A reader writes:

Dear Female Science Professor,

Maybe you had this topic before on your Blog but I was wondering if you do also frequently receive offers to occupy leading positions “because you are a woman.” I am a female science professor at an institution with few female professors – in fact I think we are far less than 10%. This is a big political issue, because our institute may get a cut in the annual budget if the situation is not improving soon. I received already several offers to become a committee leader, a department head etc.. I was always asked by males and they were not hiding the fact that they asked me, because “we” need more women in leading positions. I really wished one day I would be asked, because someone thinks I am the best match for this job… I also wonder if it is sometimes a satisfaction for the males to let us women know that we were chosen just to balance the genders. Honestly, sometimes I start taking it as a discrimination to be asked for these jobs, because it means extra time that I have to spend with these duties and sometimes it is impossible to step out, because I would risk to imbalance the male-female ratio, which would fall back negatively on our institution. I am not at all a feminist – never was. I was always the girl who preferred to play with boys as a child and I always saw myself simply for what I am – free of gender thoughts. I was never feeling treated differently, because I am a women. But this new situation is really starting to annoy me. Don’t get me wrong, its better to get these jobs offered than to be left out, but I just wished I could think I “earned” them….

Answers/comments:

You very likely have earned these opportunities, but it is common to feel otherwise. I have discussed this topic before in the blog, but it’s one of those topics that never goes away because many of us experience this situation throughout our careers* and have mixed feelings about it, as expressed well in the e-mail above. This is a situation that would presumably go away if there were more women in our fields.

One reason the ‘we need a woman’ situation makes some of us uncomfortable is that we want to be given opportunities based on our expertise and talents, but sometimes this isn’t going to happen unless there is a concerted effort to try to include women in certain administrative positions, committees and so on. I have served on many committees that needed a woman (and there weren’t many women to ask), resented those cases in which it was made clear to me that my token status made my participation less valuable than those of the men, and been convinced many a time that my presence was important, even if I had to put up with some unpleasant behavior on the part of my so-called peers. It bothers me less in cases in which I am aware that the committee (or whatever) ‘needed’ a woman, but once there, I am treated with respect, just like everyone else.

Our mixed-feelings can result in the unfair accusation that ‘we don’t know what we want’; that is, we think women should be represented but we don’t want it to be overt that we are asked because we are women. We resent having to do more service than our male peers (and not get credit for it, or even get criticized for it), but we are disturbed when important committees (etc.) are composed entirely of men. What do we want? It’s simple: We want to be treated with respect.

Note that being “free of gender thoughts” does not disqualify you from being a feminist. The fact that you think women should be treated in a fair way, based on our qualifications, does in fact make you a feminist. This is a compliment. A feminist is a person who thinks that women should have fair and equal rights and opportunities. If you think that your male peers should be paid more than you for the same job, then OK, you are not a feminist.

* In fact, just a few weeks ago, I received an invitation to serve on the board of the Zombie Research Society. The invitation explained, "We are actively looking for qualified women to join the Board." Despite my intense fascination with all things zombie (= sarcasm/lie), I was struck by the 'we are only asking you because you are a woman' line. I was not offended at all, but I noted the up-front statement. Alas, only qualified women are being considered, and I am definitely not qualified for this role because I am more interested in dryer lint than I am in zombies.

Despite the fact that in every presidential election since 1980 the turnout rates for women have exceeded the turnout rates for men, women will again be asked this November to choose between two men for the Oval Office. Most women will decide to vote for their political party’s nominee, and because “Republicans are slightly more likely to be male than female — although slightly less so today than in 2008,” a gender gap is likely to emerge.

But the 2012 presidential election is not going to be about the gender gap (the difference between the genders), it’s going to be about the women’s vote (the partisan split among women), as it was in the last two elections. As the Center for American Women in Politics shows, in both 2004 and 2008 the gender gap was 7%, but the women’s vote was different. In 2008, a solid majority of women supported Barack Obama over John McCain (56% to 43%), whereas in 2004, the women’s vote was more evenly divided between John Kerry and George W. Bush (51% to 48%).

The partisan choice of women voters is a critical determinant of the election’s outcome.

So what does this have to do Mitt Romney?

According to the crosstabs in a recent CNN/ORC Poll, Romney ties Obama because more women say they would vote for him, than they would his GOP rivals.

*Obama vs. Romney – women split 53% to 45% (2% other)

*Obama vs. Gingrich – women split 58% to 40% (2% other)

*Obama vs. Paul – women split 56% to 40% (2% other)

*Obama vs. Santorum – women split 57% to 42%

Romney holds between a 3% and 5% advantage among women voters over his fellow Republicans. Romney and Paul, the poll leaders in a race against Obama, tie on the level of support they earn from men (59%).

Romney is the “more electable” candidate because he appeals to women voters. From a purely analytical (not partisan) standpoint, if the Republicans want a close race in November, then they should follow the lead of Senator Kelly Ayotte, Governor Nikki Haley, and Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers and throw their support behind Romney.

January 2012 marks the 11th annual National Mentoring Month. Among youth, mentoring programs such as Big Brothers, Big Sisters has led to lower drug use rates, better school attendance, and improved self-esteem. Having a mentor beyond one’s teens and during their education and professional development are important as well.  The American Psychological Association notes that female graduate students need mentors, and research shows that female graduate students rank having a female mentor is highly important for their professional development. Female students who had female mentors noted that these mentors saw them as their whole person, not solely as students, and focused on prioritizing one’s values.  A recent LinkedIn poll showed that 82% of women feel that having a mentor is important, and unfortunately, roughly 20% of professional women have never had a mentor. Only 34% of female Baby Boomers had a female mentor during their professional career while numbers have improved for GenXers (43%) and GenYers (51%).

Women throughout history and throughout the world have benefited from having female mentors who have helped them develop their careers and maintain their desired work-personal life balance. The first female British Prime Minister and current subject of a major film, Margaret Thatcher, was the beneficiary of female mentors throughout her professional and political career. Although Thatcher spent much of her career in politics, Margaret Thatcher (then Margaret Roberts) received her college degree in chemistry and spent three years working in a research laboratory in her early twenties.  Roberts pursued this field of study because of the influence of her chemistry teacher Miss Kay of whom biographers note that Thatcher was “inspired by [her] teaching excellence.”  During her study at Oxford, she studied under Dorothy Hodgkin, who was responsible for a great deal of the advance of X-Ray crystallography, which enables scientists to see 3-D images of molecules. Hodgkin would later win the Nobel Prize in chemistry in 1964. Margaret Roberts research dissertation focused on determining the structure of gramicidin, a bacterial derived compound that was found to have antibiotic. Roberts’s research was guided by Dororthy Hodgkin, who in addition to winning the Nobel prize was seen as instrumental in shaping the science policies  that implemented Prime Minister Thatcher more than thirty years later.

After her schooling, she spent a few years working as a chemist for a plastics company, but ultimately, her interests and passions led Margaret Thatcher to pursue a career in politics and a degree in law. She would marry Denis Thatcher in 1951 following her electoral loss  of a parliamentary seat. In 1953, Thatcher had twins, and she continued to pursue a career in politics, winning a seat in parliament in 1959. In her memoir, The Path to Power, recounting her life prior to being Prime Minister Thatcher notes the early influence of a fellow female member of parliament, Irene about balancing one’s personal and professional life, especially during a time in even Western history when women’s participation outside of the home was not always met warmly:

The pull of a mother towards her children is perhaps the most instinctive emotion we have. I was never one of people who regarded being ‘just’ a mother or indeed ‘just’ a housewife as second best. Indeed, whenever I heard such implicit assumptions made before and after I became Prime Minister it would make me very angry indeed.  Of course to be a mother and a housewife is a vocation of a very high kind. But I simply felt that it was not the whole of my career. A phrase that Irene Ward, MP for Tynemouth, and I often used was that ‘while the home must always be the centre of one’s life,it should not be the boundary of one’s ambitions.’

Thatcher was able to pursue personal ambitions while at the same time making her family the focus of her life due in part to the fact that she had a fellow female MP who had blazed the trail already. Irene Ward served in parliament from 1931-1945 and again from 1950 to 1974 and was a strong supporter of equal pay for women as well. Margaret Thatcher had yet another mentor in her life in Irene Ward.

Throughout Margaret Thatcher’s career, she was influenced by successful women in her life–whether it was a teacher who helped her find her academic interests, a brilliant professor who influenced her far beyond her scientific career, or a colleague who understood the need to balance one’s family and career.  The aforementioned LinkedIn poll noted that 67% of women have never been a mentor because no one has ever asked, and 52% of women have never pursued a mentor because they haven’t found someone appropriate for them. If we have opportunity and are in the right season of our careers and lives to be a mentor, the example of Margaret Thatcher, among many others, can serve to show how strong female examples can help support and encourage women in their professional careers. If we are in the nascence of our professional career, pursuing mentoring opportunities can prove to be fruitful. Assertiveness and diligence can indeed help set us apart. As Margaret Thatcher once said, “If you want something said, ask a man. If you want something done, ask a woman.”

“Compromise used to mean that half a loaf was better than no loaf. Among modern statesmen it really seems to mean that half a loaf is better than a whole loaf.”
-GK Chesterton

This is intended to be not just a riposte, but a screed. I have read one too many of those damn Hillary Clinton for VP  opinion articles and I think my uterus may have finally come unmoored. I supported Hillary in 2008. I never wanted her to accept the Secretary of State position because I wanted her to keep her distance from an administration that I saw as doomed to fail, although in retrospect I think she’s done a lot of good in the role and built up a killer resume. And now it looks like that era is over, and everyone including me has an idea about what she should be doing next.

I can accept the people who think she should take a break and enjoy herself. I can accept the people who want to see her create a foundation and keep doing the good work. I can accept the people who want her back in the senate, or to wait and run for the Presidency. I can accept the people who want her to challenge Obama in the primary, or run as a third party candidate. While some of these strike me as wildly implausible, none of them really offend me.

But these writers and bloggers who keep saying that Hillary should be VP? They make me want to stab someone. They all lay out the same arguments: it’d be good for the party, it’d make her the presumptive nominee in 2016, and… nope, that’s pretty much it. It’s a weak, milquetoast kind of argument, especially when you consider that what they’re advocating would be bad for the party and bad for Hillary. It’s not just the ridiculous assertions of the articles that bother me though. Before I go about debunking those, let us address the usual tone of these steaming piles of crap.

These articles are written from the perspective of the classic concern troll. They start off by talking about Hillary’s accomplishments, and then they talk about her loss in 2008. They talk about the good she’s done as Secretary of State, and how popular she is, and then they talk about how she seems so tired lately. Spattered throughout, like gobbets of half-chewed ham in a sweaty beard, are backhanded compliments and/or discussion of the “controversies” she’s faced, all in the guise of discussing Other People’s criticisms of her. Make no mistake, though, these are dogwhistles to Progressive Dude Nation. After all, that’s who the article is really meant to benefit.

The article is sweet and supportive, and a little too sensitive to those poor overwrought female Hillary supporters. You know, those irrational die-hards who never fell in line, who failed to help out in 2010, who they fear will change sides in 2012, out of sheer feminine spite. These articles talk Hillary up, and then slap her back down. They talk about her incredible prospects- just a little further down the line (Don’t worry ladies, you’ll get your turn, you’ve only been waiting, what? One hundred and forty-two years?). They talk about how much she could help her party, if she were just feeling up to it. They beg her to help out her poor floundering ex, who is lost without her.

And they imply over and over again that her Only entree into the Presidency is through servitude to the man who not only beat her in 2008, but who did so through a vile, misogynistic smear campaign and documented electoral fraud. They imply that she is nothing without him. Lucky us, these rumors also create an incredible excuse for the media and internet crazies to engage in a little recreational Hillary bashing when they explain that Hillary as VP is a bad idea and that Obama doesn’t want her for VP anyway, and revisit her 2008 defeat ad nauseum. Nothing perks up a guy struggling with mediocre to bad approval ratings  than hauling out the whipping boy, I guess.

Leaving entirely aside that every one of these noxious tropes plays on classic misogynistic abuse narratives, the suggestion that Clinton needs help for career advancement is ridiculously false. Hillary’s political career came after Bill’s, but correlation is not causation. She was highly accomplished as a young lawyer, and it is arguable that Bill’s political career derailed her own, rather than helping it. Indeed, she wrote an important legal paper on the rights of children, and worked on both Mondale’s Subcommittee on Migratory Labor and the Nixon impeachment committee, among other impressive endeavors, all accomplished on her own merit. Later, she established a reputation as Senate workhorse, and served for eight years, winning her re-election handily.

But beyond the smug, self-satisfaction dripping from these articles, and the implication that Hillary needs the help to advance, there is still the problem of what they advocate. It is suggested that running as Vice President would benefit Hillary. I suppose it would be another line on an already impressive resume. It is oft repeated that this would make her the presumptive nominee in 2016. Although there is little our culture hates more than a post-menopausal woman with ambition, I suppose that could happen. I guess that the country Might set aside their sexism and ageism, and say “Let’s elect that woman approaching 70 for ideally two terms of Presidency! She seems smart and assertive, and she spent four years holding Obama’s hand and doing nothing! Highly qualified!”

Of course, there’s also the fact that of the last 44 Presidents, only fourteen first served as VP. Of those fourteen, only four were directly elected to the Presidency while serving as VP (as opposed to initially succeeding to the office or being elected years later). Of those four, George H.W. Bush was the most recent, in 1988. The next most recent was Van Buren, in 1836. Hillary fans must find those numbers enormously reassuring.

Those selling this idea suggest that she’d help her country by running. Not to disparage any current or previous Vice-Presidents, but what precisely would she be doing? The VP slot is one which is traditionally about the line of succession, with a secondary role in PR. What she’d be doing, essentially, is keeping women voters in line, and then sitting down and shutting up for four years. This, dear readers, is the payoff.

VPs do not criticize sitting Presidents. They may quietly advise behind closed doors (because we all know how much Obama values the counsel of women), but they are, to all intents and purposes, married to the administration. If the administration is a failure, their political career goes down with the ship, or they face the difficult decision of resigning as VP, also unlikely to bolster one’s numbers or build friendships within the party. This is the intention of the VP bait and switch: To kill Hillary’s political career once and for all. To leverage her popularity with the Democratic base, and then to shut her up for as long as possible. If that results in her losing all credibility? All the better.

This is why Hillary should stay the hell away from the VP slot. What is being proffered as a beneficial compromise is in fact a poison pill. All it will do is prop up a failing administration in the very short term, and allow others to take credit for Hillary’s hard work and ideas. It won’t help Hillary’s future career or credibility, it won’t help Americans, who contrary to partisan rhetoric Do benefit from frank discussion and criticism, and it won’t help the Democratic party, which has more serious work to do than limping across this next finish line. Like, say, finding a way to treat women voters and candidates that isn’t blatantly manipulative and disrespectful.

Women have slowly but surely made their way into the corporate world over the last few decades. Still, only 18 women are running Fortune 500 companies. These female CEOs have broken the gender barriers in business, but not without many years of hard work, rejections, and slow promotions. Here are the 10 most successful female CEOs of all-time:

1. Patricia Woertz

Patricia Woertz is the CEO of Archer Daniels Midland, a Fortune 500 food production company that operates hundreds of plants used to process crops into food, agricultural, and industrial products. In addition to being the CEO, Woertz also holds the title of president and chairman of the board of directors. Although Woertz has described herself as an “outsider” at ADM, she has managed to help the company achieve record financial results and improve their sourcing, transportation, and processing networks with strategic investments and planning. Woertz’s powerful visions and never-ending list of achievements have earned her a spot in Fortune magazine as the third most powerful woman in 2010.

2. Laura Sen

Laura Sen is the current CEO at BJ’s Wholesale Club, a membership-only warehouse club chain located on the east coast and in the state of Ohio. Sen spent 14 years working for BJ’s before she was promoted to executive vice president and was considered for the position of CEO. After an unexpected firing and reworking of the company, Sen was asked to come back to BJ’s and was appointed to be executive vice president again. Within two years of her return, Sen was promoted to president and chief operating officer. The next year, she became CEO. Since then, Sen has taken the company to new levels of success and efficiency. Her unique management style and accessibility to all workers has made her a true success in the business world.

3. Ellen J. Kullman

Ellen J. Kullman is the CEO and chair of the board of DuPont, the third largest chemical company in the world. Kullman joined DuPont in 1988 and worked as the marketing manager in the medical imaging business before being promoted to executive vice president. During this time, she managed four of DuPont’s business platforms and shifted the company’s focus on international markets. As CEO, Kullman has revolutionized the company’s customer relations and overall innovation by focusing on what customers need and letting that drive their decision-making. Kullman’s innovative leadership and keen industry knowledge has made her one of the most successful female CEOs of all time.

4. Gracia C. Martore

Gracia C. Martore is the current CEO of Gannett, a media and marketing solutions company. Martore came to Gannett in 1985 and worked as the assistant treasurer before acquiring the position as vice president in the treasury group in the ’90s. She went on to become the treasurer and vice president/investor relations and later the senior vice president of finance. Martore worked her way up the ladder to become the executive vice president and chief financial officer in 2006, and was later named president and chief operating officer. She was finally appointed to the position of CEO on Oct. 6, 2011. Martore’s rise to success was a symbol of achievement for female CEOs everywhere. Her accomplishments and dedication to Gannett have made her a true success story.

5. Margaret Whitman

Margaret Whitman is the former CEO of eBay and the current chief executive of Hewlett-Packard. In September 2011, Whitman became CEO of the giant tech corporation after the two former leaders failed to meet the company’s expectations. Whitman has brought a wealth of knowledge and experience to HP. While at eBay, Whitman helped the online retailer grow from a small start-up to a global giant. Whitman plans to focus on the internal development of HP and provide data management services to other corporations. She also hopes to improve HP’s finances by limiting big acquisitions and scaling back on budget cuts. Whitman’s innovative ideas, strong leadership, and past successes as CEO will certainly shake things up for HP and the technology market in general.

6. Indra K. Nooyi

Indra K. Nooyi is one of the most well-known and successful business women in the world. Nooyi has served as the CEO of PepsiCo for five years, where she has helped change the face of the giant food and beverage business. Nooyi’s innovative ideas and modern advertising strategies have increased PepsiCo’s exposure and global strengths. She is credited for helping PepsiCo expand its brand options by including healthy products like Tropicana and Quaker Oats. Nooyi’s bold business moves and strong leadership skills make her a successful and idolized CEO.

7. Irene B. Rosenfeld

Irene B. Rosenfeld has spent many years working in the food and beverage industry, but her biggest career accomplishment to date would be working as the current CEO and chairman of Kraft Foods. Since 2006, Rosenfeld has managed Kraft Foods, bringing many innovative ideas and collaborative efforts to the company. Rosenfeld has also helped restructure the business and improve earnings in the U.S. and international markets. Rosenfeld’s strong work ethic and collaborative attitude have made her a strong leader at Kraft and one of the most influential CEOs of all time.

8. Carol Meyrowitz

Carol Meyrowitz is the current CEO of TJX Companies Inc., a leading discount retailer of apparel and home goods, which includes T.J. Maxx, Marshalls, Winners, HomeGoods, T.K. Maxx, and other stores. Meyrowitz has been with TJX Companies for 28 years, where she was able to pursue new job opportunities and become a stronger leader with every promotion. Meyrowitz’s longtime experience with TJX and deep understanding of off-price retail has made her an expert in the industry. Her company loyalty and strong leadership skills have earned her a spot as one of the most successful female CEOs of all time.

9. Beth Mooney

Beth Mooney is the CEO and chairman of KeyCorp, a bank-based financial service company headquartered in Cleveland. Here, she oversees about 15,000 employees and nearly $90 billion in assets. KeyCorp has fought through one of the worst financial crises in U.S. history and has managed to return to profitability with Mooney’s strong leadership. Mooney’s dedication and personal rise to success have inspired many businesswomen and non-businesswomen alike to work hard for their dreams.

10. Ursula M. Burns

Ursula M. Burns is the current CEO and chairman of Xerox Corporation. Not only is Burns the first woman to succeed another woman as head of a Fortune 500 company, but she is also the first African-American woman CEO to run a Fortune 500 company. Burns got her start at Xerox in 1980 as a mechanical engineering intern and later worked in product development and planning. Burns climbed the corporate ladder, assuming new roles as senior vice president and later president. More than 25 years later, Burns was finally promoted to CEO in 2009. Burns has already faced many challenges trying to improve sales and get customers buying again. Burns’ industry knowledge and business smarts have helped Xerox tackle some of these issues and prepare for the future of printing.

This article was originally published in The Business Insurance Quotes.

Over the last two weeks, as Newt Gingrich’s nomination prospects have been falling, voters’ dissatisfaction has been rising, and it has become clear that the presidential contest will likely be between incumbent President Barack Obama and former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, an amazing thing has been happening.

Three women have been rising in the presidential field. Two are not even running.

Both Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin are the subjects of media speculations and draft efforts from former supporters (see: Clinton, Clinton, Palin, and Palin). While neither Clinton nor Palin appears interested in joining the 2012 presidential fray, the desire for them to jump into the race seems to be more than what the Los Angeles Times deemed “the silly season” at work. Even though many – especially negative – presidential campaigns include moments of buyers’ remorse, it isn’t often that Americans have hoped their knight in shining armor would be a woman.

Perhaps it’s because, as the Barbara Lee Family Foundation’s research from the 2010 gubernatorial races found, “More than ever, gender has the potential to become a strategic asset for women running for executive office.” Maybe it’s because women in traditionally male dominated arenas like politics and sports are earning rave reviews (Governor Susana Martinez of New Mexico and Women’s Soccer sensation Abby Wambach).

Or maybe it’s because both Clinton and Palin are fighting “good fights,” standing up for Americans in Washington and women around the world. They’re using their voices to take on the powerful and support the underdogs. Who doesn’t want more in their positions to show that kind of courage and leadership?

Whatever the cause of these presidential wishes, the trend appears to be helping Representative Michele Bachmann in Iowa. After having won the Ames Straw Poll in August, breaking that state’s glass ceiling, Bachmann is again on the upswing. And Gingrich’s patronizing treatment of her seems more likely to backfire on him than hurt her in the Hawkeye State on January 3rd.

Should Bachmann best Texas Governor Rick Perry and former Senator Rick Santorum, landing her in fourth place (or third, if Gingrich slips more) behind Romney, Representative Ron Paul, and Gingrich, she’d instantly become the surprise story out of Iowa, and in turn become Romney’s most serious competition in South Carolina. Even though she may not prevail against Mitt’s money and organization, Michele will have shown again that women not only deserve to be in presidential contests, but that they can be tough competitors. This is miles away from five years ago, before Clinton and Palin made their marks on the 2008 race. And it’s something to celebrate as we roll in another election year!

Gabbert’s rebuttal led me to one by Laura Klein (of the blog “Users Know”) called STFU About What Women Want.   Klein understands that what Trunk states in her article ultimately hurts women who pursue their own startup or want to work for a startup and stated:

So, when a publication like TechCrunch spews some nonsense about what women want, it means that the next time I go into an interview with a male founder (and they are overwhelmingly male for some reason that I’m not going to address here, but that Penelope assures us has nothing to do with bias) who has read that nonsense, he may be thinking, consciously or subconsciously, “she doesn’t really want to work at this startup because she wants to have a baby.”

And frankly, that sucks for me and all the other women like me.

When I searched for other responses to Trunk’s article I found one from Women 2.0 from a Chilean business owner, Michelle Veronese (Co-Founder, Novelo), who just so happens to be a woman.  I loved this quote from Veronese’s piece:

I decided not to have children because my startup needs my complete attention, just like a child. But, if you want to try your hand at having “twins” – your startup AND a real baby, then more power to you. There are many women out there capable of both being a mother and raising a startup. Think of all the female lawyers, doctors, university professors and neurosurgeons who decided to do both.

And Veronese is correct, in highly demanding fields that are male-dominated young women have been and still can be successful!  Our own Amy Siskind (TNA President) has been lecturing to young women about working on Wall Street in her Girlfriend’s Guide to Making it on Wall Street about the same prejudices that young women face in the financial sector and how articles like Trunk’s exacerbate the misconceptions.

When I started my consulting business in Optics over a decade ago it was because I had the engineering ability to be successful and I had the support of my husband in sharing childrearing.  There were difficult times in my business where I thought that I wouldn’t see sleep again until my children were 18, but I survived and my business thrived.  My children see my strong work ethic first-hand as well as see how my husband and I work together as a team so that both our family and career aspirations are met.  Just because something is supposed to be difficult doesn’t make it impossible.  I believe that every woman can be successful in whatever venture she chooses, especially a new business venture.

Walking into the polling booth, February 5th was unlike any experience I had ever felt. There was a sense of urgency in the air and excitement.

And when Hillary Clinton gave her concession speech, in Washington D.C., my sister-in-law informed me she had to sit and watch with her daughter, because this was history in the making.

Taylor’s book captures all this and more. It is a well researched book, pushing aside fan politics for the realm of reality, but it is also personal and poignant at times.  No it is not a rehash of old rivalries or reliving the primary, but the story of Hillary Clinton’s historic candidacy weaves its way throughout the book, because of the challenges it presented to our preconceived notions, not only about Hillary, a former first lady of Arkansas and the U.S.A., a senator from New York, and presidential hopeful, but to that of women as a whole.

The book takes to task, with Taylor’s sharp tongue and trademark wit (which readers like myself find daily on her blog), the establishment media who frankly didn’t know how to handle a female who was a viable candidate for President, especially a Clinton. While simultaneously name-dropping alleged progressive blogs, who were anything but. Unlike Game Change, the Hillary Effect makes no effort to blindly praise its presidential hopeful, Taylor is candid about the Clinton campaigns missteps and mismanagement; but dually blasts the notion the Obama campaign was running a clean campaign (quite the contrary).

The Hillary campaign runs through the book, but like I’ve said it’s not the main focus, there is always a bigger picture at the end of every chapter. My favorite chapter, “Is Freedom just for Men?”, tackles the rise of females after Hillary’s loss, those who benefited most: Republican women. From Sarah Palin, Nikki Haley, to Michelle Bachmann; conservative women are re-defining what freedom means for a woman, and at the state level we are seeing a historic amount of challenges to women’s freedoms.

Taylor, who describes herself as a “recovering partisan”, spotlights what is wrong with both parties, the sexism entrenched in our culture, the rise of the Tea Party, the meaning behind the occupy wall street protests,  the upcoming 2012 election, and women’s progress globally, this is all built upon the Hillary Effect, which sets the stage for our modern political landscape. A prime example being the rise of women in politics, conservatives included but also major changes to our political spending during elections (Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission).

Hopefully, one day we will all be able to look back at that historic run, our current political atmosphere, and recognize the changes Hillary’s presidential run made to our own politics, whether here at home or around the world. And I know, when I look at my four nieces that if any of them want to run for President one day, that challenge was made a little less steep, the climb a little less weary, the attacks a little softer, the media fairer, because someone paved the way first.

Sure, that’s better than the presidency (0 out of 43).  It’s on par with the House (73 out of 435).  And it’s close to the record for governors (9 out of 50, which occurred in both 2004 and 2007).

Still.

2010 started well.  As the Center for American Women in Politics at Rutgers explained, a record number of women – 36 – filed to run for U.S. Senate, and a record number – 14 – won their primaries.  But then the parties divided women in the electorate and the gender gap re-emerged.

When the campaign trail dust settled, only 6 women had won their general election contests.  And 5 of them were incumbents, including Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) who had lost her primary, but had won as a write-in candidate.  Republican Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire was the only non-incumbent to win.  It was, as Professor Susan Carroll stated, “a mixed bag.”

Hopes are again high for 2012. Months away from the filing deadline in most states, the “rumors” suggest that 28 women candidates are considering running for the Senate in 22 of the cycle’s 33 contests.  Eight of these women are incumbent senators running for reelection.  One incumbent (Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson of Texas) is retiring.  Women are down 1 percent before the voting even starts.

Do the women who are non-incumbents have a shot?

To answer this question, one needs to look at all the Senate races.  What you’ll find is that out of National Journal’s “top 20” (actually 21 on the list) competitive seats, there are only 11 races where there is a woman rumored to run and if she won, she’d be new to the Senate.  If you read the ratings more closely, you’ll note there are only 9 women non-incumbent candidates in 7 contests who are mentioned as serious contenders (possible winners).

Connecticut -

Linda McMahon (Republican)

Susan Bysiewicz (Democrat)

Hawaii -

Linda Lingle (Republican)

Mazie Hirono (Democrat)

Massachusetts -

Elizabeth Warren (Democrat)

Nevada -

Shelley Berkley (Democrat)

New Mexico -

Heather Wilson (Republican)

North Dakota -

Heidi Heitkamp (Democrat)

Wisconsin -

Tammy Baldwin (Democrat)

Another 3 incumbent women senators are described as vulnerable heading into this election.

Maine -

Olympia Snowe (Republican)

Michigan -

Debbie Stabenow (Democrat)

Missouri -

Claire McCaskill (Democrat)

Taken together, this means that if women prevail in half of the above contests, then 5 women will be heading to the Senate (with a probable mix of 3 new Senators and 2 incumbents) one year from now.  Adding these 5 to the 13 other incumbents likely to win reelection (not considered vulnerable) or not running in this cycle, the next Senate may well include a record 18 women!

At this rate (one percent gain per two-year cycle), it could take another 64 years to reach parity.

The lesson is simple.  Run for office and support women candidates.

Or sit back and try to imagine your children enjoying their retirement.

For those not in the know, Linda Katehi is the Chancellor of UC Davis, where a viral video of police pepper-spraying sitting protesters was filmed on Friday, November 19th. Here’s the film, for those who haven’t seen it.

This incident started when alleged police brutality erupted on the UC Berkeley campus, where another viral video was filmed, when students attempted to occupy the campus with tents in protest of tuition and fee increases.

This film showed police officers using batons to beat back a crowd. UC Davis students then decided to protest in solidarity with students at UC Berkeley. Like Chancellor Robert J. Birgeneau of UC Berkeley, Chancellor Katehi asked for police help in dispersing the students and preventing them from erecting tents on campus property. There is no evidence that either Chancellor coordinated with police about how to police the situations.

Here’s the video from UC Berkeley:

The reactions of both Chancellors have been somewhat similar. Both initially expressed support for the police. Both later apologized to the students and faculty. And both eventually called for an internal investigation. However, Chancellor Katehi has gone even further, meeting with students and faculty, and suspending the UC Davis Chief of Police. The only person currently facing suspension at UC Berkeley is a student protester.

In addition to the issue of police brutality, what matters here is that the treatment these two Chancellors have received in the aftermath of the incidents has been quite different, creating a double-standard, and suggesting that sexism is in play. While the students and faculty of UC Berkeley have called for an “independent investigation” of the university’s actions, they have not asked for the resignation of Chancellor Birgeneau. However, a movement begun via a letter penned by a white, male faculty member of UC Davis, Nathan Brown, has been calling for the resignation of Chancellor Katehi. This movement has started a petition with almost 80,000 signatures, and they are are now working to force her ouster. Here’s the opening of Professor Brown’s letter (full letter at the petition):

Linda P.B. Katehi,

I am a junior faculty member at UC Davis. I am an Assistant Professor in the Department of English, and I teach in the Program in Critical Theory and in Science & Technology Studies. I have a strong record of research, teaching, and service. I am currently a Board Member of the Davis Faculty Association. I have also taken an active role in supporting the student movement to defend public education on our campus and throughout the UC system. In a word: I am the sort of young faculty member, like many of my colleagues, this campus needs. I am an asset to the University of California at Davis.

You are not.

There’s so much tell all over this letter, and what it tells of is a blatant disrespect for women in positions of authority, and a lot of privileged arrogance on the part of this professor. From the very beginning, by refusing to use her title he is showing his disrespect. But let’s just dispense with the most obvious fact first: that universities do not need more white male professors; they need more women of all races, especially in positions of power. The letter and the volumes of internet articles about Katehi have in no way proven that she is directly responsible for the actions of police, or even knew what they would be in advance. Katehi, like Birgeneau, is “guilty” of merely asking for police assistance. One immediately wonders why Professor Brown doesn’t also target Chancellor Birgeneau, on whose campus physical violence in the form of several batons was wielded.

Some facts about women in academics: Women have addressed the old “pipe-line” defense of male domination on college campuses, but that hasn’t solved the problem of barriers to women in leadership positions. There’s still a glass ceiling in academics. As usual, it’s the statistics (PDF) that tell the story:

A recent study by the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) piques interest in the current role of women in higher education. The examination of 1,445 colleges and universities reveals that while women earn more than half of all Ph.D. degrees granted to American citizens today, they still comprise only about 45% of tenure-track faculty, 31% of tenured faculty, and just 24% of full professorships in 2005-2006 (West and Curtis 2006). More women than men are in part-time or non-tenure track positions, and the increasing scarcity of women as you look at higher academic ranks is clearly shown. Participation of women is lowest in the doctoral-granting institutions, where women constitute just 34% of full-time faculty, 26% of tenured faculty, and 19% of full professors.

…

While representation of women at higher professorial ranks is disappointing, women are even more scarce on the administrative career ladder. Relatively few women advance to top academic leadership positions such as dean, provost, president or chancellor. An exception is in traditionally female fields such as nursing and education (Dugger 2001a), yet many social science and professional fields have shown substantial gender desegregation and an increasing supply of women for these positions. Where women are in top positions, it is typically in smaller, less prestigious schools. With women over-represented at instructor/lecturer ranks and less likely (controlling for experience, publications, and educational attainment) and taking longer to reach the associate and full professor ranks (Dugger 2001b) which generally are tapped for leadership positions, the small number of women administrators is yet another piece of the problem.

Some fair questions: Is being pepper-sprayed worse than being physically beaten? Worse than the scenes of professors and student being dragged off by their hair, as happened at UC Berkeley? Why is Chancellor Katehi being singled out amidst of sea of male figures of authority who have called for police assistance in dealing with the protests, including a male Chancellor and several male mayors? So far the biggest targets for Occupiers’ complaints about official reaction to their protests have been Chancellor Katehi and Mayor Jean Quan, of Oakland. Why? And what does it tell us about the nature of the protests?

There have been lots of reports of Occupy Wall Street’s “woman problem.” The issues range from male domination of General Assemblies, sexist rhetoric and treatment, and the physical safety of women at the camps. Apparently, you can add problems with female authority figures to the list. Let’s hope this obvious witch-hunt is unsuccessful.