Victoria Baritz (pictured here), a non-profit professional and political activist in New York whose work has focused on educational access and women’s empowerment, emailed me recently with questions about my career path, and the feminist nonprofits I’ve worked with along the way. I thought I’d post my responses to her questions as this month’s column, in the hope that sharing my story might be helpful to others following “alt-ac” (as in alt academic) and or/feminist paths. And speaking of following, you can follow Victoria on Twitter @victoriabaritz. She’ll be one to watch.

VB: What skills have been most helpful in building your career?

DS: My journey has been a bit atypical. Unlike many writers I know, I’m extremely social. An extrovert. Networking is something I’ve always done, without necessarily calling it that. I find people and their stories fascinating. I think that curiosity has served me.

Also, I have a hunger to learn new tricks. Eight years in graduate school left me with the ability to get smart fast on topics that seem foreign or overwhelming. That quality deepened over time. When I left academe, I got excited about embracing new technologies. These days, I’m all about embracing new modes for disseminating ideas—TEDx, Pinterest, Cowbird, Tumblr, more.

VB: Could you tell me a little bit about how you developed your career?  

DS: Before getting into the nitty gritty, here’s what I’m up to these days. After 20 years translating specialized knowledge for popular consumption, I’m now working one-on-one as a thought leadership coach and consultant while working toward my next book. I recently lead a webinar hosted by She Writes, called Thought Leadership for Writers, which shows my approach to it all. (A sampler is below.)

I’m sharing what I know as an author and platform creator by teaming up with emerging and established thought leaders wishing to differentiate or amplify their written voice, migrate “think-filled” activities to the web, and connect passionately through words—on the page, on the TEDx stage, and online. (New logo, below!)

I’ve been a consultant for over 15 years, but my primary focus on coaching individuals is more recent. On other fronts, I’m currently a Visiting Scholar in Gender and Sexuality Studies at Northwestern University and Director of the OpEd Project’s Public Voices Fellowship Program for faculty at DePaul University, now in its second year. I’ve been an author and professional speaker from 2007 on, when my first two books appeared. I’m one of those people my friend Marci Alboher describes as having a “slash career,” meaning one that integrates multiple passions, like author/speaker/consultant. I’m a multi-tasker, for sure, but one of the most important lessons I’ve learned over time is that multi-purposing is far more effective (not to mention sanity-inducing) than multi-tasking.

My current vocation is all about multi-purposing, in other words, repurposing knowledge, content, and skills. I’m helping others forge the bridge to a public voice, even as I continue to learn new skills to further my own. I’m multi-purposing life’s content in that my next book is about my boy/girl twins, or rather, it’s a graphic memoir about the gendering of childhood in the earliest years. I sense multi-purposing might be a helpful quality to develop early on, if you plan on living with slashes. Make sure your various roles feed each other. Otherwise, you burn out. There are only so many hours in a day.

So that’s where I’ve ended up. How’d I get where I am now? It’s a longer story, and not a linear one, so I’ll share the bulleted version. It sounds something like this:

• After college, still hungered for knowledge. Needed to immerse in world of professional work first. Interned and then worked at the Center for the Education of Women in Ann Arbor, where attended college. Was generously mentored (thank you, Carol Hollenshead), and landed a life-changing job at the National Council for Research on Women, an umbrella organization of women’s research and policy centers based in New York City.

• Hired by Council short-term to draft a report on sexual harassment, on the eve of Anita Hill’s charges against then-Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas. Ended up staying two years.  Generously mentored once again (thank you, Mary Ellen Capek, Debra Schultz, and the late Mariam Chamberlain, otherwise known as fairy godmother to Women’s Studies). Side note: While interviewing at Council, was simultaneously looking for editorial job at women’s magazine. Ms. seemed like Mecca, but was also interviewing at glossies, where would have ended up penning sex tips instead of synthesizing research on sexual harassment. Life funny that way.

• Inspired by Council colleagues, thought might like to be nonprofit leader one day. Higher ups at Council and member organizations had PhD’s. Decision to pursue doctorate confirmed.

• In graduate school, remained passionate about writing for broader audience than academic. But struggled. A lot. Sought out opportunities to gain skills, in addition to teaching, that might transfer to realms outside academe. Apprenticed with and generously mentored by editor of American Literary History. Interned at university press. Gained professional editorial skills. Generously mentored by feminist academics (thank you Susan Stanford Friedman, Susan Bernstein, the late Nellie McKay), who ultimately supported me in pursuing an alt academic path.

• New York City beckoned. Again. Took leave of absence, moved, worked as Content Strategist (dot com language circa late 1990s for someone with editorial skills) for various tech start-ups in Silicon Alley. Joined Webgrrls. Learned basic html (pre-Wordpress). Pseudonymously  launched “Dottie and Jane’s Adventures Beyond the Ivory Tower” with friend.

• Finished dissertation. Became Visiting Fellow at Barnard Center for Research on Women, where helped launch webjournal, The Scholar & Feminist Online. Became Visiting Scholar at Center for Education of Women. Reinvented as feminist journalist. Rewrote dissertation into more commercial book, after apprenticing self to friend, Katie Orenstein, who helped whip prose into shape. Joined WAM! (Women, Action, Media), then just starting. Invited to be part of first class of Women’s Media Center Progressive Women’s Voices training program. Sharpened media skills.

• Returned to Council, working closely with member centers (think tanks, policy centers, advocacy orgs) and on communications and reports that drew on network at large. Generously mentored by Linda Basch.

• Left Council the year first book pubbed. Launched Girl w/Pen blog. Began career as author/speaker/consultant, working with thinkers in nonprofit and business sectors and helping think tanks, advocacy and policy organizations deepen public impact through written word. Developed first workshop, “Making It Pop: Translating Your Ideas for Trade.”

• Tech and entrepreneurship beckoned. Again. Joined visionary Kamy Wicoff to create a social network for women writers, She Writes (now 23,000+ members strong).

• Katie Orenstein beckoned. Joined The OpEd Project, helped bring programs to the Midwest.

• Left New York City for Chicago in 2012, when toddler twins hit preschool.

Again, my journey hasn’t been linear. I’ve ricocheted between New York City and the Midwest, multiple times. I’ve reinvented, then reinvented again. I’ve tried to live by that Eleanor Roosevelt quote that’s on the back of my current business card: “You must do the thing you think you cannot do.”

The other quote I live by: E.B. White wrote in Here Is New York that a requirement for success in that city is the willingness to be lucky. I like this statement because it combines serendipity and will. You have to believe in yourself to the extent that you feel entitled to make your own luck. I credit my parents for that.

There’s a fair degree of luck, I think, in finding good mentors. But a willingness to be mentored is a quality I encourage for those just starting out. And mentoring works best when it’s a two-way street. Many of those I’ve mentored have since ended up mentoring me back. (Thank you, Courtney Martin.)

VB: What organizations that work with women’s causes in New York do you admire?  

DS: So many. I adore the Women’s Media Center. Their Progressive Women’s Voices training is top notch. The National Council for Research on Women will always be close to my heart, and I’ve long held an affinity for The Feminist Press. Catalyst is outstanding; their research grounds so much of contemporary debate about glass ceilings in business, and work/life. Girls, Inc and Girls Write Now are two of my favorite organizations servicing girls. And The OpEd Project, of course, is a social venture of which I’m honored to be a part.

Here in Chicago I’ve become an admirer of Women Employed, Chicago Foundation for Women, the Jewish Women’s Foundation of Metropolitan Chicago. And I’m still learning about new organizations out here all the time.

VB: What are some of the challenges involved in working at a feminist organization?

DS: So many feminist nonprofits are financially challenged; they’re doing the best they can with scarce resources. It constantly amazes me how much even the most challenged organizations can push out. But when an organization is fighting to stay alive, the atmosphere can be that of a pressure cooker. Also, there’s often the expectation, going in, of a nonhierarchical structure, which, for practical purposes, is frequently not the case. Generational tensions arise, as they do anywhere, but at feminist organizations these tensions can be intense, in part because of the outsized expectations we have going in.

I generally advise people interested in feminist organizational work to enter it with eyes open, just as they would any other line of work. I think it’s important to talk to people currently working at the places you’re interested in, to learn about the culture and the financial health of the organization overall, because these factors set the tone.

VB: Are there any professional or volunteer organizations that you would recommend joining?

DS: I’ve benefited hugely from networking organizations where a main focus is women helping women. Some of those I belonged to in the past no longer exist, but newer ones on my radar right now include Step Up Women’s Network (with branches in New York, Chicago, and LA). Also, it’s important to join professional organizations in your field – WAM! and Journalism and Women Symposium (JAWS), if you’re a woman journo; Women in Communications, if that’s your deal; Webgrrls if you’re a woman interested in learning more tech; and so forth. Personally, I’m finding the Women’s Business Development Center to be an enormous help, at this stage in my path.

VB: What publications do you read to stay informed?

DS: It changes. These days, aspirationally at least, the list includes The New York Times, Talking Points Memo, Bitch, feministing, Racialicious, RH Reality Check, The Hairpin, Jezebel, The Juggle (WSJ blog), ForbesWoman, Women’s eNews, Women and Hollywood, Truthout, DoubleX, Salon, Buzzfeed, Upworthy, Brain Child.

And the Council on Contemporary Families briefing that goes out to members is something I can’t live without. (To those interested, you can join CCF, here.)

VB: What are some of the developments that you see in women’s activism? 

DS: There’s way too much going on to do justice to here, so I’m going to answer this one in list form, a-z, with links. The organizations and initiatives below represent some of the developments I’m most excited about, with the caveat that this list is partial, and that I’m, of course, partial to causes in which I’m currently engaged.

Adios, Barbie

Brave Girls Alliance

Change the Ratio

Day of the Girl

Endangered Bodies

Founding Moms

Goldie Blocks

Hardy Girls, Healthy Women

Ladies Who Launch

Ladydrawers

Makers

Moms Rising

She Writes Press

SPARK

Take the Lead Women

TEDWomen

The OpEd Project

Women Moving Millions

Follow Deborah on Twitter @deborahgirlwpen

With the new PBS Frontline documentary Hunting the Nightmare Bacteria premiering this week, I hope that the American public is finally becoming aware of what many in the U.S. and around the world have seen coming for years.  I encourage readers to check out the film and the links available online through PBS. However, I feel ethically bound to issue a ‘trigger warning’ for those who do not want to view a child and young adult being ravaged by diabolical infections.

Are we ready for the post-antibiotic era?  Supposedly, we were all alerted last March when the CDC sounded an alarm – “Action needed now to halt spread of deadly bacteria” – but how many of us heard it?

We’re still in the dark when it comes to nightmare bacteria.  At this point, I’m less convinced that anyone is “hunting” these antibiotic-resistant bacteria and more convinced that these microorganisms are hunting us.  We need to be on the defensive, taking steps to protect ourselves, our loved ones, and our society.

Reading the PBS documentary’s link to “Eight Ways to Protect Yourself from Superbugs,” I found tips that are not new but are important reminders for public health.  I’m a big believer in their recommendation to question the necessity and effectiveness of all prescriptions of antibiotics (e.g., that they cannot cure viral illnesses).  That said,  I’m sad that we still need to teach people how to properly wash their hands, and I’m even more dismayed that we have to recommend that everyone asks their medical providers to wash their hands.  Unfortunately, promoting hand-washing is only a small improvement when proper drying methods are unavailable: studies continue to show that air hand dryers add more bacteria to clean hands.

In the documentary, Arjun Srinivasan, M.D., Associate Director of CDC, warns, “…the more antibiotics we put into people, we put into the environment, the more opportunities we create for these bacteria to become resistant….”  However, the environmental components – government funding for research and surveillance, public health policies, and medical norms – are not fully addressed by this film.  In addition, the causal link to meat and poultry policies/practices is completely absent.  As a medical sociologist, my critique of this documentary is that it spends a lot of time on horrific case studies and too little time on the structural and social causes, consequences, and solutions to this crisis.

For a more complete picture, see the CDC’s report with graphics that illustrate the dynamics of drug resistance.  I was stunned by chilling estimates: annually, antibiotic resistance will cause over 2 million Americans to become ill and will result in at least 23,000 deaths.  In the early years of the HIV/AIDS epidemic, activists rallied public support and political action with the message that “Silence Equals Death” – what message will wake up Americans to the realities of our new nightmare?

The past few weeks have been particularly discouraging for anyone who follows politics and believes in reasoned discourse. Hoping the local news here in town might be more to my liking, I sat down to read The Wellesley Townsman for the first time in months.  The International Day of the Girl was coming up on the 11^th of October; maybe there’d be interesting coverage of girls in the area. There was.  But whether the front-page story on the girls’ softball team was encouraging or not remains a dilemma.

The headline read, “A Level Playing Field”, followed by the subhead, “Sixth grader’s frustrated letter lands her in influential company.”  The story went on to recount how, as a fifth grader, Emily Willrich had written to the Townsman about her frustrations with the differences between town sports’ opportunities for girls and boys. There were excellent facilities available to the boys’ baseball team–a well maintained field complete with brick dugouts, night-lights, a scoreboard, and even an announcer. The girls’ softball team was relegated to a scruffy field where the lights didn’t work and at times umpires never showed up.  Emily’s letter reached the President of nearby Simmons College, who invited her to be a special guest at a college=sponsored event, “How Women Become Political”. Emily, now in sixth grade, had a chance to meet and talk with Gloria Steinem and several prominent female politicians, including Massachusetts’ gubernatorial candidate, Martha Coakley.

My first reaction was, “Wow, what a great example of  feminist progress and ‘girl power!”   Forty years ago girls weren’t allowed to play Little League, and there certainly weren’t  any town wide girls’ softball teams when I was growing up in Mystic, Connecticut.  The closest I managed to get to a town playing field was as the semi-official score keeper for the boys’ baseball team my father coached.  I learned to be a baseball watcher, not a baseball player. ‘Everyone knew’ sports were more important for boys.

Reading the article a second time, I questioned my initial response. A 5^th grader had to raise the issue?  In the second decade of the 21^st century?  Where were the adults?  What about Title IX and the guarantee of equality?  But Title IX covers only programs sponsored by educational institutions receiving federal funds. It doesn’t address town teams.  Maybe my delight was misplaced, maybe being appalled was more on target.  A young girl challenging unfairness with confidence is wonderful; it might not have happened in the years before feminism’s empowering messages took hold. But old gendered assumptions remaining so deeply embedded that no one in this upscale  town seemed concerned about the inequitable sports facilities  is, indeed, appalling.  The news story presented the proverbial half-full/half-empty glass: ‘how far we’ve come; but how far we have to go’.

The Townsmen article concluded by reporting that Emily’s mother didn’t know if her daughter’s passion for fairness might lead to a career in politics. “We’re excited to find out. Nothing she does would surprise us.”

I, for one, hope Emily will pour at least some of her passion into politics. We need her. These discouraging weeks of Congressional malfunction have highlighted the critical importance of women in political office, not simply for women, but for the entire nation.  Women in the U.S. Senate have authored most of the major bills passed this session.  Female Senators are credited with the initial steps resulting in the compromise that has finally reopened the government.  Women are consistently more bipartisan than their male counterparts in their approach to legislation.  And studies repeatedly indicate that women—regardless of their political affiliation–tend to sponsor and vote for laws that support families in larger percentages than do their male colleagues.

So, we come to another half-full/ half-empty dilemma. Currently only 20 of the 100 members of the U.S. Senate are women–an all time high. As far as progress for women and girls goes, it will be a long  time before we can discard the metaphor of  the half-full/ half-empty glass . Personally, I prefer the energizing half-full perspective; but I never forget the empty half of the glass. It’s a constant reminder of  work unfinished.

*This review does not contain spoilers.*

The recently released, Gravity, directed by Alfonso Cuaron, is visually stunning with amazing cinematography that  gives audience members the sense of being out there in space, detached from earth.

Detachment is a key theme of the film (“Detached” is also the title of the teaser trailer released last summer). Related to this, the film has many visual images that evoke birth and gestation. Though pulsing with umbilical cord imagery, it is far from a typical exploration of the meaning of life, birth, and death — and particularly because it places a woman, Dr Ryan Stone (played by Sandar Bullock) front and center – and not AS a woman, but as a human.

Though the movie is about a shuttle mission, the matter of extreme importance at its center has nothing to do with space travel, the vastness of space, nor the technological wizardry that makes space travel come alive for the audience – no, the matter of great importance at the center of the film is human survival.  The film, as noted in this review, “gives a visceral charge to the metaphorical sense of being lost and alone in the universe”

Bullock captures this existential exploration of life with not only great dignity, but in a way that captivates the audience, pulling them to the edge of their seats, tugging at their emotions, and amping their adrenaline.

Why is this important for feminists?

Because all too often movies that make audiences hearts’ race or adrenaline rush feature only male leads and incorporate violent packed action.

Gravity is an important film as it proves that YES, a woman can anchor an action-packed blockbuster, and that NO, “action-packed” does not have to include violence, superheroes, weapons, and/or huge death tolls.

Bullock is stupendous in the role. So good, in fact, that I have already added Speed, The Blind Side, The Proposal, Miss Congeniality, The Heat, and yes, even All About Steve, to my “watch again” list. Thankfully, Alfonso Cuaron had the ovaries to defend his choice of casting a female lead. Which brings me to another matter of grave importance…

The fact that such a defense is necessary.  As this Women and Hollywood  post notes, “We hear lots of anecdotal remarks from female directors about the scripts they pitch with female leads and how they are asked to change the gender, but hearing this come from an A-List director is pretty rare.”  As the post later queries, “….If Cuaron is getting shit for writing a woman, imagine what the rest of the people down the line are getting.” Indeed. The fact Cuaron, a male A-list director, has to fight for his choice to cast a female lead in 2013 is disheartening to say the least.

So, what can we as feminists do? Well, the least we can do is SEE THE MOVIE.

Hollywood listens to box office numbers. We need to put our butts in seats and show there is a mass audience for female-led movies. We can also make sure that we get non-female butts in seats so that the spin about women-led movies only appealing to female audiences can die a long overdue death.

Like Bullock, who shared her hope that Cuaron’s casting of female leads would become the norm at Comic-Con, I too hope that one day soon it will not be a matter of note that a big-budget, action-packed blockbuster has a female protagonist.

I hope that just as Ryan is released from the grip of earth’s gravitational pull, we can be released from Hollywood patriarchy and the limited films it offers us.

Here’s to many more films like Gravity, that convey women ARE human, and to the realization that our successful survival as women is profoundly shaped via the ways in which media and popular culture depicts us (or fails to depict us).

Feel that, feminists? It’s a gravitational pull forcing tugging at you to look up show times in your area…

October 11 is the second International Day of the Girl Child. At my daughter’s school, it’s a half day (that bane of working parents everywhere), so we’re going to the United Nations for the Day of the Girl Speak Out, sponsored by the Working Group on Girls. The summit will be live-streamed at the Day of the Summit website, which explains the event as follows:

This event will give girls the chance to speak with governments and UN Agencies about how they are making strides for girls in their community. Girls selected for the Girls Speak Out will share information about their strategies for creating change and they will talk about how the international community can support their efforts. Approximately half of the girls at the Speak Out will present on issues related to the International Day of the Girl 2013 theme, “Innovating for Girls’ Education.”

After the Speak Out, we’re heading over to Times Square to dance and celebrate with the Brave Girls Take Back Media campaign, organized by The Brave Girls Alliance. They’ve rented a billboard in Times Square that will feature tweets from girls, parents, educators, and other adults about what girls want and need. (What do brave girls want? My daughter listed the following: “Clothes that girls can be active in! Legos with ‘regular’ girls! Legos with girls who wear clothes they can be active in!”)

You can tell my daughter loves Legos. And not the pink variety, either. The “regular” kind.

Needless to say, I’m very excited about tomorrow. I feel hugely privileged to be able to take my daughter to the UN and Times Square and listen to girl activists from around the world. (My daughter is a kid who loved the movie Lincoln and whose list of Fun Things To Do includes reciting the names of the U.S. presidents and several of the Constitutional Amendments, so this stuff is right up her alley.) I’m most excited about the fact that the main purpose of the Speak Out is to listen to other girls. I have no idea what they’ll say, of course, so I’m a bit nervous. My daughter is only ten. But the vibe around the event is positive, and though she might not understand everything, I’m hoping we’ll both learn from listening. And frankly, I can’t think of a time when we’ve ever had an opportunity to do something like this.

At the same time, I have some questions about the global girls’ movement. How to ensure that the missionary zeal that has characterized so much global feminism coming from Western feminists will not also inflect the global girls’ movement? How to make sure that a diverse range of girls from around the world will have an equal voice in this movement?

As a parent, I also wonder: How can parents teach our kids about global inequities and being empowered as activists without disempowering less-privileged girls?

I don’t know the answers to these questions. I’m hoping that listening will be a good place to start. And then, of course, talking about what we hear.

Another challenge for the girls’ movement revolves around this question: How to ensure that girls of all ages are included, and that adult women don’t wield too much power in what should be a movement of and for girls—a movement that enables girls to be its leaders?

I write that last sentence having just seen the film Wadjda, which features the most fabulous girl protagonist I’ve seen in a long time. Ten-year-old Wadjda lives in Riyadh, wears high tops, loves mixtapes, and sells homemade bracelets sporting popular soccer colors. She is fiercely independent and determined. What does this brave girl want? A bike.

Wadjda is the first feature-length movie filmed in Saudi Arabia, and the first movie to have been made by a Saudi woman, Haifaa al-Mansour. It’s quiet but memorable. I won’t say much more, only that the film reminds us of how change happens: one girl—and one bike—at a time.

Recently, 26-year old YouTube beauty guru Michelle Phan launched her cosmetics brand in collaboration with beauty giant Lancome. Just shy of 5 million subscribers, her YouTube videos have made her a millionaire and an Internet celebrity.

At the beginning of American consumer culture in the early twentieth century, women owned local service-oriented shops and shared beauty rituals as a part of “the personal cultivation of beauty – the original meaning of ‘beauty culture’” (as described by historian Kathy Peiss in her book Hope in a Jar: The Making of America’s Beauty Culture). This beauty culture was contemporaneous with the first wave of feminism, and its founders employed women in their businesses, actions that Peiss characterizes as “a form of feminism.”

Now, YouTube beauty gurus cultivate community around beauty, reviewing products and demonstrating various makeup “looks” through tutorials that mostly mimic those seen on fashion runways, on celebrities, and in women’s magazines. An underlying theme in their communication indicates how much more confident they feel about their appearance when they use specific products or craft their appearance in certain ways. Such declarations of empowerment are encapsulated in a former tagline of one vlogger: “conquering the world one lipgloss at a time.”

Certainly, in an environment that places immense pressure on women to improve their appearance (through makeup, hair styling, diet, exercise, cosmetic surgery, and so on), beauty vloggers have cultural cachet. Through their expertise about beauty products/techniques, they can gain subscribers and, if they develop a sufficient following, they can acquire financial power via the YouTube Partner Program, through which vloggers earn anywhere from a few thousand dollars to six figures per month. In addition, as in Phan’s case, they can leverage their online popularity/visibility to build their own beauty brand.

For many women, engaging with makeup of various colors and textures can be an aesthetic, artistic, playful, and adventurous experience. The issue becomes sticky, however, when women accept makeup as not just a means of empowerment, but as the tool for agentic self-realization. This point holds especially true when cosmetics are promoted by a beauty guru (who may be doubling as a brand ambassador for a beauty brand or for her own brand) whose primary interest aligns more with consumerism and conformity than with creativity and self-expression. In this case, beauty gurus’ expertise and their videos work more as infomercials than as vehicles for women’s inspiration via beauty, thereby benefitting corporate — instead of women’s — power.

So, then, I ask: What does the beauty expertise of vloggers and the women who watch them signal about current cultural values regarding female empowerment? Critically thinking about the role of beauty (and, specifically, the cosmetics industry) in past and present consumer culture and how these dynamics relate to women’s lives is an important place to start the conversation.

This guest post by Sarah Milstein was originally posted on The Huffington Post and is reposted with the author’s permission.

Last month, the hashtag #SolidarityIsForWhiteWomen erupted on Twitter. Started by Mikki Kendall, it immediately became a channel for women of color to call out how implicit racial bias, double standards for women of different races and overt racism are all baked into mainstream white feminism. If you’ve been following feminism for the past 150 years, you probably weren’t surprised by the range of grievances. But if you’re a white feminist and you were surprised or you felt defensive or you think you’re not part of the problem, then now is the time to woman up, rethink your own role and help reshape feminism.

While there are many reasons white feminists have to do this work, Kendall’s hashtag highlighted an important one: we cannot credibly or successfully seek societal change when we ourselves create the same injustices we rail against. In other words, the problems we face as women are often the problems we create as white people.

Since #SolidarityIsForWhiteWomen trended, I have seen excellent pieces by women of color, many suggesting steps white women can take to be better allies. Their insights are leading us toward a more conscious feminism. White women, however, need to take responsibility for educating ourselves, too. So, here are five steps white feminists — myself included — can take to check ourselves, connect more genuinely with women of color and improve feminist outcomes for people of all races. As a test of the need for these actions, consider whether you’d want the men in your life to try each step in confronting their own sexism.

1. Recognize that even when your good intentions are truly good, that’s totally meaningless. This idea is hard to accept, because our culture suggests that we should feel like heroes just for wanting not to be racist. (Plus, it’s maddening to be misunderstood.) I have gotten hung up on those two horns frequently. But what matters is your impact, not your intentions, and you don’t get credit for thinking good thoughts.

Try this on for size: when you accidentally step on somebody else’s foot, you do not make your good intentions the focus of the episode. Instead, you check to make sure the other person is OK, you apologize, and you watch where you’re going. You don’t get annoyed with the person you stepped on because you caused her pain or declare that she is too sensitive or defend yourself by explaining that you meant to step to the left of her foot. When you crush another person’s toes, as Franchesca Ramsey has pointed out, everyone recognizes that your impact, not your intention, is what’s important.

Why isn’t that the standard for saying something when you didn’t intend to cause harm? For white women interacting with women of color, we may reflexively, unwittingly assume our experience — and therefore our intentions — are (or should be) primary. I’d argue that’s rooted in our internalizing cultural messages. But whatever the root, we have to get wise if we expect women of color to take us seriously.

So, when somebody points out that you’ve said or done something racist, perhaps something that hurt them personally, the game-changing response is first to understand that your intentions are not the centerpiece of the interaction. In other words: it’s not about you, which can be a genuinely hard to see. Once you let your intentions fall away, you can focus on what the other person is saying (recommended: assume she has a very valid point and try to understand where you went wrong). It changes no games to insist that you meant to be perfectly graceful.

2. If you feel defensive when talking about race with a woman of color or reading about race in a piece written by a woman of color, assume the other person is saying something especially true. That is: use your defensiveness as a Bat Signal, alerting you to your own biases. Sure, yes, of course, the other person may have said something insensitive or unreasonable. But if you want to change the dynamics of the world (reminder: you’re a feminist, so you do), assume your discomfort is telling you something about you, not about the other person. Then use those moments to listen more carefully.

Here’s a personal example. Writing on The Toast in July, Jessie-Lane Metz, a Black woman, called out supposed white allies for a number of harmful behaviors, including writing about episodes in which a white author describes racism they have perpetrated or witnessed:

My first critique is that this [writing] re-centres whiteness. When a person of colour speaks to their own experiences of racism, they are speaking to a collective pain, and speaking truth to power. When a person with white skin privilege gives an anecdote about racism, whether their own or someone else’s, they are exposing more racialized people to this discrimination, and reasserting their own privilege. The narrative is no longer about Black victims of racist crimes and a deeply flawed justice system, it is about white feelings about Black bodies and their experiences. This is not helpful to intersectional practice, as it implies that only by making an oppression about the oppressor can power-holders work towards becoming allies. Secondly, it disregards the feelings of Black people by exposing them to further racism in an effort to work on white privilege. I do not consent to being confronted with racism in the hopes that white folks can maybe start to exorcise their own internalized issues. Allies need to do this work on their own.

3. Look for ways that you are racist, rather than ways to prove you’re not. There are two key ideas here. First, you can’t change behaviors you’re not aware of, and if you’re constantly trying to assure yourself you’re not racist, you’re going to miss the ways you are. Second, once you’ve accepted that you are, in fact, racist some of the time, it’s a lot easier to drop the barrier of good intentions, let go of the defensiveness and take responsibility for your actions.

For most of us, identifying our own racism dredges up shame, which is a seriously unpleasant feeling and something we want to avoid. Plus which, assuming you’re not cavorting around your neighborhood in a white hood and sheet, it may not be that obvious to you that you are racist. But the thing is: you can’t avoid it. Everyone is born with the potential for racial bias and most children acquire it very early in life, so even if you do not identify as a racist, racism is baked into you. And then it’s reinforced by our culture. No point in feeling guilty because you’re a human and the product of a racist society. But, by all means, feel bad about yourself if you choose not to identify and work against your racial bias.

As I said earlier, you’re going to have a hard time challenging your own bias if you’re not even aware of it. So, seek out ideas and people that help you see yourself more clearly. If you need a place to start, diversify your media — consume articles, books, podcasts, radio, video and TV shows made by people of color — and when white folks are portrayed critically, find ways to identify with them rather than assume that you’re different than they are. The point here isn’t to take kick off a miasma of self-flagellation, but rather to gain perspective on yourself.

For example, I was recently reading, Our Black Year: One Family’s Quest to Buy Black in America’s Racially Divided Economy. In it, Maggie Anderson, a Black corporate strategy consultant, talks about the experience she and her husband, a Black financial adviser, often have at dinner parties and office gatherings, as white people approach them:

People flock to us, asking about our backgrounds, where we live, even why my hair is “different” from most African-American women’s hair. (White folks never say “not kinky” or “more Black.” They say, “Wow, your hair is so thin!”)At some point, they tell us every detail about the lovely Black couple who attends their church or lives in their neighborhood. They want to introduce us. The logic goes something like this: They’re nice Black people. The Andersons are nice Black people. Nice people will like each other. And if both husbands play basketball, as I’m sure they must, we’re working up the Black friendship of a lifetime.

As I read, my first impulse was to think, “I’ve never mentioned (or touched) a Black person’s hair! Thank god I’m not one of those white people!” But when I let myself dwell for a minute in the scene Anderson describes, it’s clear I’ve done several of the things she rightly calls “clueless.” Centering my own behavior again: I’ve been awkwardly too friendly when introduced to Black folks at parties (see above on good intentions). When I meet people, I almost always ask where they live, without considering that my questions might come off as an investigation rather than as a way to connect (Ibid). I have definitely considered introducing Black folks in the tech sector just because they’re both Black (this, despite the fact that I really hate being introduced to women in business when the only things we obviously have in common are that we’re both women, and we both work).

These actions aren’t horribly destructive and virulently racist. But don’t be fooled by subtlety: small acts of bias make it harder to build genuine relationships. And maintaining personal distance helps white feminists stay disconnected from the concerns of people of color. So, accept that you’ll likely feel uncomfortable and embarrassed, but consider that you are like the other white folks that people of color describe.

4. Listen to people of color, even if you don’t know many. A common suggestion for white people who want to get a clue is to simply listen. Which is a critical step, and it’s especially important in your direct interactions with people of color. But what if none of your best friends are Black and you don’t work with many people of color either? As I mentioned earlier, you can make sure you’re taking in media created by people of color. You can also do a ton of thoughtful listening on Twitter — a medium that gives you legitimate access to the thoughts and conversations of people you may not know.

I’ve written before about how you can — and should — follow people of color in a respectful way on Twitter. You can also seek out some of the stellar women mentioned in the recent campaign kicked off by Feminista Jones that identified #SmartBlackWomenOfTwitter, #SmartLatinaWomenofTwitter, #SmartAAPIWomenOfTwitter, etc. If you’re already overloaded on Twitter, try a swap: for every new woman of color you follow, unfollow a white guy. You might be surprised by the effect such a simple step can have on your perspective.

5. Use your feminist powers to identify instances when people of color are under-represented or misrepresented, and speak out about it. You’re already in the habit of noticing when lists and groups include few or no women. Tweak your internal algorithm to notice when people of color are missing, too. Then say something.

Women of color don’t need us to speak for them, and there are times when standing quietly in solidarity is important. But very often, speaking up is important — not only because it may influence others, but also because it will likely influence you. As a recent Guardian piece noted: “when you’re confronted by prejudice and you don’t object to it, your own attitudes shift in a more prejudiced direction, to maintain consistency between your behaviour and your beliefs.”

Of course, there is a chance that raising an issue as a white person may help other white people see it more clearly or see it in the first place. (Indeed, if you’ve read this far, ask yourself: “Would I have stayed with the piece if it had been written by a woman of color — or might I have dismissed it early on as ‘too angry’?”) And you may wonder if inserting yourself is really progress. Instead, wonder this: If white feminists don’t strive to see what women of color see and don’t consider those perspectives as central as our own, are we truly interested in challenging injustice at all?

Attention all those of you writing a book…

In this age of the social author, those writing for broader audiences need to see themselves as disseminators of spreadable messages and sticky ideas. But how do we best position ourselves as substantive public spokespeople? What do editors really mean when they say “platform,” and how can serious writers, often more focused on content than sell, tell (and sell) the story of our expertise? How does one craft an authentic public identity by connecting connect story, self, and idea?

These are some of the questions we’ll be tackling in a 3-week webinar series I’m leading at She Writes, Thought Leadership for Writers! on Oct 1, 8, 15 @4pmPT/7pmET. Special guests Susan Cain (bestselling author of Quiet) and Christina Baker Kline (bestselling author of myriad works of nonfiction and fiction) will join me, and She Writes Press publisher Brooke Warner will be hosting. Here’s a taste, from the free sample I offered last week. The full-fledged description is below. I hope some GWP and TSP readers will join me. And thanks, too, for passing it along.

3-WEEK WEBINAR – THOUGHT LEADERSHIP FOR WRITERS!

Storytelling is the writer’s superpower. But often, we feel far less adept when it comes to broadcasting the public story of our self and our idea.  Whether we call it presence, platform, or public thought leadership, the need is the same: behind every successful author is a compelling idea to share—and the compulsion to be heard.

Join us for this 3-week online seminar with Deborah Siegel, one of the co-founders of She Writes. Siegel is an author, blogger, journalist, TEDx speaker, and coach who has tested the waters of platform-building firsthand. She  will change the way you think about platform by showing how thought leadership can organically unfold.

Join Deborah and two guest speakers (more details below) to harness your ideas and strategize an action plan that works. REGISTER HERE.

DURING THIS WEBINAR SERIES YOU WILL LEARN:

•    Ten things genuine (as in sincere!) thought leaders do
•    The power of authenticity, generosity, and “test balloons” when building your path to presence
•    How to decide which social media platforms work best for you
•    How to work on multiple planks simultaneously, without losing sleep
•    What your first, or next, step toward your Public Thought Leadership Action Plan might be
•    Why platform is a marathon, not a sprint
•    How to break through your sense of social media overwhelm
•    Best practices from leading fiction and nonfiction writers who publicly and successfully interweave self, book, and idea

CLASS 1 (Oct 1). Behind Every Successful Platform Is an Idea Worth Spreading

Special Guest: Susan Cain, bestselling author of Quiet and renowned TED speaker
• “Thought leadership,” a term historically applied to innovators in business and now cavalierly applied to anyone with a Twitter account, has become an essential element of authorial platform building. But what does “thought leadership” mean, and what does it have to do with writing, and selling, a book?  How can writers create authentic platforms that distill and spread the essence of their best self and their best ideas? We’ll start the session by learning from a master: Susan Cain.

Optional assignment: Why Me (a 1-pager describing your platform)

CLASS 2 (Oct 8). What’s My Platform? A Builder’s Guide, Board-by-Board

• The dictionary defines “platform” as follows: 1. Stage for performers or speakers 2. Flat raised structure 3. Particular policy of party seeking election 4. Opportunity for doing something. In Class 2, we’ll break it down, board-by-board, and discuss strategies for beginning or continuing our build.

Optional assignment: Thought Leadership Action Plan

CLASS 3 (Oct 15). Do’s and Don’ts: Thought Leaders Made and Born

Special Guest: Christina Baker Kline, bestselling author of Orphan Train and myriad other books
• In Class 3, we’ll take a tour through some of the most exciting current examples of author platforms and why they work. We’ll look at those who use a book to build their brand/business, and those who use a brand/business to build their book. We’ll end with targeted tips from another master, one who traverses fiction and nonfiction: Christina Baker Kline.

REGISTER HERE.

This month’s guest column* by Tristan Bridges, Ph.D., deals  with a recent research publication on a correlation between testicle size and nurturing instincts/behaviors in men.  Bridges, a sociologist at The College at Brockport, State University of New York, is currently working on a project dealing with the meanings of “man caves” in contemporary U.S. households.

__________

So…I’m going to go ahead and say that this is the wrong question to be asking. This question proceeds from a belief that testicles CAN tell us something about dads. A new study is making the rounds in the news that addresses the relationship between testicle size and parenting behavior among men (well… 70 men… not randomly sampled…). The paper is entitled “Testicular Volume is Inversely Correlated with Nurturing-Related Brain Activity in Human Fathers” in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. I can think of more than a few titles that might have been catchier (and clearly, journalists reporting on the research had a similar idea).

In fairness, I don’t have access to the complete study (though I’ve requested it). But the problem is also in how this study gains attention in the media. It’s a great example of how a correlation combined with cultural stereotypes and assumptions can run wild. When correlations combine with popular stereotypes concerning a particular topic (like, say, the relationship between testosterone and any number of socially undesirable behaviors), questions about the science sometimes get lost because it looks like something was “scientifically proven” that we already wanted to believe anyway.

So, here’s the relationship the researchers found: men with smaller testicles tested more positively for nurturance-related responses in their brains when shown pictures of their children. The study reports that men with smaller testicles had roughly three times the level of brain activity in the area of the brain associated with nurturing. These men (with smaller testicles) were also men with lower levels of testosterone—something that has previously been shown to be associated with nurturing behavior among men.*

Side Note: Just for fun, I’d love to know how to measure testicular size. Is it a measure of circumference (in which case I’d want to know: width or height)? Is it a measure of total tissue volume? And, how is the measurement taken? There’s probably a great “How many grad students does it take to….?” joke in here somewhere. But, I’ll rise above the temptation.

The researchers, then, have found a correlation between nurturing-related brain activity and testicular volume (and, to be fair, this is right in their title). But, off the top of my head, I can think of more than a few ways of explaining this correlation differently than they have. And, if you’re not up on your research methods, a correlation simply means that two (or more) trends, variables, etc. can be shown to vary together. So, age an income might be an example. But proving that one variable or trend is actually causing another is more difficult. To prove a causal relationship, you need three things (to convince the scientists anyway):

1. Correlation—you’ve got to be able to show that the two things you’re saying have a relationship actually have a relationship with one another.
2. Time Order—you’ve got to be able to show that the thing you’re saying is “causing” the other thing happens prior to the change you’re claiming is “caused.”
3. Rule Out Other Possible Explanations—even when you’ve established a correlation and can show time order in a way that favors your interpretation of the relationship, you still have to consider alternative ways of explaining the same finding.

Okay, back to the testicles. So, the study shows a correlation. And, there are really three explanations for the correlation. Either: a. testicle size is causing (or inhibiting) nurturance, b. nurturing behavior (or lack thereof) is causing testicular volume, or c. something else is to blame for both nurturing behavior and testicular volume.

Stanford neuroendocrinologist Robert Sapolsky wrote a great essay on the relationship between testosterone and violence. Sapolsky argues that there is a huge cultural bias favoring an understanding wherein higher levels of testosterone are seen as responsible for increased violence (especially in men). But, research actually favors the opposite understanding: violence causes spikes in testosterone levels (see, time order really is important). My sense is that a similar misstep is taking place in the debates about testicular volume, testosterone and nurturing behavior among men.

The authors of the testicular volume study are upfront in claiming that they are unable to actually demonstrate that testicular size is a “cause or a consequence of male life-history strategies”. However, like the relationship between testosterone and violence, they have cultural bias on their side in suggesting the relationship is causal. Cultural stereotypes surrounding testosterone create an environment in which testicle size (and associated levels of testosterone) are much more likely to be framed as the culprit.

So, a possible interpretation of this study (and the one that the media has been quick to adopt) is that some men seem biologically better suited to be fathers—to actually participate in nurturing and caregiving. But, a more complex implication could be that caregiving and nurturance are not qualities for which people are more or less biologically suited. Engagement in nurturing and caregiving behaviors causes changes in both women and men—emotional, behavioral, and, yes, physiological as well. If I had to guess what the actual relationship is between testicular volume and nurturance, I’d guess that testicular volume is a consequence, not a cause, of nurturance among men. While they haven’t proven causation, this is, biologically speaking, the interpretation with more evidence.

Why does this matter? In a culture in which women are culturally understood as responsible for the caregiving of children, it’s easy to assume that women’s nurturing qualities are somehow hardwired. Similarly, in a cultural environment in which men have (in recent history) done relatively little caregiving, it might be easy to similarly assume that they are somehow naturally ill-suited to nurture. Correlations like this let men off the hook for being bad parents. It sounds like they can’t help it. But, there are plenty of factors that work against men’s active involvement in their children’s lives in the U.S. today. They just aren’t biological.

*To be fair, this study is longitudinal and does acknowledge time order. What’s problematic is the assumption that parenting activity is the only behavior that might have this effect on men’s testosterone levels, as well as the assumption that men’s testosterone levels are naturally high prior to “partnering.” To prove that these differences in testosterone levels are naturally occurring and biologically determined, we’d need to show cross-cultural universality in men’s pre-parental and post-parental testosterone levels. I’m not aware of any research on this topic.

__________

Note: this column was originally posted on Inequality by (Interior) Design and is reposted with the author’s permission.

UCLA  Center for the Study of Women Presents

Thinking Gender

24th Annual Graduate Student Research Conference

Call for Papers

Thinking Gender is a public conference highlighting graduate student research on women, gender and/or sexuality across all disciplines and historical periods, including future ones. We invite submissions for individual papers or pre-constituted panels on any topic pertaining to women, gender, and/or sexuality.

This year, we especially welcome feminist research on: privacy, diversity, and/or demographics in the age of big data; appetites (pleasure, food, electronics); gender, sexuality, and the new brain sciences (cognitive sciences, psychobiology); the perils of “post-feminism” (feminism backlash, hypo/hypersexualities, rede­fining feminist activism); gender, sex, and criminality; pleasure and ethics (media and advertising, sexuality); gendered spaces (spatial theories, urban planning, domesticity) ; and self-staging in public discourse (reality TV, user forums, “selfi­es”/self-narration and “autographies”).

CSW accepts submissions for both individual papers and pre-constituted panels from all active graduate students. In order to give everyone an opportunity to present, we do not accept submissions from people who presented at Thinking Gender in the previous year. Also no previously published material is eligible.

Students proposing individual papers are to submit a cover page (provided on our website), an abstract (250 words), a CV (2 pages maximum), and a brief bibliography (3-5 sources), for consideration. All components are to be delivered in one document and labeled according to the submission guidelines found on the CSW website. For panels, a 250-word description of the panel topic is required, in addition to the materials that must be provided for individual paper submissions.

Please visit our website for submission guidelines:

Send submissions to: thinkinggender@csw.ucla.edu

Deadline for Submissions: Monday, Oct 14, 2013 by 12 noon

Conference is to be held on Friday, February 7, 2014, at the UCLA Faculty Center.

Event is free and open to the public, but please be aware that there will be a $35 registration fee for presenters, which will cover the cost of conference materials and lunch at the Faculty Center.