Currently, women comprise only 17 percent of Congress.  Women of color are completely missing in the Senate, and make up only 5 percent of the House of Representatives.  Oft-repeated stats show that when the ratio of women in national legislatures is examined, the United States places 71^st out of 189 countries.  Even Cuba and Pakistan surpasses us in the rankings.

Headlines emerged declaring 2010 the year of the Republican women (although many appeared to fall under Tea Party jurisdiction). In my efforts to comprehend the competing story lines about this new breed of woman politician on the scene, I was getting a cacophony of competing arguments in my head.

A revolving loop with a series of questions kept playing.  Is gender trumped by ideology?  What is the subtext when two women candidates face off against each other? Why does the “Mama Grizzly” phenomenon, and right-wing women candidates staking a claim to the feminist legacy, leave me both incredulous and aggravated?  Since Christine O’Donnell, Michele Bachmann, and Sharron Angle oppose abortion in the case of rape and incest, do their supporters follow them down that road?  Every time Christine O’Donnell says something laughable, is it any more absurd than the candidacy of Alvin Greene?  Why do corporate titans who have turned their sights on elected office—such as Carly Fiorina, Meg Whitman, and Linda McMahon—embody the style of leadership that emanates from a traditional male model, and what do they bring to the party?  And finally, what’s with women using the “man-up” taunt? Is that any better than telling a woman in a debate to “act like a lady?”

I kept asking myself, “What makes women good leaders, regardless of their philosophy?”  I pulled out my copy of Secrets of Powerful Women: Leading Change for a New Generation. The book, released earlier in the year, evolved from conversations that were part of the Lifetime “Every Woman Counts Campaign,” which encouraged women to run for office and be active in the political process.  I checked all the pages with the turned-down corners to see if any addressed the uncertainties that were gnawing at me.  I got more confused. Advice ranged from “Don’t be oversensitive” and “Be tough” to “Wield power like a woman”—referencing different life experiences for women that create “greater empathy.”  Susan Bevan, co-chairwoman of the Republican Majority for Choice, wrote about “protecting individual autonomy” and why “a woman’s right to control her reproductive health is absolutely central to our success as a civilization.”  Susan Wolf Turnbull, Former Vice Chair of the DNC, related, “The scrutiny of women’s clothing choices in politics is ridiculous.  There’s a double standard in the ways men and women are judged on appearance.”  Repeatedly mentioned was the “unique perspective that women bring to government.”    Rep. Shelly Moore Capito (R-W.Va.), said that “good policy depends on input from a wide variety of views and perspectives.”  Madeleine Kunin, the first woman governor of Vermont, advised finding your own voice and seeking power to empower others.  She also emphasized why women needed to be in charge…because of their unique understanding of families and women’s lives.

So if there was concurrence on how women could add to government in a special way, why was I seeing some women as über-destructive in their approach?

I called Lisa Maatz (also featured in the book), Public Policy & Government Relations Director at AAUW.  She walked me through a few basics.  Regarding those women I find so alienating, she suggested that stylistically—in order for women politicians to get noticed in their caucuses and move their agenda forward—some research reveals that women who break the glass ceiling utilize more traditionally masculine strategies.  That’s what gets rewarded. “Typically, more women in politics lends itself to a more rational conversation,” Maatz said. Yet with all the hyper-partisan histrionics, and as Maatz underscored, “women in the political middle are getting edged out,” I was having trouble seeing evidence of evenhanded dialogue.  We parsed the “who has a right to call themselves a feminist” issue.  Maatz posited that “the goals of feminism were to create social, political and economic independence—allowing women to take full advantage of life opportunities and to express independent opinions and decisions.”  On the topic of choice, Maatz explained that one of the successes of the women’s movement is that “it has created opportunities for women and allowed them to judge, compare, and contrast women candidates in a way that is less dependent on gender.” However, she noted that there are still “crazy amounts of sexism” out on the campaign trail.  Regarding my O’Donnell vs. Greene question, Maatz saw reaction to O’Donnell as having “gender based undertones,” whereas in the case of Greene, there was “a general dismissal—with racist undertones.”  On a positive note, she assured me that “women can self-define and move forward.”

I was still feeling badly.  Elected women remain in the minority and we need more women in office.  But if they are using tactics and rhetoric that are unconstructive, where’s the benefit?

I checked in with Sam Bennett, President and CEO of Women’s Campaign Forum and former Congressional candidate.  The WCF is a partner in the “Name It. Change It.” action to fight sexism in the media coverage of women candidates.  “What we’re seeing are consequences of the conservative wing of the Republican party making abortion a wedge issue,” she told me.  “Back in the 70s, scores of Republican candidates that WCF supported were advocates of choice for women.  In the Senate, that number has dwindled to two women, Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe. Like Maatz, Bennett acknowledged traditional Republican women getting squeezed out by far more conservative candidates.  The only Republican women who are surviving electorally are the ones “that embrace the platform of right wing men.”

Bennett sees the solution as “oceans of women who support reproductive choices and options of both parties. The WCF endorses women standing up and running for office because women legislate differently than men.  They bring something to the table that men don’t.”  She added,  “But if I have to, I’ll even take a take a conservative woman over a conservative guy”—because part of the problem is that men are making all the decisions. Men don’t get pregnant—women do, even conservative women.”

I hit pay dirt speaking with Susan J. Carroll, Senior Scholar at the Rutgers Center for American Women and Politics.  She was able to nail the “Mama Grizzly” and “Man-Up” issues for me with succinct explanations.  “The Mama Grizzly thing is fascinating,” she said.  “It’s extremely effective politics in a very masculine space.  It’s tough for women to be both masculine and feminine.  It works for these Republican women, because it combines motherhood with the masculine.”  Okay, I see the visual iconography…the ultra-femme woman protecting her young and defending home and hearth.  She continued, “They cast themselves in a conventional, traditional kind of way.  It’s a creative, effective image.”  On adding the term “man-up” to the campaign jargon, Carroll elucidated, “You’re dealing with a masculine space, so it’s a way of telling your opponent, ‘You don’t fit in this space.’  It’s intentionally a gender thing. ‘I’m a woman, but I’m more masculine than you are.’  The job is defined as masculine, so it’s interesting strategically.  They position themselves as stronger for the job than their opponents, using gender to do that.”  Carroll expressed recognition of continued sexism articulating, “There’s been a lot of that, and it operates against all women.”

Which brought me back to the subject of “who gets to claim the feminist mantle.”  Carroll said, “Feminists opened the door, and right wing women politicians walked through.”  She asked rhetorically, “How much do we want to police the term feminist? I understand the frustration.  Yet, we have to learn from our own history that there is a problem when some people and not others get to decide.  In the past, someone has claimed, ‘I’m a feminist, and this [description] doesn’t fit me,’ whether it was working-class women, women of color, or lesbians.  That’s what makes this so complicated.”

More angst.  I went back to the original notes I had taken when I first read Secrets of Powerful Women.  I had gotten a quote from Kunin which contended, “Many women run for office because they are attracted by the issues, such as improving education or protecting the environment. They tend to be less ideological and more practical than men and are more comfortable with crossing party lines… If there were more elected women in the United States Senate today, I believe there would be less gridlock and more action.”

I also had an e-mail note from Michelle Bernard, political analyst and the President and CEO of the Independent Women’s Forum.  Her insights echoed some of what her colleagues had suggested, amended by a strong dose of pragmatism.  She wrote:

“Women absolutely can work across partisan and ideological lines to seek solutions that work best for people.  In fact, women who tend to be better listeners and more open to compromise and finding areas of common ground, may be better suited to this task than most men.  That said, it is critical that we recognize that there are real differences of opinion among women.  Some women firmly believe in the ability of government to do good, while others just as firmly and passionately believe that government tends to cause more problems than it solves and want government to leave their families alone.  We shouldn’t fool ourselves that just because two policymakers are women that they are immediately going to agree about a matter of policy. The 2008 presidential election demonstrated quite clearly that women are not a monolithic voting bloc.  Under one tent, we now hear the voices of both big and small government women voters and policymakers.”

Coming down the home stretch I was beginning to feel a modicum of clarity. I got some closure from Erin Vilardi, Vice President of Programs & Communication at The White House Project. She describes herself as “a young feminist who has dedicated her career to developing women as leaders and political candidates for the past seven years.”   She wrote,  “At The White House Project we tell women that our vision is a place where women can be judged on their agenda, not their gender.  And that’s something every woman can get behind.”

On hand was Melanne Verveer, one of the chairs of the U.S. – Afghan Women’s Council, who presently serves as the Ambassador-at-Large for Global Women’s Issues.  She was definitive on why “women matter” in Afghanistan.  She said, “Our government believes very, very strongly that we have to continue to invest in the women.”  Verveer affirmed that life in Afghanistan would not get better for women until there is parity in their economic participation, and in the branches of judicial law and police training.  “You can’t divorce the civilian participation from the country’s security.”  She referenced the U.S. Action Plan for Afghan Women, and was the first of many speakers to emphasize the utmost necessity of women being at the table in negotiations with the Taliban.  Circling back to the issue of media, Verveer spoke about the women journalists she had met while in Afghanistan and why it was essential to support and strengthen their capacity to get the story of Afghanistan’s girls and women told.

Mitchell underscored the difficulties facing women journalists in Afghanistan, very few of which make it to top-level roles.  Mitchell opined that the most “significant story” in Afghanistan is “the story about women.”  In 2002, Mitchell helped to train and equip Afghan women journalists through a PBS sponsored program that created the documentary Afghanistan Unveiled.  Mitchell informed those gathered, “That story could not have been told by a western journalist.”

Conditions and concerns on the ground were addressed by many of the guests.  Dr. Najib Sharifi talked about the “thirst of the Afghan community to have freedom of expression,” reflected in the post-Taliban surge in independent media. Sharif discussed the challenge of “switching from rockets and bombs to communication.”   An ongoing and pressing concern is the safety of reporters.

Currently, 660 women comprise the ranks of the 2,000 media professionals in Afghanistan.  In 2000, that number was zero.  Kathleen Reen, from Internews – whose mission is “Empowering Local Media Worldwide,” touched upon the need for more women on the technical and broadcasting side.  She pointed to how women are hampered by family pressures and traveling difficulties, and explained why the mobile phone has become the source of media for so many in Afghanistan. She said that the “issue of the upcoming jirga,” and women’s representation in it, needed to be repeatedly raised.

Mariam Atash Nawabi, President of AMDi International, a company focused on rule of law, economic development and multicultural communications work in Central Asia and the Middle East, targeted “media as a tool for social change.” She spoke directly to how media laws are being formulated, and highlighted her belief that there was still an issue about censorship in a “baseline conservative Islamic country.” Nawabi expressed concern about criminalizing offenses, which translates into jail time for journalists who ask questions the government doesn’t like.  She was outspoken about cases of violence against women journalists that were not prosecuted, stating flatly, “I’m tired of investigations.  I want real action.”  With a view of media as the fourth branch of government, Nawabi reiterated that women need more access to technology, underscoring how the mobile phone is a way to disseminate health information and mobilize the vote.  In her weekly thirty-minute show, she is striving to cover stories about Afghan women from a positive angle.

A recurrent theme was the need for reports of productive developments to come out of Afghanistan, to balance the “acid throwing stories.”  At the Diane von Furstenberg Awards, held at the United Nations shortly after the Paley event, I interviewed Sadiqa Basiri, who was being honored for her work as the founder of the Oruj Learning Center.  She concurred emphatically.  “In the west,” she said, “there is only one story. Burquas.”  She spoke about how life has changed dramatically for educated women, such as those in the fields of engineering and medicine.  “Doctors are back to the hospitals and their own practices.  Now we have more than fifteen stations, and 50 percent of the broadcasters are women.  There are women in sports playing soccer.  Women have their own businesses and are traveling.”  Basiri did point out that in rural areas, little has changed due to the lack of education.  “Only 18 percent of women are literate,” Basiri said, “and only 1 percent of this percentile are the leaders.”  She mentioned that Afghan women had the right to vote in 1919, before women in the United Sates.  She said, “The rights are in the Constitution, but not implemented.  They are just done nominally.”

The media needs to keep vigilant tabs on how the Afghan government deals with women’s issues.  As Basiri noted, “It’s not the top stuff for Karzai.”  She related a story about a meeting he was suppose to have with women on March 8^th, but then asked to reschedule to March 7^th.  Despite the change to accommodate his calendar, he didn’t show up.  The person who came on his behalf gave no explanation.  One thousand women were in attendance, waiting.

The work of Afghan women on the ground is a story that Diana Rowan Rockefeller, Founder and Chair of Afghan Women Leaders Connect, would like to see get more play.  A participant at the Paley event, I followed up with her by telephone to get her insights.  “I’d really like to see the Western media go deeper, because I think people want to know more. We know too well by now that our worlds are closely linked.”  Discussing the coverage of the corruption around the opium trade and the acts of violence against women, Rowan Rockefeller said, “Any of these horrendous attacks on women and the vulnerable are tragic. The media coverage of acid attacks or shootings might have mobilized Western support [for Afghan women]. But now the press should go broader, to cover the very strong work being done at the grassroots level by courageous women who are reaching tens of thousands of women – one woman at a time, one family at a time.”

Afghan Women Connect promotes a firm belief in adhering to the strategy of taking the lead from Afghan women.  Rowan Rockefeller told me, “When Connect began in 2001, our questions to the Afghan women were, ‘What do you need? How can we support and empower you to do your work setting up schools, clinics, legal aid centers.’ Now it includes, ‘How can we help you tell your story?’”

To this end, Rowan Rockefeller will be taking part in an upcoming speakers series organized by the U.S. – Afghan Women’s Council.  The goal is to have American women in journalism support Afghan reporters and broadcasters by sharing their expertise, advice, and experiences. Ching Eikenberry, a communication coordinator for USAID in Kabul, and the wife of Ambassador to Afghanistan Karl Eikenberry, has taken a leadership role in this initiative.

Over Mother’s Day, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) led a Congressional Delegation of four Congresswomen to Afghanistan to visit with service men and women, and to observe on the ground developments.  In addition, they met with President Karzai, who told them that 417 women had qualified to be on the ballot for the September parliamentary elections (out of 2600 candidates).  The post-war Afghan Constitution mandates that every province must have at least two women elected to ensure that women’s representation in the government comprises 26 percent.  In a press conference to discuss their findings, there was a consensus among the Congresswomen that “security for Afghan women is the key.”  A guarantee of personal safety will lead the way for women to participate in governance, education, and economic development.

I contacted Rep. Donna F. Edwards (D-MD), who was on the trip, to get her insights on if American media was getting the story straight, or even at all.  She told me, “The story of women’s participation in politics has not been told, and it’s a really important part of the story.”  Addressing the lack of insightful coverage she offered, “There are so many nuances that we haven’t begun to scratch in our media.  Our concerns are American and western concerns.”  Edwards articulated, “Afghan women want to be certain that their voices are heard.  They want to be engaged in their own future.”  Recounting one of her experiences during the trip she said, “We met women in Zabul province.  They were working in agriculture, education, and health. They were all gathered in one room.  Some in burqas, some in traditional dress, but it didn’t matter how they were dressed.  They all had their own voices.”

As expressed throughout the Paley Center meeting, securing women’s rights in any negotiations with the Taliban is paramount. U.N. Security Council Resolution 1325 requires parties in a conflict to respect women’s rights, and to support their participation in peace negotiations and in post conflict reconstruction.

When I asked Rep. Edwards what she considers to be a primary news story to watch about women’s issues in Afghanistan, she also stressed, “It’s really important to make sure that women are not thrown under the bus, and that the Taliban will have to adhere to the Afghan Constitution which protects the rights of women.”  She paused and added, “This is absolutely a priority.”

Diligence on the part of those in media to recognize the narrative as crucial – and exposing the American people to the topic – is the strongest option for keeping the pressure on.

I attended the performance that featured “A Salute to Roy Aarons.” A co-founder of the Maynard Institute For Journalism Education that trains minority journalists, Aarons died in 2004.   In addition to founding the National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association, Aarons was recognized for his activism on behalf of diversity.

The original format of the material, as developed by L.A. Theatre Works in 1991, was a play for National Public Radio.  In 2007, Cowan revised the text by integrating previously unreleased documents and shifting Katherine Graham, publisher of the Washington Post, to the role of narrator.  It was then reformatted as a stage presentation.

The core of the story centers on a pivotal decision that must be made by Graham in 1971.  In question is whether she will give approval to print the documents Defense Secretary Robert S. McNamara ordered written to record the role of American involvement in Vietnam – the Pentagon Papers.  The action takes place after the New York Times (who received the materials first via reporter Neil Sheehan) has been ordered by a judge to discontinue publishing articles drawn from the classified information.

For those in the audience whose sensibilities have been formed by personal computers and the Internet, the milieu of a mere two decades ago may seem remote.  During that time frame, both the New York Times and the Washington Post were macho enclaves.  The 1968 Kerner Report, which made recommendations to the media about the employment of minorities and critically evaluated the media coverage of the urban riots, had yet to make an impact.  At that juncture, the resources of newspapers to have a showdown with the government were more substantial.  In today’s world, if no one stepped up to publish the documents, the information would find its way to the Internet.  The recent revelations on WikiLeaks showing Reuters journalists being killed in Iraqi are a prime example.

Cracks surfacing in the government’s façade – as they are less able to spin facts – are noted by one of the main characters, Washington Post writer Murray Marder. He brought the term “credibility gap” into the popular vernacular when he used the phrase, originated by David Wise in a New York Herald article, in May 1965. Wise had pointed to the dichotomy between the facts being presented by the Johnson administration about the progress of the war, and the on-the-ground news dispatches from Vietnam.

In production notes, Cowan discusses how the play evolved from an undergraduate lecture course he taught in media law in the mid-70s. Cowan currently holds the Annenberg Family Chair in Communication Leadership at the University of Southern California’s Annenberg School for Communication.  I contacted him by e-mail for his impressions on how drama culled from actual events can impact the culture.  He replied:

“By dealing with issues of current and enduring importance, as experienced by real people, the docudrama can be a powerful means of raising questions and provoking constructive debate. Hopefully the panels after Top Secret illustrated the kinds of exciting conversations that dramas based on fact can produce. We have all been at fascinating after-play discussions and many outstanding discussions follow works of fiction such as Doubt and Proof. But docudramas can often bring those discussions to another level by exploring how real people dealt with real issues.”

For many in today’s audiences, there is limited knowledge about Civil Action number 1235-71, United States of America versus the Washington Post Company, et al.  When the case ended up at the United States Supreme Court, it was ruled that both newspapers were allowed to resume publication of the documents.  Graham states that Justice Hugo Black wrote that the Times and the Post “should be commended for serving the purpose that the Founding Fathers saw so clearly.”

For those unfamiliar with the history, Top Secret opens a door to understanding concerns of utmost relevance today.

This story originally appeared on the website cultureID.

In March I attended an event sponsored by the Women’s Campaign Forum, which launched, “Who Needs More Women in Government? Everyone.”  With stats showing that “women are one-third less likely than men to view themselves as qualified to run for office,” WCF gives candidates early support and endorsements.

Their basis for backing a woman is strictly non-partisan. However, she must safeguard “reproductive health choices for all.”  When founded in 1974, the WCF was named Women’s Campaign Fund.  At that time, it had a PAC status and concentrated on giving help “when and where it’s needed.”  In 2006, they reorganized the structure in order to run programs and produce original research.  One of their studies, “Vote With Your Purse,” examined women’s charitable giving. It determined that women give less money to political candidates than men.”

When I spoke to Lauren Martin, Communications and New Media Manager for WCF, she informed me that the organization had endorsed more than 2,000 women since its inception.  She emphasized, “We’re constantly searching for ways to recruit more Republican women who meet our criteria.”  Studies illustrate that women tend to be more collaborative in their legislating styles. The “She Should Run” program notes that a solution to terminating Washington stagnation would be the involvement of women – who currently comprise 24 percent of state legislatures, 17 percent of Congress, and 12 percent of governorships.  Martin informed me that “a woman needs to be asked to run for office an average of six times before seriously considering it.”

WCF sponsored candidates were an integral part of the evening.  Beth Krom, who has ten years of “elected office” service under her belt, is running for California’s 48th Congressional District seat.  During her terms in the City Council and as Mayor of Irvine she zeroed in on the economy, education, and environmental stewardship. Krom is poised to get a foothold in what has traditionally been considered a solid Republican stronghold.

Ann McLane Kuster is going after the 2^nd District open seat in New Hampshire – which her mother ran for in 1980.  The first person in her state to publically oppose the Stupak Amendment, she has been outspoken on health care and her belief in the public option.  An attorney who specialized in adoption and higher education concerns, Kuster worked with lawmakers to fashion legislation that would help middle-income families save for college.

The centerpiece of the cocktail reception at Christie’s Auction House was a “performance” delivered by twelve prominent women standing on ladders, delivering succinct thoughts to the audience.  They included Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner, who is currently running for the Senate, and Swanee Hunt, United States Ambassador to Austria from 1993–1997.

I talked with Avis Jones-DeWeever, from the National Council of Negro Women, before she went aloft.  She told me that NCNW was partnering with WCF this campaign cycle to “identify more women of color” to bring into the process.  She said, “It’s a good non-threatening way to get activists to represent interests, and then take those names to the next level.”

Christie Hefner, identified in the program booklet as the “longest-serving female CEO of a public company in U.S. history,” mingled with guests before taking part in the presentation.  One woman approached her and asked, “How do you reconcile working at Playboy with your support of feminist issues?”  Hefner responded by outlining the “political stands” which Playboy has taken over the years.  When pressed on the subject of the photographs featured in the magazine, Hefner replied, “ They are clearly celebratory, clearly romanticized pictures.”  As an after thought she added, “I could have gotten the paycheck somewhere else.”

The color of the night was purple. It was featured in pens, printed cards stating “Ask a Woman to Think About Running,” and with t-shirts emblazoned with “She Should Run.” The symbolic violet hue harkened back to the days of the suffragettes.

The WCF Board Chair, Maggie Kavalaris, told the crowd to take out their cell phones and text “WCF” to FUTURE (388873). This would connect them to the WCF wireless community for updates on women and politics.  Sam Bennett, President and CEO of WCF, expressed her feeling that “not a single endorsement meant as much in my race as Women’s Campaign Forum.”  When people were telling Bennett that her candidacy was not viable, the WCF nurtured her.  When she lost, the note she received from them stated, “You’re a great woman leader.  Run again.”

Barbara Lee, Founder and Chair of the Barbara Lee Family Foundation, underscored her efforts of the past ten years to elect women governors – because “governorships are the pipeline to the presidency.” The themes reiterated throughout the evening were:  “It’s important to have women decision makers who understand about diversity; Women in government champion anti-discrimination laws; Young girls need role models; Half of all elected officials should be women.”

After the reception segment, guests adjourned to pre-selected dinner parties hosted around Manhattan.  I attended the Lifetime Networks gathering, where Regina Calcaterra, who is running for the New York State Senate in the 1^st District, spoke.  She recounted the story of her personal epiphany in 2008, when she went to vote.  Calcaterra related that she “saw two things that were wrong with the ballot.”  They were, “No women [running], and a conservative senator for State Senate was running unopposed.”  She commented on the “chaos Albany is today,” and stated, “I understand the power of state government.”  Calcaterra pointed out that whoever wins the majority of seats are “who redistrict the congressional seats.”

Jenni Luke, the Executive Director of Step Up Women’s Network, filled me in on her national non-profit organization. Their mission is to connect and advance women and girls by matching communities of professional women with underserved teen girls.  Lorelie Masters, co-host of the dinner and WCF Board member, conveyed to me, “We need more critical mass.  Change won’t come until we have more women in politics.”  Masters spoke about the emotional and financial support that is offered to women candidates at all levels.  “We are political venture capitalists.  We invest in women,” she said.

President of Hearst Magazines, Cathie Black, echoed that point of view.  “It’s all about the check book.  If we don’t keep talking about it, it will not happen.”  Ellen Levine, Editorial Director of Hearst Magazines, referenced the recent headlines about the Eric Massa meltdown when she said, “It’s my really deep belief that if we have more women in office we will not have major media stories about tickle fests.”  On a pragmatic note she added, “I believe in equality.  We vote more.  We are simply not represented.”

Bennett, who had been making the rounds of all the gatherings, showed up toward the end of the evening.  We conversed about her appearance on the Chris Matthews Show, where she discussed the Martha Coakley defeat.  Her final words to me conveyed her conviction on the role of women in politics.  “We only lose when we do not run.  It’s time to move the national needle.”

Photo courtesy of Kelly Janes

I had been hearing stories about women demonstrators being raped before their executions, since it was against Islamic law to execute a virgin. I tracked the information back to an article in The Jerusalem Post (7/19/09) by reporter Sabina Amidi, which recounted an interview with a member of the Basiji militia.

That same weekend, I learned of a video posted on YouTube about the rape of a young Iranian demonstrator. The person who put it up apologized for the graphic and brutal footage, but defended his choice with a plea for help from the rest of the world.

On July 17, 2009, The National Council of Resistance of Iran headlined the story, “Iran: The burnt corpse of of female demonstrator found after a month of captivity.” This is related to the practice of burning corpses post-rape/torture to cover up the crime.

Most of the people who responded to this information asked me why they hadn’t heard anything about these incidents in the main stream media.

I didn’t have an answer … other than main stream media is not the only place to get news.

©Marcia G. Yerman 2009

]]> http://www.mgyerman.com/2009/07/20/the-rape-of-iranian-women-under-reported/feed/ 0 http://www.mgyerman.com/2009/07/05/caregiving-%e2%80%93-the-days-of-the-maiden-aunt-are-overcaregiving-%e2%80%93-the-days-of-the-maiden-aunt-are-over/ http://www.mgyerman.com/2009/07/05/caregiving-%e2%80%93-the-days-of-the-maiden-aunt-are-overcaregiving-%e2%80%93-the-days-of-the-maiden-aunt-are-over/#comments Sun, 05 Jul 2009 16:49:11 +0000 Marcia G. Yerman http://www.mgyerman.com/?p=525 It used to be the province of the maiden aunt, the unmarried family member with no children of her own.  She would be called upon in times of need to help with her siblings’ offspring, or the parents who had become infirm.

Women have always cared for others.  Sometimes, it was the only way they could support themselves in economies that didn’t allow for other options (Think Jane Eyre).

For those who can not afford the services of others, or are combining caregiving tasks with their own full-time work, the physical and emotional demands are exhausting.

I have had the experience from both sides of the life cycle.  Parents, who had long and productive lives, required help when they were felled by extended illness.  A child, whose needs went beyond the requisite care, necessitated my time, energy, and focus to ensure that he was guaranteed a sure-footed path in life.

Having done both, I know it can be draining, frustrating, and at times – deeply sad.  But I wouldn’t go back and change my choice to be pro-active.  I saw tangible results from my actions, and I sleep with a clear conscience.

There is an ad on television about the middle-age woman who got behind in her credit card payments because she gave up her job to “take care of Mom.”  The pitch line is she has a friend in her credit card company, so she doesn’t have to worry (Yeah, right.  Check the interest rate!).

Instead of credit card loans, how about a tax credit for those who need to leave the work force to take care of a family member?  Let’s reexamine the structure of the social security benefits of a mother who needs to be at home with a child.  In those “non-productive” years, a big, fat zero gets factored into her earnings average.

We need to move forward with advocacy and legislative solutions.  For the caregivers devoted to either our older citizens or those who make up the future generation, there has got to be a better way.

This article originally appeared on the website Fem2.0

There was drama and theatrics galore.  Billed as “live and uncensored,” in addition to the debate, there were demonstrators and hecklers in the theater.  Three men unfurled a banner that read “Indict Rove – Mr. Thief.  Prosecute the War Criminals.”  Another said, “Obama is a terrorist.”  A woman ran onto the stage with handcuffs, accosting Rove, to make a “citizen’s arrest.”  Jean Stevens, National Media Coordinator for Code Pink, confirmed that the woman, tackled by security guards, was a member of the organization.  Diversionary catcalls in the balcony seats made much of this activity possible.

At the beginning of the evening, Rose appealed to the audience to “accept and listen to thoughts and ideas” they may disagree with.  He had little more success with his two guests, who frequently spoke over each other, making parts of their conversation inaudible.

It was clear that Carville supporters outnumbered their Rove counterparts.  However, a woman behind me was part of a coterie of Bush/Rove partisans, and she supplied a running counter-commentary to Carville’s insights.

The two men’s intellectual and presentation styles were reflected in the visual cues of their dress and body language.  Rove appeared in a suit and tie.  Carville sported slacks and a checked shirt with a blue tie.  The two large monitors amplified the over-sized gestures of Carville, from the cleaning of his glasses while Rove spoke, to his emphatic head shaking in reaction and disbelief to Rove’s observations.

Rose put the ball into play with a query on the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor for the Supreme Court.  Rove was not impressed with the choice, and made an aside about “the vetting problems of Barack Obama.”  Carville spoke about Sotomayor’s experience and degrees from Princeton and Yale.  Rove retorted, “You don’t have to be particularly smart to graduate from an Ivy League school.”  The subtext of that observation ricocheted back onto him, as a big laugh emanated from the crowd.

“Restoration of confidence in the country,” emphasized  Carville.  He posited that Obama’s biggest accomplishment to date was, “The country is more optimistic and we feel better about ourselves.”  He added, “Let’s give it a chance.  We’re doing pretty good so far.  It’s been four months.”

Rove acknowledged that the United States had come a long way from the Civil Rights Act of the 1960’s, granting, “Obama is an historic figure.”  He then segued into the thought, “There are people that didn’t want George Bush to succeed.”  A voice from the middle rows yelled out, “That’s a lie!”

The Republican Party, its future, and the personas of Colin Powell, Rush Limbaugh and Dick Cheney were analyzed. Carville got guffaws by saying, “I don’t want Rush Limbaugh to shut up.”  Rove responded by moving the dialogue to Nancy Pelosi territory.  “Pelosi did a drive-by with the CIA…That’s not the way a leader acts.”  On Guantanamo, Rove remarked, “I would be amazed if Obama can figure out how to move forward from a closing of Gitmo.”

Carville doubled back to his oft-repeated disaster theme.  “Barack Obama inherited a disaster,” he said.  “The Republicans have an excuse for everything, and an answer for nothing.”  Carville pointed to 2005 as a particularly low point, with the push for the privatization of Social Security, the Terri Schiavo case, and the Katrina debacle.  It was the issue of Katrina that created the biggest fireworks of the night.  Much of the discourse was lost as Carville and Rove talked over each other in a cacophonous duet.  Carville responded to Rove’s assertions with, “I fall off the back of my chair.”  Rove rejoined, “I love the histrionics here.”

The match continued with a series of one-liner volleys.

Rove: “Bill Clinton had a brilliant political mind, but was undisciplined.  He will be a footnote in history.”

Carville: “George Bush will not be a foot note in history.  Noooo.  I had to defend eight bad minutes.  Karl had had to defend eight bad years.  Karl, I feel for you, man.”

Rove: “The world is safer by having Saddam Hussein gone.  Bush will be seen as a person who fought terrorism.  Obama is adopting Bush’s foreign policy.”

Carville: “There was massive incompetence in Iraq.  Take responsibility.  Everything is someone else’s fault.  Take responsibility.  It’s bad for children to see this!”

The show ended with Rove and Carville shaking hands.  The woman behind me was talking almost as fast as Carville saying, “Rove is right. Ray Nagin and Kathleen Blanco created their own disaster by not taking a category five hurricane barreling toward them seriously…Nancy Pelosi is a liar.  In the glow of 9/11, she took the information and accepted it…Bush was right to be tough on terrorism. He saved us from a couple of hits.”

Nobody who went in with a defined set of ideas came out with a fresh point of view.  For most, that was not the objective.  Rather, it was about the sparring and the jabbing, and who landed the most punches.  A political Thrilla in Manilla.

It is down to the wire for the special primary being held on Tuesday, March 2nd, for the Fifth Congressional District on the north side of Chicago — traditionally a Democratic stronghold. The field holds twelve Democrats, six Republicans, and five members of the Green Party. The general consensus is that the Democratic victor will go on to win the April 7th special general election.

Emily’s List jumped in early to support Democratic State Representative Sara Feigenholtz, who has focused her message on the goal of fixing the health care crisis. Feigenholtz has spoken repeatedly about her mother, who emigrated from Poland and put herself through medical school. From her mother she learned that “health care is a right, not a privilege.” Feigenholtz wedded her concern about health care to women’s issues, when she committed to fighting for mandatory coverage of mammograms by insurance companies – for all women aged 40 and older.

Support for Feigenholtz is not limited only to the healthcare realm. She has racked up endorsements from the United Auto Workers, the United Steelworkers (District 7), the University Professionals of Illinois (Local 4100), and the American Federation of Teachers. On February 22nd, the campaign hit it big with a nod from Illinois State Comptroller Dan Hynes, who has been outspoken on the subject of government ethics and reform.

Using the Obama model of building a strong grassroots base, Feigenholtz has tapped into the social media playbook with a profile on Facebook and updates on Twitter.

Having co-sponsored the “FamilyCare” bill with Barack Obama, when he was an Illinois State Senator, she is in the unique position to go Washington as an impact player on health, children’s issues, and recouping ground lost during the Bush Administration.

All she has to do is survive the blood sport known as “Chicago politics.”

However, after the warm glow subsides, the reality of working to regain traction on ground that was lost during the Bush administration will set in.  With a president in the White House who understands and accepts a woman’s right to reproductive justice, the focus will now entail a reexamination of the multitude of factors that are part of the larger picture.

As the economic crisis looms large, women need to be able to connect the dots from financial empowerment to their health care issues.  In two recent events sponsored by the American Association of University Women, I was able to hear speakers define the picture.

At the first, Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) was the featured guest.  The incoming Democratic chair of the Congressional Caucus on Women’s Issues, she clarified that “We have to undo some things.”  She enumerated the “global gag rule, family planning money, and the conscience clause.”  The latter she compared to “hiring a fire fighter that won’t go into a burning building.”

With the goal of expanding paid and medical leave, childcare resources, and retirement issues…it all comes down to money.  That conversation was taken up in a press call sponsored by AAUW featuring women’s advocate, Rep. Rosa DeLauro (Dem-Ct.).  While the Lily Ledbetter Act has received a lot of recognition, the Paycheck Fairness Act – which ensures women a second avenue to pursue discrimination claims — is not as visible to the general public.

Both bills just passed in the House, but an outspoken advocacy push will be needed for passage in the Senate.  Advocacy links have been set up to facilitate contacting Senators.

So how does this connect back to reproductive justice and women’s health care? Do the math.  Women account for 50 percent of the work force.  One fifth of women are without health insurance, and half of women are in jobs without retirement plans.  When you read the statistic that women are earning 77 cents on the dollar, there is another set of figures beneath the surface.  Those tell the story about women of color.  Black women earn 67 cents on the dollar; Hispanic women are at the low end of the scale at 58 cents.

As Schakowsky noted in a 09/23/08 op-ed in The Hill, “Women are disproportionately affected by higher medical costs that eat up more of their wages.”  Women require more health care, but have fewer financial resources to pay the bills. They pay 68 percent more than men for out-of-pocket expenses.  As a result, one in four women is unable to pay her medical bills.

This can boil down to lethal consequences.  Schakowsky gives the figures of almost one in five women in the nation as being uninsured, and therefore at risk of being one of the 22,000 Americans who will die annually due to lack of coverage. Women of color, those who hold the lowest paying jobs, and those who are living in poverty are most adversely affected.

When converted into women’s medical realities the results are:

• Uninsured women with breast cancer are 30 to 50 percent more likely to die from the disease.

• Uninsured women are three time less likely to have had a Pap test in the last three years, setting them up for a 60 percent greater risk of late-stage cervical cancers.

• 13 percent of all pregnant women have no insurance, and therefore are less likely to follow a course of prenatal care.

• Breast cancer can be treated as a pre-existing condition

In tandem with the work of the 111^th Congress to institute safety nets for women on the economic front and in the reform of healthcare, The Prevention First Act has been introduced to specifically deal with issues including Family Planning, Teen Pregnancy, Sex Ed programs, and Emergency Contraception for Rape Victims.

It should be noted that reproductive justice has different meanings across the board.  To a young woman in college it can be access to low-cost birth control.  To a mother-to-be it can translate as affordable pre-natal and follow-up infant care.  To a woman living in poverty, it can be the resources to travel to a health care provider or clinic.

It is worth reflecting on the fact that in 1969, President Nixon stated in a message to Congress:

“It is my view that no American woman should be denied access to family planning assistance because of her economic condition. I believe, therefore, that we should establish as a national goal the provision of adequate family planning services within the next five years to all those who want them but cannot afford them. This we have the capacity to do.”

On December 26, 1970, he signed Title X into law.

It’s been a long eight years, but we have survived the badlands of the Bush administration.  Good intentions on the part of the Obama administration towards women’s concerns are a start, but not a guarantee.  For that assurance, women need to look to their own resolve.

The article originally appeared on the RH Reality Check website.

Attending events around New York City, I have consistently been hearing two points of view.  The first is, “Thank God he got elected. Let’s give the man a chance.” The second is, “We’re going to have to hold his feet to the fire.” And that’s the exact phrase that is invariably used. The euphoria of November 4th and the upcoming excitement surrounding the inauguration are competing with the reality of each looming crisis, from the economy to Gaza.

Disappointment came early for many when Obama named Hillary Clinton as his choice for Secretary of State. At a Code Pink fundraiser in Manhattan, hosted by Paulette Cole, CEO and Creative Director of ABC Home, the optimism was cautious. Given that Code Pink is a highly activist and energized community (Cole spoke passionately about using “commerce as a tool to effect change” and the work of the ABC Home & Planet Foundation), it came as no surprise that opinions were clear and strong.

Jodie Evans, a co-founder of Code Pink, told me plainly, “I’m a little concerned about foreign policy. The wave he [Obama] rode was an anti-war wave.” Evans continued, “I’m unhappy there isn’t one anti-war voice” [in foreign policy]. She spoke about Code Pink’s new campaign, “War is so over.” Reflecting on when she heard the news of Hillary’s appointment she said, “I was in Iran when it happened. It was painful.” Referencing the m.o. that Code Pink has   become known for, Evans explained, “We’re multi-layered. We’re visual, vocal, persistent and consistent…We’re constantly trying to get to the truth. We just can’t continue the status quo.” The point of view for Code Pink is that war can’t be the answer. This may put them on a collision course with the Obama cabinet – especially regarding future policy in Afghanistan.

Former Congresswoman Liz Holtzman was present at the gathering. “Code Pink is about the audacity of truth,” she said. Medea Benjamin, Evan’s co-founding partner, was succinct when she said, “We are going to lead this administration in the direction we want to go.” Benjamin’s concern centered on how Code Pink could help to tell the story surrounding the issue of sanctions on Iran, which she believes only hurts the populace. “We realize our commonality with a lot of the Iranian women. They have told us that U.S. sanctions and military threats give their government more power.”

Nancy Kricorian, the coordinator of Code Pink New York City, said, “When Obama was elected, I felt giddy with relief because the alternative was going headlong over a precipice.” After a pause she added, “He’s surrounding himself with hawks. I’m waiting to see.”

Democracy Now! founder Amy Goodman echoed Kricorian’s concerns. “It’s a very serious issue – who has his ear. Movements now are absolutely critical. On November 4th, the world breathed a sigh of relief. But it’s not about Barack Obama anymore.” Goodman was clear that the attitude of “wait and see” was a “deadly” one. “Global warming, health care, the economy… how are these issues going to be resolved?” she asked rhetorically. “What matters now,” she answered, “is policy. Who pressures him [Obama] and who is around him.”

CodePink is building out a campaign housed on their site which is being called RemindObama. It has a seven-point program of holding Obama to his election promises.

Look for their presence at the Washington festivities.

* * * * *

Growing out of a letter from feminist historians to President-elect Obama for a “new new deal,” a January meeting was held in Manhattan bringing together academics working to formulate an   agenda for their view of an economic recovery policy. Arriving early, I was able to chat with Professor Annelise Orleck, who mentioned that she was deeply unhappy about Rick Warren’s presence at the Inauguration.

“That said,” she indicated, “I’m keeping an open mind.” There were copies of the National Council of Women’s Organizations recommendations being handed out. The top paragraph included the premise of recognizing the mission to ensure that “women’s traditional work, caring for children, families and communities, is properly valued by society, supported by government, and increasingly undertaken by men as well as women.”

It was put forth that “a first goal should be to raise issues that are otherwise going to be neglected.” There was the concern of “where are women in the stimulus package?” and the nagging question of whether “care was being gendered.” A key component voiced was to ensure that women and people of color were adequately represented in getting jobs through federally funded projects. The group was focused on making sure that the New Deal era protocol of giving the majority of jobs to white men was seriously revamped.

In a follow-up phone conversation with Felicia Kornbluh, I learned that feminist economists were joining the pre-existing group of historians, and they were establishing themselves as a combined presence at the blog Women for a Fair Economy. Kornbluh qualified their role as “maintaining a focus on women and gender in any economic plan” and “making sure we’re part of the conversation.”

* * * * *

A litmus test for many will be the stand that the Obama administration puts forth on accountability regarding the actions of Bush and his key players on the issue of torture and civil rights. The conversation is out there, and has been featured in numerous posts including a January 9th article at Talking Points Memo by Elana Schor. Jonathan Turley, Constitutional Law Professor at George Washington University, has been seen on both the Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow shows, where he has been explaining the high stakes for all Americans in getting this right.

Congressman and House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI) introduced H.R. 104 entitled “The National Commission on Presidential War Powers and Civil Liberties,” which would establish a Blue Ribbon Commission of experts from outside the government to investigate the policies that were “undertaken by the Bush administration under claims of unreviewable war powers.”

Pamela Lyn Kemp, a political blogger told me, “No one admires Obama more than I, but I am not going to give him a free pass.” Kemp has been active in promoting an Internet action advising people to contact their representatives to support H.R. 104, and to keep a watch on the bill’s progression on OpenCongress.org.

Daniel Noon, a Master’s student at George Mason University in the Peace Operations Policy Program (POPP), who is interested in the Resolution from a policy and national security perspective, has created a Facebook page to raise visibility and awareness. He wrote me by e-mail:

“…With all of the other important issues that are going to be top-priorities, this [H.R. 104] could easily be lost among the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the nation’s financial troubles. I believe that it is important as a nation to identify and confront our history and mistakes that have been made as we have struggled to adapt to a post-9/11 world. I don’t necessarily see this as an effort to pursue criminal action (however I would not take that option off the table), but more as a truth and reconciliation effort to repair the damage that has been done at home and abroad.

There have been mixed signals from the administration and in congress as to whether there is currently enough support to move forward with this legislation…My hope is that in a small way, the H.R.104 group on Facebook will be able to contribute to that effort.”

As Amy Goodman said to me, referencing the election of Obama, “This is just an opportunity. The change hasn’t happened yet.” Underscoring the need for each individual to be a part of the solution, she stressed, “The lesson is – it is completely up to you.”

I’d like to believe that Barack Obama wouldn’t have it any other way.