Susan Bee and Mira Schor, along with Emma Bee Bernstein (Susan’s daughter!), Carolee Schneemann, and Brynna Tucker will be on a March 30th Panel, 3:00 – 5:00 PM: “Beyond the Waves; Feminist Artists Talk Across Generations” at The Sackler Center for Feminist Art at the Brooklyn Museum. It’s free & open to the public (with museum entry fee).

Emma (pictured left) is the twentysomething photographer who has teamed up with Nona Willis-Aronowitz (pictured right) for GIRLDrive, a project which is SO worth checking out if you don’t know about it already.

For those who missed it, the following “letter” ran in The Nation on February 27, 2008:

Two days after the Texas debate between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, a group of old friends broke out the good china for a light breakfast of strong coffee, blueberry muffins and fresh-squeezed orange juice. We were there to hash out a split that threatened our friendship and the various movements with which we are affiliated. In some ways it was a kaffeeklatch like a million others across America early on a Saturday morning–but for the fact that this particular group included Gloria Steinem, a co-founder of the National Women’s Political Caucus; Beverly Guy-Sheftall, director of the Women’s Research and Resource Center at Spelman College; Johnnetta Cole, chair of the board of the JBC Global Diversity and Inclusion Institute; British-born radio journalist Laura Flanders; Kimberlé Crenshaw, professor of law at Columbia and UCLA; Carol Jenkins, head of the Women’s Media Center; Farah Griffin, professor of English and comparative literature at Columbia; Eleanor Smeal, president of the Feminist Majority; author Mab Segrest; Kenyan anthropologist Achola Pala Okeyo; management consultant and policy strategist Janet Dewart Bell; and Patricia Williams, Columbia law professor and Nation columnist.

It was a casual gathering, but one that settled down to business quickly. We were all progressives but diverse nonetheless. We differed in our opinions of whether to vote for Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama–our goal was not an endorsement. Rather, the concern that united us all was the “race-gender split” playing out nationally, in which the one is relentlessly pitted against the other. We did not want to see a repeat of the ugly history of the nineteenth century, when the failure of the women’s movement to bring about universal adult suffrage metastasized into racial resentment and rift that weakened feminism throughout much of the twentieth century.

How, we wondered, did a historic breakthrough moment for which we have all longed and worked hard, suddenly risk becoming marred by having to choose between “race cards” and “gender cards”? By petty competitiveness about who endures more slings and arrows? By media depictions of white women as the sole inheritors of the feminist movement and black men as the sole beneficiaries of the civil rights movement? By renderings of black women as having to split themselves right down the center with Solomon’s sword in order to vote for either candidate? What happened, we wondered, to the last four decades of discussion about tokenism and multiple identities and the complex intersections of race, gender, sexuality, ethnicity and class?

We all worried that the feminist movement’s real message is not being heard, and we thought about how to redirect attention to those coalitions that form the bedrock of feminist concern: that wide range of civil rights groups dedicated to fighting discrimination, domestic violence, the disruptions of war, international sex and labor trafficking, child poverty and a tattered economy that threatens to increase the number of homeless families significantly.

We thought of all that has happened in just seven short but disastrous years of the Bush Administration, and we asked: how might we position ourselves so we’re not fighting one another? Our issues are greater than any disagreement about either candidate. We all know that there is simply too much at stake.

….As we gathered up the empty plates, we recommitted ourselves to further joint discussions about how to attain that collective better future, however many early mornings, late nights and urns of coffee into the future that may take. We hope women across America will choose to do the same.

Read the full letter here.

Sigh. Yes. It’s a question many are starting to ask. In “Electing a Woman to the White House: Who’s on Deck?” NYTimes writer Susan Dominus notes that “There is…a good chance that if Mrs. Clinton falters, the feminist conversation will shift from what went wrong with her campaign to another pressing matter: who’s coming down the pipeline.”

Also of interest over there recently is an article titled “Mining the Gender Gap for Answers,” in which reporter Robin Toner concludes that answers are, well, few:

“Move beyond the tactical skirmishes in this campaign, and one of the most intriguing issues remains the influence of gender on Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton’s candidacy. The questions are fundamental and — even with modern polling technology — almost impossible to answer.”

Well, let’s see what the day brings. It’s sure to be an interesting one at that.

(Thanks to CCF for the reminder.)

From my dear friends over at the National Council for Research on Women comes this (cool graphic, ladies over there!):

Join Kimberle Crenshaw, Kim Gandy, Chandra Mohanty, Ellie Smeal and other leading scholars, researchers, advocates, and policy makers from across various disciplines and fields June 5-7, 2008 at the Kimmel Center at NYU for our Annual Conference. Share information and resources; learn about cutting edge and emerging research on women, gender, and girls; and strategize about ways to work across communities and fields of study.

This year’s conference themes will center around where women can have the most impact in the 2008 Presidential election and beyond, including research and policy issues that will need to be addressed with a new administration; challenges women in the academy confront—backlash, shrinking budgets, corporatization, conservative social pressures—and what can be done to counter them; and the implications of the intersections of race, class, gender, ethnicity, sexuality, nation, generation and other markers of difference for feminist scholarship, leadership, and activism, nationally and globally.

Early registration starts now. For more info, contact ncrw@ncrw.org

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!