Members of The Elders, a contingent of independent global leaders focusing on “peace and human rights,” made appearances at the Clinton Global Initiative and the Mashable Social Good Summit. Their focus: to bring awareness to the “neglected” topic of child marriage through the Girls Not Brides platform. The campaign dictum is, “Let girls be girls and not brides.”

Working to bring together non-governmental agencies from around the world, Girls Not Brides is confronting a practice that prohibits 10 million girls—annually—of the right to an education, health, and security.

The stats are overwhelming.  On a daily basis, twenty-five thousand girls are married before they reach the age of eighteen. To grasp the numbers in real time, that is the equivalent of nineteen girls being married without their consent every minute. According to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights drawn up in 1948, a “marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.”

Child marriage occurs worldwide. It affects 46 percent of underage girls in Sub-Sahara Africa; 38 percent in South Asia; 2 percent in the Caribbean and Latin America; 18 percent in North Africa and the Middle East. The highest rate, 75 percent, is evident in Niger. More than a third of child brides inhabit India. Some groups in Europe and North America engage in the “custom” as well. A child is defined as being any human being below the age of eighteen in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child [CRC Article 1].

For girls who are wed before they turn eighteen years old, there are health concerns with major ramifications. They are at a far higher risk of fistula and other pregnancy related injuries. Those under fifteen years of age are five times more likely to die in childbirth than young women in their twenties. The number drops slightly, to twice as likely, for girls between fifteen to nineteen years old.

Child brides face greater odds of contracting HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases, because they cannot advocate for safe sex practices. When they give birth, as opposed to mothers who are over nineteen years old, their offspring are 60 percent more likely to die before they reach their first birthday. Child brides are also prone to be victims of domestic violence and sexual abuse. Intrinsically intertwined with issues surrounding gender equality, family planning and maternal health, child marriage is dually driven by tradition and poverty.

One ripple effect has caused six of the eight 2015 Millennium Development Goals to be thwarted as child brides are forced to terminate their schooling. Stymied educational opportunities result in limited economic options without possibility of breaking the continuous rounds of poverty.

Photo Courtesy of Thierry Boccon-Gibod/The Elders

To learn more about The Elders role in this initiative, I sat down with human rights advocate and “Elder” Mary Robinson, who served as the first woman President of Ireland (1990-1997) before becoming the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (1997-2002). She spoke at length about what her past experiences bring to the table.

Robinson also delved into the backstory of how The Elders were started by Nelson Mandela. The purpose was to band together a group of accomplished people who could bring their insights to the front to help with global conflict resolution. Engaging “courageous and innovative” local people on the ground “who know best what is transpiring,” Robinson outlined how The Elders have been able to form global alliances.

Starting with a strong commitment to champion the empowerment of girls and women, they recognized that the topic of child marriage needed “moral leadership.” The Elders knew they had to intervene on behalf of girls worldwide despite the sensitivity of the problem. These girls can, if allowed, become potential agents of change.

To do this Robinson understood that a push had to be made to win the hearts and minds of those who have positions as tribal leaders to individual women. Imposing a point of view solely from the top down was not going to work. There had to be a strong grassroots effort. Social institutions had to be addressed by facilitating a community dialogue, particularly in rural conservative populations where there is a strong fear of ostracism. A major piece of the puzzle included bringing men into the conversation to change the thinking on child marriage.

“It’s all part of the same issue. The role in the home is not as important,” says Robinson. “The country girl in the village has no voice. She knows from the adult that she is not as important as her brother.”

Robinson is well versed in confronting concerns that inhabit unpopular and uncomfortable spheres. Elected at the age of twenty-five to the Irish Senate—when Catholicism dominated the mores—her first goal was tackling the legislative legalization of contraceptives. (At that time, married women in Ireland had no birth control rights.) “I completely underestimated the reaction. I was denounced from pulpits,” Robinson told me. The reason? She was addressing “deeper cultural issues.” From challenging the “cultural norm,” she learned that “you need a lot of patience and understanding.”

“If we don’t promote education for girls, we won’t get to the millennium goals,” said Robinson as she circled back to the relationship of women and tradition—and the “role of religion” when it is abused and distorted to subjugate women. “Girls are losing hope for the future,” she added.

Investing in girls can change perceptions as they are valued beyond their ability to be laborers, producers of children, or second-class citizens. Even in countries where there is legislation in place, such as Ethiopia, the reality does not match the law. The average age of a girl bride is twelve.

“We need to scale up,” Robinson stated resolutely. “Child marriage is not adequately discussed.  It’s a travesty for girls and their human rights…an unacceptable practice.” However, she optimistically points out how “practices can be changed,” underscoring her belief that child marriage can be “ended in one generation.”

At the Mashable Social Good Summit, where Robinson shared the stage with Archbishop Desmond Tutu, she had the ear of an audience dialed in to the power of social media. She understands how the value of digital tools can be a “highly influential way to have a conversation about an issue that is way underestimated.” With a Twitter handle and a website set up linking to “What Can I Do?”—crowdsourcing awareness and activism on behalf of child marriage was launched.

“It’s about the oxygen of recognition and breaking the cycle,” Robinson concluded. Before she stood up to leave she added, “It’s important that we have the opportunity to advocate.”

During June 2011 travels to Ethiopian communities affected by child marriage with the 'Towards an end to child marriage' campaign, Mary Robinson asks a young woman what she remembers about her wedding day. She replies, "It was the day I left school." Photo Courtesy of Ashenafi Tibebe/The Elders

This article originally appeared on the website Women News Network.

©Jason Laure, 1969/courtesy of HBO

Gloria Steinem has frequently spoken about the importance of sharing stories, using the imagery of communicating oral narratives around an ancient campfire. She has done that with her own personal history in the HBO documentary, Gloria: In Her Own Words.  Responding to questions asked by director Peter Kunhardt and co-producer Sheila Nevins, Steinem has added depth to readily accessible facts by opening up about the darker corners of her emotional life.

Two juxtaposed Glorias emerge.  One evolves from a brunette young woman who came to New York City via Smith College.  (Early on, Steinem had determined that she would get out of Toledo, Ohio—even if it had to be on the winged feet of her tap dancing prowess.) The other is a woman who has lived seven decades, delved into the journey of self-knowledge, and come up with the hindsights that the passage of time affords.

Repeatedly referenced as a “feminist icon,” Steinem often functions as a blank slate upon which others imprint their own anxieties, appreciation, disapproval or angry resentments.  In a society that habitually discards its most prominent contributors when they are deemed no longer relevant, Steinem radiates resilience. Functioning as a stand-in Rorschach test for all the attributes and shortcomings of the feminist movement, her best armor has been an acute sense of humor.

I saw the documentary first on a preview DVD, and then at the Women’s Media Center screening at the HBO building.  The 120-seat theater was filled with women (and a handful of men) representing a continuum of ages and a modicum of diversity.  As Steinem quipped when she appeared to answer audience questions—fresh from a taping with Stephen Colbert, “For a lot of people in this room, it’s a home movie.”  Archival footage of the 1972 Democratic convention (where one third of the delegates were women) and the march in Manhattan down Fifth Avenue gained a breadth of scope on the larger screen.  The experience of hearing in unison laughter when a 1960s broadcaster intoned, “Women have a problem with concentration,” lent a feeling of community.  Yet Steinem’s private revelations were more intimate when viewed via television’s smaller scale.

Throughout the film, a window into the burgeoning women’s movement runs parallel to the storyline about the girl born in the 1930s who described her awareness as, “I’m not sure if I knew what feminism was.  I thought if I was having difficulty, it was my own personal fault.”

Pursuing a career as a freelance journalist, Steinem was continually assigned features on food, beauty, and babies despite her interest in political topics.  “The low point,” she said, “was writing a piece on textured stockings.” Friday afternoon propositions by the boss were not uncommon.  Steinem notes of this time, “There was no word for sexual harassment.  It was just called life.”

In 1963, Steinem got what she called “the bunny assignment,” to do an undercover report about employment conditions at the “glamorous” Playboy Club. What was written as an exposé of “grinding work in three-inch heels” ended up creating new problems of credibility for Steinem’s writing—as she got stamped with the “unserious” label.

By the time Steinem hit her 30s, she realized that she wasn’t the only woman having problems. She put it concisely, “I wasn’t crazy, the system was crazy.”  Her “aha” moment came in 1969, when she was covering a story about an abortion hearing for New York Magazine. For Steinem, “That was the big click.”  At 22, she had an abortion and never told anybody. The black and white sequence of the meeting illustrates irate women speaking up and refusing to be silenced.  It is evident how the energy and dissension in the room telegraphed a message to Steinem that she was now ready to decode.  She observed, “I began to understand that my experience was an almost universal female experience.”

A montage of top male news anchors delivering reports in 1970 about the new “women’s liberation movement,” serves as a mordant backdrop to Steinem discussing her frustration about not being able to get her work published.  It pushed her to seek a different venue to get the word out.  She moved into speaking publicly, embarking on a national tour in partnership with Dorothy Pitman Hughes.

By then, Steinem had evolved into the “Gloria persona.”  Explaining the genesis, she said. “I used the aviator glasses to hide behind.”  The blonde streaks at the front of her long hair owed their origins to Audrey Hepburn’s character Holly Golightly in Breakfast at Tiffany’s–and Steinem’s appreciation for Golightly’s determination not to lose her freedom in a relationship based on “belonging to another person.”

The recognition that there was no place for women to read content uncontrolled by men was Steinem’s impetus for co-founding Ms. magazine.  Feminism hadn’t been faring well in the media, though as Steinem slyly pointed out, “Hostility is a step forward from ridicule.”  Harry Reasoner pronounced the periodical’s mission as “sad.”  The number of issues printed was supposed to last on the newsstands for three months.  They sold out in a week.  Seven months later, Ms. was in the black. For Steinem, making a point of using her “anger constructively” had paid off well.

Despite what appeared to be a successful and glamorous life, Steinem was dogged by criticism—from outside the movement and from within. “A woman who aspires to be something is a bitch,” she said.  Both lauded and excoriated for her appearance, Steinem stated, “I work really hard, and then it’s attributed to looks.  That’s really painful.”  Esquire magazine ran a story (with an accompanying comic strip) portraying Steinem in such a negative light that she characterized it as “cruel.”  Some of the sniping, bubbling just below the surface, came from other contributors to feminism who resented the limelight coalescing around Steinem.  The most prominent conflict played out with Betty Friedan, author of the groundbreaking The Feminine Mystique. Steinem said of Friedan, “She considered herself the owner of the movement.”  Looking to expand feminist alliances with other constituencies marginalized by traditional hierarchies, Steinem forged friendships with women who shared her sensibilities—such as Bella Abzug and Flo Kennedy. Qualifying Friedan’s approach, Steinem elucidated, “She didn’t identify down, she identified up.”

In 1977, The National Women’s Conference took place in Houston, Texas. Steinem refers to it as a major highlight of her career.  First Ladies Ford, Johnson, and Carter were present. The 20,000 women in attendance had different objectives for the proposed National Plan of Action, twenty-six resolutions that were put to a collective vote.  Ultimately, abortion and lesbian rights—along with support for the Equal Rights Amendment—were included in the Plan submitted to President Carter in 1978.  Steinem worked non-stop to promote her ideological agenda, pushing herself relentlessly.

Viewers get an unguarded glimpse of Steinem’s core in the segments where she addresses her dysfunctional upbringing.  She describes her father as a “charming” but “totally irresponsible man,” and tells how her mother, a “pioneer in journalism who couldn’t do it all,” was debilitated by what was “at that time called a nervous breakdown.”  In a childhood that Steinem depicts as scary and depressing, she became a caretaker to a mother who couldn’t function. When her father departed, they were a household of two women, enveloped by the sound of a persistently playing radio.  Steinem learned to rely on the defense mechanism of “detachment.”  She came to understand, in her later adult years, that she had distanced herself from her mother out of the apprehension of “not being her.”  Steinem expresses profound misgivings about her handling of the demise of both her parents.  Her father, who was mortally injured in a car accident in 1961, died alone.  Resisting the call to travel to California to be with him, Steinem feared being recast in the role of caretaker.   She was at her mother’s side during her last hours, yet confesses that in retrospect, “I so regret that I wasn’t more of a companion to her.”

Steinem’s 50^th birthday was celebrated by a party attended by luminaries—or as Phil Donahue put it, “The revolution comes to the Waldorf.”  She saw the year as a definitive marker.  Yet, it was a diagnosis of breast cancer (she had a lump excised and was treated with radiation) that served the purpose of making her aware of the passage of time.

In the segment titled, “There was a period when the world was in black and white instead of color,” Steinem sorts out an interval when she dealt with depression.  Moving from “bottoming out,” she looked internally.  Burnt out from constant traveling and speaking gigs, the solitary din of a radio in her hotel room brought back the memories and unfinished business of her childhood—and the “neglected child” who felt “she didn’t exist.” With this realization, Steinem knew that she “couldn’t go forward in the old way.”  Her book on self-esteem, Revolution from Within, uses her own issues as an anchoring point.  She admits, “Even social activism can be a drug that keeps you from going back, as you keep trying to fill up an emptiness which can’t be filled by anything external.”

Married in 2000 to David Bale, it was a union of two partners who understood that “love is not about power.”  Steinem affirms that for the first time since childhood, she felt “in the present.” Bale developed brain lymphoma in 2002, which lasted a year.  In considering what she learned from Bale’s illness and death, she recounts her appreciation for the chance to do-over her part as a caretaker—this time as an adult.  The exchange is another parallel of the younger Gloria and older Gloria—underscoring her psychological progression.

Why did Steinem evolve into a symbol of so much to so many?  It’s impossible to know.  She became a vessel through which some women discovered themselves, their potential, and the strength to advocate for their own truths.  For others, she will remain the scapegoat for the “downfall of our beautiful American family,” as an irate caller to Larry King pronounced.

On her own place in the feminist pantheon, Steinem tells audiences on college campuses, “Don’t listen to my advice.  Listen to the voice inside you and follow that.”  She is clear that being of a different generation, girls coming up now need to have their own feminist heroes.  In a self-effacing manner Steinem suggests, “The primary thing is not that they know who I am, but who they are.”

Her hope for the future is succinct—a time when being a feminist means you see the world whole instead of half.  “It shouldn’t need a name,” Steinem pronounces.  She adds, “One day it won’t.”

©Annie Leibovitz, 2010/courtesy of HBO

OWFI Director Yanar Mohammed was in New York City the following week for a panel at a conference on social change philanthropy. In an interview facilitated by OWFI partner Madre, I sat down with Mohammed to discuss the recent events.

Mohammed cofounded OWFI during the U.S. invasion of her country in 2003.  In two rooms inside a burned out bank, she put a sign on the door proclaiming Women’s Freedom in Iraq. “One thing led to another,” she said, but from day one, the profile of the group reflected the philosophy that “anything military would not lead to a solution for the women of Iraq.”

In addition to setting up safe houses in 2004 to protect women from domestic abuse and honor killings, Mohammed fought sexual trafficking and advocated for women who were incarcerated. She runs a newspaper and a radio station under the banner name of Al Mousawat, which means “equality.”

Beyond providing services, Mohammed demands parity for women with the men of Iraq and promotes secular and human rights, earning her the antagonism of Islamic fundamentalists—who have threatened her life. She sees the power of these religious extremists as a direct result of the military occupation of Iraq. “The Americans did more harm than good,” she said.  “Under Saddam, women were educated.”  She pointed to how the occupation had left a vacuum for the rise of Islamists—who wrote a new constitution taking away women’s gains.  She noted, “In a religious group, there is not moderation.  You are not equal to men.”  Currently, Mohammed sees the popularity of the Shiite leadership waning.  “You can’t force democracy through a gun.”

Mohammed talked about Iraqi mothers who come to Tahrir Square dressed in traditional garb, holding pictures of their missing sons.  Beyond being poor, deprived, or wanting social change, they want to know where their children are. It is impossible to penetrate the many layers of security in Iraq, with detainees held in jail without due process as a result of “anti-terrorism” laws.

The weekly demonstrations this year keep pressure on Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki following February 25, the “Day of Iraqi Anger,” when thousands of Iraqis defied a state curfew in Baghdad as part of what became the Arab Spring uprisings. Protestor grievances included the scarcity of electricity and water, as well as rampant corruption.  Maliki set a deadline of one hundred days for following through on his promises and guarantees.

Mohammed described the Friday gatherings as comprised of younger people in their twenties, mixed with working and college educated people—many unemployed.  “Women came unveiled,” she maintained, “because in the revolution, women are equal to men.”  In response to her presence, she said, “Men wanted to shake my hand.  They saw me as a symbol of change.”  She emphasized the importance of the female turnout. “Women are at the front of the fight.  Our experience with the Islamists for the past eight years have made us ready.”  Many of the women sheltered by OWFI received not only refuge, but learned political empowerment as well.  However, the second Friday in June turned out to have a different narrative.

Mohammed related the incident from conversations she had with members of OWFI who witnessed the events. Early in the morning, charted air-conditioned buses brought huge numbers of men dressed in tribal clothes to Tahrir Square. They chanted their support for Maliki as the “sole leader of the nation.”  The women held signs with slogans that read: “Initiators of Revolution, Defeaters of Tyrants, Come to the Square of Change.”  They overheard some of the men saying, “These are the whores we are here to get.”  Another contingent of men dressed in athletic tracksuits began grabbing the signs and ripping them, using the wooden handles to hit the women.

One young male activist threw his body over a woman who was being kicked by eight men.  While women were being beaten, their bodies—breasts, thighs, buttocks, and genitals—were groped.  Mohammed was clear, “It was about humiliation and shame.”  One woman was in danger of being physically stripped, but was protected by male compatriots.  Mohammed said the thugs also wielded knives and pipes, and a person was threatened with a gun equipped with a silencer. OWFI had prepared to hold a press conference June 12 about the assaults, but the military and army intelligence blocked their street.

One of the most outspoken activists, a 28-year-old woman, went home to find her apartment turned upside down and her possessions destroyed.  There was no theft.  The point of the action was a warning. Mohammed said succinctly, “The women who were attacked need to be compensated by the government.  There should be a formal apology. The woman who had her apartment ransacked needs to be compensated as well.”

What would Mohammed like to tell President Obama? “The Maliki government is pushing women back from the political arena, once again, and the latest incident included sexual harassment and humiliation,” she answered. “If the American government wants to stop the Iraqi government from suppressing women, it will happen right away.”

Meanwhile, the women will be returning to the square.

This article originally appeared as an exclusive on the Women’s Media Center website.

Photo courtesy of Yanar Mohammed.

There was an emphasis on making connections between those in the audience and the thirteen organizations that were highlighted as part of the program.  Pledge stations were set up in the lobby, and founding sponsor Hewlett-Packard committed to matching all individual donations.

There were two special events, accompanying the Thursday night dinner and the Friday luncheon.  Brown kick-started the energy level with a one-on-one talk with President Bill Clinton, who was relaxed and full of quotable lines. He said mischievously, “It’s a great thing about not being in office. You can say whatever you want.”  He did.  On the Israeli-Palestinian conflict he related, “Arafat promised me we would get an agreement before he left office.  Like an idiot, I believed him.”

Lesley Stahl handled the Friday conversation with Secretaries of State, Madeleine Albright and Condoleezza Rice. Both women seemed to be in accord on basic tenants — to such an extent that Stahl commented half-jokingly, “You don’t seem to disagree. What kind of panel am I running here?” Albright suggested, “We both have had the privilege of representing our country.  That responsibility draws us together.”  On a less formal note, in response to a question on Gaddafi, Albright wryly replied, “What you have in Libya, is a place that is run by a nut.”

Zainab Salbi

Alyse Nelson (Vital Voices) and Zainab Salbi (Women for Women International), representing “Solutions Partners” organizations, were two of the women who spoke about their on the ground work.  Nelson told the story of her visit in Burma with Nobel Laureate and dissident Aung San Suu Kyi.  Salbi presented photos and gave accounts of women in Congo, an introduction to the “If You Knew Me, You Would Care” campaign that Women for Women has launched.

Several panels were particularly strong.  “No Such Thing: Trafficking of Girls in the United States” drilled down on the 100,000 to 300,00 children in American who are sold for sex.  The prevailing age range is 12 to 14.  Malika Saada Saar, Founder of The Rebecca Project for Human Rights and Dr. Sharon Cooper, brought several insights to the conversation.  Saada Saar emphasized, “”The issue is about us [in the United States], as well as about women in other countries. We are criminalizing the girls. We have the laws, we need to use them. But,” she lamented, “there is no political will. We have to name the buying and selling of girls, and stop putting them into the criminal justice system. We need to put girls in safe havens.”  Cooper, who coined the term “pimp culture,” explained how the pimp becomes the “daddy, the husband.” The PTSD that trafficked girls have experienced is greater than the numbers besieging war veterans.   Categorizing the exploiters as “finesse pimps or gorilla pimps,” she outlined how one operated under the guise of love/rescue, while the other abducts.  Dr. Cooper wrote me via e-mail that a Domestic Minor Sex Trafficking Deterrence and Victim Support Act (S.596) has been introduced and referred to committee, and needs active support from the public.

“Italian Women Fight Back” had the photographic backdrop of demonstrating women carrying a sign that said ¡Ahora Basta! Currently, according to the World Economic Forum, Italy ranks 74^th in status for women, behind Vietnam and Peru. Emma Bonino, Vice Chair of the Italian Senate, had plenty to say.  “At the end of the day, nobody will give us anything for free.  Are we going to wait for men to decide we exist? No!” she declared.

Examining the French ban on the niqab, “The Multiculturalism Debate: Is Europe Stigmatizing the Veil” was led by moderator Andrew Sullivan. He was joined by Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Isobel Coleman, and Liesil Gerntholtz. Questions raised included, “Is the veil a way of containing a woman’s sexuality? A choice? A political statement?”  Despite the fact that some women don’t want to veil, for many, the ban in France comes out of a “troubling context.”  Ali called for the conversation to go deeper than the cosmetics of the veil, to include pulling girls out of school at puberty and female genital mutilation.  Sullivan fielded queries from the audience including, “How do you impose a legal framework on a community standard?” and “Does the full face covering of a woman make it impossible for her to be a full participant in society?”  Ali made it clear that there were certain aspects in all religions that she “refuses to accept.”

It was impossible not to be awed by the courage, accomplishments, and perseverance of guest speakers.  Lydia Cacho, journalist, author, and social activist, spoke of being threatened with violence in retaliation for the reporting she had done in her book The Demons of Eden: The Power That Protects Child Pornography.

Dr. Nawal El Saadawi, the 79-year-old Egyptian physician, writer, and activist, was a stand out.  Interviewed by her long time friend, American feminist Robin Morgan, El Saadawi told the rapt crowd proudly, “I was a feminist when I was a child.” Being oppressed by both class and patriarchy, she was “in revolt at age 10.”

For me, the hour on Friday devoted to “a two-part exploration of women and power,” felt like a divergence from the theme of international concerns.  Parsing what was holding women back from “reaching the top echelons of achievement” in various corridors of American power, seemed tangential to the foremost topics at hand. One in three women is a survivor of gender violence; woman and children comprise 75 percent of the fatalities of war; over 80 percent of the world’s 35 million refugees are women and children.

Awareness and engagement are the first steps.  Women In the World: Stories and Solutions continues to lead and lay the groundwork for amplifying concerns that have too long remained out of view — and isolated from the mainstream.

Photo Courtesy of RVR Associates

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.”

I was able to hear her speak twice, and did a one-on-one with her covering topics from how science should be taught to what young girls are intuiting from popular culture.

Photo courtesy of the American Association of University Women

Jemison was a featured speaker at a New York City AAUW event dealing with the lack of women and minorities in the STEM fields (science, technology, engineering, math). Presented was the research report, “Why So Few?” which examined gender biases, underrepresentation, and the social barriers that deter women from top achievement.  Jemison, who has been the national science literacy spokesperson for Bayer Corporation for fifteen years, talked about the Campos Inc. survey of female and minority chemists and chemical engineers that outlined the lack of support and overt discouragement female and minority students receive.

At the AAUW appearance, Jemison drilled down on the stats and causes for the shortage of women in STEM.  Much of the findings pointed to stereotypes that adversely affected performance for gender and ethnicity.  Specifically, girls need to be encouraged from a young age to draw and play with building tools.  They must be exposed to successful role models in math and science, and encouraged to adopt a “growth mindset” as opposed to a “fixed mindset” which limits potential.  Jemison specified that girls are harder on themselves when accessing their abilities in “male fields” like math and science.  It is essential for them to believe that they have the potential and abilities to be successful, and to recognize their career relevant skills.

Children’s interest in science has been documented as occurring as early as age 11.  Yet girls aren’t choosing to work in STEM because they don’t think they are going to enjoy it.  For those who find it appealing, it is their strong personal interest that gets them through. Jemison wryly noted that for women, “the more competent [you are]…then you become less likeable.”  Advocating “changing the culture of the field,” and creating more role models, she suggested that “women need to bring their perspective to the table to help create the solutions.”

Underscoring the need for self-confidence was a primary theme when Jemison delivered her talk to the audience at the

Photo Courtesy of Omega Institute for Holistic Studies, Rhinebeck, NY

Omega Women and Power Conference.  Exuding strength and self-assurance, Jemison stated that she “always knew that she would go into space” and was determined “to be part of the change” taking place in the science arena.  “You have to make yourself known,” she said.  Jemison addressed how women are actively discouraged, and illustrated this contention with documented research showing that “when you tell girls that they aren’t going to do well on a test, they believe it.”  A classic pro-active personality, Jemison maintained, “The choices we make create the realities of today and tomorrow.”  For her, the definition of empowerment means “the belief in yourself and that you have something to contribute.”  When asked about the feelings she had when she viewed earth from outer space she responded that it reaffirmed her connection to “her place in the universe.”  She added, “We all share a place in the universe.”

When we sat down for our talk in the quiet environs of the Omega campus, the conversation began with a discussion about the need to promote science literacy in the United States. Jemison explained that the country has been losing ground since 1992. NASA and the aerospace sectors need to cull their talent from United States citizens.  Since women and minorities are not encouraged to go into the sciences, it leaves a large reservoir of talent untapped.  Her view of the general public’s relationship to science was not encouraging. “Whether it’s our response to the gulf oil crisis, issues of health care initiatives, or understanding statistics, we’re not creating a science literate society.”

For all those adults whose eyes glaze over when recalling the topics they learned by rote in school and decided that they would never need, Jemison challenged, “How can you understand if we should put regulations into place if we don’t understand the complexity of ecosystems?” Jemison advocates for the importance of the basic building blocks of science knowledge in order to be an informed citizen.  For her, the problem is “how we teach science.”  Replacing memorization with “experimentation” is her vision.  She referenced the Bayer study saying, “Kids like science early on.  The problem is we don’t teach it hands on.”

On green energy, Jemison noted that the country had dropped the ball when “we had the lead in the 1970s.”  When asked why, she replied, “We chose not to do it.  Sometimes we fail to see that there are other possibilities out there besides the model that we have.  It’s a failure of imagination.”

Moving back to the subject of girls and women in the STEM disciplines, Jemison repeatedly stressed what we are suggesting to girls about their innate abilities.  She boiled it down to the need for “messaging, exposure, and expectations.”  And what does Jemison see as the predominant narrative being directed to girls? “Clothes, sexualization, and looks.”  She lamented, “It happens so early for young girls.  It stands as a stumbling block if you want to get your hair dirty.  You can’t work at a dinosaur camp and worry if you’re going to get your hair dirty or chip a nail.  If we imply that’s what’s important, that’s what kids will follow.”

For a woman who has traveled in outer space, her key advice was down to earth.  She concluded, “I think one of the issues that’s really important for girls to understand—for anyone to understand who has not been included in the mainstream of what they want to do—Don’t wait for anybody’s permission.  You don’t need their permission.”

This article originally appeared on the website Women Make News.

Christine Lagarde, the French Minister of Economy who was influenced by her mother and grandmother, gave the advice, “Never imitate the boys.  Be yourself.”  Anchee Min, author of The Red Azalea – which is banned in China, gave an animated account of her life, which included a stint in the Red Guard and years in a labor camp.  She told the audience that she became a feminist from looking at the bound feet of her grandmother, who warned her, “Women are grass.  Born to be stepped on.”

During “Changing the Equation: How Technology Can Change Women’s Lives,” Ann Livermore and Cherie Blair gave encouraging news for the 21^st century.  Livermore, Executive Vice-President of HP, believes that “power is now in information.”  Blair, who has placed technology at the center of the Cherie Blair Foundation, maintains that women need economic power to make their own life changes.  She pointed out that “women in remote areas are starting to get their hands on the mobile phone,” and it is their first entry into the tech world.

Blair discussed the gender gap as it related to access to technology in south East Asia.  The disparity reaches 40%.  She issued a call to action to “get 10 million dollars from industry to get phones to 100,000 women.”  Cell phones are being used to send messages on health and domestic violence, and to carry money via “a tech card.” Livermore sees all services as being deliverable via the Internet. Currently, NGOs are giving literacy classes in national languages, teaching reading and writing via cell phones.

Queen Rania of Jordan has made women’s education her signature cause.  In conversation with Katie Couric, she shared her belief that secondary education is essential to prevent “the loss of potential.”  She said, “We’re making progress, but not fast enough.”  In her view, the crucial first step is to create awareness for the need for girls to be educated.  “The dividends would cascade throughout society,” she said.  She stated, “Arab women do not fit into a single model,” insisting that stereotypes needed to be challenged.  She added, “Western women can help women in the Arab world, but women there need to chart their own course.”

Part of the conversation about education led into the topic of female genital mutilation (FGM). Again, it was a personal narrative that underscored the theme.  Kakenya Ntaiya, Founder of the Kakenya Center for Excellence, told about the bargain she made with her father to undergo “circumcision” in exchange for the opportunity to finish high school.  Upon graduation, Ntaiya sat down with the village elders and negotiated to leave her Kenyan village to attend college in the United States – with the promise of returning to help her community.  Since 2006, she has undertaken the goal of building a girls’ school in Enoosaen.

“Toppling Traditions,” moderated by Diane Sawyer, began with Edna Adan Ismail, former Foreign Affairs Minister of Somaliland.  She spoke about FGM using the descriptive phrase, “Little girls are still being chopped up.” The procedure is performed on a continuum, from cutting the labia to sewing up the vaginal opening to “the size of a match stick.” Ismail told the horrific story of an 11-year-old girl with Down Syndrome who “had been cut to the bone,” because her Mother thought it was “the right thing.”  Ismail is working to recruit religious figures to speak out against the practice.

Maria Otero, U.S. Under Secretary for Democracy and Global Affairs noted, “Change comes from the bottom-up and top-down.”  She said, “Women’s access to health is essential to end cutting.”  Otero suggested that the West shouldn’t be coming in with “a mandate.”  During the conversation, which included Molly Melching, Founder of Tostan and Marietou Diarra, who discussed the loss of her two young daughters to FGM, the terms Female Genital Cutting (FGC) and “the tradition” were used interchangeably. Wondering if there was a reason that the verbiage had been sanitized, I called Taina Bien-Aimé, Executive Director of Equality Now.  She told me unequivocally, “Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) is established and accepted human rights terminology across Africa and around the world.  FGM is recognized as a human rights violation – which trumps any culture. For government and U.N. officials to use the term ‘genital cutting’ unacceptably waters down the gravity of FGM and its impact on girls’ rights.”

The first panel on “Solutions Sunday” was “Change Makers and Innovators: Women/Tools/Technology.”  Lorie Jackson, Director of the Women’s Economic Opportunity Initiative at ExxonMobil, spoke about how technology can best improve women’s lives – and the barriers that currently exist. Jackson posited, “We need women at the table of power – and that includes technology.”  She also expressed the need for women to “see themselves as innovators.”  That wasn’t a problem for Katherine Lucey, Ashoka Challenge contestant and founded of Solar Sister.  Focusing on a solution that harnesses the power of solar energy – which is uniformly available – Lucey emphasized that it was important to let women take their own initiatives within their respective environments.

There was palpable anticipation for the interview with Valerie Jarrett, which followed.  Lesley Stahl’s questions were primarily amiable, spotlighting Jarrett’s background and relationship to the Obamas.  She did ask Jarrett to comment on the President’s first year and the “disillusionment” that many supporters have expressed.  Jarrett immediately pointed to the “inherited” problems that Obama had coming in, and the unrealistic expectation that all would be well in twelve months.

Moving to funding and aid initiatives, Campbell Brown spoke with Jacqueline Novogratz, the Founder of the Acumen Fund, who has been working between the market and traditional aid.  The fund, which has 40 million dollars invested, reinvests its profits.  The subsequent panel looked at reinventing aid and featured one of the most interesting speakers of the weekend, Dambisa Moyo. Born and raised in Zambia, Moyo has a PhD in Economics and is the author of Dead Aid: Why Aid is Not Working and How There Is A Better Way For Africa.  I first heard her speak on Fareed Zakaria GPS, where she reflected on the detrimental effects the standard development aid models have.  She told the summit audience how “dependency aid erodes the relationship between government and the individual,” yielding a system in Africa that has evolved to where “the monies come from aid.”  Moyo clarified that the current model was built on a 1950s mind-set, which evolved from the cold war and political motives.  In defining her vision of aid, Moyo maintained, “The goal should be to create economic growth.  She added succinctly, “We must have governments we can hold accountable.”

The wrap up 90-minute dialogue was titled “Seize the Spotlight, Harness the Power!”  Tina Brown engaged six women, including Lauren Zalaznick, President of NBC Universal Women and Lifestyle Entertainment Networks.  Zalaznick offered the comments, “Do as much good in the world as you can and make money doing it,” and “You have to know what you have been hired to do.”  She probably has achieved that at the helm of Bravo media, which features the “Real Housewives” series.  Nora Ephron, writer and filmmaker, said pragmatically, “The mainstream media doesn’t want to hear it if it isn’t sexy.”  She suggested using the web as an alternative platform.  Not a bad suggestion considering “earnest topics” were defined as being problematic.

I couldn’t help thinking that Saturday’s finale should have been scheduled at the culmination of the conference’s close.  It featured Zainab Salbi, author and founder of Women for Women International.  Salbi led a tribute, “Women Are the Peacemakers.”  She addressed the crowd with passion saying, “The road ahead of us still is long.  We are still a marginalized majority.  We have 18% of political representation in the world.” She continued, “It’s time to build a women’s global movement.  With every crisis there is opportunity.  We have data for the first time that [shows] there is no growth without women.  When you invest in women, you always win!”  Building to a crescendo, Salbi insisted, “It’s time to speak to leaders who have not heard us before.  It’s time for sisters to get together and change the world.”  Salbi ended with, “We need to roar as one voice.”

It’s a goal worth pursuing.

All Photos by Marc Bryan Brown and Kevin Tachman for The Daily Beast/Women in the World

This article originally appeared on the website Women Make News.

The first panel “On the Brink: Women in Afghanistan and Pakistan,” assembled Ching Eikenberry, a strategic communication coordinator for USAID in Kabul; Andeisha Farid, one of the Goldman Sachs 10,000 Women recipients; Suraya Pakzad, Executive Director of Voice of Women; Journalist Gayle Lemmon; Fatima Bhutto, Pakistan Correspondent for The Daily Beast.  The evening got off to a shaky start as repeated Tweets questioned the choice of moderator, Frances Townsend, former Assistant to President Bush for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism.  A reporter from Pakistan sitting in front of me commented on the “lack of contextualization” of the panel.  When questions from the audience were taken, author Erica Jong asked those on stage, “How can we help?”  Fatima Bhutto, niece of Benazir Bhutto, suggested that the “U.S. government stop propping up corrupt governments like Karzai.”

After a short film outlining the work that Goldman Sachs has been doing through the 10,000 Women program, there was a break for dinner.  Soon after, a phalanx of security officers started to line the lobby of the Millenium Hotel in anticipation of the arrival of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, scheduled to introduce a presentation of Seven.

The reading, directed by Julie Taymor, featured performing actresses including Archie Panjabi, Meryl Streep, and Marcia Gay Harden. Brown introduced Clinton with the line, “With her around, no glass ceiling is safe.”  Clinton referenced the Fourth World Conference on Women that was held in Bejing in 1995, noting both “how far we’ve come and how far we’ve yet to go” and that “progress was undeniable but insufficient.”  A theme that would be repeated over the following days was that “women’s rights may exist on the books and in the law, but not on the street.”

Nowhere was that more apparent than during the “Rape as a Weapon of War” panel, crisply and efficiently led by Christiane Amanpour.  Present at the Hague in 2001 when rape was declared a war crime, Amanpour asked Dr. Denis Mukwege, Founder of the Panzi Hospital of Bukavu, Annie Rashidi-Mulumba, Consultant on Human Rights for the U.N. in Cameroon, and Leymah Gbowee, Executive Director of Women Peace and Security Network Africa, for their insights. Mukwege explained via an interpreter, “It is no longer rape.  It is sexual massacre.”

Rape is conducted in public, as women are violated by groups of men.  Their vaginas are often penetrated by foreign objects.  When women first started coming into Mukwege’s hospital, they didn’t want to speak about what had happened.  He was seeing more and more patients with severe sexual trauma.  In response to Amanpour’s question of what has changed since the problem became exposed, he gave a one-word answer. “Rien.” (“Nothing.”)

Gbowee discussed Liberia and why the community of women “stepped out to speak.”  Women realized the “price we were paying for being silent was too high.” She related, “Guns and knives were being inserted into women’s vaginas.  We were tired of being raped and our sons being used as part of the war machine.”  Rashid-Mulumba asked, “Do I have to see a five-year-old girl without a vagina or an anus?”  Without education, women don’t understand how to deal with their rapes or advocate for action.  Mukwege spoke about the psychological damage, which is as debilitating as the physical realities.  He related that as women are marginalized and stigmatized, they must be able to understand that they can go on and have a reason to live.  That, he believes, is the road to solving the problem.

The relationship between the natural riches of the continent’s mines and rape actions was addressed.  Motivation behind the rape attacks include the goal of intimidating people into abandoning their homes and villages, so that it can be mined without restriction.  Gbowee put forth the need to educate the boys.  She said, “In Liberia, we are starting to work with the next generation of males and it is gradually taking root.”

“Today,” Mukwege said, “the silence is broken.”  However, he emphasized, “We have to treat sexual violence as terrorism.”  Gbowee suggested that Michelle Obama use her influence and call the first ladies of Africa to the White House for a summit.”

Next up, Barbara Walters interviewed former U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright.  As the audience was trying to process the devastating information from the rape panel, Walters asked, “What can the United States do?”  Albright pointed out that women need to be on the law tribunals.  She felt that NGOs, businesses, and government needed to act in tandem.  She advocated for the United Nations to play a supporting role, and concurred that there was a proactive role that the first ladies of Africa and Michelle Obama could play.  When Walters asked, “Should women’s rights be put before strategic alliances?” (i.e. the case of Saudi Arabia), Albright replied, “We need to understand what the women in Saudi Arabia want.”  She made a distinction between “engagement” and being the policeman of the world.  Her most arresting comment was the analogy, “Women in a country are like the canary in the coal mine.”

The “Human Trafficking and Modern Slavery” dialogue, led by Tina Brown, was tackled by Luis CdeBaca, Ambassador-At-Large in the Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking Persons; Dao Tuyet Lien, former trafficking victim; Sunitha Krishnan, Co-founder of Prajwala; Shoma Chaudhury, Managing Editor of Tehelka.  Trafficking in people represents the third-largest source of profits for organized crime after drugs and guns, and is a worldwide epidemic that is traced to globalization. A person can be kidnapped, sold, or falsely recruited –and be on a plane the next day to a new location.

Krishnan discussed the protocol of rescuing those entrapped in brothels. Often children are hidden behind the structures of false closets and bathrooms.  She set the record straight, clarifying that “very few people are in India’s brothels because of free choice.”  As a victim of a rape attack committed by eight men, she learned from her own experience that when raped, “the victim is then revictimized for being a victim.” Chaudhury elucidated that trafficking in India “covers the spectrum from sexual to bonded labor.”

Tools of intimidation include films being taken of the girls being raped, which leaves those enslaved believing they have no other options.  Unrescued young girls, seeing no way out, grow into the role of brothel matriarch – who then recruits a fresh wave of girls.  On trying to get media attention without sensationalization, Chaudhury stated flatly, “What is not acceptable for urban, western women is not acceptable for those in rural settings.”  Survivors must be supported, hired in jobs to give them economic independence, and reintegrated into society.

It was ironic that the next interview, conducted by Marie Brenner, was with the dynamic Kiran Bedi – India’s first and highest ranking female police officer.  When given an appointment to oversee a jail as a “punishment,” she quickly turned a potentially volatile situation around through her empathy and insights.  She recognized women who were imprisoned for prostitution as “victims being victimized.”  She visited brothels and learned what women had experienced. When it was time for them to be released, she made sure they had a secure setting to go to.  She told the prisoners, “I’m here for you.”  Bedi prayed and sang with them, directing them to a path of meditation, mindfulness, and education.

To implement change, she has called for more women in governance, police work, and combat/peace keeping. “If there is good policing,” Bedi said, “these brothels can not continue to grow.”

The three day conference was convened by Tina Brown; Diane von Furstenberg; Kathy Bushkin Calvin, CEO of the United Nations Foundation; Susan Davis, the Chair of the Board of Vital Voices, with financial partnership from ExxonMobil, Bank of America, Goldman Sachs 10,000 Women, the Conrad N. Hilton Foundation, and HP, who was the “technology and innovation” partner.

In Part 2 – Technology Impacting Women’s Lives; Novelist Anchee Min; Queen Rania Al Abdullah of Jordan; Dambisa Moyo; Valerie Jarrett; Nora Ephron…and more

All photos by Marc-Bryan Brown and Kevin Tachman for The Daily Beast/Women in the World.

This article originally appeared on the website Women Make News.

VIOLENCE: Number One – Violence perpetrated against the female gender.  Whether it is domestic violence behind closed doors in the United States, acid being thrown in the faces of young girls in Afghanistan trying to attend school, or rampant rape as a tool of war…It must end.

DYSFUNCTIONAL HEALTHCARE: I would like to discard health care that doesn’t take into account the needs of women, and policies that don’t speak to the disparities in care for all members of the female community at the local, state, and national levels.

UNEQUAL CHANGE: I would welcome a roll back on the wage disparities between a woman’s paycheck and a man’s, taking into account a gap that is even larger for women of color.  Moving forward, I would like more support for women working in the services sector, where wages are lower and benefits are commonly non-existent. More legislated awareness for the work/life balance issues that often drive women to choices based on the need for flexibility, as they seek to mesh family responsibilities with a career agenda, would be helpful.

HOUSEKEEPING ANXIETY: On a cultural level, I envision an end to television commercials firmly planted in 1950s soil, continuing to push the message that women have a love affair with their kitchen floors, mops, and laundry.

BEAUTY CARTOONS: Send directly down the tubes an elimination of airbrushed women giving the female population anxiety that they can’t look twenty when they are forty-five, or be a size 6.  Add to the trash pail skin-lightening creams for those being encouraged to emulate a whiter visage.

BODY-WORSHIPPING TV: I want fewer reality shows featuring all types of permutations of women vying to be a top model in some category (the latest, an import from BBC America, featuring girls with “disabilities.”) Bottom Iine, I would prefer zero sales pitches featuring female body parts and sexual innuendo to push a product.

LACK OF SISTERHOOD: I’d like to eradicate the negativity embedded in women-to-women relationships–the part based on fear, fighting over our small piece of pie, and the lack of support and empowerment hidden beneath a veneer of solidarity.  Women can be each other’s strongest advocates when they feel secure enough to join hands.

A new decade of inclusion and progress for all women, regardless of race, political persuasion, or economic status is something I look forward to in the next ten years.  It won’t happen right away, but we have plenty of time to get there.

This article previously appeared on the website  WomenMakeNews.

The space was packed with women active in old and new media, advocacy, and culture. Young women studying journalism were an integral part of the mix. Jenkins qualified the intergenerational component as “the highlight of the evening,” before stating that “a diverse universe of women in media” was a key goal of the WMC.

The honorees included Christiane Amanpour, Helene Cooper, Candy Crowley, Bonnie Erbe, Tina Fey, Rachel Maddow, Lynn Nottage, Gina Reticker and Abigail Disney, Pam Spaulding, and Rebecca Traister. Six of the women were able to be on hand to receive their awards.

Candy Crowlely, of CNN, was recognized for the work she did as a political correspondent covering the heated Democratic primary race and the general election. She admitted to the crowd that it had been a tough road. Crowley told me that when she received notice of the tribute, “Gloria Steinem were the magical words.” She explained, “I wouldn’t be standing here if it wasn’t for people like Gloria Steinem.” Crowley confirmed, “I think we’ve crossed a lot of barriers.” She related the story about her first job in the 1970s when she was advised that “people would never accept a woman’s voice as a voice of authority.” She noted with biting wit, “When my hair can get as gray as Wolf Blitzer’s, then I think we’ll be getting somewhere.” Accompanied to the event by her son, she admitted that she had “found [the] work-life balance difficult but rewarding.” She added, “You have to have kids that get it.”

To the Contrary host Bonnie Erbe, a fixture at PBS for 18 years, agreed that women had advanced as reporters. She noted, “When it comes to the Sunday morning [news] shows, we’re not there yet.” Erbe referenced the Presidential election as an example that “sexism is alive and well.”

Gini Reticker, the director of Pray the Devil Back to Hell, was appreciative of the honor because “The Women’s Media Center stands for telling under-reported stories.” The film portrays the struggle of Liberian women to end the violence in their country through demonstrations and perseverance. Christian and Muslim women linked forces to create a resolution to the nation’s civil war. “It was a story that was going to be completely overlooked and disappear. It was women who changed the country,” Reticker said.

Editor-in-Chief of Salon.com, Joan Walsh, believes “things are much better than they’ve ever been.” On the role of new media as a catalyst she said, “It’s a new landscape and women can make more inroads. It’s a big event that Rachel [Maddow] has her own show.” Walsh, however, did lament that women were still looked upon as “a diversity” and “not equal partners.” Throughout the night, Walsh received kudos from other guests on her toe-to-toe confrontation with Bill O’Reilly, where she had pointed to his role in dialing up the incendiary rhetoric on Dr. George Tiller.

LGBT concerns, reproductive issues, and the far right are addressed by Pam Spaulding in her blog Pam’s House Blend, which describes itself as “always steamin’.” Spaulding addressed how new media has played an essential role in talking about LGBT rights in disparate locations. “We operate as a community outside of the established gay organizations,” she informed me. “It allows us to have leverage.” Spaulding said that eradication of homophobia was her goal, but indicated that “without my readers, I’m just a voice out in the wilderness.”

Rebecca Traister, who scrutinized how the candidacy of Hillary Clinton had been a lightening rod for debate within both the general electorate and the feminist community, thanked her mother (who was present) for raising her as a feminist “by example.” Traister voiced how lucky she felt to have the support of Salon.com for her particular “beat.” She described “a huge young feminist media” stating that “women are online and using new media, which is giving women’s voices a space.” She continued, “I see a lot of women in the blogosphere who are meeting their journalistic expectations.”

Having started an examination of the gender dialogue through her essays, Traister is currently working on a book entitled Big Girls Don’t Cry, slated for publication in 2010. She suggested that the 2008 election was “the best thing   to happen to the feminist conversation in decades,” characterizing it as a “reopening” of so much that has “been incredibly difficult and painful to talk about.” Traister was firm in her conviction that women had to have those discussions “if we hope to move forward.”

Lynn Nottage, Yale School of Drama graduate and a recipient of a Guggenheim fellowship, MacArthur “Genius” Award, and this year’s Pulitzer Prize for her play Ruined, spoke about her visit to the Democratic Republic of the Congo in 2004. She went to Africa to get on-the-ground narratives from women whose lives had been impacted by the violence and conflict. She described the experience as “transformative.” What she learned served as the underpinnings of her drama.

Steinem expressed to those gathered why it was crucial for everyone’s story to be told. Using the metaphorical imagery of an ancient campfire, she said, “The media is the current campfire, and we need to make sure that we are all represented around the campfire.” She stressed the critical nature of ensuring that “all the news is visible, not just half.”

On a serious note, delivered with the tongue-in-cheek title “Dishonorable Mentions,” a list had been compiled pointing a finger at four factors that add to the invisibility and disrespect of women. They were:

• The Presidential Debate Commission: For its decision not to have women or people of color
as moderators of the final Presidential debates.

• Media Executives: For failing to create a diverse White House press corps.

• The Networks: For the lack of diversity among the hosts of the influential Sunday morning
pundit shows.

• “Deadly Words”: A dishonorable mention given to media figures who use hyperbolic,
inflammatory and dangerous language against specific individuals, inciting violence against
them.

Nottage struck a chord with every writer in the room when she recounted the story of her stay at Hedgebrook, the retreat that “supports visionary women writers.”

When she was there ten years ago, as a new mother who was feeling “blocked,” she opened a book that contained the names of women who had previously occupied her cabin. One of those people was Gloria Steinem. After the list, someone had written a version of the 1969 Judy Grahn poem, “The Common Women.” It gave her the strength to write.

Nottage recited:

I swear to you on a common woman’s head
A common woman is as common as a common loaf of bread
And will rise

It was an inspiring moment for all those women in the room who use words, film, and journalism to change the prism through which society views “the second sex.”

Photos courtesy of Women’s Media Center/Leslie Von Pless