Here is a blog we are absolutely aching to get some comments on from women with different perspectives. Particularly such statements as :

“I don’t understand where women stand anymore. ’70s-style feminism is clearly defined in my mind, but it’s been a long time since then. What do women want most these days? Symbolic strength? A voice from a sister? Traditional roles?

Anyone?

From Conde Nast Portfolio:

Citigroup’s Sallie Krawcheck, one of the highest-profile women on Wall Street, will step down, according to the Wall Street Journal. She heads Citigroup’s wealth-management unit, which is being moved into the bank’s institutional group as a part of a broad restructuring.

Krawcheck was recruited by former chief executive Sandy Weill in 2002 to run the Smith Barney business. She rose to become the bank’s chief financial officer for three years until 2007, when she was moved to the head of Citi’s wealth-management business as part of an overhaul of the bank’s top ranks.

This is just the latest in a string of senior-ranking female departures on Wall Street. Last November, Zoe Cruz was asked to resign from her post as co-president of Morgan Stanley after the department she oversaw made a series of disastrous subprime trades.

And then in June, Lehman fired its chief financial officer Erin Callan after investors raised questions about the bank’s financial statements. Lehman’s bankruptcy filing early last week is seen by some as vindication for Callan.

Journalist Megan Barnett wisely points out that while investment banks recently fired several high-ranking women, the fact remains that there aren’t many investment banks left, either.

Does Krawcheck’s layoff mean anything for the women’s movement? Does it mean anything at all?

Looking at this from a women’s interest perspective, the moral of the story is that Wall Street will fire executives when in a pinch, whether they’re female or not. The message to women is that they, too, can become Mistresses of the Universe. Victory! Except that women, too, can be fired at the turn of the market. Darn.

There’s so much contradictory news circulating through the Internet today that I can’t make sense of what women’s interest means anymore:

1) Men with egalitarian attitudes about the role of women in society earn significantly less on average than men who hold more traditional views about women’s place in the world, according to a study being reported today. (Washington Post)

Moral: Empirical evidence has shown that men who know their place, and a woman’s place, make more money.

Message: Real men

2) A quote from Norla, a small-town American woman, on voting for Sarah Palin: “…if not [Palin], it’s just the old-boys network again.” Palin’s small-town credentials appeal to Norla, although she has questions about Palin’s experience. “But what the heck? A lot of people didn’t have experience before they got in, and she’s got a lot of good common sense.” (Salon)

Moral: This small-town woman thinks Palin, by virtue of being a woman, cannot possibly also be part of the old boys’ network. Gender matters more than experience or connections.

Message: You’re pro-woman if you vote for a woman. Any woman. Regardless of whether you agree with her viewpoints or not.

3) (Republican pollster Kellyanne) Conway said more women will vote than men this fall – as has happened in every presidential election since 1964 – and will be a deciding factor. Less than two months ago, Mr. McCain was trailing Mr. Obama significantly among women, and “now they are now pretty much neck and neck.” (Dallas Morning News)

Moral: Women have the power to sway the elections.

Question: Are you more pro-woman if you vote for a woman, in the flesh, or a man whom you believe stands for women more than the actual woman?

I don’t understand where women stand anymore. ’70s-style feminism is clearly defined in my mind, but it’s been a long time since then. What do women want most these days? Symbolic strength? A voice from a sister? Traditional roles?

Anyone? ”

Please send us your perspective, your thoughts and feedback.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Most Prominent Woman on Wall Street Is Out at Citi
• Marie Wilson: In Women We Trust: How Wall Street Could Have Avoided Our Economic Meltdown

We thought you might want to hear more from the co-founder of The New Agenda., a new non-partisan group for women’s rights.

Amy Siskind, co-founder of The New Agenda

“On September 10 our own Amy Siskind was the guest on Tommy Christopher’s Unusable Signal on BlogTalkRadio.
Amy talked with co-hosts Tommy Christopher and Tom Fitzsimmons about the founding of  The New Agenda and explained the group’s non-partisan mission and goals.

We’ve excerpted a few snippets from the hour-long interview to share here. Just click on each link to transform it into a tiny little in-line mp3 player” — to listen, go to The New Agenda.

( Disclosure – I am also a co-founder of The New Agenda, a group characterized as a “big tent”, with members having a whole range of different idealogies but joined in their commitment to women’s rights.  So I guess it would be fair to say, like all members of The New Agenda, I am a committed supporter of women’s rights and the goal of advancing women…. as if that weren’t perfectly clear to all who follow AdvancingWomen.com and this blog.  However, the reason I will be following and reporting on The New Agenda from time to time, is because the group has formed and taken a bold, activist and leadership role in protecting and advancing women’s rights in multliple venues and on many levels. For women everywhere, this should be extremely newsworthy and relevant to their lives.   If you have comments or feedback, agree or disagree, we invite you to share your thoughts )

In her explanation of “The Big Tent”, which is how leader Amy Siskind characterized “The New Agenda”, Violet Socks says, in part:

“Imagine a big lawn party with lots of little booths and kiosks staffed by different groups. This lawn party is Feminism. Over in one rather large booth we have the liberal feminists; they’re wearing power suits and carrying Blackberries. In another part of the lawn the cultural feminists are holding court in their Earth Mother skirts, with some womyn-only music playing on the speakers.

In the middle of the lawn is a big blue tent with a sign saying, “The New Agenda.” This is the tent where women from all the different booths and kiosks gather to work on the issues they agree on — which, as we all know, is not every issue. They don’t stop being themselves when they go to The New Agenda tent, and they don’t abandon their beliefs. They just put aside their differences long enough to talk about the things they do agree on.

Pro-choice women will never agree with pro-life women on abortion, but they do agree on equal pay and healthcare and domestic violence. In The New Agenda tent, those are the things they can work on together. The Hothead Paisan lesbians and the feminists-for-Christ probably won’t be joining each other’s social clubs anytime soon, but in The New Agenda tent they can put their heads together to figure out how to combat sexism in the media.

The idea is to create a place where we can join forces on the many issues that unite us, instead of remaining always divided by the issues that separate us.”

For more of Dr. Socks post, go to

The Big Tent – Reclusive Leftist » Blog Archive » .

“We cannot and will not sit idly by while another qualified candidate goes through what Senator Hillary Clinton had to endure. Issues are fair game. Sexist treatment is no longer fair game,” said Amy Siskind, a co-founder of The New Agenda.

The New Agenda members are monitoring the airwaves, blogs, and print reports for derogatory language, misogynist attacks, and denigrating statements. The New Agenda will respond swiftly against any perpetrators of such attacks.

“Our members were outraged that within 24 hours of Governor Palin’s historic candidacy she was dismissed as “tokenism,” she was referred to as a “MILF” (mother I’d like to f*uck), and chuckling male commentators said:” The only thing she didn’t say was who needs some pie I baked this morning?” added Siskind.

The New Agenda members are committed to promoting women’s leadership and ensuring that women candidates are treated with the respect they deserve. We are confident that the media, the campaigns, and campaign surrogates can turn this historic election into one we can look back on with pride.

For more information contact:

newagendapress@yahoo.com

Clinton’s presidential bid galvanized women as no other campaign in recent history has….In Denver this week, many of these women have been talking about the emergence of a new movement that would unite women across the generational divide to combat discrimination, unequal pay, and other concerns.

“This is beyond Hillary now,” said Maerose Tengsico, a 55-year-old insurance claims adjustor and the head of the California chapter of 18 Million Voices Rise Hillary Rise, which organized a march through Denver yesterday. “This is about women in general. . . . I think there’s going to be another movement coming, a different kind of movement of women for women. We’ve been silent for some time.”

Several dozen of Clinton’s strongest female supporters met three weeks ago in New York to organize The New Agenda, a nonpartisan group focused on women’s issues and electing women candidates. Amy Siskind, a major Democratic donor and activist from New York who helped start it, said in a phone interview yesterday that she has received e-mails and calls of support from around the country.

“I think the grave mistreatment of Hillary during the primary has been an awakening for a lot of women who. . . didn’t consider themselves to be feminists in the past,” she said. “Millions of folks feel like the Democratic Party abandoned its loyal base of women in this election.”