events

A CFP to share – but hurry. The deadline is June 12!

The 18th Annual Women’s Studies Conference
“Girls’ Culture & Girls’ Studies: Surviving, Reviving, Celebrating Girlhood”

To be held on the campus of Southern Connecticut State University Friday and Saturday, October 17 and 18, 2008

The 18th Annual Women’s Studies Conference at Southern Connecticut State University explores girlhood. What does it mean to be a girl? Who defines girlhood in an age when puberty and sexualization are happening at younger ages? How do girls assert their own identity in an increasingly medicated and consumerist culture which targets girls as a prime audience? Why are U.S. girls preoccupied with perfection? What challenges do girls across races, classes, religions, nations, and cultures face in an ever more globalized world? What is the relationship between girls and feminism? What effect can feminism have on constructions of boyhood and masculinity and how in turn can this affect girls?

In the 18th annual SCSU Women’s Studies conference, we will take a close look at girls’ culture and girls’ studies, among the most vibrant areas in women’s studies. The Conference Committee invites individuals, groups, scholars, feminists, activists, girls and all to submit proposals that address topics related to all aspects of girlhood.

More info available here.

NCRW Panel on Corporate and Academic Diversity – Post#2

Moderator Ana Duarte McCarthy (pictured) leads the next bit of the session by noting that less than 3% of senior management and corporate officers are people of color. The numbers for women are extremely low. What is it that isn’t working? And what can we do about it?

Melinda Wolfe responds: “Until organizations recognize that women bear children and are primarily the caretakers for them, there will continue to be barriers for women to move up. Some women might come off the track; there are times when women take the scenic route but want to get back on and make a difference, but our systems don’t allow that. There are still huge underlying unconscious bias factors that go on in these institutions, that without critical mass, will continue. In some ways we’re at a dangerous inflection point, in that there are now more people who’ve heard about diversity and think that they get it. But they don’t. Because they think that they get it, their behaviors are more insidious.”

Anne Erni responds: “Several years ago, several of us worked with Sylvia Ann Hewlett on her Brain Drain study. We found that nearly 43% of women in corporations want to step off the track for a while, and 93% of them want to get back on. But less than half are successful in finding fulfilling fulltime roles. So some firms created models, like Lehman’s Encore program, to address. It’s been successful. The key is getting men to empathize. Many of these guys marry women on the Street [Wall Street, that is – GWP], so they are more likely to get it. There were also incentives: people would get paid for referring women who wanted to on-ramp.”

Ah, how money talks. Poignant conversation about race going on next. A woman from the audience comments that she’s often the only African American student in the room. How do we move past that? Rosemary Cocetti shares a personal story about her son, who is an athlete, and a great writer, and who experienced straight out racism at college. His professor didn’t believe that a paper he submitted was his. Ironic, given that Cocetti is the diversity officer on campus. Actually, less ironic, more telling of how far we have to go. On the corporate front, how do coworkers deal with it the first time they see a colleague wearing a head scarf? The dilemma of being the first.

Stomachs are rumbling and the panel is wrapping up. A question asked earlier by Meryl Kaynard, Lehman Brothers, who is sitting next to me, has yet to be addressed. Rats, as this was my question too. The question: What’s going on in terms of Generations X and Y? And I want to know: to what extent does the comfort with a more global community–the one in which we’ve come of professional age–shape our expectations for inclusion here at home?

Ok, signing off now. Fear of carpel tunnel kicking in!

I’m back here at the Kimmel Center at NYU, blogging the session called “Diversity and Inclusion in Corporations and Academia,” moderated by Ana Duarte McCarthy, Lehman Brothers. The panelists are talking about how they each got into diversity work at their corporation or university. Here’s how:

Subha Barry, Merrill Lynch:
“One of the best ways to see the diversity awakening is to see it happen around you. For me, it happened in my community. When I first moved to Princeton, NJ, I had to drive to Edison to go to Indian grocery stores, as there were no such stores in Princeton. And I thought, think about the amount of business we leave on the table simply because we don’t recognize the diversity around us.”

Melinda Wolfe, American Express: “Whether it’s Goldman Sachs, Credit Suisse, Citigroup, or Merrill Lynch, the investment banking world is dog-eat-dog. It’s only been recently and through the efforts of the people around this table and others that we have been able to work cooperatively around diversity. Across firms, those of us who work in this field go around with linked arms. It’s not typically what you see among competitive firms. But we all recognize that it takes truly a village to fix this one.”

Rosemary Cocetti, Georgetown University
“I got into my position because the President of the university created it and offered it to me.”

Anne Erni, Lehman Brothers
“I was on the trading floor, one of the few women who continued to move up. Most of my friends dropped out and became SAHMs. I got a call one day—the Friday of the last week in August—and I was taken aside and told by my boss: ‘Men run in packs. Women don’t. Go create your pack.’ Eventually, I was asked to leave the floor and become Chief Diversity Officer. And I told him, yes. You got me at hello.”

Ana Duarte-McCarthy next asks the million dollar question: What Makes Diversity Efforts Work? Some responses:

Melinda Wolfe: “If you don’t have breadth, depth, and leadership, your organization’s effort at diversity is not poised for success.”

Anne Erni: “The firm set aside an 8-figure bonus pool to reward inclusion. When you’re on Wall Street, you’re entire focus during the year is on how much bonus you’re going to get. So we challenged each division to do an analysis and a plan. The head of each division then presented the outcome of their plan. Six months ago, we completed the fourth round of reviews. In the beginning, you could tell some of them had just been handed the powerpoint script and were struggling about whether to say ‘gay’ or ‘lesbian,’ ‘African American’ or ‘black’. My colleague asked one guy who was stumbling to close the book and just tell him from his heart what inclusion meant for him. The next year, he won.”

Moving now to some Q&A…

NCRW Plenary – Post #7

Ok, it’s Q&A time—generally the best part of any panel IMHO. And here we have Sandi Morgen taking the mike, expressing deep frustration about the “down tone” of this panel. We have an African American running for President, people! Applause. Says Morgen, “Women’s organizations that take a down tone right now are not helping to build the coalition that we need right now to build.”

Kim Gandy responds, asking for recognition that it’s only been a few days, and that there’s a group of people who are hurting out there (HRC supporters), and in a little bit of mourning—just as it would be in the case of the reverse. She calls for an understanding of that. And then she references a column she wrote last night about her daughters who were too young to pay attention to the 2004 election, but who were engaged in this one. Says Gandy, “They saw a woman and an African American run against each other for President. For them, forever, that’s what a Presidential election is. That’s who runs for President. My daughters will grow up never knowing a time when only white men could be considered serious candidates for president. And that is truly groundbreaking.”

Interesting convo about race and gender follows….Feminism’s uncomfortable history with race….How did women of color make their choices in this election?….An audience member says that Frederick Douglas was the only one of all the people at Seneca Falls to truly address a human rights agenda and frame women’s rights as human rights….

Ok, I’ve got to sign off. ‘Til tomorrow!

NCRW Plenary – Post #6

Marie Wilson, The White House Project, who has a history of being a good trend predictor, predicts that this is the cutting edge of the women’s time. (Agree? Disagree?) Snippets:

“This election has been research on the hoof, if you will.”

“Things have changed permanently because of HRC’s run. To begin with, we’ll never have to poll the question ‘would you vote for a woman president?’ again. Because they did!”

“If HRC had come out of the gate talking about bringing people together, it wouldn’t have worked for her. It worked for Obama. But HRC had to come out ‘tough’ and ‘competent.’ She got into fierce mode—‘I will fight for you.’”

“The sexism in America came flat out. So now at least you can talk about it. That’s always a step forward.”

“Because of HRC, three-year-old women are talking about politics.”

“We need research. The Humphrey Center in Minnesota is doing research now on a new women’s political movement, and that we need to do much more.”

NCRW Plenary – Post #5

Diana Salas, Women of Color Policy Network at NYU, is working to teach young women of color about how to influence policy and become “research advocates,” teaching them, in other words, to collect data in ways that are truly representative. Snippets:

“We need to frame our issues in terms of a human rights agenda, and human development—the notion everyone has the right to live in dignity.”

“The abortion rights message has not been working for women of color.”

“We cannot ignore the issues of women who are too young to vote.”

NCRW Plenary – Post #4

Kim Gandy, National Organization for Women, reminds us that 16% is not great, but that we are moving steadily. However, we’re moving not because some critical mass has been reached in society but rather because there are women like those here who have been funding and running campaigns.

Gandy notes that women’s unemployment is rising faster and our median earnings are falling faster (esp single mothers) than men’s, and it’s affecting us longterm, in terms of savings. This demographic, this one that is hurting most, is going to be the one to decide this election. Whichever candidate can reach out to them is going to win.

NCRW Plenary – Post #3

Kathy Bonk, Communications Consortium Media Center, offered as a sidenote that she hitch-hiked in college and got involved in the Shirley Chisholm campaign! But that’s not what she’s talking about here. Snippets from her comments:

“What’s been very painful for me is that in the past 2 election cycles, the only ‘women’s issue’ that’s up for debate seems to be abortion. It wasn’t always that way. If we’re going to do anything for women, we need to move away from personality and back to issues.”

“’Values voters’ is a code word for evangelicals. But I too am a values voter. We should shift the debate so that we look at feminists—and not just evangelicals—as values voters.”

“We can’t loose ground on abortion. In Colorado, there’s a ‘personhood’ referendum on the ballot—meaning the antis are advocating that personhood starts with conception. But abortion issues can’t be all.”

Note: Bonk was involved in spearheading a public opinion poll called “Moving Forward”, which polled voters on their ideas for an agenda that’s not just about abortion but a broader range of issues. She’s got data, if anyone is interested in following up.

NCRW Plenary – Post #2

Among her many other projects and accomplishments, Barbara Lee, of the Barbara Lee Family Foundation, helped the Center for American Women and Politics with a study on women as governors. Snippets from Lee:

“Whether it’s for President or governor, it is the highest glass ceiling of all. Ann Richards once said of media coverage of women: ‘If you’re single, you couldn’t get a man. If you’re divorced, you couldn’t keep a man. If you’re a widow, you’ve killed a man.’ The same holds true with women candidates.

The White House Project was created to create a climate of acceptance for women running for office. Our most recent study asked voters to rate incumbent women governors. Voters rate women govs higher than male counterparts on managing a crisis, problem-solving, and getting things done. Once they’ve seen the women in action, they like them. But the hard part is getting them elected.

Women still face double burdens—they must be viewed as both likeable and capable. Voters tend to meld these qualities for men. Women must prove that they’re qualified whereas men are just assumed to be. Everything about a woman candidate has to be ‘just right’—her hair, her husband, her hemline.”

Headbands, Monica, Cleavage-gate anyone?

NCRW Plenary – Post #1

Ruth Mandel, Eagleton Institute of Politics, is moderating. Snippets from Mandel:

“This year I’ve been reading nonstop about this emotionally, analytically demanding election. When you start your professional career at something called the Center for American Women and Politics at a time when women were fewer than 5 percent of all elected leaders in the country, and then you watch someone run and be taken seriously as a potential presidential nominee by one of the major parties, that, certainly, is coming a distance. But we still have a long distance to go. We’ve started this year at the Center by looking at that number 16 – 16 women in the Senate. That’s not even a quarter. Thirty-seven years after we opened the Center, what does this mean? Sixteen used to be a good number – sweet 16. Not so sweet anymore when we think about that as a level that we’ve seen to arrive at in the political leadership arena after so many years, so much work, so much effort.”

Later, Mandel lists the questions on everyone’s minds:

“What was the impact of gender on HRC’s race? What will HRC do next? What should she do next? What will HRC’s voters do next? What has she achieved beyond this campaign? What’s the legacy of the campaign? Has HRC’s run opened paths for women going into politics? Or has it deterred women from deciding to run, after seeing how she was treated? Why didn’t more young people see HRC’s run as something they wanted to be a part of?”