The second class of PWV is well underway, and already I miss being a part. So yesterday I sat in–ok, lurked–on a Progressive Women’s Voices conference call with Janus Adams, the Emmy Award-winning author/historian, publisher/producer, creator of BackPax children’s media. Janus herself was one of four children selected to end de facto segregation in New York in the wake of Brown v. Board of Education. These days, in addition to hosting a talk show, she writes a weekly column, her latest one titled, “25 Books that Changed African-America–Book #4.” In case you’re wondering, Book 4 is Freedom’s Journal, a newspaper launched on March 16, 1827 by Samuel Cornish and John B. Russwurm. These two launched not only a newspaper, but the history of African-American journalism as well.

I’m just curious to know whose idea it was over at Washington University to grant Phyllis Schlafly an honorary degree. Genius. NOT! And hey, wait, Phyllis, what are you doing accepting an honorary doctorate when women are supposed to be barefoot in the kitchen? Um, hypocritical much?

Feministing weighs in here, and Katha Pollitt weighs in at The Nation. (Thanks, Va, for that heads up the other day. Oy.)

The brilliant Alissa Quart (of last month’s NYTimes mag spread on transgender youth fame) has a short piece up at Mother Jones about the new fertility-movie genre that’s definitely worth a read.

In “When Chick Flicks Get Knocked Up,” Alissa questions the happy ending substitute of baby love and emphasizes their conservative bent. She also notes that these “embryo pics” invert film themes of yore:

The prenatal pics don’t mean to irk their viewers, of course: they are simply are a corny replacement for the serrated romantic comedies of the 1940s, in which sparkling, independent female protagonists, sporting sharply tailored suits and sharper repartee, wound up getting their comeuppance in the form of a rake who could finally domesticate them. In fertility movies, the rake taming all female powerhouses is an infant. Worse, embryo pics have inverted another film theme. Women who once chose an unusual life path picked child-free independence—liberated Klutes or unmarried women. Now, conceiving of an infant without marriage or even love is the filmic symbol of independence. In this way, these films recast the “pro-choice” narrative of feminists’ personal and political past as a different, less politically dangerous sort of pro-choice story—a woman’s right to choose from a smorgasbord of late fertility options. Once, in the recent age of “Murphy Brown” having a baby as a single woman was the most rebellious and politically radical thing our heroine could ever do. Now becoming a single mom onscreen makes a film heroine more conventional.

Thoughts?!

David Crary, an AP reporter I admire and a winner of the 2008 Council on Contemporary Families Media Award, had a piece up at Yahoo news last week called “Feminists Sharply Divided Between Clinton, Obama” that is one of the few truly thoughtful pieces on the divides in a MSM venue I’ve seen. Thank you, David, for being interested in the issues and not in the alleged fur and claws.

You MUST check out this piece by the Women’s Media Center’s very own Rebekah Spicuglia (pictured here with her son Oscar), called “Mother’s Day, Observed.” Read it, absorb it, and then please, go make your mother proud.

Last night I went to one of those fabulous book parties that remind me why I love New York (and believe me, I needed the reminder; it had been a hectic week and this city often wears me down). The fabulousness was not the food (which was delicious) or the space (which was mind-blowing), but the people. It was fabulousness of a feminist variety.

The party was hosted by Gloria Steinem and in attendance were trailblazing women like Suzanne Braun Levine, Alix Cates Shulman, Joanne Edgar, Mia Herndon, and Amy’s longtime writing partner Jennifer Baumgardner, who beamed in the back as Amy was properly celebrated. I promise to share thoughts about Amy’s book Opting In: Having a Child without Losing Yourself which is why we were all there, of course, in another post very soon. But first let me just share that Gloria introduced Amy as “the smartest person I know.” If that isn’t a compliment, I don’t know what is.

Ok, hey, it’s Reader Appreciation Day over here at GWP 🙂 I decided to post Gryff’s comments too. Gryff is a Canadian (self-described “white male”) who urges me to put away the remorse and writes passionately about the historical moment. “Be part of the stuff that will be in school history textbooks – not just for whoever the nominee is – but the Democratic Party itself, and American Democracy,” he says. And here he is:

You, as a supporter of Hillary Clinton, and the supporters of Obama are doing something special for the Democratic Party. You are helping to break the ‘glass ceiling’ that has kept the preserve of the ‘most powerful politician in the world’ for white men only. You are helping to at least change the Democratic Party!

In a democracy, we all have a vote (age and citizenship restrictions aside). Some people don’t bother to vote – and in my view have no reason to complain if they don’t like the government they get.

Some vote, but kind of think that it ends there.

Others, like you, commit to a candidate. By going out and persuading, cajoling, converting peoples ideas etc., you end up with more than one vote! Each one you persuade is an extra vote — and they in turn might persuade someone too, perhaps a neighbour, a relative or a spouse.

You will see bitterness and nastiness in replies at the Guardian and elsewhere – that’s almost the nature of the internet.

Whenever I was doorknocking for a candidate and had the door slammed in my face, I would always remember those people who I managed to bring around to my candidate. The glass half full — as opposed to half empty 😉 Personal success for me was the number of extra votes I helped bring in.

I see from your blogs and website that you are a writer, speaker and consultant. Use those skills to go out and make sure that the ‘glass ceiling’ for President is smashed completely. Help open doors for women and people of colour …. because once they are open, more will follow them.

gryff 🙂

(A white male by the way.)

While I’m being ripped to shreds over at Comment Is Free (!) for my piece called “A Hillary Supporter’s Remorse,” I’m sharing a comment from Marjorie here on GWP in a post. I urge folks to check out what Gryff has to say in our comments too. I love it when there’s this kind of back-and-forth going on over here, and just wanted to thank both of them for their insights and thoughts. Here’s Marjorie, with an eloquent essay of her own:

I vowed way back in 1992 that, no matter where I lived in the world (at the time I thought I’d be living in Asia or Europe), if HRC decided to run for president, I’d drop everything and return to the US just to help out in her campaign.

As it turned out, I’m in Colorado and have devoted some of my weekly columns for the local paper on her campaign and credentials, not to mention donated some hard-earned cash to her campaign. However, as far as putting my life on hold to volunteer my heart out…er, let’s just say that that hasn’t happened yet.

I suck at fundraising (my own family turned down a request to donate $25 each to an awareness walk for a disease that I have), can’t stand the telephone, and literally break out in hives when I have to do any kind of public speaking. I can barely make it to my next door neighbor’s house without shaking in my shoes. In other words, I’m not the kind of campaign activist you want on your team. And yeah, I feel like I let HRC down, too.

I would love to see HRC win, but while I remain the eternal optimist, the numbers are not looking good. However, I appreciate the McCaskill quote you referenced in your article. Hillary’s a big girl, she can handle her own campaign and will step down from it when she’s good and ready. At this time I still think she’s the best candidate and always will, and apparently millions of others feel the same way. If nothing else, I appreciate that HRC seems to understand the loyalty and passion her supporters feel for her and the responsibility that entails. To retreat now — even if that would seem to be the logical choice — would be an awful blow to those who worked so hard on her behalf.

I think that, for her as well as for myself and countless others, this election is about more than just a call for “change.” What bothered me about the 2004 election (and why I didn’t vote for Kerry but for Nader instead) is because I felt that the Democratic theme seemed to be, “It’s better than the alternative.” There didn’t seem to be a really strong push to field a worthy candidate, just a half-assed attempt to throw any warm body into the ring as an alternative to Bush.

Now, though, not only do we have two strong candidates, but they’re both non-traditional ones. Now that we have an election worth bothering about, it’s actually become personal, far more than any election I’ve ever witnessed in my lifetime (I’m 36). Suddenly, I’m seeing my hero, a woman I’ve admired for 16 years, whose life and accomplishments I’ve followed for just as long, on the verge of literally becoming the leader of the freakin’ world.

For that reason alone, I think that even if you’ve worked in politics in the past, I can only imagine that losing now would be even more difficult simply because we had a chance to make history…and failed. This isn’t about a Democrat winning anymore, but a woman actually winning the White House, something a lot of us didn’t think we’d see for decades.

By the way, I would be very surprised if Obama extended the olive branch and offered Clinton the VP-ship, and even more so if Clinton accepted it. Maybe I’m just projecting my own profound disappointment, but I can’t imagine that happening after the exhausting bitterness of the last few months. And quite frankly, that would hurt like hell.

Cheers,
Marjorie

I’m sad. The Woodhull writers’ retreat where I was to teach this weekend has been canceled, due to power outage up at the house (don’t worry — this doesn’t happen often). So here I am in this crazy city, trying to quiet my mind and regroup. All of which reminds me that I’ve long been wanting to do a post on Kimberley Wilson, the Hip Tranquil Yoga Chick herself.

I met Kimberley up at the Woodhull house last year and was quite taken by her calm–and her style. A few years back she came out with a book, called guess what, Hip Tranquil Chick: A Guide to Life On and Off the Yoga Mat. She’s also created an impressive hip and tranquil empire — the Tranquil Space Yoga studio in Washington DC, the Tranquil Space Foundation (which assists young girls with finding their inner voice), podcasts, a blog, a column, charity soirees, and a clothing line. Her website, as Marci reminds me in comments this week, is an excellent example of “platform” and pulls everything together well.

You know, I’m always interested in what authors write in books when they’re asked to sign them. I’ve seen “With lots of feminist love,” ” “In sisterhood, uninterrupted” (guess who), and “Blessings.” Kimberley signed the copy she sent me, “Keep shining.” But my favorite thing of all about the Shine Girl is this: She describes herself as “a self-diagnosed bibliophile whose heart begins to race when she enters a bookstore,” and “a teacher, designer, speaker, activist, and entrepreneur, with a master’s degree in women’s studies.“

If you’re jonesing for a taste of some of this hip tranquilty, or some tips for a mindfully extravagant life, you can catch Kimberley teaching a week long yoga course at the Omega Institute on June 1-5.

So what’s the moral of the story here. Let’s see. When one retreat closes, another one opens? Hmm. There’s another Woodhull nonfiction writers retreat I’ll be teaching at 0n July 11-13, too.

A piece I wrote for Comment Is Free over at The Guardian is now live: “A Hillary Supporter’s Remorse.” Is anyone out there feeling the same? Please feel free to weigh in, there or here. (And thank you to Gryff for your awesome comments below! You motivate me.)