Stay tuned for more blogging! My schedule at The White House Project currently has me churning out research for our Benchmarks Report (look for it in October!) like a machine. Hopefully, once this slows down to a more managable pace, I can write about the list of topics that gets longer every day!
Look foward to blogs on:
- Women in comedy
- the Women in Popular Culture panel from the NCRW Conference 2 weeks ago (I know, I'm so behind!)
- How to deal with those negative connotations of the word "feminist", and the "are you a feminist?" quiz that inevitably goes with it. :)
Keep checking back!
-Becka
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
Hot or Not - does it really matter? (TWHP Blog 6/10/09)
While I was trying to figure out what to write about this week on this lovely blog, I did a simple google search for Women In Politics, hoping it would inspire and make me write a genius blog post.
Instead, I found this article:
http://rightwingnews.com/mt331/2009/06/the_10_hottest_liberal_women_i.php :
“The 10 Hottest Women in Liberal Politics”.
While this guy seems fairly respectful and acknowledged that women in politics have enough to deal with as it is without people judging them on how they wear their hair or what color shirt they’re wearing; it did make me think.
Do these kinds of list have any kind of affect – good or bad - on the influence any of these women have in the media or politics? Or does it not matter? Some of my friends from school have said they’re always so surprised when they hear any kind of smart political thinking come from a pretty woman’s mouth – do these women and lists like this help debunk that myth that political women are unattractive women? Or, am I just over thinking everything?
Leave your thoughts in the comments!
PS – I’ll be volunteering tomorrow at the conference for the National Council for Research On Women (where I interned in summer 2006 and summer 2008!). Look forward to a blog post about it next week!
Instead, I found this article:
http://rightwingnews.com/mt331/2009/06/the_10_hottest_liberal_women_i.php :
“The 10 Hottest Women in Liberal Politics”.
While this guy seems fairly respectful and acknowledged that women in politics have enough to deal with as it is without people judging them on how they wear their hair or what color shirt they’re wearing; it did make me think.
Do these kinds of list have any kind of affect – good or bad - on the influence any of these women have in the media or politics? Or does it not matter? Some of my friends from school have said they’re always so surprised when they hear any kind of smart political thinking come from a pretty woman’s mouth – do these women and lists like this help debunk that myth that political women are unattractive women? Or, am I just over thinking everything?
Leave your thoughts in the comments!
PS – I’ll be volunteering tomorrow at the conference for the National Council for Research On Women (where I interned in summer 2006 and summer 2008!). Look forward to a blog post about it next week!
Set up your TiVos for a new kind of American Idol (TWHP Blog 6/5/09)
The wise C.J. Cregg once said, “How do you keep fighting the smaller injustices when they’re all from the mother of injustices?”.
C.J. isn’t a speechwriter for the Obama administration, or a politician of any kind. C.J. is a fictional character on The West Wing, and her words – quotes like the one listed above – have inspired many to get involved in politics.
C.J. Cregg, played by Allison Janney, grew up in Dayton, Ohio, and worked in Public Relations for a huge Hollywood firm where she was paid over $500,000 a year before she decided to work for President Josiah Bartlet’s campaign for only $600 a week. C.J. wasn’t afraid to jump in head-first, to become someone active in politics after being someone who wasn’t even remotely in the political sector – and her fearlessness paid off. She became White House Press Secretary after President Bartlet is elected to office, and White House Chief of Staff after former Chief of Staff Leo Mcgary passes away. She starts her day at five AM and lives, breathes, and eats politics. She speaks her mind to powerful political figures without a moment’s hesitation and stands behind her convictions.
C.J. Cregg isn’t just a political force to be reckoned with – she’s also a woman. She has to learn to balance family, friends, relationships, and her job – one of the processes that makes many women hesitate to get involved in politics. Cregg is intense, but she gets it all done – all with a soft sense of wanting to help in anyway she can. She’s proof that any woman, in any job, can get involved if they’re just willing to take the leap and let themselves.
You may be wondering why, exactly, I’m telling you all the intimate details of a fictional character’s life. It’s all for one huge, simple reason – so that we can all learn how strongly Television can impact us – and future generations – to get more and more involved in politics. And she’s not the only TV role model out there.
C.J. Cregg was more behind-the-scenes, but in the short-lived show Commander in Chief , Geena Davis played Mackenzie Allen, a female president – “Madame President” - and she was strong, powerful, and decisive. Right after she’s elected to office, her first act is to rescue a Nigerian Muslim woman who was sentenced to death by stoning for having sex outside of marriage. She made the decisions that only the leader of the free world could make – and she wasn’t indecisive, or a flip-flopper. She did what she needed to do; what she thought was right.
C.J. Cregg and President Allen have something to teach all of us. While many of us won’t end up becoming President of the United States or White House Press Secretary – we can take the lessons they teach us as strong, female political leaders and apply them to our everyday lives and even political careers; and pass those characters and the lessons on.
So what do you think? Do you agree that television has the potential to shape the way we look at history and at the potential for women getting involved in politics? Or is the fact that TV is a fictional world override all of that and instead make it harder for normal girls to relate? Should we be idolizing powerful women in TV faux-politics, or should we be idolizing those in the real world, or some combination of both?
Any way you want slice it, I think we can all agree – when a strong female character involved in politics hits the airwaves, we should set our TiVos to “RECORD” and watch what happens – because it’s bound to be interesting.
C.J. isn’t a speechwriter for the Obama administration, or a politician of any kind. C.J. is a fictional character on The West Wing, and her words – quotes like the one listed above – have inspired many to get involved in politics.
C.J. Cregg, played by Allison Janney, grew up in Dayton, Ohio, and worked in Public Relations for a huge Hollywood firm where she was paid over $500,000 a year before she decided to work for President Josiah Bartlet’s campaign for only $600 a week. C.J. wasn’t afraid to jump in head-first, to become someone active in politics after being someone who wasn’t even remotely in the political sector – and her fearlessness paid off. She became White House Press Secretary after President Bartlet is elected to office, and White House Chief of Staff after former Chief of Staff Leo Mcgary passes away. She starts her day at five AM and lives, breathes, and eats politics. She speaks her mind to powerful political figures without a moment’s hesitation and stands behind her convictions.
C.J. Cregg isn’t just a political force to be reckoned with – she’s also a woman. She has to learn to balance family, friends, relationships, and her job – one of the processes that makes many women hesitate to get involved in politics. Cregg is intense, but she gets it all done – all with a soft sense of wanting to help in anyway she can. She’s proof that any woman, in any job, can get involved if they’re just willing to take the leap and let themselves.
You may be wondering why, exactly, I’m telling you all the intimate details of a fictional character’s life. It’s all for one huge, simple reason – so that we can all learn how strongly Television can impact us – and future generations – to get more and more involved in politics. And she’s not the only TV role model out there.
C.J. Cregg was more behind-the-scenes, but in the short-lived show Commander in Chief , Geena Davis played Mackenzie Allen, a female president – “Madame President” - and she was strong, powerful, and decisive. Right after she’s elected to office, her first act is to rescue a Nigerian Muslim woman who was sentenced to death by stoning for having sex outside of marriage. She made the decisions that only the leader of the free world could make – and she wasn’t indecisive, or a flip-flopper. She did what she needed to do; what she thought was right.
C.J. Cregg and President Allen have something to teach all of us. While many of us won’t end up becoming President of the United States or White House Press Secretary – we can take the lessons they teach us as strong, female political leaders and apply them to our everyday lives and even political careers; and pass those characters and the lessons on.
So what do you think? Do you agree that television has the potential to shape the way we look at history and at the potential for women getting involved in politics? Or is the fact that TV is a fictional world override all of that and instead make it harder for normal girls to relate? Should we be idolizing powerful women in TV faux-politics, or should we be idolizing those in the real world, or some combination of both?
Any way you want slice it, I think we can all agree – when a strong female character involved in politics hits the airwaves, we should set our TiVos to “RECORD” and watch what happens – because it’s bound to be interesting.
How Serious is Political Apathy? (TWHP Blog 6/4/09)
My friend Lauren thinks I’m certifiably insane. She’s threatened to have my head checked, my temperature taken, and to take away the remote. Lauren hates politics; I love them. I love the incessant media coverage, the excitement that comes with pushing for causes and candidates you believe in, things that are bigger than your self. Lauren finds the competitive environment disgusting, but above all, finds the whole thing unbelievably boring. She feels that politics have no real relevance to her every day life, and when we discuss it, she actually makes some fair points – all of them reverting back to the main idea that following and getting involved with politics is simply too time-consuming, and has little payoff.
Lauren is definitely not alone – only 51% of eligible voters aged 18-29 voted in the 2008 general election, up from only 47% in the 2004 general election. And that’s not even considering how low turnout is on years where there isn’t a presidential election – in 2006, only 25% of eligible voters 18-29 turned out to vote.
When someone starts out hating something and finding it irrelevant to their daily lives during a period where their opinions are just beginning to shape themselves, they’re likely going to continue thinking that way for the foreseeable future. Just like I will always despise organic chemistry, Lauren will always despise politics and never understand the real meaning of them, and so will millions of other young women just like her. Combine that apathy with the fact that women are typically more hesitant to put themselves in such a position so open to public critique and common, and you have a small percentage of women who are not only interested in politics and the spotlight, but who are ready and eager to get involved – which is a major contributor to the low percentage of women in public office in the U.S.
So the age-old question stands: how do we get the bored young women of today – my friends and peers - to become the elected officials and engaged citizens of tomorrow? There is, of course, taking advantage of programs which organizations like The White House Project offer – ones that encourage women to get involved not only on the national or state level, which could intimidate some, but on a local or community level as well.
But participation in these programs is purely voluntary. How do you get someone involuntarily and subconsciously involved in politics? A simple Google search for “how to get involved in politics” offers ideas for those willing to really put themselves out there. But what about options for women and girls who are too shy or too busy or not quite ready to run for office, volunteer at local party offices, or become an active voice in community meetings?
How do you make politics such a part of the culture to the point where the transition from citizen to politician or engaged political thinker becomes seamless? It’s certainly not easy to inject a love of something into someone who isn’t interested.
Should we just leave things as they are, and acknowledge the fact that some women will simply never be interested in politics? Or should we take action – and if so, what kind of action should we take? President Barack Obama seemed to have a certain degree of success getting people engaged in little ways – donating $5, sending pre-written e-mails to friends, etcetera. Is that the answer – or is a lasting solution it never that simple?
What are your thoughts – can some of us afford to be apathetic, while others are politically involved, or is it every woman and girl’s duty to become as politically active as possible because of how low the percentage of women in elected office are?
*** From my White House Project Blog: 6/4/09 *** http://leaders.thewhitehouseproject.org/profiles/blog/list?user=3jxqpw07qmliz
Lauren is definitely not alone – only 51% of eligible voters aged 18-29 voted in the 2008 general election, up from only 47% in the 2004 general election. And that’s not even considering how low turnout is on years where there isn’t a presidential election – in 2006, only 25% of eligible voters 18-29 turned out to vote.
When someone starts out hating something and finding it irrelevant to their daily lives during a period where their opinions are just beginning to shape themselves, they’re likely going to continue thinking that way for the foreseeable future. Just like I will always despise organic chemistry, Lauren will always despise politics and never understand the real meaning of them, and so will millions of other young women just like her. Combine that apathy with the fact that women are typically more hesitant to put themselves in such a position so open to public critique and common, and you have a small percentage of women who are not only interested in politics and the spotlight, but who are ready and eager to get involved – which is a major contributor to the low percentage of women in public office in the U.S.
So the age-old question stands: how do we get the bored young women of today – my friends and peers - to become the elected officials and engaged citizens of tomorrow? There is, of course, taking advantage of programs which organizations like The White House Project offer – ones that encourage women to get involved not only on the national or state level, which could intimidate some, but on a local or community level as well.
But participation in these programs is purely voluntary. How do you get someone involuntarily and subconsciously involved in politics? A simple Google search for “how to get involved in politics” offers ideas for those willing to really put themselves out there. But what about options for women and girls who are too shy or too busy or not quite ready to run for office, volunteer at local party offices, or become an active voice in community meetings?
How do you make politics such a part of the culture to the point where the transition from citizen to politician or engaged political thinker becomes seamless? It’s certainly not easy to inject a love of something into someone who isn’t interested.
Should we just leave things as they are, and acknowledge the fact that some women will simply never be interested in politics? Or should we take action – and if so, what kind of action should we take? President Barack Obama seemed to have a certain degree of success getting people engaged in little ways – donating $5, sending pre-written e-mails to friends, etcetera. Is that the answer – or is a lasting solution it never that simple?
What are your thoughts – can some of us afford to be apathetic, while others are politically involved, or is it every woman and girl’s duty to become as politically active as possible because of how low the percentage of women in elected office are?
*** From my White House Project Blog: 6/4/09 *** http://leaders.thewhitehouseproject.org/profiles/blog/list?user=3jxqpw07qmliz
Who will it be? (TWHP blog from 5/21/09)
Being the politics junkie I am, when I heard there was an opening on the Supreme Court because of Justice David Souter’s decision to retire in June, I had what felt like a million questions – who will it be? Where will they stand on the issues important to not only women but to our whole country? How will they vote? Will they tip the court in another direction? And, most importantly – will it be a woman?
Watching CNN the day Souter announced his retirement, I noticed a few interesting things: first, most of the comments were not speculating who President Obama would choose to appoint, but what gender the choice would be. Most commentators said that they thought it would be a female, and one commentator said that Obama “owed” all women another female Supreme Court Justice. What will be interesting to see is how pro-active Obama will be to make sure the Supreme Court Justice is a woman.
While yes, it is true that Obama has many people who were originally Hillary Clinton supporters to thank for his election to office in November, it is also true that many lists of candidates for positions which aides and assistants come up with are heavy with men. New York Governor David Paterson even openly criticized in December an all-male list of candidates for the Chief Judge of New York State’s Court of Appeals, rejecting it and saying “I don’t accept that there isn’t a woman in this state qualified to serve on the Court of Appeals.”
The question is whether, faced with the same predicament, President Obama will make the same move – and it seems that he not only will, but is taking precautions to make sure that he doesn’t have a list with only white males on it. He has hired top communications strategist Stephanie Cutter onto the White House staff on the temporary assignment of assisting Obama through the confirmation process, and CNN reported that of the list of about half a dozen finalists Obama is giving serious scrutiny and consideration to, only one of them is male. Republican strategists are so sure that Obama’s choice will, in fact, be a woman, that they have already launched a website attacking what they believe to be the three most viable candidates to be the next Supreme Court Justice - all of them women.
Some have said that President Obama is morally and ethically obligated to begin choosing a Supreme Court that looks “more like America.” Anita Allen, a professor of law at the University of Pennsylvania, said that a nomination of a “qualified African-American, Asian-American, Native American or Hispanic woman would be proof that the era of male and white privilege was truly over.” Melissa Harris-Lacewell, professor at Princeton University, has said that “The Supreme Court is a body that does not reflect the body politic” and said that “A truly inclusive democracy must push that understanding to include all citizens as equally capable of full participation” – read, a woman or minority should be appointed to the supreme court.
But others aren’t sure that being a woman or a minority should be a major factor in President Obama’s decision. Diane Ravitch, historian of education at New York University, said that President Obama should “select the person best qualified to become a Supreme Court justice, without regard to race, gender or other irrelevant attributes. If the best person happens to be black, Hispanic and/or female, that’s swell.” Tom Korologos, a Republican Strategist, said, “Appoint the most qualified person they can find. Quit fooling around with all this quota stuff.”
So - what do you think? Is choosing a woman the most important part of this process? Does President Obama owe women, particularly those who were former Hillary Clinton supporters, a female Supreme Court Justice? Should he focus on trying to nominate a minority candidate? Or should he simply focus on nominating the best candidate, regardless of gender or race? What is more important: nominating a woman to the supreme court, or increasing the amount of female elected officials?
*** From my White House Project blog 5/21/2009 *** http://leaders.thewhitehouseproject.org/profiles/blog/list?user=3jxqpw07qmliz
Watching CNN the day Souter announced his retirement, I noticed a few interesting things: first, most of the comments were not speculating who President Obama would choose to appoint, but what gender the choice would be. Most commentators said that they thought it would be a female, and one commentator said that Obama “owed” all women another female Supreme Court Justice. What will be interesting to see is how pro-active Obama will be to make sure the Supreme Court Justice is a woman.
While yes, it is true that Obama has many people who were originally Hillary Clinton supporters to thank for his election to office in November, it is also true that many lists of candidates for positions which aides and assistants come up with are heavy with men. New York Governor David Paterson even openly criticized in December an all-male list of candidates for the Chief Judge of New York State’s Court of Appeals, rejecting it and saying “I don’t accept that there isn’t a woman in this state qualified to serve on the Court of Appeals.”
The question is whether, faced with the same predicament, President Obama will make the same move – and it seems that he not only will, but is taking precautions to make sure that he doesn’t have a list with only white males on it. He has hired top communications strategist Stephanie Cutter onto the White House staff on the temporary assignment of assisting Obama through the confirmation process, and CNN reported that of the list of about half a dozen finalists Obama is giving serious scrutiny and consideration to, only one of them is male. Republican strategists are so sure that Obama’s choice will, in fact, be a woman, that they have already launched a website attacking what they believe to be the three most viable candidates to be the next Supreme Court Justice - all of them women.
Some have said that President Obama is morally and ethically obligated to begin choosing a Supreme Court that looks “more like America.” Anita Allen, a professor of law at the University of Pennsylvania, said that a nomination of a “qualified African-American, Asian-American, Native American or Hispanic woman would be proof that the era of male and white privilege was truly over.” Melissa Harris-Lacewell, professor at Princeton University, has said that “The Supreme Court is a body that does not reflect the body politic” and said that “A truly inclusive democracy must push that understanding to include all citizens as equally capable of full participation” – read, a woman or minority should be appointed to the supreme court.
But others aren’t sure that being a woman or a minority should be a major factor in President Obama’s decision. Diane Ravitch, historian of education at New York University, said that President Obama should “select the person best qualified to become a Supreme Court justice, without regard to race, gender or other irrelevant attributes. If the best person happens to be black, Hispanic and/or female, that’s swell.” Tom Korologos, a Republican Strategist, said, “Appoint the most qualified person they can find. Quit fooling around with all this quota stuff.”
So - what do you think? Is choosing a woman the most important part of this process? Does President Obama owe women, particularly those who were former Hillary Clinton supporters, a female Supreme Court Justice? Should he focus on trying to nominate a minority candidate? Or should he simply focus on nominating the best candidate, regardless of gender or race? What is more important: nominating a woman to the supreme court, or increasing the amount of female elected officials?
*** From my White House Project blog 5/21/2009 *** http://leaders.thewhitehouseproject.org/profiles/blog/list?user=3jxqpw07qmliz
Happy Summer!
For those of you who know me, you know that this summer I'm an intern at The White House Project, a great non-profit which works to advance women's leadership in all sectors.
As their Development/Communications Intern so far, I've written thank you letters to donors; written briefs for meetings; done scheduling for Tiffany Dufu, the Development Director at TWHP; learned how to work Raiser's Edge (their Donor Database); researched prospective donors out the wazoo; and was just assigned to work on their huge Benchmarks report with Lena, another intern - the two of us are basically responsible for double checking the research experts in the fields the report covers (me) and double checking the writing for grammatical errors (lena). It's been pretty awesome - everyone is so sweet; and they're totally cool with me wearing jeans and a buttondown with flip flops - which I could marry them for, haha.
But the best thing I've been doing is writing a weekly blog for them on their White House Project Leadership Network. It allows me to really develop my own ideas on women's leadership, and tie it directly into my own interests.
SO!!! The main reason for writing this blog post is to inform you all that I'm going to start posting my weekly White House Project blogs on here, for the world to see. look for them!
As their Development/Communications Intern so far, I've written thank you letters to donors; written briefs for meetings; done scheduling for Tiffany Dufu, the Development Director at TWHP; learned how to work Raiser's Edge (their Donor Database); researched prospective donors out the wazoo; and was just assigned to work on their huge Benchmarks report with Lena, another intern - the two of us are basically responsible for double checking the research experts in the fields the report covers (me) and double checking the writing for grammatical errors (lena). It's been pretty awesome - everyone is so sweet; and they're totally cool with me wearing jeans and a buttondown with flip flops - which I could marry them for, haha.
But the best thing I've been doing is writing a weekly blog for them on their White House Project Leadership Network. It allows me to really develop my own ideas on women's leadership, and tie it directly into my own interests.
SO!!! The main reason for writing this blog post is to inform you all that I'm going to start posting my weekly White House Project blogs on here, for the world to see. look for them!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
