportion than in any of the 171 countries in the study.

Teen Sexual Behavior Does Not Predict HPV Risk
7/16/08
RHRealityCheck.org: A teen’s sexual activity doesn’t predict her future risk for HPV, and shouldn’t determine whether she receives the HPV vaccine, according to University of Michigan researchers. HPV, genital human papillomavirus, is the most common sexually transmitted infection, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Study Questions Breast Self-Exams
7/15/08
Boston Globe: Although most women are told to examine their breasts every month for lumps, new research confirms that the practice – on its own – may do more harm than good. Self exams, and those by healthcare providers, actually produce an increase in benign biopsies, but don’t get the patient into treatment earlier or save her life.

(Image is from Women’s Health 2009: The 17th Annual Congress)

A hearty congratulations to the members of the Final 2008 Class of Progressive Women’s Voices! The new participants will join us (we?) alumna of the program to ensure that women are visible and powerful in the media. Tidbits from the press release:

Launched in January of this year, Progressive Women’s Voices has provided 33 women from a variety of fields with intensive media training and ongoing support to promote their perspective and message into the national dialogue. Since the program began, the Women’s Media Center has already had an impact at the highest levels of the media. Participants have appeared on such media outlets as CNN and CBS Evening News, been quoted by The New York Times and San Francisco Chronicle, placed op-eds in national papers including the Washington Post, and blogged about issues from the economy to race.

“You can’t change the lopsided numbers of women working at top levels overnight,” said Carol Jenkins, president of The Women’s Media Center. “That’s why we created this year-long, intensive program that includes briefings from experts, conversations with media professionals, pairing with mentors-as well as pitching to media outlets. The women get on-camera and op-ed writing training, and constant feedback. They have a support system, and it shows.”

Participants in the third training class include authors, policy leaders and journalists – 11 women whose diverse backgrounds reflect the diversity of women’s experiences in the United States. They join 22 current participants, forming a stable of progressive women who will add their voices to the national conversation in areas of economics, politics, health care, immigration, women’s rights, workplace policy, and other important issues. The program is funded primarily by a generous grant from the NoVo Foundation and with additional support from the UN Foundation and other supporters.

A personal shout out to Veronica Arreola and Alissa Quart. For a full list of participants in the third class, click here.

Forgive me, GWP readers, for silence yesterday! Unprecedented, and I feel like a total delinquent. I promise to be back here today 🙂

And thank you to those who proposed guest posts for next week! I will get back to everyone today.