And WTF are my bangs doing in this picture? Because it’s freezing in NYC today and I’m having a hard time remembering what it was like being in the tropics last week, thought I’d post some pics to remind myself I was there! To the left, Marco all geared up for snorkeling. To the right, me goofing around submerged. Ah, Puerto Rico….I miss ya already.

Yesterday I attended a Corporate Circle panel at Lehman Brothers on flexibility in the workplace, sponsored by my colleagues at the National Council for Research on Women. Flex in the city. Flex appeal. Ok, I’m having way too much fun here with “flex.” Because the term itself is out of vogue.

Flexibility has become the new “f-word” among savvy work/life researchers, advocates, and implementers. Why, you ask? Because the word places the emphasis on accommodating or satisfying employees rather than on the business imperative to create agile workplaces that are more in sync with the changing needs of the 21st century workforce–which is where the emphasis belongs.

Other ways corporate change-makers are talking about what used to be”flex”: “mass career customization” (Deloitte) and “the agile workplace” (Catalyst).

And speaking of ahead-of the-curve, here’s a call for proposals for a hot conference–do pass it on!:

Families and Work Institute and The Conference Board are seeking proposals on innovative work life practices and approaches for our 2008 Work Life Conference, How We Work and Live Today: The Impact on Employee Engagement and Talent Management, which will be held March 5-6 in Atlanta, GA at the Westin Buckhead Hotel. The online workshop submission form is available here. Suggested workshop topics include:

* What’s really going on with men and women in the workplace today—what’s changed, what’s the same?
* Best practices in responding to the needs of employees at different career and life stages
* How to “flex” flexibly
* Beyond rhetoric—what does it mean to create a respectful workplace?
* How does technology affect work life—and what are companies doing to respond?
* What are companies doing to promote health, wellness, and stress reduction?
* How to help front-line managers deal with their own work life issues so that they can deal better with those of their employees
* Work life and hourly/entry-level employees—what’s new, what’s working?
* New practices in full life cycle dependent care

The deadline for submissions is November 30, 2007.

And speaking of girls who dare….I just heard about a cool anthology that’s about to launch. It’s called Red the Book, and while I’m not sure I fully get the title yet (do you? am I missing something here?), the substance sounds amazing. Here’s the blurbage:

A vivid portrait of what it means to be a teenage girl in America today, from 58 of the country’s finest, most credentialed writers on the subject

If you’re a teenage girl today, you live your life in words-in text and instant messages, on blogs and social network pages. It’s how you conduct your friendships and present yourself to the world. Every day, you’re creating a formidable body of personal written work.

This generation’s unprecedented comfort level with the written word has led to a fearless new American literature. These collected essays, at last, offer a key to understanding the inscrutable teenage girl-one of the most mislabeled and underestimated members of society, argues editor and writer Amy Goldwasser, whose work has appeared in Seventeen, Vogue, The New York Times, and The New Yorker. And while psychologists and other experts have tried to explain the teen girl in recent years, no book since Ophelia Speaks has given her the opportunity to speak for herself-until now.

In this eye-opening collection, nearly sixty teenage girls from across the country speak out, writing about everything from post-Katrina New Orleans to Johnny Depp; from learning to rock climb to starting a rock band; from the loneliness of losing a best friend to the loathing or pride they feel about their bodies. Ranging in age from 13 to 19, and hailing from Park Avenue to rural Nevada, Georgia to Hawaii, the girls in RED-whose essays were selected from more than 800 contributions-represent a diverse spectrum of socioeconomic, political, racial, and religious backgrounds, creating a rich portrait of life as a teen girl in America today.

Revealing the complicated inner lives, humor, hopes, struggles, thrills, and obsessions of this generation, RED ultimately provides today’s teen girl with much-needed community, perspective, and validation-and helps the rest of us to better understand her.

Ok, so can someone explain to me the title? Is it a riff on Little Red Riding Hook? Red Book? Read the Book? Red, like your period? (Sorry — I’m just kind of confused, and I know there’s something I’m missing here….)

Thanks to the ever-savvy Lauren Sandler for the heads up!

I’m not a mom of a girl, so perhaps my take on this is off. But I really dig The Daring Book for Girls. Though that’s just the point, argues Judith Warner at Domestic Disturbances (and, echoing her, Tracy Clark-Flory at Broadsheet). What’s cool to Gen Xers is too cool for school to their progeny. But I’m voting girls will dig it. Has anyone test-driven the book with girls yet? I’d be eager to hear the results!

Meanwhile, judge for yourself. There’s an excerpt from the book and a video of the authors’ Today Show appearance here. And a listing of other upcoming appearances and events here.

(I’ll be posting more fully on my response to the book in December, as part of the book’s blog tour.)

Ok, so maybe I’m just catching up after being in la-la land for a few days, but I just saw that Lisa Belkin wrote a nice piece the other day called “The Feminine Critique,” in which she cites Catalyst’s recent report on the double-binds women in leadership face. I don’t quite agree with Vanessa at feministing’s take on this research and urge folks to read the actual report for more.

Due to my obsessive Hillary fascination, I can’t help but comment on ABC’s trumped up catfight story: Pelosi v. Hillary. Since Jessica at feministing said it best, I’m just going to send you to her. What’s next? Hillary and Nancy get naked and fling mud? Jeesh.

Meanwhile, check out Reuter’s mini-survey of what some feminist thinkers think about the possibility of electing Hillary Clinton to the White House. (Stop the presses: Feminists, it turns out, aren’t interested in choosing a candidate based on his or her gender.) And note Carol Jenkin’s take on the male-dominated media’s roll in it all. After more than 20 debates, in which only six women have participated as moderators and questioners compared to more than 30 men, Carol asks, “Where is the slate of newswomen who consistently get to ask the big, important questions? How can we not think of what we’re witnessing as anything but the traditional all-boys club?” Hmm…

Finally, if you’re looking for a satisfying chuckle, do check out Ann and Jessica’s feisty letter to male politicians to please stop playing the male gender card, here. To wit: “It’s just wrong to expect men to vote for you because you smell like Aqua Velva and cigar smoke, because you own a huge ranch and the Western wear to prove it, because you think America needs a “commanding Daddy” to torture the bad guys.” Hehe.

Yep, Marco and I have decided to do the marriage thing. We’re feeling rather ecstatic — nearly missed a hurricane, spent a few glorious days on a beach, and are now very joyfully kvelling with family and friends!

I’ve been reading galleys for THIRTY WAYS OF LOOKING AT HILLARY: Reflections by Women Writers, edited by New Yorker editor Susan Morrison. Kirkus gives it a rave review, and I wholeheartedly agree with their take. Here tis:

An exploration of Hillary Clinton by 30 leading contemporary female essayists. Even though Hillary is one of the most dissected public figures in American life, this volume is a worthwhile addition to what Morrison calls—quoting Walter Shapiro, the Washington bureau chief for Salon—“Hillary Studies.” The editor assembles a thoughtful collection penned by writers who represent a wide range of the ideological and cultural spectrum. Among the stellar cast are Katha Pollitt, Ariel Levy, Susan Orlean, Roz Chast, Daphne Merkin, Elizabeth Kolbert, Lionel Shriver and Lorrie Moore. Much is made of Hillary’s fashion sense, as well aswhy it has become such a hot topic. Morrison smartly includes the Washington Post’s fashion critic, Robin Givhan, who caused a storm this summer when she wrote a piece examining Hillary’s rare display of cleavage on the Senate floor. Givhan defends her position by arguing that fashion reflects a public persona—even if it doesn’t reveal who a person is, it at least reveals who they would like to be. Exactly who Hillary is provides the primary focus here, along with the question of why more women aren’t celebrating a female presidential candidate, and why so many find Hillary to be such an inauthentic, calculating figure. The writers also grapple with other questions regarding gender: What does it mean if the first female president of the United States is presumed to have achieved the position largely riding on her husband’s coattails? What’s the significance of a female president in a time when so much about the role of women in American society is subject to debate? Each essay is well-written and approachable, even if they occasionally devolve into navel-gazing. A sharp, important book sure to become increasingly relevant.

The book comes out in February, so perhaps this post is a tease, because folks have to wait. But I wanted to give y’all a heads up, because this collection is just too good to keep to myself. And for the literati among you, here’s a link to one of my favorite poems, actually, Wallace Steven’s “Thirteen Ways of Looking at a Blackbird,” after which, one presumes, the collection is named.

(Image cred: ethandraws.com)

GUEST POST BY ELIZABETH CURTIS

Clearly, I can’t get enough of guest posting here at GWP. But I just wanted to share a cool opportunity with the GWP community – because working with ya’ll has been so much fun!

When I’m not wearing my blogger hat, I’m wearing my program coordinator hat at the Woodhull Institute for Ethical Leadership. You may remember Deborah mentioning Woodhull in the past, as she is a fellow at the Institute. Well, this weekend we are having a Women’s Ethical Leadership Retreat at our retreat center in Ancramdale, NY (2.5 hours north of NYC and just a MetroNorth ride away). There are still a few spots left – and I would love to see a GWP reader take advantage of this chance to work on building one’s personal and professional ethical leadership skills.

And what exactly does this retreat entail, you ask…Well! Woodhull offers thought-provoking roundtables on ways to bring ethics into the each participant’s life. Participants brush up on best-practices for communication strategies and learn how to negotiate in your personal and professional life. They discuss how to add balance to a busy life and explore ways to navigate changes – big and small – confidently and creatively. Through workshops, they sharpen tools in the areas of finance and investment. Participants also have the option of joining in a yoga class, hike, or swim and spending personal time journaling or reading. More information about the Women’s Ethical Leadership Retreat can be found at http://www.woodhull.org/womansRetreat.php.

I hope I’ll see you there!

Marc (aka Feminist Dad) posted a comment here the other day in response to my Skirt essay which I’d like to share, cuz I’m going to be writing/thinking a lot about this topic over the next few months for a project I’m working on, and cuz I think his comment is really interesting. Writes Marc:

It’s funny, I have been that sole guy in the audience several times, but I usually don’t think to ask this question [the question being the one I mention in my Skirt piece, “what does contemporary feminism have to say to a new generation of men?” – GWP]. Before I was a Dad, I thought there was a new generation of transformed men. Now that I stay at home part time with my daughter, I have entered a decidedly Mom’s World. I now think the public role for men has shifted to make them *appear* more sensitive. Take for example, the Baby Bjorn. Usually men wear them – at least in pictures – it’s their public role of baby carrying. Does this translate to more time spent at home doing housework or child care? I don’t think so, and as you say in your article, the research doesn’t support it. We seem to have a new generation of men, but one where public and symbolic caring is the norm. Finally, feminism should have nothing to say *to* the men. If men are feminists, then what practices can they offer to support their sentiment?

(Thank you, Marc!)

I found it interesting that on the Baby Bjorn site’s homepage, it’s a dad wearing the bjorn 🙂 Public and symbolic caring and carrying? Or emblem of transforming roles?