women’s leadership

While I’m being ripped to shreds over at Comment Is Free (!) for my piece called “A Hillary Supporter’s Remorse,” I’m sharing a comment from Marjorie here on GWP in a post. I urge folks to check out what Gryff has to say in our comments too. I love it when there’s this kind of back-and-forth going on over here, and just wanted to thank both of them for their insights and thoughts. Here’s Marjorie, with an eloquent essay of her own:

I vowed way back in 1992 that, no matter where I lived in the world (at the time I thought I’d be living in Asia or Europe), if HRC decided to run for president, I’d drop everything and return to the US just to help out in her campaign.

As it turned out, I’m in Colorado and have devoted some of my weekly columns for the local paper on her campaign and credentials, not to mention donated some hard-earned cash to her campaign. However, as far as putting my life on hold to volunteer my heart out…er, let’s just say that that hasn’t happened yet.

I suck at fundraising (my own family turned down a request to donate $25 each to an awareness walk for a disease that I have), can’t stand the telephone, and literally break out in hives when I have to do any kind of public speaking. I can barely make it to my next door neighbor’s house without shaking in my shoes. In other words, I’m not the kind of campaign activist you want on your team. And yeah, I feel like I let HRC down, too.

I would love to see HRC win, but while I remain the eternal optimist, the numbers are not looking good. However, I appreciate the McCaskill quote you referenced in your article. Hillary’s a big girl, she can handle her own campaign and will step down from it when she’s good and ready. At this time I still think she’s the best candidate and always will, and apparently millions of others feel the same way. If nothing else, I appreciate that HRC seems to understand the loyalty and passion her supporters feel for her and the responsibility that entails. To retreat now — even if that would seem to be the logical choice — would be an awful blow to those who worked so hard on her behalf.

I think that, for her as well as for myself and countless others, this election is about more than just a call for “change.” What bothered me about the 2004 election (and why I didn’t vote for Kerry but for Nader instead) is because I felt that the Democratic theme seemed to be, “It’s better than the alternative.” There didn’t seem to be a really strong push to field a worthy candidate, just a half-assed attempt to throw any warm body into the ring as an alternative to Bush.

Now, though, not only do we have two strong candidates, but they’re both non-traditional ones. Now that we have an election worth bothering about, it’s actually become personal, far more than any election I’ve ever witnessed in my lifetime (I’m 36). Suddenly, I’m seeing my hero, a woman I’ve admired for 16 years, whose life and accomplishments I’ve followed for just as long, on the verge of literally becoming the leader of the freakin’ world.

For that reason alone, I think that even if you’ve worked in politics in the past, I can only imagine that losing now would be even more difficult simply because we had a chance to make history…and failed. This isn’t about a Democrat winning anymore, but a woman actually winning the White House, something a lot of us didn’t think we’d see for decades.

By the way, I would be very surprised if Obama extended the olive branch and offered Clinton the VP-ship, and even more so if Clinton accepted it. Maybe I’m just projecting my own profound disappointment, but I can’t imagine that happening after the exhausting bitterness of the last few months. And quite frankly, that would hurt like hell.

Cheers,
Marjorie

I’m posting this cause I dig the cover. It’s a book published in 2006 called A Woman for President: The Story of Victoria Woodhull, and it “brings a fascinating character from history to schoolchildren.” And in case folks are wondering who the Woodhull Institute is named for and all.

Check out this must-read piece from Marie Wilson over at HuffPo, called “Leading Like a Girl: For Men Only?”, which concludes:

I am on a crusade to have women risk revealing their authentic selves. As a group who bring important attributes to leadership, who can also be tough and in control, women’s leadership, having been honed at the foot on the table, has lessons and positive possibilities for us all. We have made it safe for men to play like the girls. Now is the time to claim our own ability to do the same.

Along the way, Marie touches on men’s and women’s investing styles and the gendering of political leadership styles. One of the smartest slants on these topics I’ve read in a while. Thank you Marie. (And thank you to Catalyst’s Laura Sabattini for the heads up!)

Samantha French, age 14, is a student at Writopia Lab,, a writing enrichment program located on the Upper West Side of Manhattan. She’s written an incredible piece for Girl with Pen and though it’s longer than the usual fare and I still haven’t figured out how to do jumps (help, anyone?!), I’m publishing it in full because it’s just so well written. Go Sam. Did I mention Sam’s 14?! Here she is. -GWP

As we all know, the buzz around America’s college campuses is Barack Obama and how he represents change for America. According to the media, he has overwhelming appeal to the country’s so-called “youth.” And it’s true. The phrase “yes we can” is being inhaled faster than pot brownies and Jell-O shots at a frat party. However, what the media seems to be consistently ignoring is the opinions of the country’s real, good old-fashioned, disenfranchised youth: high school students. Who are almost unanimously pro-Hilary.

OK, so I’m dreaming.

As a female freshman in Bard High School Early College, one of New York’s more liberal high schools where nearly two-thirds of the student body are females, there is not huge support for Hillary, which makes me sad. Many people at Bard, both male and female, support Obama because they are “tired of the Clintons” (a notion which they have obviously been fed by their parents. Think about it: the last time a Clinton was in office they were eight at the very most).

At first, I agreed with them. My dad’s a die-hard Obama supporter and so are a lot of my friends. But the turning point came for me when I saw how upset and truly devoted Hillary was to the race after her defeat at the Iowa caucus. The moment that the cameras revealed her sad eyes, I realized that I was seeing in her something rarely seen in any presidential candidate: a human being. While my father continued to be very pro-Obama (re-recording Twisted Sister’s “I Wanna Rock,” titled, I Want Barak,)—and put pressure on me to agree with him—I felt a connection with Hillary after that night.

A “conversation” with a boy in my English class the next day clinched it for me. At 9:00AM, the morning after Hillary’s Iowa defeat, I came into my English classroom and sat at the table, looking around at my fellow students, their tired eyes skimming the pages of the New York Times or finishing up homework at the last minute, some finishing their Dunkin Donuts coffee.

Suddenly, I found myself in a debate with other kids about the caucus the previous night and who was for whom. Our teacher was quick to join in, turning it into a discussion which lasted for a good part of the class. The conversation turned to the obvious gender/race issue and one boy was quick to raise his hand when the question of what we thought about a female president came up.

“Well,” he said. “Because she’s a woman, it’s likely that she won’t really be able to perform her duties at ‘that time of the month.’”

Hold on. Rewind… OK, what did he just say?

The girls in my class instantly reacted with high-pitched comebacks and shouting. My friend stood on her chair and said rather loudly, “OH MY GOD COULD YOU GET MORE UN-P.C. PLEASE?” Another girl shouted: “I get my period too, but I come to school every day! I walk up and down stairs!” There was so much noise that I could barely get what I was saying out, so I stood up on my chair and screamed: “SERIOUSLY JUST SHUT UP. I HAVE SOMETHING TO SAY AND IT’D BE NICE IF YOU ALL COULD HEAR ME!” The class instantly became silent.

“OK, so,” I took a deep breath and sat back down. “Hillary is probably post-menopausal so that is a completely invalid argument.” A chorus of agreement sounded from the girls.

The boy, who was recovering from all the screaming, replied defensively. “Well, it was my grandma who said that about Hillary.”

“And your grandmother’s how old?”

“80-something.”

“Your grandmother grew up in a society where women were seen as housewives and probably the last time she went through a menstrual cycle was in the 1970’s when women were still fighting for their rights!”

It was the moment that those words came out of my mouth that I realized I was totally pro-Hillary. Everything my father had instilled in me about Barack Obama melted away. Though I still care about the policies presented by each candidate, it ended up coming down to something bigger. It became about realizing the importance of taking a feminist stance in modern America and how important Hillary’s campaign is to feminist history. Not only do I agree with her healthcare policy and her method to get out of Iraq, but I also feel that she is hugely inspiring.

Since my “feminist awakening” as I guess you could call it, I have signed up for Hillary’s website and watch coverage of her rallies. Just today, I watched a video of a rally of hers in North Carolina where Hillary spoke to a huge audience of predominantly women. When she was taking questions, a young boy told her that both of his grandparents had died of heart disease. He asked her what she planned to do to prevent that from happening. She smiled warmly and promised the boy and the rest of the audience that if she were to be elected she would fight for equal health coverage and protection from such diseases. It is moments like that that make me feel that Hillary would be an amazing president; I believe her historical commitment to health care together with her maternal, relatable qualities would benefit America greatly.

My friends try to convince me to switch to being pro-Obama, and though I may sway a little at times, I’ll get an e-mail from the Hillary campaign or read an article about her and it reminds me of why I love Hillary so much: she has a genuine connection with the people. She is kind of like a mother-figure in that she is very compassionate and approachable, but also very powerful

My generation has witnessed turmoil and corruption during Bush’s terms as president. What we need now is a bad ass mom (with a bad ass track record) to whip this country back into shape.

Check out this YouTube video by Shut the Freud Up Productions. Warning: It’s long (9 minutes). The bulk of it is male pundits spewing chunks, with meta commentary from Edward R. Murrow superimposed, and scary Carl Orff’s Carmina Burana music creshendoing in the background. Keith Oberman gets lumped in with the other nuts, which I think is slightly unfair, but hey. My favorite part is around minute 6, when it turns into an montage to the beat of Alanis Morrisette [correction: Meredith Brooks!] belting “I’m a bitch, I’m a lover, I’m a sinner, I’m a mother.” Check out these lyrics–pretty a propos:

Yesterday I cried
Must have been to see the softer side
I can understand how you’d be so confused
I don’t envy you
I’m a little bit of everything
All rolled into one

I’m a bitch I’m a lover
I’m a child I’m a mother
I’m a sinner I’m a saint
I do not feel ashamed
I’m your hell I’m your dream
I’m nothin’ in between
You know, you wouldn’t want it any other way

I HEART WAM! And it’s been such a pleasure to meet bloggers–Jill and Holly from Feministe, Amanda from Pandagon, Hugo Schwyzer–and many other folks I’ve long admired. Always grateful to make connections new and old. I’ve finally dragged my computer out and am live blogging here from the final session, “Cleavage, Cackles and Cookies: Analysis of News Coverage of Hillary Clinon and the Presidental Election.” So here we go:

Allison Stevens of Women’s eNews is moderating and offers out the following statistics, via a recently released report from The Center for Media and Public Affairs (a non-partisan org that tracks coverage):

84% of on-air comments about Obama have been positive
43% of on-air comments about Clinton have been positive

What gives?

Barbara Lee, social activist and philanthropist, frames the convo with a look at the difficulty women governors–her expertise–have in getting elected. She notes that voters give female governors high marks. Once voters have seen women governors in action, they LIKE them. But it’s the getting elected part that’s hard. Voters have doubts about whether women are capable of leading at the highest levels. They must be perceived as both competent and likeable–not an easy feat. There’s also “hair, hemlines, and husband” phenomenon–everything about a woman candidate has to be just right. Once in office, female govs exceed and redefine voter expectation. But here’s the upside: The higher standards are producing women governors who excel in the eyes of the voters. And while voters demand more from women, they also give them great credit.

On Hillary, Barbara restates the obvious:

“The media coverage–particularly cable tv pundits and talk show hosts–has been maddening. Rarely, has the historic nature of her campaign been celebrated. Rather, it’s been demeaned.”

Carol Hardy-Fanta, Director of UMAss Boston’s Center for Women in Politics and Public Policy, reruns clips of the news coverage of Cleavagegate and Hillary’s Cackle, calling attention to the throughlines. A thought: News stories about Al Gore’s sigh, John Edwards’ hair, and Hillary’s cackle–initiated at Republican headquarters?

Since Cookiegate back in 1992, Hillary has had to straddle different and changing ideas about women. Back then, the break with the past was seismic. Until Carter’s campaign, Presidents’ wives didn’t sit in on Cabinet meetings. Hillary was the first President’s wife who came from having a major career. She was trapped between an outdated past and an uncharted future. Since then, she’s faced all sorts of double standards. Most recently, she’s been accused of using a “mommy strategy” to soften her image.

Additional obstacles include this: Since 9/11, citizens willingness to vote for a qualified woman candidate for Prez has actually decreased.

Betsy Reed, Executive Editor at The Nation, refers to the “tsunami of misogyny” we’ve seen–it’s a “breathtaking amount of venom.” According to the race playbook and the gender playbook, blacks are seen as traitors, while women are seen as weak. Betsy also addresses ways that Hillary’s gender and Obama’s race have helped them in their campaigns.

Alison asks: What does this campaign mean to future female candidates and future candidates who are people of color?

Carol Hardy-Fanta: “Hillary started off as the one to beat. She had name-recognition, money, the establishment, and a popular former President behind her. She had the ‘unassailable lead.’ She was the first woman who had wiped away the large structural barriers to a woman becoming a nominee. She made some mistakes, but compared to John McCain’s mistakes? If Hillary can’t even get the nomination, I don’t think we’ll see another woman run and win until my daughter is a grandparent. And what of the fact that Reverend Wright gets so scrutinized while McCain gets a free pass on Pat Roberston endorsing him?”

Betsy Reed: “It’s unfortunate that Obama has not been able to call out the sexism that Hillary has experienced. He hasn’t called out some of the racism that he’s experienced. It’s as if the very accusation is suspect somehow. We need to figure out a better way of talking about these things, and waging protest when appropriate.”

Ok, off to ask a question for the panel, so am signing off for now….

(Image cred)

In this week’s Newsweek cover package (“Hear Her Roar: Gender, Class, and Hillary Clinton), Tina Brown reports on the euphoria at the Columbus Anthanaeum when the primary results for Ohio started coming in: “They were raising the roof along with the band to the old 1965 McCoys hit ‘Hang on Sloopy.'” A number of other women writers weigh in with their observations, punditry, and advice. Two zingers that struck me as funny:

Kathleen Deveny on being fed up with ambient sexism and friends who refer to Hillary as a scold: “[F]orgive me if I’m feeling a little shrewish myself these days. From now on, if you want to call the first woman to win a Democratic primary a bitch in front of me, you’d better be Tina Fey.”

Advice from Monica Crowley, a McCain supporter: “Clinton should…reach out to Obama’s core constituencies–black voters, the young, higher earners, and those with college degrees. Her message: ‘I forgive your fliration with the Hope Guy, but now it’s time to come home to Mommy.'”

Interesting little sidenote: the “My Turn” essay in this particular issue is by male ballet dancer”Sascha Radetsky and is called alled “Don’t Judge Me By My Tights.”

Sigh. Yes. It’s a question many are starting to ask. In “Electing a Woman to the White House: Who’s on Deck?” NYTimes writer Susan Dominus notes that “There is…a good chance that if Mrs. Clinton falters, the feminist conversation will shift from what went wrong with her campaign to another pressing matter: who’s coming down the pipeline.”

Also of interest over there recently is an article titled “Mining the Gender Gap for Answers,” in which reporter Robin Toner concludes that answers are, well, few:

“Move beyond the tactical skirmishes in this campaign, and one of the most intriguing issues remains the influence of gender on Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton’s candidacy. The questions are fundamental and — even with modern polling technology — almost impossible to answer.”

Well, let’s see what the day brings. It’s sure to be an interesting one at that.

(Thanks to CCF for the reminder.)

Last week I put a page out to women’s leadership researchers. And my friend Laura Sabbatini over at Catalyst helpfully responded, reminding that their July 2007 report, Double Bind: Damned If You Do, Doomed If You Don’t, covers many of these issues. Writes Laura, “Think about the think-leader-think-male stereotype and how men are perceived as ‘natural’ leaders by default. Because men don’t have to prove that they can lead, any ‘communal’/feminine behavior is considered positively (that is, as an add on) when performed by a man, or definitely more positively than when it is performed by a woman.” The report is available online.

Laura also sent along a few research articles that have “some good supporting evidence in terms of the same behavior being perceived as different when performed by a man or a woman.” For those seeking to dig deeper, check out:

-“Role Congruity Theory of Prejudice Toward Female Leaders” by Alice H. Eagly and Steven J. Karau
-“Same Behavior, Different Consequences: Reactions to Men’s and Women’s Altruistic Citizenship Behavior” by Madeline E. Heilman and Julie J. Chen

J.K. Gayle sent along the following, to add to a discussion in which “feminized,” when applied to Obama, becomes coded racially–and, suggests Dr. Helen, perhaps to mean socialism:

-Over at Rachel’s Tavern – “Serious Question…for Everyone About Racial Double Standards”
-And at Dr. Helen – ” Is Obama Feminized?”

I’d add that Patricia Williams has done some great writing on these topics in her column at The Nation. Def worth checking out.

(Thank you, as always, L and J.K.!)

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

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

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

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

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

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