This weekend, The New Agenda’s Amy Siskind was one of four panelist on Bonnie Erbe’s weekly television show, To the Contrary.
Other panelist included Republican Strategist Nancy Pfotenhauer; Former Clinton Appointee Patricia Sosa; and Conservative Commentator Tara Setmayer.
*The clip below is a ten minute version of the segments edited. The entire show is available in three parts here.
Amy, you Go Girl!
If you have Dish or Direct the show may air on Sunday. I won’t get to see it until Sun. morning at 5am
not showing in Silver Spring. Will this be on the internet?
Marille, it will be on the internet next week, some time after Monday.
I just saw a note on Amy’s appearance at The Common Ills and wanted to share what they posted:
Also on PBS (program begins airing tonight, check local listings for date and time in your area), The New Agenda’s Amy Siskind appears on Bonnie Erbe’s To The Contrary. After NOW’s Kim Gandy embarrassed herself last week (as did Eleanor Holmes Norton, see “The Katrina goes to . . .”) acting as a film critic (who didn’t know the plot of the film she was critiquing) and pimping the concept that the only woman who should have a baby was a woman legally married to a man — no, that’s not feminism — Amy Siskind’s appearance should be a huge improvement. And for those who missed last week’s program, it’s available online now at To The Contrary and if you watch it, grasp that Eleanor and Kim were supposed to represent the ‘left’. It was no surprise that such a restrictive notion might come from the right (actually, Sophia Nelson, from the right, had a less restrictive notion of motherhood), it was appalling to watch Kim and Eleanor rush to attack single women (adults and underage teenagers) and to attack women in committed partnerships (either male-female pairings or female-female ones) . And Rebecca’s correct (see her “kim gandy is an idiot & other topics”), the trashing of Angelina Jolie did not sit well with me because I have known her since she was a child and I do not find it ‘cute’ or ‘funny’ when she’s trashed. But, while that’s true, it is equally true that, as Ava and I pointed out, Angelina has been in a committed relationship for four years now. With Brad and yet that’s not good enough for Kim Gandy. Before Kim Gandy trashes another woman for the legitimate choices she makes, maybe Kim Gandy might try dealing with her own personal demons — if she did, she wouldn’t be stress eating so and wouldn’t have put on approximately forty pounds in the last six months. She crossed a serious line and it’s not one a president of NOW should ever cross. And for anyone whining about ‘poor Kim’ and her weight, it’s not my fault she’s fat, I didn’t force-feed her.
http://thecommonills.blogspot......-iraq.html
I’m really excited to see Amy on the show. Kim Gandy was awful last week and it was disappointing to hear them go on about who was entitled to be a mother and who wasn’t. I couldn’t believe it and I’d thought Kim Gandy couldn’t disappoint ever again after that Barack Obama endorsement.
Thia,
when you say it may be on on Dish or Direct tv on Sunday – do you imply that the schedules on PBS stations on those outlets are different from the over the air stations. Checked the link above and To the Contrary is not on the major San Francisco station KQED or one further north in CA – KVIE?
If anyone knows the link to the internet showing please share. Thanks
Lili,
I have Direct TV and it won’t show until 5 am E on Sunday. I had to really search for it too because the regular search by name produced nothing, but when I looked at the two PBS channels I get I found it. If you click the link in the article above it will take you to their website where they usually post them within a couple of days max of the original airing which is Sat.
I live in the Boston market area, and when I clicked on the link in the post and put in my zip code, I got a “Not showing in your area” message. But when I went to the search function on my TV service, it showed up both on WGBH in Boston and NH Public Broadcast. If you’re getting a similar message, try whatever you use for a guide for your TV instead.
Thank you Thia and samanthasmom – I will go and search on the two PBS stations and use the search function with my TV service – I appreciate your help.
samanthasmom – I believe this is on in the Boston market on Sunday at 7:30 a.m. but I was told it is best to call PBS. The website link doesn’t seem to work.
Amy, you were excellent, so well prepared. I particularly liked your take on sexting. the liberal woman was so clueless. I am still puzzled why the 3 girls did not take the lession about pornography. you are so right sexting is a huge problem.
THanks.
Amy,
Very, very nice. The statistics are exactly with you on how corporate women begin to be penalized right around their mid-30′s. Women tend to stop advancing while men continue to advance through their 50′s. The best companies adjust their policies to compensate for the dual career burden placed on women by society (and most men).
“The same treatment” is not “fair, or equitable” in the corporate arena. The best companies realize this fact.
Great job Amy.
Amy – You did a great job at bringing the topic back to how all of the issues, the economy, “sexting”, and unmarried parenting effect women and girls, their relationships and societal attitudes at large. You made many good points.
On the topic of unmarried parenting…How naive were those women to think that there haven’t been many men serving in political positions who have fathered children without being married to the mother. The reason it isn’t known and/or talked about is precisely for the reason that they are men and being pregnant doesn’t show on them, so it isn’t important to our image of them as a responsible person. That they are not held to the same standard as women in this area is exactly what you called it, discrimination.
I applaud your ability to keep publicly bringing women’s issues to the forefront in the face of such opposition and ignorance, even on the part of other women. We are lucky to have you as a spokesperson.
You were terrific, Amy, and I have a new appreciation for the power of television as a medium for our message.
You did The New Agenda proud.
I took note of what I think of as the Larry Summers argument. Women earn less because they interrupt their career to raise a family, they are not willing to work 20 hours a day, etc. I am becoming increasingly curious about how many men in this country do not have a family and what percentage of the employed men actually work 20 hours a day.
I have actually had periods of several months when I survived on 3-4 hours of sleep and worked almost constantly when awake. I do not believe that anyone does this continually throughout their working life, unless it is unusually short. Further, I think that positions with demands this severe are rare. But wait, I don’t count golf, power lunches, evenings at some strip club, weekend retreats, etc. as work.
I have concluded that this argument is a smoke screen. What is really being said is “of course they earn less, they are women”.
John,
You are right. Companies count “being available” as working and have a view that a lot of women will be available on a moments notice once they hit their mid 30′s due to family concerns. Many HR executives – female HR executives – believe that if women want to succeed in business, they must be more like me – either forgoing family, or finding a spouse who will take on family responsibilities.
The better companies, however, don’t make women, or men, make this choice by offering adequate child/dependent care, job sharing / rotations and addressing the mindset of managers that says it is okay to penalize women with lower pay and fewer career opportunities because women will be leaving the workforce.
Amy did a very nice job of bringing the discussion back to tangible disparities.
Meant “not available”
Excellent job Amy! I particularly liked how you pointed out that younger women start out on a par with men in the workplace,but by the time they reach their 40′s you can see the differences in advancement. I can testify to that. When I was younger I didn’t think there was a problem; I was advancing in my career, doing just fine. As I got older, I kept wondering how all of these less competent men were somehow in better jobs than me. I think this is one reason so many younger women did not support Hillary or Sarah; they don’t think there is a problem. Well, I kept thinking, you’ll find out in about 20 years that, yes, you do have a problem. My personal opinion is that getting a woman into the Presidency will do more for women’s equality than any piece of legislation. I just wish women would understand this instead of continuing to shoot themselves in the foot with the claim that “I vote for the best candidate.” Sigh, and just why is the best candidate always a man?
what is the story with this “new” idea that women making less than men for the same job is a false statistic? Could someone enlighten me on this?
I am with you Amy! If it had been a man I can almost guarantee there would be no discussion. I was shocked that any woman could actually make that comparison with teen pregnancy. My take on that is, if you hand your kid an excuse on a silver platter — they will surely use it. There were so many holes I don’t know where to begin — one being, just because a couple isn’t married doesn’t mean the father has to disappear. There are hundreds of thousands of divorced dads who are not living in the same house with their kids — what is the fundamental difference?
You did a terrific job. I would have been ranting by the end. You kept the message of TNA persistent and consistent and did so with tremendous dignity.
Cynthia Ruccia:
The situation of women making less than men for the same job is ignored in these conversations. Similar to the Larry Summers deal years ago these people dismiss disparity in wages based on story lines such as: some women choose lower paying career paths, some women choose to exit the work world and reenter after having fallen behind, and several other “women choose to earn less than men” stories. The conclusion they put forward is that there is no overt gender discrimination, it is all understandable and acceptable results of choices that women make.
Amy,
You where really good! Your stats were spot on.
Hay, has anybody seen Secratary Clinton accept the Margerate Sanger award from Planned Perenthood?
Great job Amy!
Can someone post the link to the previous show with Kim Gandy et al. I can’t find it.
Puma for Life,
You can download it here, March 20th
http://www.pbs.org/ttc/podcasts.html
Terrific Amy! You go girl!
Keep up the pressure and visibility. We won’t go away.
Happy to see The New Agenda spreading its wings. Thanks for the update on the program.