The intersection of feminism and life
Senator Brown
Elizabeth Warren
What’s going on in Massachusetts? Last Monday, Senator Scott Brown explained his support of the Blunt Amendment, legislation that could allow an employer to exclude any health service from the coverage they provide based on any religious beliefs or moral convictions.
Just two days after Brown issued his statement, a Suffolk University poll showed him leading Elizabeth Warren, his Democratic challenger, by nine points. Ladies, it’s time to start paying attention to this race.
Senator Brown claims his support of the Blunt Amendment is grounded in a desire to protect religion from government interference. He says it’s not a political issue. But it is. The Obama administration is not forcing religious organizations to compromise beliefs by providing contraceptive coverage to employees. They are allowing religiously affiliated employers such as Catholic hospitals to opt out of that coverage, but are also requiring insurance companies to provide the coverage, without raising the cost of the premiums to employees who request it.
Many pundits question why the GOP would wage an attack on contraception mid-campaign and risk alienating women voters, especially when most data shows a majority of Catholics use and/or support contraception. But I can see why Brown would make this move despite his past track record. Brown, according to The Maddow Blog, voted as a member of the Massachusetts General Court in favor of a measure that required insurers carry contraceptive coverage for women and also voted in favor of a bill mandating hospitals to offer emergency contraception to rape victims, “even after lawmakers defeated his amendment to allow religious hospitals to opt out of the requirement.”
In the special election to fill the late Senator Kennedy’s seat, Scott Brown campaigned as the 41st vote, a potential deciding vote against Obama’s healthcare reform. Conservative interest groups poured money and volunteers into the race. The American Future Fund launched a $400,000 attack ad against Brown’s Democratic rival, Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley and Brown raised $1 million dollars in a 24 hour period. We think Brown is actually playing it safe – taking a page from his winning 2010 play book and banking on out of state donors to help re-elect him. While Brown is out fundraising Warren, she is pulling in more money from out of state.
Massachusetts has never elected a female Senator. At a time when a record number of bills have been introduced regarding women’s health, all-male panels in Washington are discussing contraception, and women are suddenly a hot-button topic in the presidential debates, we need female representation more than ever before. We wrote this two years ago when Scott Brown first ran for the Senate, and it is still relevant today:
Women represent 51 percent of the population but only 17 percent of the legislation. Until a group reaches critical mass, at least 30 percent representation in leadership, they are viewed and evaluated as “special interest” rather than representative. Every competent, qualified women we elect, brings us one step closer to critical mass. And, as we’ve written before,
“Women legislators bring much needed attention to so-called women’s issues such as childcare, elder care, fair workplace policies and healthcare. They serve as role models for young girls and increase women’s overall participation in government and civic issues. And women politicians work hard. According to a study from the University of Chicago and Stanford University, women in Congress, on average, introduce more bills and secure more money for their districts than their male counterparts do.”
No candidate is ever perfect ladies. But if we are going to work together to support our interests, we must remove the phrase, “I want to vote for a woman, but…” from our vocabulary and take action.
Ladies, we are under attack. Stay informed. Stay vocal. Run for office.
Source: annetaintor.com via Hello_Ladies on Pinterest
This afternoon, while hanging out with our kids, a friend tried recruiting me to the PTO on behalf of his wife, a new board member looking for like-minded cohorts. I told him out loud, “It will never happen.” Inside my head I silently told myself, “It better not happen.” Been there. Done that. Hated it.
But I am a sucker for an organizational makeover and I see the potential working with his wife, who brings a corporate perspective like mine to the group. My PTO experience was frustrating for both my fellow board members and me. I am a stickler for long term planning and Robert’s Rules of Order. My fellow volunteers were just looking for someone to help run fundraisers and staff events. If I am going to work as hard as the PTO members in my town work, I want the end result to be more than a balanced $10,000 budget and funded buses for field trips. I am thinking major capital projects, diversity and inclusion programs, educational campaigns around sustainability, body image, bullying.
As I watched the kids play, I tried to shake off the urge to volunteer. “Why don’t they recruit my husband?” I thought. He has the organizational skills and the time. After all, I often hear mothers say, “We need men on the PTO,” when they are criticizing how things are run.
It worked. I forgot about joining the 2012-2013 board and started thinking about how sexist the call for PTO fathers feels. It’s as if the critics think men are some kind of magic panacea and possess some skill set women don’t have. Do they think only men can manage a spreadsheet? Or perhaps only men can wield a gavel and whip through an agenda in sixty minutes or less? Or perhaps men would quell the bickering and infighting that occasionally breaks out post meeting?
So what a coincidence that when I got home I found this article in the New York Times titled, “What’s New at the PTA, Dad?” and subtitled, “Men Shift the Dynamics of a Changing Organization.” The article started out profiling Juan Brea a C-level executive whose operational experience “adds value” but who won’t “man the cupcake table.” Leave it to the Times to perpetuate gender stereotypes.
It goes on to give some credit to women citing, “Women with advanced degrees, high-powered jobs and technological savvy have brought a new level of sophistication and seriousness to the business of supporting schools. “ But then attributes that professionalism – “committees that are better organized, deadlines that are taken seriously, goals that are more ambitious” – to why more men are getting involved. As if all fathers thrive on professionalism and there isn’t a disorganized slacker among them. Clearly they haven’t taken a close look at the youth sports boards.
Some of the women interviewed in the article, “praised their male counterparts for overhauling disorganized talent shows, automating bookkeeping, building gardens, cultivating contacts with local politicians and silencing parents who go off on tangents during meetings.” As I read the article, I thought too myself, “I can do those things too.” And then I read the next paragraph.
“Not that women cannot or do not do the same things, but ‘men on the board can add a calm, said Kathy Ellman, who has three sons and who served on the PTA board at P.S. 11. ‘They can be a little more relaxed.’” Oh really?
Now, I write frequently about the need for gender diversity at the top of organizations. And I’m not a hypocrite. I believe, and there is a body of evidence to support my belief – that diverse leadership teams lead to more positive outcomes. I too would like to see more men on PTO boards. But not because I think men are calmer or better at Microsoft Excel. I would like to see men join the PTO because I believe the best organizations draw from the largest talent pool. Because I believe a father’s perspective is as important as a mother’s when it comes to children and education. Because I believe some men are drawn to parenting and some to professional endeavors and some are drawn to both. Likewise, some women are drawn to parenting and some to professional endeavors and some are drawn to both. And roles and board assignments should be determined based on skill set and desire, not gender.
What a sad state of affairs. There is so much competition for the Ignorant Legislator of the Week Award, we had to call it a three-way tie.
Source: google.com via Hello_Ladies on Pinterest
The first award goes to Virginia House Deputy Majority Leader Todd Gilbert. During debates for a bill that will require a woman seeking an abortion to undergo a vaginal ultrasound, Gilbert said about abortions, “the vast majority of these cases are matters of lifestyle convenience.” He went on to say, “It is right and proper for a woman to be fully informed about what she is doing.” For Gilbert, forcing a woman to undergo a medically unnecessary, invasive procedure is “right and proper” in order to protect her from making a grave mistake for convenience sake.
Source: blunt.senate.gov via Hello_Ladies on Pinterest
Next, we have Senator Roy Blunt, who wins the award for creating legislation that would allow an employer to exclude any health service from the coverage they provide based on any religious beliefs or moral convictions. Blunt’s amendment is a response to the Obama administration mandate that allows religious-affiliated institutions to opt out of coverage for contraceptives for employees but requires their insurers to offer the coverage directly to the employee at no cost.
Blunt said in a statement, “It’s about who controls the religious views of faith-based institutions.” No Senator, it’s about who controls a woman’s health and life. And it’s not going to be you.
Source: google.com via Hello_Ladies on Pinterest
And finally, we welcome House Oversight Committee Chairman Congressman Darrell Issa who held a hearing yesterday titled, “Lines Crossed: Separation of Church and State. Has the Obama Administration Trampled on Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Conscience?” The hearing, about contraception, er, religious freedom, featured a male-dominated male panel. Click here to hear testimony from a woman that Issa didn’t allow to testify. And, brava to Reps. Carolyn Maloney and Eleanor Holmes Norton for taking Issa to task on the lack of women testifying.
Ladies, we are under attack. Stay informed. Stay vocal. Run for office.
You’ve heard them. You may have even repeated them and believed them. But it’s time to slay these four myths about women and public speaking. They’re not only falsehoods you shouldn’t repeat, they’re a way to discourage women from speaking up in public — probably the reason they came into use in the first place.
1. Women talk more than men do. This one has been used for years to embarrass women into silence. Researchers note that the gap’s been described as huge, with some estimates saying that women speak 20,000 words a day but men speak just 7,000. But research shows that women and men speak about the same number of words every day, on average: 16,000. The difference? Men prefer to use “report talk” and speak publicly; women prefer “rapport talk” that builds relationships and is mainly one-on-one, according to linguist Deborah Tannen.
2. We can’t find any women qualified to be speakers (or, we only want the best speakers). Cancer researcher and university administrator Elizabeth Travis notes that this is one way women are challenged and put on the defensive in program committee meetings. It’s not a numbers issue: Even in professions where women dominate, they often are still in the minority as speakers on professional society conference programs, research shows. Historically, efforts to keep women from speaking in public were blatant and noticeable; today, it may have gone underground, but it’s still a barrier.
3. Women get ignored in meetings because they aren’t as good at men at speaking up. In fact, women can be just as effective as men in communicating, yet their points are more frequently ignored–or claimed by others as their own. From a book that offers an exhaustive study of men’s and women’s behavior and language in meetings: “Study after study has found that, when other variables are controlled (education, expertise, etc.), women are responded to more negatively than men as measured by facial expression, gaze behavior, individual evaluations, and decision reached in task-based groups.” In this case, the myth belies an underlying attitude that’s tough to shake. Some research on how women leaders are perceived suggests that women can be competent or likeable, but not both.
4. It’s women’s speaking style that sets them back–they’re too emotional and not tough enough. This myth has pushed many women in public life into mimicking a traditional male style of speaking: louder, more forceful, less emotional. In fact, what rhetoric refers to as the “effeminate” speaking style is the one successfully employed by the U.S. presidents considered to be among the best speakers: Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. But, as Kathleen Hall Jamieson points out, women’s natural speaking style is a double-edge sword. She writes that “only a person whose credibility is firm can risk adopting a style traditionally considered weak.” So as long as women are discredited as speakers, they’ll ironically have a tougher time succeeding with the style that comes naturally to them.
I hope you’ll start countering these myths when you see or hear them–it’s a step we all can take to level the playing field for all speakers.
Denise Graveline is the author of The Eloquent Woman and president of Washington, DC –based communications consultancy don’t get caught–as in don’t get caught unprepared, speechless or without a message. Visit The Eloquent Woman and don’t get caught for more ideas, information and inspiration
*This post first appeared on The Eloquent Woman.
Republicans, Get In My Vagina!
We can do it.
What It's Like to be a #WorkingMom #infographic
Awesome
