Tag Archives: sexism

Beware Your Associates: The “Birds Of A Feather” Maxim Might Come Back To Bite You

A week or so ago, one of the pundits…. I forget which…..wrote an article listing points of advice for President-elect Obama. He said forget Lincoln.  Look to recent presidents and the mistakes they made if you want some current and relevant lessons of specific  mistakes to avoid.  He mentioned Clinton’s trying to change the “no gays in the military” rule before he’d built sufficient capital with Congress; Carter’s micro-managing the schedule of who was playing at what time on the tennis court .  But one of his points was extremely well taken. He cited Ronald Reagan’s associates who wound up tarnishing him and his reputation.

The old “birds of a feather flock” together maxim.

This is one that may not be good news for the Obama administration.   At least, as far as women are concerned.

First, we have  Larry Summers of the “women are genetically inferior to men in math, science and engineering” fame, who was nominated by President-elect Obama to be the next head of the White House’s National Economic Council.

Ok.  Let’s just say Obama was so impressed by Summers’ economic acumen he decided to magnanimously overlook his Paleolithic outlook on women ( see The Larry Summers Dust Up: Women vs Paleolithic Role Models).

Next up to bat. Bloomberg reports that Timothy Geithner, President-elect Barack Obama’s choice for U.S. Treasury Secretary, is seeking to ditch Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. Chairman Sheila Bair, the only woman on his incoming team.

Bair is a popular regulator, well respected on the Hill,  who has sided with struggling homeowners and sought tougher conditions on financial firm.

Barney Frank, Banking Committee in the House, and openly gay, so no stranger to bias, made the following observation: “I think part of the problem now, to be honest, is Sheila Bair has annoyed the ‘old boys’ club,’” To some extent, bank regulation and mortgage foreclosure have made a situation where we have several regulators up in the tree house with a ‘no girls allowed’ sign — and it’s aimed at Sheila Bair – - who’s been really good.”
We were all so relieved that Larry Summers was passed over and Timothy Geithner, was nominated for U.S. Treasury Secretary, that perhaps we didn’t take a close enough look at Geithner,  a long standing colleague of Larry Summers who might share some of his views on women.  Or, at the very least, may want them to be quiet and know their place.

And finally, the Washington Post pointedly asked, in One More Question, how incoming Obama administration director of speechwriting Jon Favreau, pictured above, left, might answer the Obama vetting teams questions regarding the offensive and juvenile photos appearing in Facebook and Myspace and particularly…

Question No. 63 which asks that applicants “please provide any other information … that could … be a possible source of embarrassment to you, your family, or the President-Elect.”

That’s when some interesting photos of a recent party he attended — including one where he’s dancing with a life-sized cardboard cut-out of secretary of state-designate Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, and another where he’s placed his hand on the cardboard former first lady’s chest ( groping her) while a friend (appears to be nibbling on her cardboard ear and ) is offering her lips a beer – popped up on Facebook for about two hours.

I don’t know about you, but I am tempted to start wondering if this is a pattern.   I’m also wondering if Obama’s vetting team, with that much vaunted judgment, is exploring and making appropriate decisions on whether each of these candidates has failed to make the evolutionary trek from the Paleolythic age to contemporary society, where gender skewed opinions and barbaric behavior are not the norm and shouldn’t be rewarded by appointment to high office.

Obama, are you listening?  No president escapes unscathed from outrageous acts of associates. This time, you picked them so you are responsible for their poor behavior.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

The Larry Summers Dust Up: Women vs Paleolithic Role Models

I belong to a number of women’s groups and one such group, non partisan The New Agenda is, or at least some of its members are,  extremely exercised over the nomination of Larry Summers for anything. (Summers, you may recall, was nominated by President-elect Obama to be the next head of the White House’s National Economic Council to coordinate economic policy making).

Summers may be a whiz at economics ( though some people question even that – see Larry’s Summer’s Judgment in Forbes), but he is pretty much a dud, not to say a disaster, with his people skills.

In 2005, Larry Summers, when he was Harvard University’s President, put forth his theory that women are genetically inferior to men in math, science and engineering. That, he declared, was why women were under-represented on the faculties of hallowed institutions that taught these subjects.

Forget that there is zilch research to support this.  Forget that bias, gender barriers and care-giving for their families have been identified and well documented as the historic and universal barriers to women’s professional progress.

Larry Summers thinks we’re stupid. Or more accurately, riddled with genetic blind spots that leave us incapacitated when it comes to his favorite subjects: math, science and engineering. No wonder no woman has made the cut to become a tenured female professor of mathematics at Harvard in its 370-year history. Must be that genetic deficiency popping up in 100% of the pool of women academics who might have been considered.

Of course, Summers got into major hot water.  He was essentially ousted from Harvard.  And now women, and many academics are looking forward to Summer’s elevation to this high post in the Obama Administration with about the same anticipation they would have if being dragged to the dentist for a full root canal.

Let me fill in a few blanks on Summers.  According to the Boston Globe , Summers had a brief and troubled stint at Harvard. “Nearly from the start, the world-renowned economist managed to alienate faculty with his autocratic management style. And then, in early 2005, he struck the match that ignited the firestorm. In suggesting that women lacked the same “intrinsic aptitude” for science as men, Summers opened a path for his eventual ouster. In a February 2006 meeting, two weeks before Summers resigned, professor after professor stood to tell him they lacked confidence in his leadership. Not a single one rose to his defense during the two-hour meeting.”  Without a lot of choice, Summers exited Harvard, on a sour note.

But…..you’ve probably seen those movies where all’s quiet in the graveyard then at the stroke of midnight some scary creature pops up from the grave to roam the earth again. He’s back!

Summers’ return and pending reinstatement to the highest positions of the land has caused a bit of a divide among women and womens’ groups.

Some high profile women like Wendy Kopp, chief executive and founder of Teach for America, think Summers is a great guy despite some “ill chosen words“. Ruth Marcus in the Washington Post comes to the conclusion Summers may have been right after all, we really are dumb.

Marcus caps this off by concluding: “Summers was boneheaded to say what he said, in the way that he said it and considering the job that he held. But he probably had a legitimate point — and the continuing uproar says more about the triumph of political correctness than about Summers’ supposed sexism.”

I hardly think that opposition to the position of girls being innately inferior in some fields amounts to “political correctness”.  I think failing to do so amounts to political cowardice. Or lack of discipline to read the weight of scientific data on the subject instead of cherry picking any shred of variance which may make Summers look like less of a Paleolithic anachronism. I’m pretty much a believer in former Clinton Secretary of State Madeleine Albright’s remark:”There’s a place in Hell reserved for women who don’t help other women.” And I can’t see that supporting Summers by supporting the thesis that women are genetically stupid is much of a help.

Many other women have lined up to fight Summer’s appointment to any office. ( Out of our sight and back to the graveyard was the general thinking.) Nonpartisan group, The New Agenda, said appointing Summers to that top Cabinet post would be a “grave mistake.”

Sensing an opportunity to distract women’s groups and seeking to focus attention elsewhere, it seems some set out rather cynically to instigate a battle of pro and con quotes from women’s groups or prominent women on the suitability of Summers for such a high profile office. The goal, it seems, was to encourage controversy and a general slug fest among women’s groups on the Summers question.

I think this would be the ultimate magician’s hat trick, to get us to look over there, while Larry Summers is being pulled out of the hat, over here. It is not hard to get women’s groups bickering among themselves.  The challenge, I think, is to hang together, to have a “big tent” of women; to try to work united and in the same tent.  Those of us who are Democrats did that when we stood up for Sarah Palin.  I think the way forward is not to critique each other but to critique and hold accountable Paleolithic men like Larry Summers and call into question the judgment behind appointing him and the ramifications to women and academics of what he stands for which the Obama vetting team clearly doesn’t get.

If you agree, why not fire up your email and let the Obama team know, even if Summers is outstanding in his field, he is a poor choice for high office and as a role model.  When Obama said “We don’t have a Red America and a Blue America, we have a United States of America,” just as we don’t have a white America and a black America, he might well have said, “We don’t have a male America and a female America, we have a United States of America.”  This is his chance to prove those aren’t just words, they are a standard he will live by, including in his appointments to high office.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Three Candidates for Vice President : NO QUARTER

Three Candidates for Vice President : NO QUARTER.

Blogger, Bud White contrasts JFK’s choice of Lyndon Johnson to unite the party and give it geographical balance with Obama’s refusal to choose his closest contender Hillary Clinton, defining it as a poor political decision, reinforcing his worst traits.  He also goes on to cast it as a sexist decision which has infuriated and energized some women and as turning the tide of some women against him.

webballot-3-vps_edited-1.jpg

(Cartoon by Pat Racimora)

Although I ignore Dick Morris when he speaks about the Clintons, his Machiavellian view of politics is often worth listening to closely. Here’s Morris on Palin and women:

Anecdotal evidence already suggests that women may have a gut reaction to the establishment’s sexist assault on a woman candidate – and flock to McCain. They’ve seen him stake everything on this one big move of turning toward a woman – in direct contrast to Obama’s deliberate decision not to name a woman.

They’ve seen the media and Democrats gang up on her and do their worst. And they’ve seen Palin stand up and stuff the challenge right back down the establishment’s throat. All this may have created an entirely new dynamic in the race.

Recent polling data is confirming Morris’ prediction:

An ABC News-Washington Post survey showed white women have moved from backing Obama by 8 points to supporting McCain by 12 points, with majorities viewing Palin favorably and saying she boosts their faith in McCain’s decisions.

For many women, I believe, Obama-Biden represents the worst of the boys club and McCain-Palin have become the agents of change…

Instead of making a peace offering to women by picking Hillary, Obama is now in the position of attacking another woman candidate. It’s starting to look like a pattern. The headline today from the Associated Press, written by Nedra Pickler, is “Obama puts heat on Palin as she boosts GOP ticket.” She writes:

Obama said last week’s Republican National Convention did a good job of highlighting Palin’s biography — “Mother, governor, moose shooter. That’s cool,” he said. But he said Palin really is just another Republican politician, one who is stretching the truth about her record.

“When John McCain gets up there with Sarah Palin and says, `We’re for change,’ … what are they talking about?” Obama said Monday. (emphasis added)

Obama’s use of the pedestrian “cool” is meant to assure us that he is unfazed by Palin, but his need to sound unconcerned makes the desperation almost palpable. Obama is now running against Palin. He doesn’t have a choice. Obama is hemorrhaging women voters. He must stop the bleeding, but his attacks on her only serve to diminish him. Palin has become Obama’s opponent, and his attacks on her inexperience only remind voters of his own inexperience and, even worse, they remind women of what he and his supporters did to Hillary. The attacks on Palin, a woman friend told me today, are beginning to feel like personal attacks on all women.

Instead of having two political giants like Kennedy and Johnson, we have three candidates for vice president, of which Palin is the best, and McCain is reaping the benefit.

Lipstick on a Pig

Lipstick on a Pig – The Corner on National Review Online.

Well, to my question “does anybody really think Obama meant to call Sarah Palin a pig?” the answer appears to be “yes, about a gazillion and a half emailers do think so,” though another half a gazillion don’t. And the video without question looks very very bad. The audience certainly seems to take him to refer to Palin. I think Obama’s choice of words was unbelievably stupid (as it so very often is when he’s not chained to a teleprompter), and I certainly think both he and Biden have completely lost their cool because of Palin and are getting hysterical—Biden’s ugly reference to Palin’s Down syndrome child and stem cell research today is one example. But did he set out to call Palin (or McCain) names? I think it’s a bad gaffe, not an attack. That’s bad enough, but the McCain folks themselves shouldn’t overreact. Let them melt down. Roger Kimball has it right.

The X Factor by Lynette Long

Lynette Long, psychologist in Bethesda and the author of 20 books

The X Factor

Gloria Steinem, in her September 4th editorial in the Los Angeles Times, came out strongly against Governor Palin claiming the only thing women have in common with Palin is an X chromosome. I respectfully disagree. Governor Palin knows what it is like to be a woman, a mother, a daughter, a sister – things the two men on the Democratic ticket can never fully understand. She knows what it is like to grow up invisible in an incredibly sexist society, to be stared at, groped, and sexually harassed. She knows what it is like to be smaller in stature than men and physically vulnerable. She knows what it’s like to worry that you are pregnant when you don’t want to be or that you are not pregnant when you want to be. Sarah Palin knows what it is to experience the joys and sorrows of motherhood, to nurse a baby while holding down a job, to leave for work in the morning with a toddler tugging at your pant leg, or to have your children calling you at work to diffuse squabbles or ask for help with homework. She knows that once you get to work you have to speak twice as loud and twice as often to be heard and work twice a hard to go half as far. She knows what it is to be a member of the second sex.

Gender is the most fundamental human characteristic. The first comment made when a child is born is either, “It’s a girl” or “It’s a boy.” From that second on, boys and girls live in parallel universes in the same culture. From the nursery room to the board room, boys and girls are given different messages about their respective roles in the world. At the hospital they are given different types of names and wrapped in different colored blankets. Once home, baby girls and boys wear fundamentally different clothes and play with different toys. This differentiation extends through school where girls are given less attention, picked less frequently to answer questions and placed less often in advanced science and math classes. Once in the workforce, women are steered into lower-paying careers, paid less for the same work, and forced to juggle the responsibilities of work and home. You can’t learn what it is to be a woman, unless you are one. You can’t have a government essentially devoid of women that knows what’s best for women. You can’t legislate for women, without women.

After the last Democratic Primary was over and it was clear Senator Clinton was not going to get the Democratic nomination, myself, and a small group of Clinton supporters met with Senator McCain and Carly Fiorina. I personally explained to Senator McCain that women comprise well over half of the population, yet are underrepresented in every branch of government. I asked him loudly and clearly to choose a woman for the VP slot and to increase the number of women in the cabinet and on the Supreme Court. Senator McCain listened respectfully to my request. Representatives of The New Agenda also met with Carly Fiorina as well as members of the Obama campaign to make similar requests.

After the Democratic Primary, I was personally in contact with a member of Obama’s Finance Committee. He left several messages on my office phone, “urging” me to support Senator Obama. We had numerous contentious conversations and I finally told him I would be happy to vote for Senator Obama and rally other Hillary supporters to vote for Obama but in return I wanted Obama to pledge gender parity in the cabinet. I foolishly thought equal representation in government was a reasonable request. “What if there aren’t qualified women you still expect us to appoint half women to the cabinet?” he replied. I was confused. “There are 300 million people in this country; you’re telling me you can’t find ten qualified women?” He responded, “You can’t have that.” We had no further conversations. There was nothing more to say.

Weeks later I approached a training session for DNC canvassers at a park in my neighborhood. Eager to practice their new skills, they all ran up to me, “Do you support Senator Obama? Do you want to donate money to the DNC?” After explaining that I was a Hillary supporter, I again made my request. I will support Senator Obama if he will pick a woman as his running mate and promise gender parity in the cabinet. The men in the group openly laughed at me and found my request ridiculous. I looked at the horrified faces of the newly minted female canvassers. “They’re laughing at you too,” I muttered.

Not one to give up, I contacted a daughter of a friend of mine who is a policy advisor for Obama. She assured me Obama was a good guy, so I posed my request to her. She generously responded, “I’ll ask him.” When I did not hear back from her in a few days, I shot her another email. She told me how disappointed she was in me for making such a stupid request. Obama was on the “right” side of the issues. Why did it matter whether men or women legislated those issues? I guess the answer from Obama was No. What saddened me was her mother was one of this nation’s greatest champions of title nine, educational equity and gender parity. Her mother and I counted the number of pictures of boys and girls in text books, male and female cartoon characters, and documented the underrepresentation of girls in math classes in our nation’s schools. Yes, policy is important but who decides and delivers that policy is even more important. As Marshall McLuhan profoundly noted, “The medium is the message.” Children incorporate many of their perceptions about gender by age five. Little girls won’t understand if Sarah Palin is pro-life or pro-choice, believes in gun control or is a member of the NRA, but they will know the Vice-President of the United States of America is a girl and that alone will alter their perceptions of themselves.

I have given my loyalty to the Democratic Party for decades. My party, which is comprised primarily of women, has not put a woman on a presidential ticket for 24 years. My party refused to nominate my candidate, Hillary Clinton, for president or vice president, even though she received more votes than any other candidate in history. My party stood silently by as Hillary Clinton was eviscerated by the mainstream media. My party was mute while the main stream media repeatedly called Clinton a bitch and symbolically called me and every other woman in this country a bitch. My party was disturbingly silent when the main stream media commented on Hillary’s body or the shrillness of her voice, reminding me and every other woman the fundamental disrespect we endure on a daily basis. My party’s candidate was mute when Rev. Jeremiah Wright and Father Pfleger openly mocked Senator Clinton from the pulpit of Trinity United Church of Christ. My party’s candidate was silent when the rapper Ludicrous released a new song calling Hillary a bitch. My party and it’s candidate gave their tacit approval for the attacks on Senator Hillary Clinton and consequently women in general.

I have a choice. I can vote for my party and it’s candidates which have demonstrated a blatant disrespect for women and a fundamental lack of integrity or I can vote for the Republican ticket which has heard our concerns and put a woman on the ticket but with whom I fundamentally don’t agree on most issues. If Democratic women wait for the perfect woman to come along, we will never elect a woman. We have to seize opportunity where it presents itself. Besides, the Democratic Party is no longer my home. I have no home, but this election I will make my bed somewhere else.

I respect Gloria Steinem’s right to support the presidential ticket of her choice but she is openly trying to derail Sarah Palin’s historic candidacy. As Madeleine Albright said, “There is a special place in hell for women who don’t help other women.” I will vote for McCain-Palin. I urge other women to do the same. I might not personally agree with Palin on every issue and I promise to the first person knocking on her door, if Roe v. Wade, or any other legislation that goes against the rights of women is threatened. But in Governor Palin I find a woman of integrity, who not only talks the talk but walks the walk. I can work with that. I will work with that. When I walk down the street, I don’t have Democrat printed on my forehead, but my gender is obvious to everyone and impacts every interaction in my life. Since my country is far from gender neutral, right now for me gender trumps everything else. I urge other women to join me in this fight for equality. Sometimes opportunities occur where you least expect them.

The Difference Between Democrats and Republicans Handling of Sexism

The Difference : NO QUARTER.

Between how the Republicans deal with sexism in this election, and how the Democrats have dealt with sexism is mighty telling. The latter were mum, until after Hillary conceded the race then they made some noise about how things weren’t so great on the whole woman thing. The one exception was Geraldine Ferraro standing up for Hillary. She got labeled a racist for her trouble. I should add, not only did the DNC not speak up, they actually got in a few digs, too.

Not so the Republicans. I take NO credit for these next two pieces at all – they came from alert readers at No Quarter. The first one is from “Hope Floats,” who posted the following article:

“Gov. Palin’s experience is in running a state,” added Swift. “Barack Obama’s experience, as he himself has said, is in running a campaign.”

Joining Swift in her denunciations were senior McCain aide Carly Fiorina, Rep. Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee, former U.S. Treasurer Rosario Marin and Renee Amore, Deputy Chairman of the Pennsylvania Republican Party.

“The Republican Party will not stand by while Gov. Palin is subjected to sexist attacks,” said Fiorina, who explained that all the women on stage had experienced sexism in their careers. “I don’t believe American women are going to stand for it either.”

“It is quite interesting that Gov. Palin has managed the state of Alaska with 24,000 employees and a $10 billion budget,” said Blackburn. “How many men have done that?”

Amore was more direct. Referring to the media, she said, “You never talk about that Barack Obama hasn’t run anything.”

“These smears are meant to distract from the fact that Gov. Palin has more experience than Barack Obama,” said Amore. She then issued a humorous, if also serious, challenge: “Let me use some ebonics … We will get with you, if you keep messing with us.”

There wasn’t a link to the post, but here is a VIDEO you can watch.

And then, frequent commenter Paul Villareal has several YouTube videos up, particularly this one in which Newt Gingrich (I know – I am as surprised by this as anybody) lays into a MSNBC reporter on the differences between Governor Palin and Barack Obama (again, she’s second on the ticket, Obama is first – and HE STILL COMES UP SHORT IN THE COMPARISON!!!). Anyway, take a look The end is a hoot:

Clinton’s journey awakens a new women’s movement – The Boston Globe

Clinton’s journey awakens a new women’s movement – The Boston Globe.

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.”

We’ve Come A Long Way, Baby – Or Have We?

As noted in a recently formed Yahoo protest group, Thomas Jefferson said, “The price of democracy is eternal vigilance”.

So, as we look out over the wreckage strewn in the wake of the primary season, one might ask, what did it mean for women? How did it impact us? On the one hand, we did get a viable woman presidential candidate who captured 18 million votes. On the other hand, women, exemplified by Hillary Clinton, surely a serious and capable candidate, were savaged, in a way which might have echoed in our communal memories the witch hunts in early New England or the wholesale subjugation of women in the Middle Ages, when our lands were taken away, we were denied an education and had to flee into a nunnery to be allowed serious intellectual pursuits.

A woman president of the U.S. was not to be, not in this season, despite the women leaders who’ve emerged across the globe. But, is sexism the only reason Hillary lost? No. Unfairness and ethical lapses in the caucus system played a part. And Hillary and her campaign also made some mistakes which turned out, in hindsight, to be pivotal, perhaps monumental. One of her biggest was depending on two smart, perhaps brilliant, and controlling men, her husband and Mark Penn, to shape her campaign, when the latter, according to Harold Ickes, didn’t fully understand either proportional voting or the caucus system ( and for this wrongheaded advice, she drained her treasury of some $4 million leaving her constantly playing catch up financially). Equally important, someplace in the fog of the primary war, the HRC campaign let Obama high-jack the two themes which had been reliable Democratic winners: the need for change and the desire for Hope, as in the Man From Hope, Bill Clinton.

So where did that leave us? With a brilliant, and, as it turned out, tough and capable candidate, who knew the issues, had a grasp on how to solve them, but lacked the charisma of the new kid on the block and the backing of some of the key old white men such as Howard Dean; male identified women happy to be in the old boys’ club themselves, like Nancy Pelosi; and some with a sense of entitlement, who failed to get that far in the primaries themselves, like Ted Kennedy. In the end, although Hillary had been steered away from running as a woman, it was women and the women’s vote, particularly those who had endured the harshest forms of sexism in earlier decades, who felt her pain and rallied around her. But by then, perhaps just after Illinois, and certainly after a disastrous February pile up of caucus losses, it was too late.

In the past decades and certainly in this primary season, women in this country have certainly chipped away at old stereo types and made some incremental progress. As Hillary Clinton noted “We’ve made 18 million cracks in the highest and hardest glass ceiling.” But we haven’t made nearly enough progress and we’ve taken a couple of steps backward.

Here are 2 videos on sexism in this political race. The first has Hillary’s speech on “women’s rights are human rights’ in the background and egregious sexism in the video.

The second is of the over-the-top remarks of commentators and Obama’s campaign and Obama himself.
As the sexist tone in the media reaches a fever pitch, the Women’s Media Center created this video to illustrate the problem and send a message to the media: Sexism might sell, but we’re not buying it!Sign our petition here:
http://www.womensmediacenter.com/sexism_sells.html

So, it appears, we still have a long way to go, baby.

For those of us who wish to continue to try to level this very unlevel playing field, one resource which I found helpful , is Madeleine Albright‘s “Win with Women Global Action Plan” . Although it is aimed to a global audience, most of the issues are exactly the same as we all experienced in our local caucuses and the primaries.

In Albright‘s plan you will find “experiences and advice of women political party leaders from around the world”. The Plan is organized around four main themes which address women’s participation as voters, political party leaders, candidates and elected officials. ” On this page you can click on each theme and get a good summary of it. You can also download the whole Win With Women Global Action Plan.( I was a signatory on this plan.)

There are also some strategies mentioned which have to do with training women , an initiative one hopes could be financed by the political parties themselves or non-profits organized for the purposes of empowering women in politics

Some other specifics this plan asks for the following:

a. Increase the number of women elected officials at the national, state and local levels.

b.Ensure that political parties include women in meaningful leadership positions and in meaningful numbers.

c. Encourage greater participation of women in government decision-making and advocating for legislation that enshrines the full equality of women and men.

There are really only a couple of strategies which have been effective historically:

1. Getting goals written into law such as TItle IX and sexual harassment laws: only about 10 or 12 years ago women were having to file sexual harassment lawsuits against major Stock Brokerages, Oil companies etc. for egregious behavior. Once they understand how much it will cost them, they cut out that behavior.

2. Keep moving women up, with the goal of having 50% women in a particular group, like the Congress. That’s when change happens

3. In the same vein, have a plan to move women into local office, starting w Sheriff and dog catcher. Eventually they can rise to mayor. And, as the late, great Gov Annie Richards used to say, her election was on the backs of women mayors. In my town, San Antonio, Texas, we are moving women into City Council, where they now dominate and the next step is mayor.

In other words, don’t focus on telling the media or anyone not to be misogynist . Focus on getting ( a greater number of ) women the power, then the misogyny will start to be kept under control.

Also, since legislation historically has been effective, we might all think about getting behind a bill passing through the legislature right now, governing the FCC, which could restrict the media’s use on the public airwaves of certain words against women such as the B word.

Working around those intiatives would certainly be a good start.