After that last post, I thought I owed you all an upper. So here are three things that cheer ME up:

1. The Happiness Project, a blog based on a forthcoming memoir about the year Gretchen Rubin spent “test-driving every principle, tip, theory, and scientific study I could find, whether from Aristotle or St. Therese or Martin Seligman or Oprah” ; The Happiness Project (just the name makes me happy!) gathers these rules for living and reports on “what works and what doesn’t.” On this daily blog, Gretchen recounts some of her adventures and insights as she grapples with the challenge of being happier. Happy that, Gretchen!

2. These cool fora (as in plural of forum, not as in “flora” with a typo) that I’ve been working on for the National Council for Research on Women’s new blog:

3. GWP’s new intern, Melinda Parrish, aka formerly Girl Sailor, who you will be hearing more about/from soon.  Welcome, Mel! We’re so excited to have you here!!!!

(Note, I did not say my kitten. Oops, I guess I just did. Hopeless am I.)

And, yes, given the economic meltdown, for everyone’s no doubt.  But here are a few items that caught my eye:

In technology…

According to an article in Saturday’s New York Times, women are veering away from computer science in droves.  The stat:

• Twenty-five years ago, more young women in colleges and universities were drawn to computer science than today.

What up?  Read the article, and do check out the amazing work that GWP’s own Science Grrl is doing on this front.  Paging Science Grrl!

And at Citibank…

In case you missed it, check out the article on how the chaos on Wall Street has cost Sallie L. Krawcheck’s career, cutesily titled  “When Citi Lost Sallie.” (Thanks to Purse Pundit for the heads up).

And in Afghanistan, a horrible blow for girls’ education.  This whole thing about the acid attacks on school girls in Kandahar makes me just weep.

Sorry to be a downer today.  I’ll be back with more cheery news, I hope, soon.

Courtesy, as ever, Rebekah at WMC:

For Women, It’s Not The Gender, It’s The Agenda

11/14/08

Boston Globe: While all eyes were focused on Palin and the “Sarah-centric” (her words) crowds that turned out for her rallies, there was a quieter “women’s story” in this race that may make the doorway a little narrow.

Summers May Be Off Of Treasury Short List

11/13/08

Politico.com: Intense backlash from women’s groups may have pushed former Clinton Treasury Secretary Larry Summers off the short-list to lead Treasury for President-elect Barack Obama, according to widespread reports circulating in Democratic circles.

Hillary Clinton Emerges As State Dept Candidate

11/14/08

Boston Globe: Sen. Hillary Clinton emerged on Thursday as a candidate to be U.S. secretary of state for Barack Obama, months after he defeated her in an intense contest for the Democratic presidential nomination.

Women Gaining Political Power

11/13/08

CNN: “Women are about 54 percent of the vote,” CNN contributor Hilary Rosen said. “Do we have equal representation? No. Are we closer to it? Yes.”

POLITICS-US: Feminists Say The Work Has Just Begun

11/13/08

IPS: Women’s right activists see an open door to the White House of President-elect Barack Obama, and they plan to walk right in and take a seat.

Ok, I can write that sensational headline cause I wasn’t there this time. But my fellow WGLs Courtney Martin, Gloria Feldt, and Kristal Brent Zook were, plus the amazing Maria Teresa Peterson (who stepped in for me – thank you MTP!).

For those who haven’t heard of this yet, Women, Girls, Ladies: A Fresh Conversation Across Generations is a traveling panel promoting intergenerational feminist dialogue across the land.  We speak at campuses and organizations (and are available to come to YOU! Rebecca Rosenberg, rebecca@parchitamedia.com, is our contact lady).  Here is Miss Courtney with a recap for us all:

We had an incredible experience yesterday in Kansas City. First we did a very interactive, intergenerational workshop over at University of Missouri-Kansas City where we met fascinating local women (many of them named Linda?!) from the YWCA, The American Association of University Women, the incredible UMKC Women’s Center staff and board, and so many more.

One of the big insights that came up from that experience was a question:

When do we, as feminists, confront sexism directly and when do we deal with it indirectly instead?

It seemed like so many of the experiences and anecdotes that women of all generations brought to the table were focused on this difficult negotiation. In order to get the progress we so desire, do we swallow some of our ire when a sexist guy says something inane? Or is it our responsibility as loud and proud feminists to call him out regardless of the fall out?

As if that conversation wasn’t rich enough, we still had the big event to come. Yesterday evening we had a panel in honor of Ruth Margolin, Founding Director of the UMKC Women’s Center. There was a huge crowd (300+) in the absolutely beautiful Kansas City Public Library-Plaza Branch. After wine and cheese we migrated into the newly renovated auditorium and got to hear some wonderful words about Ruth Margolin’s fiery character. Apparently she was never afraid of being a loud and proud feminist! It was so special to be having our dialogue in honor of her legacy.

The audience brought up a range of issues; everything from women in the military, pay equity, body image, abortion, Clinton’s infidelity scandal, Sarah Palin, and racial tensions within feminism were a part of the conversation.

Thanks to all who contributed your insights and questions. And thanks to everyone at UMKC, especially Brenda Bethman, for making this really exquisite event and experience possible! And a special, special thanks to Maria Teresa Petersen, who stepped in for the much missed Deborah Siegel with grace and eloquence. Maria Teresa was fantastic. Check out her organization, Voto Latino, here.

*The Kansas City Star did a great write up of the event. So did The Pitch, Kansas City’s weekly, but check out the title! “Meow Mix”? Come on people, this is exactly the point of our panel. When men disagree, it’s called a disagreement. When women disagree, it’s called a cat fight. Thank goodness we’re reclaiming the frame!

–Courtney Martin

Crossposted at WomenGirlsLadies.

It’s been a heavy week of working on my (endless) book proposal and dealing with lots of other stuff, and so I thought I’d finish the week out with a (gulp) kitten pic. Come on, I’ve been good all week! She’s just too adorable not to share.

I also wanted to send a heartfelt “welcome” to all the new commenters this week. We’re thrilled to have you here and look forward to getting to know you and your perspectives more!

This afternoon, a guest post from Amanda Marie Gengler, Visiting Assistant Professor in the School of Behavioral Sciences at Barton College in Wilson, NC. Here’s Amanda! -Deborah

While the election is over (hooray!) and we are at least temporarily saved, as Judith Warner wrote, from the “specter of Sarah Palin” as VP (or worse), her meteoric rise over the past 2 months is a stark reminder that we have a long way to go in gender and politics. Tuesday morning Palin appeared on the Today Show; back home, back in her kitchen, deftly navigating between the fridge, dishwasher, and countertop as she chatted with Matt Lauer and mashed food for the baby.

Some had suggested that the selection of Sarah Palin as McCain’s running mate represented a strange milestone for women: the one where mediocre women can achieve the same success as mediocre men. For years unexceptional men have easily attained exceptional positions, while exceptional women have struggled to do so. So why doesn’t Sarah Palin mark this feminist “victory”?

Because Palin is exceptional in the area a woman must most be: her femininity. While Hillary Clinton was derided for her pantsuits and her age, Palin’s background as a beauty queen, a mother of five, and her lavish wardrobe of fitted skirts and stylish heels (eagerly subsidized by the RNC) remind us that whatever other assets a woman may possess, her proper gender performance trumps them all. A quintessential femininity is the highest card in the deck. While McCain’s motivations were likely complex, it would be difficult to argue that if the photos and biographies that accompany Sarah Palin and Kay Bailey Hutchison were reversed, his choice would have been the same. He rightly guessed that her smile, figure, and photogenic family would resonate with an American public still deeply invested in traditional and essentialist views of gender.

Yet we are to believe that the highest aims of feminism have been realized when a VP candidate can be deemed “hot” by Alec Baldwin on Saturday Night Live, and lusted after by male voters across the nation. We are again reminded, in 2008, that if we are not properly plucked, pinned, coiffed, rouged, and of course, lip-sticked, we may risk our very professional lives. It seems after all, that those exceptional “true” women–the ones who manage to be maternal enough, to smile enough, to stay slim enough, and to keep all the obligatory feminine balls in the air (never missing a deadline, a diaper change, or a bikini wax)–set the bar today’s girls are to strive for.

Funny how “progress” can look so much like the past.

–Amanda Marie Gengler is a Visiting Assistant Professor in the School of Behavioral Sciences at Barton College in Wilson, NC.

The first gay marriages in Connecticut were performed yesterday. This and the abortion battlegrounds that came out pro-choice are the good news in the recent so-called culture wars. But extremely disheartening news came out of November 4th as California’s anti-gay-marriage and anti-gay-rights Proposition 8 and a law in Arkansas banning people cohabiting outside of marriage from adopting or acting as foster parents were passed.

As one of my favorites, Dan Savage, writes in the New York Times this week, these anti-gay laws are distinctly anti-family:

That state’s Proposed Initiative Act No. 1, approved by nearly 57 percent of voters last week, bans people who are “cohabitating outside a valid marriage” from serving as foster parents or adopting children. While the measure bans both gay and straight members of cohabitating couples as foster or adoptive parents, the Arkansas Family Council wrote it expressly to thwart “the gay agenda.” Right now, there are 3,700 other children across Arkansas in state custody; 1,000 of them are available for adoption. The overwhelming majority of these children have been abused, neglected or abandoned by their heterosexual parents.

Even before the law passed, the state estimated that it had only about a quarter of the foster parents it needed. Beginning on Jan. 1, a grandmother in Arkansas cohabitating with her opposite-sex partner because marrying might reduce their pension benefits is barred from taking in her own grandchild; a gay man living with his male partner cannot adopt his deceased sister’s children.

Activists for gay rights are now organizing protests at Mormon Churches, which provided much of the funding for Proposition 8’s campaign, and are boycotting those businesses and some individuals who financially supported Prop 8. Just recently, Scott Eckern, the artistic director of California Musical Theater, resigned from his position after coming under fire. Marc Shaiman, Tony-award winning composer for Hairspray, was one of those who said he would no longer allow his work to be performed at Eckern’s theater.

Eckern has expressed surprise and claims that he is “deeply saddened that my personal beliefs and convictions have offended others.” But why should he be surprised and why should he paint his convictions as merely “personal”? He contributed money to a political campaign whose aim it was to interfere in the personal lives of his fellow citizens and many colleagues. Why should he be surprised that some of these colleagues themselves took it personally that he helped mandate the ways in which they are, and are not, allowed to recognize their love for their partners?

Image Credit.

So sayeth Jessica Wakeman, a former associate blog editor at the Huffington Post. And she should know.

The stats:

• The site highlights 13 “featured blog posts” on the home page at a time, and that selection is updated regularly. Extra! recorded those featured bylines twice every weekday for nine weeks and coded them by gender.* During the study period (7/7/08-9/5/08), only 255 of 1,125 bylines-23 percent-belonged to women.

• Of the 89 times bylines were checked during the study, not once did the number of women’s bylines equal those belonging to men. Only eight times did women account for more than a third of all bylines. And Arianna Huffington, appearing 57 times, accounted for more than a fifth of all women’s bylines; 45 of those occupied the most visible top post. Only once, in fact, did a woman other than Arianna Huffington get her byline in the most visible top slot-Post editor-at-large Nora Ephron

Wow.  GO Jessica Wakeman.  Read the full article, here.

Yep, you got that right. Barack and 50 Cent in the same sentence. Or rather, post title.

Last night I went to KGB bar with Shira Tarrant to hear her read from Men Speak Out, along with one of her contributors, filmmaker Byron Hurt, and learned about Byron’s latest–a short doc examining the contrasting styles of manhood exhibited by Barack Obama and Rapper/Mogul Curtis Jackson, aka 50 Cent. It’s part of The Masculinity Project, a web-based endeavor launching in January 2009 devoted to redefining what it means to be a man. Here’s the 10-minute short, which has been released only at Byron’s website and is being spread virally:

Read more about it here. Word.

GWP’s resident Science Grrl, Veronica Arreola, is here with a fantastic column adding to her WMC commentary on Larry Summers. Reminding us all that a much-celebrated election victory doesn’t mean our work is over, Veronica asks whether Summers is really change we can believe in. –Kristen

There’s much more not to like about Larry Summers than just one line in one speech.

First that line…It was not just a simple line, but a complex argument that was summarized into one line and then reinforced during the question and answer session and in subsequent interviews. And that was not all he said; he also ranked in order of importance three reasons why women are not well represented in science and engineering. First, he noted women’s unwillingness to work 80 hour weeks, second, their innate handicap in math, and finally, discrimination.

The first reason is important, because I believe it will soon become obsolete—it will be the straw that breaks academia’s back…MEN will quickly move into this category too. I have seen signs of Gen X men scoffing at 80 hour weeks because they want to be more than just the breadwinner. They want to know their children and enjoy their lives. Once a critical mass of men do, we’ll have more support for work/life balance. But what is flabbergasting is that Summer ranked discrimination last, privileging the idea that women are innately unable to do math as reason for our lack of representation. But the data simply does not bear out this theory.

While women hold the largest edge in biological sciences, they lose that edge by graduate school and quickly fade by faculty time. Obviously the on average 60% of biological sciences degree holders have a firm grasp on math, so what happens to them? Do they lose their math skills as they age? Doubtful. The genetic difference argument holds no water, and other factors, such as family pressures and lack of role models, give more valid insight into why women are being “lost in the pipeline” in graduate school.

Second issue: is Summers such a strong believer in the theory of the free market that he wouldn’t initiate any pro-women policies for fear of hindering the free market? That’s a question I’d like to see a Senator ask if Summers is nominated. Does welfare to single moms throw off the free market? Does it do more damage than a government bailout of the banking system? While Summers has written Financial Times columns in the past few months that show a greater role for a government hand in the economy, is this an actual rebirth, or would he still fall back on the free market policies of the Clinton years?

And lastly, yes, his past stance on the developing world is important to this debate. As I wrote in my WMC article about Summers, I voted for change and that means a change from this country using developing countries as a dumping ground.

My opposition to Larry Summers as Treasury Secretary goes beyond one line in one speech. It is the mentality and thoughts behind that one line, behind that one speech. What type of person thinks it is ok to say that women and girls can’t do math, and that he would be safe from rebuke for it? Will a man who holds these views fight for equal pay, give benefits for child care, or demand that discrimination be stamped out of the workplace?

The question: Does he or does he not believe in regulation … and if yes for financial markets, why NOT for labor markets?

~Thanks to economist Susan F. Feiner for guidance on this issue and for the last line.

–Veronica Arreola