A beautiful remembrance of a beautiful person, by Jennifer Baumgardner. Barbara’s loss will be deeply, deeply felt.

Following on the heels of oppression olympics comes a spin with far more freshness–and potential gender bendery? I’m talking, of course, about the way that Obama is now being tongue-in-cheek referred to as a female candidate for president in the same way that Bill Clinton was talked about as the first black president. Check out Newsweek’s piece, “The First Woman President?” for the latest iteration, by Martin Linsky, co-founder of Cambridge Leadership Associates and a faculty member at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government. As Linsky notes:

[Obama] is pushing against conventional—and political party nominating convention—wisdom in five important ways, with approaches that are usually thought of as qualities and values that women bring to organizational life: a commitment to inclusiveness in problem solving, deep optimism, modesty about knowing all the answers, the courage to deliver uncomfortable news, not taking on all the work alone, and a willingness to air dirty linen. Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, is taking a more traditional (and male?) authoritarian approach.

…As a woman, Clinton feels constrained to portray herself as tough, competitive, willing to take on the bad guys. She has to be more male than men, in the same way that women are reluctant to leave the office early to pick up their children at day care because they fear they will not be thought of as serious about their careers, while men are applauded for doing so.

Obama can raise possibilities that are off the table for Clinton. She needs to tell us that she can solve our problems. Obama seems comfortable in what we think of as a female role: not overpromising what he can accomplish, and telling us that the work of change is ours as much as it is his.

What do the women’s leadership research gurus out there think of the way all this is being framed? (Paging my girls at Catalyst! See also comments by rhetoric scholar J.K. Gayle on previous posts.)

Again, kudos to feministingfor the heads up. Image cred.

As feministing notes, the media portrayal of the black man vs. white woman thing is oppression olympics defined. Note the graphic in this article oh-so-subtley titled “Black Man Vs. White Woman” appearing recently in The Boston Globe. Urrgghh.

For a more interesting take on identity politics in this election, check out the brilliant Ann Friedman’s latest over at The American Prospect, in which she notes that just because the Democratic candidates are a woman and black man does not mean this is the first election to hinge on candidates’ identities. Identity isn’t the problem, pretending it doesn’t matter is.

(Thanks to Court for the heads up.)

So China’s vice minister of the National Population and Family Planning Commission has ‘fessed up that the nation’s one-child policy doesn’t seem to be working so well. We are SO not surprised. Interestingly, all this comes as China is trying to soften its human rights image as Beijing prepares to play host to the Olympics in August. As reported in the New York Times (“China to Reconsider One-Child Limit”) this morning:

China’s fertility rate is now extremely low, and the population is rapidly aging, especially in urban areas. Experts have warned that China is steadily moving toward a demographic crisis with too many old people in need of expensive services and too few young workers paying taxes to meet those bills.

Good riddance to the policy, I say. Because here’s some backstory:

In the 1980s, officials routinely forced women to abort fetuses that would have resulted in above-quota births, and both men and women were often forced to undergo sterilization operations.

Enforcement of the policy has softened markedly in recent years, with most areas relying on fines to ensure compliance. But scandals over forced abortions continue to arise periodically. The restrictions also have deepened a severe imbalance in the ratio of boys to girls in the population because many families have used selective abortions to ensure the birth of a son, the traditional preference.

‘Nuf said.

Not that I’m anti-having-an-only-child, of course! I, for one, very likely will, having found love late in life as I have, and I think an only sounds great! And China, of course, is just a very roundabout way to refer to Only Child: Writers on the Singular Joys and Solitary Sorrows of Growing Up Solo the anthology, which is jumping the numbers on Amazon again now that it’s out in paperback–whohoo! My coeditor Daphne and I got together yesterday to do a little happy dance. Though she fell asleep in the cafe. She’s 7 months pregnant with #2.

Image cred

As folks who know me know, I’m endlessly fascinated with the intergenerational divide among women going on around this election. And I’ve come to feel like those my age occupy an odd place here on the cusp of 40. Many of the polls show the cut-off for Hillary vs. Obama support among women voters as being age 40. We all know that cut-off numbers are often random but convenient divisors, false but convenient truths. Still, I can’t help but wonder, does my earlier waffling reflect some kind of generational fence-sitting?

It comes as no surprise that women born at different times in history are going to differ in their attitudes across the board–though the realization does seem to be news for some. In the history of feminism, generational differences has been a central theme for decades. Think back to the 1970s: Betty Friedan (who was by then middle-aged) vs. the radical feminists (who came out of the New Left and antiwar movements and were generally in their 20s). They wanted different things. Some wanted change at City Hall, others rooted their politics in the bedroom. They fought for equality, and fought each other along the way, often destructively. So my question, always, is how do we fight and debate without tearing ourselves apart? How to adamantly disagree and still find the common ground? The questions were relevant in the 1970s, and they’re relevant today.

And speaking of, I’m currently gathering data and ammo for the talks I’m giving around the country for Women’s History Month and would love to be pointed to any articles you’ve seen that focus on this latest generational division among women. The way it’s all being framed has tremendous consequences, I believe, for the future of women’s organizing, for the health of intergenerational relations, and for national politics overall. Thanks in advance for any links. Please feel free to post em here in comments–along with any thoughts of course!–or email me.

P.S. The intergenerational panel I’m traveling with through 2008 may be coming soon to a campus near you! Our March is pretty filled up, but we’re booking into the fall, so for more info, please click here.

Image cred

GUEST BLOGGER: Jacqueline Hudak, M.Ed., Ph.D. is a feminist family therapist who has been working with individuals, couples and families for over twenty years. On a more personal note, Jacqueline is the mother of Lauren, 16, and Vincent, 12 and together with her partner Sarah, they live in Atlantic Highlands NJ. When not thinking about relationships, Jacqueline is a devoted student of yoga, which, as she has said, teaches her to go forward with an open heart, and see the world in different ways. She’s a popular teacher, speaker, and family therapy supervisor, and has lectured widely on a variety of topics that impact family life. Jacqueline is an Adjunct Faculty at Drexel University’s Programs in Couple and Family Therapy and is currently at work on two books: a memoir, and a compilation of stories from her years in practice. She is also a “graduate” of my Making It Pop: Translating Your Ideas for Trade seminar, and I’m SO EXCITED to read her books, and to share this guest post from her here! Here’s Jacqueline. -GWP

Intimate Justice at Bluestockings NYC!

Intimate justice – doesn’t the sound of it just make you want some?

It was a beautiful scene on the evening of February 13th: a venerable old feminist bookstore, chock full of folks to celebrate the publication of Making Love Playing Power: Men, Women and the Rewards of Intimate Justice by my pal, Ken Dolan-DelVecchio. What an amazing book!

I was admittedly thrilled, but nervous, when upon our arrival at Bluestockings Ken asked me to introduce him. Given my heartfelt respect for this man and the work that we share, I of course, said ‘yes.’ I knew I could find the words, because in my mind, well, perhaps mostly in my heart, I knew how ready we are for a book like this, and how urgently it is needed.

This is because those of us who transgress the lines between doing ‘therapy’ and social justice work try to open our clients and families to new ways of seeing their lives. In my clinical work, I pursue the questions that might help someone see possibility where previously there was none. In this book, Ken provides a clear map of how gender, race, class and sexual orientation influence power in a relationship – and how the imbalance of power is at the root of most conflict. This dynamic is generally not talked about – even by supposed ‘experts’. Ken helps focus our understandings of how we are taught to be male or female, and what cost that exacts from relationships with those we love. This book enacts the revolutionary ideas that men are fully capable of deep intimacy and connection, and women, of empowerment and self-love.

With so many self help books on the market, it is so refreshing to find one that has a chapter entitled “What Patriarchy Teaches Men.” AND it is written by a man. I can only begin to imagine the ways in which sharing this book will enhance my clinical work with couples and families. The dominant psychology of our culture teaches us to look inside the person or relationship for “the problem.” Yet “the problem” is so often outside of the relationship – and the tricky thing is, we don’t talk about it. As a culture, we don’t acknowledge the ways in which the presence or absence of racism, poverty, gender privilege, or heterosexism (to name a few) shape and give meaning to our lives. Instead, we couch the struggles in pseudo-diagnostic terms: “communication problems”, “anger management,” “codependency.” We thus never get to talk about or take action against the structures that support these hierarchies of privilege and oppression within which all families live.

As the mother of an almost teenage boy, I am also deeply concerned about the ways in which he is taught by our culture to be a man. Can he stay the big-hearted, emotional and tender person I have known for 12 years? Must he become indoctrinated into the traditional world of masculinity? I know all of the rhetoric about how men have changed, but has the culture of masculinity? (that’s a whole other blog!) I see the extreme self reliance, the inability to ask for help or be viewed as dependent, in many “younger” men in my practice. I know Ken shares that concern for his son and share that in his dedication: “For your generation, may you know love more than domination and truth more than fear.”

Making Love Playing Power: Men, Women and the Rewards of Intimate Justice is the relationship guide we have been waiting for. Thank you, Ken, for opening so many possibilities to couples and families. Your clarity, dedication and tenderness shine through!

You can reach Jacqueline at jack4fta@comcast.net.

I don’t know about you, but I’m about ready for some election levity. If in need of a laugh, watch below, courtesy of The Onion (and Marco).

An article in the Houston Chronicle today notes that women in Texas are torn. But I just got off a briefing call with pollster Celinda Lake, who reminded that women in both Texas and Ohio are leaning Hillary.

Celinda also noted the following 5 things about this extraordinary election:

1. The magnitude of the gender gap has reached historic proportions.
2. Turnout models have never been so off.
3. The extent to which the economy has supplanted Iraq as the #1 issue is momentous.
4. Early voting is 4-5 times what it’s been in the past.

And my personal favorite:

5. Younger voters are turning out 2,3, and 4 times as much in certain states as in the past.

So women these days are more likely to work during pregnancy, says the U.S. Census Bureau. As someone who grew up in a time when working while knocked up is so common, I’m tempted to say “duh.” But my inner historian knows well, and appreciates, that this hasn’t long been the case. And here are the facts, courtesy of the Council on Contemporary Families:

Two-thirds of women who had their first child between 2001 and 2003 worked during their pregnancy compared with just 44 percent who gave birth for the first time between 1961 and 1965, according to a report released today by the U.S. Census Bureau.

The report, Maternity Leave and Employment Patterns: 1961–2003, analyzes trends in women’s work experience before their first child, identifies their maternity leave arrangements before and after the birth and examines how rapidly they returned to work.

Women are more likely to work while pregnant than they were in the 1960s, and they are working later into their pregnancies. Eighty percent who worked while pregnant from 2001 to 2003 worked one month or less before their child’s birth compared with 35 percent who did so in 1961-1965.

Women are also returning to work more rapidly after having their first child. In the early 1960s, 14 percent of all mothers with newborns were working six months later, increasing to 17 percent within a year. By 2000-2002, the corresponding percentages had risen to 55 percent and 64 percent. (The period of analysis is restricted to women who gave birth by 2002 because some who gave birth in 2003 did not have one full year of employment data by the time of the interview in 2004.)

Other highlights:

— In 2001-2003, 49 percent of first-time mothers who worked during pregnancy used paid leave before or after their child’s birth, while 39 percent used unpaid leave. Twenty-five percent quit their jobs: 17 percent while they were pregnant and another 8 percent by 12 weeks after the child’s birth.

— Forty-three percent of women in 2001-2003 used paid leave after their child’s birth compared with 22 percent before their child’s birth.

— Sixty percent of mothers with a bachelor’s degree or more received paid leave benefits compared with 39 percent of mothers with a high school diploma and 22 percent of those who had less than a high school education.

— Eighty-three percent of mothers who worked during pregnancy and returned to work within a year of their child’s birth returned to the same employer. Seven in 10 of these women returned to jobs at the same pay, skill level and hours worked per week.

Hmmm. Very interesting.

Hey you femalesportsfans, check it out!

(Welcome new blogger, and thanks to Daph for the heads up)