I recently started a new job after an extended time of underemployment. Next to the first week of middle school, chronic job hunting was the most difficult and awkward period of my life. I was saved by my girlfriends. Thanks to the fantastic networking opportunities I had through them, I got a job lead and recommendation from someone three women removed from the friend who made the first introduction. Networking yields results.

Whether you are looking for work, figuring out which tablet best suits your needs, or looking for the best tennis instructor or discounted baseball tickets, your women friends, old and new, can be your guides. Who better to coach you in your elevator speech, critique your interview presentation, or help you look your best for a performance review?  Your women friends can also lead you to your next job, or the person who introduces you to the person who will hire you.

Amy Siskind, founder and president of The New Agenda, (TNA), an organization for empowering women, developing women leaders and teaching young girls about healthy relationships, is excited about women networking and last year led the introduction of the first National Girlfriends Networking Day. Featuring a live stream program by four accomplished women panelists (this year Soledad O’Brien, Lesley Jane Seymour, Ta McWilliams-Franklin, and Joanne Wilson), NGN Day seeks to help women expand their “web of contacts” so that “not only will more women be graduating from college but we will also be moving up in our careers with the help of a stronger network.”

On June 4, the day that women got the right to vote (in 1919 by joint resolution Congress approved the women’s suffrage amendment and sent it to the states for ratification), you can celebrate that 94 year old victory by networking with women across the country. National Girlfriends Networking Day will feature a live stream feed of a panel of knowledgeable and inspiring women who will talk about their career paths, taking risks, their failures and how to up your chances for success with networking. You can participate, from anywhere you have access to the internet, by watching, tweeting, questions, and sharing. Sure to be the basis of fascinating discussion, the event is designed to be viewed and talked about with friends or co-workers over breakfast on the West Coast, lunch on the East Coast, or cocktails in Western Europe. More than a dozen major corporations are hosting gatherings in their offices from coast to coast.

“Opportunities for women expand when we make an effort to help one another,” said Siskind. She recommends these ways to participate in National Girlfriends Networking Day on June 4.

1. Pledge to connect with a mentor, mentee, or peer.

2. Attend or host a virtual event at your local coffee shop, at home, in your work space or in a conference room at work.

3.  Engage young and professional women in building and expanding their networks of connections.

4. Spread the word — on Facebook, Twitter, Google+ and email!

The possibilities are endless. Tweet this and tell your girlfriends! Networking works.  I can prove it.

This is your invitation to join The New Agenda, Ms. JD, She Negotiates, and the Women Lawyers Association of Los Angeles at Proskauer Rose in Century City on June 4, 2013, at 9 a.m. for National Girlfriends’ Networking Day. We’ll be networking, of course, as well as live streaming a stellar panel of successful women including Emmy Award winning journalist Soledad O’Brien, Editor-in-Chief of More Magazine Leslie Jane Seymour, angel investor and advisor of Women Entrepreneurs, Joanne Wilson, and WNBA player and coach, Taj McWilliams Franklin.

This is also your invitation to attend the LIVE event in New York City and a half-dozen other live streaming events in San Jose, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Rochester and Short Hills.

Why should you attend the Second Annual National Girlfriends’ Networking Day?

 Because

• The women in your firm may mentor you (teach you the ropes) but not sponsor you (put their skin in your game).
• Or the women in your firm may do nothing for you.
• Or, worse, the women in your firm may sabotage you. (Men will too so don’t think this is about “cat fights” or “Queen Bees” or any other women hating tropes).

This is about the accumulation of wealth and power and no gender owns avarice or generosity. Speaking of which, a huge round of applause to Proskauer in Century City and Arnold & Porter in San Francisco for lending their offices and catering support to the live streaming events in San Francisco and Los Angeles.

L.A. Mayor – “I Love My Women Lawyers”

When I was at the annual gala for the 100+ year old Women Lawyers Association of Los Angeles (WLALA) recently, the Mayor said from the podium that he loved his women lawyers because “they never asked for a raise!”

The nearly 300 attendees dropped their jaws pretty much at once. We underestimate in-group and implicit bias to our peril because there are special pitfalls for women that the guys don’t have to deal with. See Karen v. Kevin over at the Atlantic Wire here.

All of that said, to whom do you turn?

You turn to your sisters in your national network – women willing to put their skin in your game because they understand the concept of the “anchor” in negotiations.

If women’s work is being paid substantially less well than men’s, that serves as an incredibly strong “anchor” that will influence any compensation negotiation in its direction throughout the course of the bargaining session.

So what’s the answer? Turn to your national network. Read about it and participate in it here - The New Agenda » National Girlfriends’ Networking Day. Regardless of the “facts on the ground” in your profession or business today, I urge you to support and participate in National Girlfriends’ Networking Day.

And if you’re an old dog like me, donate to it. We’re counting on our awesome young women to destroy the wage gap forever. Still, the revolution must be funded! 

Dove’s “Real Beauty Sketches” YouTube has gone viral with over 30 million views and tells us that women are their own worst enemies when it comes to assessing their looks.  Yet, in a society where men control the conversation at all levels of entertainment, advertising, news, commentary, and yes, politics, how can women not be predisposed to see themselves as they have been conditioned? In her bestselling book, “Lean In: Women, Work and the Will to Lead,” Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg tells women to ignore hyper-sexualized, biased messages that are ingrained in them from childhood while in the same breath acknowledging their destructive influence.  No one grows up in a vacuum.  The hyper-perfected images of women, advertised via endless digital retouching, only exacerbates a visual “grading” system that is just as damaging to men, setting both sexes up with unrealistic expectations no woman can ever meet.

Whether Dove is correct that women are harder on their own body image than they should be is not even at issue.  The question is why?  Dove’s video is described by Chelsea Roff on Intent Blog:

“Dove recruited seven women of varying ages and backgrounds and asked an FBI-trained forensic artist to create composite sketches based on each woman’s description of her face. In the video, it quickly becomes apparent just how much the messages each woman has received about her physical appearance over the course of her life — often from family, the media, etc. — shape the way she sees herself. And often, unsurprisingly, her underlying body hatred shines through.”

The artist then asked a stranger to describe the same person and drew another sketch.  In all cases, these women were envisioned as more beautiful by the stranger’s descriptions than their own.

How can you fault women for seeing themselves harshly if they have, over time, internalized every criticism men and other women have made of them?  Women are more critical of themselves because they are taught to be by years of viewing images of stereotypical beauty in every fashion magazine.   It is an oversimplification to say “mommy told me I wasn’t pretty” therefore I am to blame.  From where did Mommy get her ideas of beauty? 

In most cases, we are not taught to celebrate ourselves for our uniqueness.  We grow to admire what we see glamourized every day and, often, what we are told to admire.  Remember when Brad Pitt was hailed as “the sexiest man alive”?  So is every other man chopped liver?  And what if we don’t agree with that assessment?  Should men aspire to be him—or are women supposed to want to have him?  These messages get shoved down our collective gullets and it is difficult to fight the prevailing wisdom.

Others have noted that self-beautification is a multi-billion dollar industry.  Making women think there is something wrong with them is big business and therefore will not stop anytime soon.  The selling of “beauty” for women is an even bigger industry than the selling of “sixpack abs” for men.

Last year, 16-year-old Gabby Douglas was subjected to a twitter-hate campaign about her hair that was so widespread, it was covered by CNN.  She was criticized at the very moment she was winning us two Olympic Gold Medals in gymnastics.  Around the same time, an eighth grader felt compelled to gather 80,000 petition signatures in an effort to stop Seventeen magazine from retouching pictures of young girls.  What chance does a woman on the street have when even a teen magazine can’t let go of its airbrushing tools?

And what if a woman dared to think of herself as prettier than she actually is?  Perhaps grading herself harshly is a woman’s defense mechanism against insults or accusations of vanity.  Aren’t women taught to be harder on themselves, preferring to then get a compliment softening their own self-opinion rather than the opposite?  Wouldn’t a woman be trashed for an inflated view of herself?

We are also daily fed images of supposedly empowered women who use sexuality as a means to sell their artistry.  In an open letter to Michelle Obama, blogger Rakhi Kumar has stirred controversy by asking that the First Lady stop referring to Beyoncé as a “role model,” particularly after performing a concert in an outfit (according to her designers) meant to depict her “dripping in honey,” featuring a bejeweled imitation of her breasts and nipples:

Mrs. Obama apparently made the “role model” comment after Beyoncé’s Super Bowl performance, in which Beyoncé stripped down to a black leather bustier and lace eyelet cut-out panties.  Kumar states:

Beyoncé is a singer and a songwriter.  She doesn’t need to wear see through clothes or body suits to sing.  We know that because we’ve seen her singing a cappella in a hospital in a pair of jeans and a T-shirt and – and she sounded like a celestial being from a different dimension.

…[W]hatever her reasons, her influence cannot be underestimated or misunderstood.

This is what women are bombarded with every day.  How many young girls are influenced when they see ensembles like this from one of our most talented and popular female artists? Beyoncé is a gifted performer and by all accounts, a lovely and generous person.  She is more than enough without dressing like a pole dancer.  Beyoncé may convince herself and us that she is merely celebrating her sexuality in these outfits but it is hard to see how this is not as much for the purpose of industry as artistry.

Oscar host Seth MacFarlane got into hot water a couple of months ago when he sang “We Saw Your Boobs” as a centerpiece to that awards show.  His arguably offensive lyrics telegraphed that no matter how brilliant the performances of actresses like Meryl Streep or Hilary Swank, their boobs were what counted.  But wasn’t his meta-joke that women are being objectified by the very industry that purports to celebrate their talent?  The actresses being parodied were actually in on the joke, thereby consenting to it, which only furthers his point.

One of the women in the Dove ad said:  “We spend a lot of time analyzing and fixing the things that aren’t quite right.  We should spend more time appreciating the things we do like.”  That is true, but how are women supposed to change this culture and mindset on their own?  We first need the awareness and then the participation of both women and men in order to alter these perceptions.

A new study in the Journal of Experimental Social Psychology shared that when women are exposed to images of women in successful leadership positions, it “inspired women’s behavior and self-evaluations in stressful leadership tasks”:

“Women are less likely than men to be associated with leadership, and the awareness of this stereotype may undermine women’s performance in leadership tasks. One way to circumvent this stereotype threat is to expose women to highly successful female role models.”

In other words, when women saw photographs of other women in empowered roles, they were better able to imagine themselves stepping into the same pair of big shoes and thus, celebrate their own abilities to lead.  When women only saw images of men in power positions, they were less able to imagine themselves getting there and tended to be more critical of themselves in an identical undertaking.

You cannot celebrate what you’ve never heard of.  We need to see women as well as men celebrated for their uniqueness, abilities and contributions — without “airbrushing” or some cookie cutter standard.  And while a female performer can dress however she likes, if the message being sent by our most successful female artists seem to advertise sex and body shape first, that too, has a lasting effect.

Whatever media depictions are currently at work socially or politically, to be infested with a particular type of thinking on a daily basis is to become brainwashed by it.  We cannot constantly send the message that women are to be criticized for not conforming to some unattainable ideal and then wonder why too many buy into it.

**********************

Anita Finlay is the author of Dirty Words on Clean Skin, a shocking exposé of sexism and media bias, now available in print and Kindle editions on Amazon.  #1 on Women in Politics books for 4 months.

Like Anita Finlay, Author on Facebook.

Follow @AnitaFinlay on Twitter.

Since 1999, Peace Over Violence has organized Denim Day in LA & USA each April during sexual assault awareness month, to make a statement of protest against the misconceptions that surround sexual assault.

Today is Denim Day. While I want to believe our we have come a long way in our understanding and treatment of victims since 1992, a quick look at the news belies this. We have not come far enough.

Jane Doe from Steubenville: In the aftermath of the Steubenville rape trial CNN’s reporters were concerned about the newly convicted rapists; saying how incredibly difficult it was to watch the sentencing, and know that the rapists lives were destroyed. They showed no concern for the victim, or how her life has been changed by their crimes.

Audrie Pott: Three 16-year-old boys in Northern California were arrested this month for sexually assaulting Audrie last Labor Day weekend and distributing pornographic images of her. Audrie will not get to see her case go to trial, because she committed suicide in the days after the pictures were distributed.

Rehtaeh Parsons: In 2011 Rehtaeh was raped by four boys, and pictures of the attack were distributed online. The police said there was not enough evidence to keep the investigation open. After Rehtaeh committed suicide earlier this month, Anonymous was able to find answers and the indentities of the rapists in two hours.

The social media and cyber-bullying aspect of these cases is important - pictures of the rape and violations of these teen girls were widely spread on social media. Bullying is a hot topic right now, and rightly so. It is damaging, and its effects are long-lasting. There is certainly an insidious side to social media that can be seen not only in these cases, but in situations like the Instagram Beauty contests teen girls are using to tear each other down. Parents need to talk to their children about bullying, and teach them how to responsibly use social media. But that is not enough.

Rehtaeh Parsons’ dad wrote a moving statement about his daughter - about her life and her death. He said that she was not bullied to death, but disappointed. Both parts of that sentence are important.

Please do not get distracted by the social media and bullying. Bullying does not come close to explaining what happened to these girls. The dissemination of pictures and bullying were separate crimes. They were only made possible by the first crime. The first crime was rape.

Rape must be addressed. As parents, we must teach our children what rape is. We must teach our children not to rape. We must teach our children to not stand by when a crime is committed, but to step in, speak up, and offer help.

Rehtaeh Parsons was disappointed to death. As citizens of this world, we have a responsibility to support rape victims the way we would support the victim of any other crime. No more shame. No more blame. These girls – Jane Doe from Steubenville, Audrie, and Rehtaeh – did not “ask for it,” and they did not “deserve it.” Neither does any other victim of rape.

If you have been raped, please know that you are not alone. I believe you. It was not your fault. 

If you need help, or you want to help a loved one, you can contact RAINN or call the National Sexual Assault Hotline at 1-800-656-HOPE.

The opinions expressed herein are those of the author, and not necessarily those of The New Agenda.

I have been blessed with good genes; I normally don’t have many boxes to check when filling out medical history forms at the doctor’s office. No genetic make-up for cancer, stroke, or liver disease. Until recently, I had never considered my medical history beyond my biological family and the combination of diagnoses I have been dealt. Upon visiting a nearby Planned Parenthood though, my role as “woman” instantaneously dominated any other identity I hold- both in the boxes I checked that day and the reason I was there in the first place.

I did things a bit backward, and only just recently began dabbling in heterosexual relationships and relations after years of only ever dating women. Hence, my sudden need- as an educated and emotionally well-experienced young adult- to find myself free and anonymous birth control at the nearest sexual health clinic. My motivations for going, and for going this route in particular, were basically out of safety, being proactive, and the false sense of agency I was trying to maintain while rashly deciding to alter the chemistry of my body at the first sign of sexual attention- not to mention the false sense of agency I was trying to maintain in keeping this decision and these practices hidden from my family out of lack of desire to explain to both them and to myself. My not-so-inner feminist fire hadn’t even started flaring up at this point though.

While filling out the medical history form at Planned Parenthood, I filled in the usual “depression” and “anxiety” boxes, being sure to also note that my only medical procedure had ever been getting my wisdom teeth removed. For the first time, though, I also checked the “eating disorder” box. For the first time, I even noticed the eating disorder box to begin with. A pathology passed down not through my blood line but through my sex and through the gender, and gender identity, that accompanies it. A disease, in my case, linked to my place on the female family tree. For the first time that seemed relevant to me- and for the first time, the medical clinic I was at cared to even ask.

When I finally “got over” my eating disorder as a young teen- gained back enough weight to make the people around me more comfortable- I promised myself I would never speak of those dark years of my life to anyone. No one needed to know, and I didn’t need to make it part of who I was. For years, I kept my silence completely. It wasn’t until a best friend of mine was dealing with her own self-mutilation issues that I was inspired enough to speak, simply for her sake. Even since then, I have never really felt the need to confide in others about my experience with an eating disorder unless it is strictly for their benefit. I don’t get anything out of talking about it, which is extremely rare for me based on the way I normally process things. I have been especially careful to never leave a paper trail of my eating disorder either, never mentioning it to doctors or therapists because I don’t want that label from my past to add to the current diagnoses I carry with me in pill bottle and appointment form. When I checked that “eating disorder” box in that Planned Parenthood that day, I surprised myself but still felt some strange force compelling me to be reminded of that part of my past in that context. A disease resulting from my womanhood and the way the media presents my womanhood, brought to the surface by a need for a way to control the ultimate act of creation that very womanhood enables.

After trying a few forms of birth control and having extremely adverse reactions to the hormones, I quickly took myself off of these new meds and decided to keep my body au natural- aside from the many other mental illness meds I take of course. While ranting to a friend of mine about my latest birth control drama, I said: “I feel the same shame about deciding to take birth control as I feel about having an eating disorder; I just can’t believe I would ever actively subject my body to that sort of manipulation”.

There it was again- my sexual health and my eating disorder align, even in that heated Freudian slip. (And yes, Freud himself would be very proud!)

My exploration into the world of heterosexuality and birth control needs brought out thoughts and feelings about my eating disorder that I had never anticipated. Upon reflecting on this strange but interesting connection, I realized this: both my eating disorder and my birth control culminated in the epitomization of female repression through control of menstruation. At the height of my eating disorder, I lost enough weight to stop getting my period. At the time, I saw this as the ultimate form of control, as the most self-empowering and profound form of bodily manipulation and change. I outsmarted Mother Nature. I played the ultimate prank on the head matriarch, the root of the feminine family tree. Upon getting mentally and physically healthy again and gaining enough weight back to get my period, my menstrual cycle was laced with new meaning. Losing that connection to such a large segment of the female population, that connection to my biological functioning and the long line of bleeding women who contributed to my very existence on this earth, gave a whole new meaning to getting my period- to being able to get my period once again. My period became a sign of fertility, of physical health and mental stability: connection to other women in time and space, and the ability to someday fulfill the ultimate act of creation.

This recent resurfacing of my eating disorder has made me think about the connection body manipulation and body mutilation has to sexuality. For someone whose period has been lost under such violent and oppressive circumstances in the past, putting myself in a position where my period is once again manipulated was not the right choice- at least, not this quickly. I am completely in support of proactive sexual health and sexual education when it comes to all sorts of relationships, regardless of sexual orientation or level of sexual intimacy. I am also pro-choice and believe women should be able to decide the conditions of their sexual and reproductive circumstances in every capacity possible. I do, however, think going on birth control is one of those decisions, like many, that should not be made rashly or without great consideration. I thought I had weighed all of the factors, but the memories and experiences from my past that my birth control ordeal brought up- including reminders of my eating disorder as well as the side effects of depression I experienced- were not worth the cost of having sex without a condom because it “feels better” for the guy. These repercussions were also not worth experiencing without more support from the people in my life, and I regret that birth control and sex in the first place are both topics of conversation that are still taboo and liable to bring on reputations of promiscuity.

My suggestion to other women out there- especially other (hetero)sexually inexperienced, queer, feminist women out there, is to really ask yourself why you are on birth control, why you aren’t on birth control, or why you might change your birth control status. Know your body, and know why you make the decisions you make. Talk to other women- or men- about their sexuality as well as their birth control experiences. Don’t judge eachother for whatever decisions someone may make about their sexual health- and encourage informed and educated decisions of support and understanding. As a fellow female, I ask you to put yourself and your mental health first no matter what the cost or what form that may take.

Next time you feel like complaining about your period, think of it as a blessing tying you to other women around the world as well as generations of women throughout history- we are all part of that female family tree. Next time you feel like complaining about your period, think of all of the things it could possibly represent to you, your biological capacities as a woman, and your source of potential for the future. The one thing I have learned from both my eating disorder and birth control experiences is that ultimate power is not in control; it is in creation.

We live in a society attracted, even addicted, to pretty packaging.  That is unlikely to change.  Notwithstanding those with a seeming compulsion to praise or deride others’ appearance, our leaders and elected officials need to lead by example, not use their bully pulpits to further stereotyped perceptions.  At a California fundraiser last week, President Obama offered up the following description of California Attorney General Kamala Harris:

“You have to be careful to, first of all, say she is brilliant and she is dedicated and she is tough, and she is exactly what you’d want in anybody who is administering the law, and making sure that everybody is getting a fair shake.”

“She also happens to be by far the best-looking attorney general in the country — Kamala Harris is here.  [Applause.]  It’s true.  Come on.  [Laughter] And she is a great friend and has just been a great supporter for many, many years.”

Sounds like he’s saying you’d better be “careful” to show you are not a sexist by first noting the lady’s accomplishments, then undo everything you just said by noting how pretty she is.  Got it.  As the Los Angeles Times reported, his supporters were divided in their reactions.  Some took offense while others said we should “lighten up” about something that matters little in the national discussion.  They also insisted Ms. Harris was not offended.  But are those characterizations accurate?

It is debatable whether anyone would publicly demonstrate offense at the President of the United States regardless of how he or she felt in the moment.  Though the President later apologized for his “distracting” remarks, his initial statement telegraphs that no matter what a woman achieves, her looks must also be part of her portfolio and will either work for her or against her.  This is the wrong message to send to women and to men, whether Ms. Harris took umbrage or not.

Women and girls are hyper-sexualized daily by advertisers, comedians, big media and the entertainment industry.  Here is a sample exchange from Sunday night’s American Country Music Awards:

Blake Shelton:  People are always making such a big deal about Tim McGraw’s new buff look, but he has always had one of the best bodies in country music…

Luke Bryan: Yeah, and her name is Faith Hill.

That Ms. Hill is beautiful is not at issue.  But she happens to be, first and foremost, an accomplished artist with five Grammys to her credit (two more than her husband, Tim McGraw, by the way).  All that was mentioned in the intro was her body.  She didn’t look real happy about it.

We are telling women that to be beautiful is desirable and in the same breath, make clear we do not take them as seriously when they are.  Ask Sarah Palin about being condemned as “Caribou Barbie” or David Letterman’s references to her “slutty flight attendant look.”  Hillary Clinton has had 20 years of experience with her wardrobe, hair and ass size overtaking her issue.

Women in politics consistently experience media coverage where appearance trumps accomplishment via the characterizations of their opponents and major news outlets.  In some cases, their mode of dress is mentioned in advance of or as a substitute for their platform even today.  Recently, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid referred to New York’s Kirsten Gillibrand as “the Senate’s hottest member” at a prominent political function.  As an afterthought, he remembered to point out that she’s also a whiz at Securities Law.

As reported in Politico, this newly released study reveals troubling data:

“In the survey on media coverage of women candidates’ appearance, conducted by Celinda Lake of Lake Research Partners and Robert Carpenter of Chesapeake Beach Consulting, the research used actual quotes about women candidates from media coverage of the 2012 elections and demonstrates that when the media focuses on a woman candidate’s appearance, she pays a price in the polls,” the WMC press release states. “This finding held true whether the coverage of a woman candidate’s appearance was framed positively, negatively or in neutral terms.”

“Unlike women, male candidates do not suffer from coverage of their appearance… While this appearance coverage is very damaging to women candidates, the male opponent paid no price for this type of coverage,” a summary of the report states.”

Men are allowed to be sexy and are still taken seriously.  And no one seems to spend paragraphs describing what the guy was wearing.

These findings echo earlier surveys Ms. Lake and other respected pollster, Kellyanne Conway, conducted during the 2010 midterms showing that even mild sexist attacks had a devastating effect on a woman’s ability to win a political contest.  The new study indicates nothing has changed:

“When respondents hear the negative description of the female candidate’s appearance, she gets only 42 percent of the voters. When they hear the “flattering” description, she gets 43 percent (and there are fewer undecided votes overall, so her opponent gets an even bigger lead). With no physical description, “Jane Smith” gets 50 percent of the votes.

The same is true for all of her personal attributes; no matter the description, it affects her negatively.”

As the study’s graphic shows, when polled on issues that matter to voters: effectiveness, experience, being qualified, confident, sharing your values, strength, being “in touch” and having a vision for the future, a female candidate lost anywhere from 6 to 11 points per issue, simply because her appearance was mentioned.

Per US News & World Report, Ms. Lake suggested “male candidates may have a big incentive to get their female opponent’s looks talked about by the media”:

“Just last week, a South Carolina GOP official noted that Elizabeth Colbert Busch, the Democrat facing former South Carolina Gov. Republican Mark Sanford in a special election for a South Carolina congressional seat, was “not a bad-looking lady,” resulting in some 100 news stories on the comment.”

This trivial coverage distracts from the woman’s overall qualifications and message, emphasizing that women are objects, not “actors.”  In all cases, pushback against these kinds of tactics is mandatory in order for a woman to have a shot at regaining her standing in the race.  The “ignore it and it will go away” method proves to be an abysmal failure every time.  Worse still, the she’s “hot” or a “battle-axe” comments are mild in comparison to the treatment some women currently receive.

Council member and Republican Jean Strothert is running to be Mayor of Omaha.  Fellow Councilmember Chris Jerram was photographed modeling a t-shirt which depicted Strothert as a stripper.  In detailing some of the other attacks against her, Debbie Walsh of the Center for American Women and Politics at Rutgers states that the sexist attacks against Strothert “were the most disgusting she had ever seen.”  It is not surprising that only 5 women have served on the City Council since 1980.

Omaha.com reported political consultant Jeremy Jensen referring to State Senator Danielle Conrad as “a flat out disrespectful c$&#.”  He then complained about being busted on his behavior since it was on his Facebook page, where it was only shared with his 423 closest friends.  In other cases, the same type of degrading verbiage has gone out on many twitter feeds and social media pages reaching millions with no restriction.

What is the male equivalent of the “C” word, by the way?  And regardless of where it was printed, is that the way we wish to talk about women?

Last fall, the Chicago Sun Times asked Illinois’ attorney general Lisa Madigan whether she was capable of being “a mother and a Governor,” since being Governor is “a more demanding job.”  What man is ever asked such a question?  This also presumes she is a child, an idiot or amoral fool, incapable of making such a determination without the admonishments of sexist (male and female) reporters.  Ms. Madigan assured them that she and her husband had already worked that part out.

This is an issue that affects both men and women, regardless of party.  We deserve the best representation, not be cursed with distractions or insults.  I also presume we would rather not have our nation’s children inducted into that sort of dialogue.

Whatever the President’s mixed record when it comes to welcoming women into his inner circle or accepting their counsel, he was right when he said “words matter” – but only when they are not empty and have matching actions to back them up.  We cannot afford to have leaders and elected officials on either side who pretend to support empowerment and in the next breath, objectify.

Heaven forfend we elect the best leadership and leave packaging out of the equation.

*************************

Anita Finlay is the author of Dirty Words on Clean Skin, a shocking exposé of sexism and media bias, now available in print and Kindle editions on Amazon.
Like Anita Finlay, Author on Facebook.
Follow @AnitaFinlay on Twitter.

The opinions expressed herein are those of the author, and not necessarily those of The New Agenda.

While many were leaning in or thinking about leaning in, I was cleaning the kitchen, preparing my wife’s dinner, and getting the kids ready for bed before sitting back to listen to Sheryl Sandberg on 60 Minutes.

In the interview with Norah O’Donnell, Sandberg was confident, and her argument for lean in resonated with me, a stay at home father of two boys and husband of an executive wife.  Sandberg’s movement touches on an aspect of the cultural work force that holds true.  Women, often feeling displaced or uncertain about career choices, do not take bold, confident steps toward leadership positions like the one my wife and I took when we relocated from the east coast to the west coast for her career and our family.

There is certainly a truth to Sandberg’s argument, but as I peeked into the chapters of her book to learn more, I felt a growing sense of frustration and alienation.  After all, I’m a stay at home father who gave up his position to support his wife’s career.  Shouldn’t I be the easy one to convince?

Sandberg’s argument has elements that can do something unintentionally harmful, alienate men and women in the work force and foster a salient class war.  The backlash against Sandberg comes from women and men who see Sandberg as an elitist with limited understanding of the average family dynamic.  A narcissist espousing her prescriptive philosophy.

Sandberg sells herself as a public school graduate who attended a high school comparable to “Fast Times at Ridgemont High,” then landed at Harvard because of, in the words of Sandberg’s dorm proctor, “personality.”  Does anyone just land at Harvard because of personality?

Sandberg has led a charmed and privileged life.  Her father is a physician and her mother a Ph.D. who taught French before giving it up to raise a family.  Sandberg’s early years started out with savvy, educated parents for Sheryl to lean in on.  Even with two educated parents, a degree from Harvard, and a work ethic par excellence, she managed to succeed.  But acknowledging success is antithetical to one of the central tenets of her book: women don’t feel as though they completely earn achievements on their own.

Sandberg employs some rhetorical and thematic juggling on her part when it comes to women, men, and self-confidence.  Using the trials of academic work at Harvard, she lays out central themes of her research and experience: rightly or wrongly, men have perceived levels of confidence that women do not, and men readily acknowledge and accept their successes.  It is these parts of the argument that are a bit hollow for me.  Despite Sandberg’s emphasis, lack of confidence and self-promotion are not akin to women.  In Alfred Lubrano’s Limbo: Blue Collar Roots, White Collar Dreams, he addresses the alienation, awkwardness, and self-doubt many blue collar men and women feel when attending schools saturated with children from white collar families.  Lubrano calls his blue collar hopefuls with white collar dreams, “straddlers,” a subset of first-generation college-bound men and women displaced in the blue collar neighborhoods they grew up in and the white collar worlds they inhabit.  Much like the women who lean back, “lots of blue-collar people are taught as kids that boasting and self-promotion and credit hogging are wrong and unseemly; but that’s precisely what’s needed to succeed in the office, as long as it’s deftly and subtly done” (Lubrano). Lubrano and Sandberg make observations about those who get ahead, but Sandberg’s call for action could isolate women and men from an important conversation.  As Sandberg attempts to empower women, I worry she might tap into primal urges that encourage a more territorial reaction from men and women.  If the goal is to get more women into positions of power, what should men do?  Lean in or sit back?

Much of lean in is the groundwork for personal and political aspirations. This is a coming out book and a future grassroots campaign.  It is too soon to refer to Sandberg as an elitist, and it’s unfair and inaccurate.  Sandberg’s life started out charmed and only got better, but she also worked for it.  Sandberg wants to make a difference at a time when the feminist movement she’s pushing for needs to take a turn toward family in new groundbreaking ways that coalesces gender and family in the workplace, a way that changes an entire culture and not a portion of it.  Sandberg has it in her to do something daring with gender, class, and family.  The feminist movement of Gloria Steinem is simultaneously gone and evolving.  A new movement must recognize the equality and full humanity of men and women and family.

As Sandberg transitions from corporate leader to social activist and political candidate, she has to win public approval with a rhetoric that takes hold or some of the comments about elitism, narcissism, and a detached worldview will become part of public perception.  I do not believe gender and class distancing are part of Sandberg’s civil view or way of thinking.  She is working through the linguistics of her philosophy, introducing her inner self to Americans sitting at home.  And while she’s preparing, I’m sitting back, laundry in hand—not because I’m afraid to lean in—but because I want to give her a chance to work it through and think of me; despite my gender, age, blue collar roots, and white collar education.

Thatcher’s childhood was not one of privilege. She grew up the grocer’s daughter in a fairly ordinary town–not particularly urban or rural, affluent or poor- and often attended city government meetings with her father. Her father was her biggest political influence, but there were others who had an impact on her as well. In January of 2012, I wrote a piece highlighting two women whose mentorship played a role in Thatcher’s life–Dorothy Hodgkin and Irene Ward. Thatcher–then Margaret Roberts–received a degree in chemistry from Oxford and studied under Hodgkin who later won the Nobel prize for Chemistry. Hodgkin’s influence was noted to play a role in some of Thatcher’s policies related to science, both during her time as Secretary of Education and Science and her time as Prime Minister. Irene Ward was a colleague in parliament with whom Thatcher connected. In her book, The Path to Power,  referenced the mantra that she and Ward shared as politicians, wives, and mothers:

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’s ambitions indeed knew no bounds. Her conviction was shaped by those whom she admired–from her dad to Irene Ward. In many ways, as the first female British prime minister, Thatcher was the realization of  feminism’s goal. However, she rejected the notion of the brand of feminism contemporary to her. In fact, Thatcher famously said that she owed nothing to women’s lib and compared feminism to a poison.She was keenly aware of her femininity though and famously noted what she was able to accomplish as a  female leader, “if you want something said, ask a man. If you want something done, ask a woman”. She also is famously quoted that politics taught her that men are not “a reasoned or reasonable sex”.  While she didn’t embrace feminism, she certainly recognized what female leadership could achieve.

Perhaps Texas Senator Ted Cruz said it best when he noted, ” it wasn’t a matter of breaking through the glass ceiling, but simply refusing to acknowledge its existence”.  Governor Sarah Palin noted that, as the grocer’s daughter, Thatcher not only broke a glass ceiling, but a “class ceiling” as well:

Many will focus on the fact that Margaret Thatcher’s career was a collection of “firsts” for women — she was the first and youngest female Conservative-party member to stand for election, the first woman to hold the title Leader of the Opposition, and the first woman prime minister of the United Kingdom.

But Thatcher not only broke a glass ceiling; she broke a class ceiling. She was a grocer’s daughter from the back of beyond who advanced to the height of power in a class-conscious society.

Meryl Streep, who recently won an Oscar for her portrayal of Thatcher, called her a “pioneer for the role women in politics”. Former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said, ” [t]here was no more potent force in the defense of freedom than this remarkable woman”. Regardless of whether or not Thatcher consciously busted through the glass ceiling or ignored it all together, Thatcher made great leaps, and her legacy will continue to shape those who admire her.

The video below captures the essence of Margaret Thatcher–confident, steadfast, and unyielding –and Iron Lady:

I was raised in the 1980s in Birmingham, Britain’s second city and major industrial hub. My home was a blue-collar city filled with factories and car-manufacturing plants. Not the kind of place where people embraced the anti-union policies of then-Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. In my corner of the world, Thatcher was reviled. In my corner of the world, people were losing their jobs and their way of life, and they blamed one person for it.

“Thatcher, Thatcher, milk snatcher,” they would chant, after the PM disbanded the social program that delivered free, fresh milk every school day to every schoolchild in Britain. Including me.

I was led to believe that “Thatcher” (nobody referred to her by her title) was cruel, cold-hearted, and immoveable. I was taught that she didn’t uphold the values of her people; values rooted in industry, honesty, and social programs born of moral duty. I was taught that she didn’t care about the good, hard-working people of Britain; she just cared about private business and the wealthy elite in the south.

I was not taught any of the benefits of Thatcher’s economic policies, but I suspected they must exist. After all, Thatcher was re-elected. Twice.

I was too young to grasp the complexities of Britain’s economic situation, the realities of the Cold War, the plight of the mining towns, or the geopolitical nuances of the Falklands crisis.

What I did understand was that my mother carried a briefcase and worked for a living; my all-girls school was headed by a woman and run by a host of strong women teachers; the nation’s throne was occupied by a woman; the headlines of my country’s newspapers were dominated by the daily activities of another woman – Princess Diana; and there at the helm of it all was Margaret Thatcher – a woman.

And I understood that all of those things were important. I understood it, because I also saw the other side of the coin. I saw that my country’s tabloid “newspapers” printed photos of topless women alongside the headlines. That incongruity disturbed me even as I couldn’t find the words to express why. I understood that Princess Diana’s outfits earned more headlines than her charity work. I understood that a glass ceiling kept women from reaching their potential. I understood that, despite earning a place at a school for gifted students, I was likely to be valued for my appearance, not for my achievements.

So, even as my community and my family struggled financially under her policies, and even as I sympathized with them and wanted Thatcher to make it all stop, I felt a conflicting thrill of admiration for the woman. I loved her even as I hated her. Margaret Thatcher provided a daily, resounding and absolute rebuttal to the notion that women weren’t as effective or capable as men. She showed me that a woman’s place is wherever she decides to make it. She showed me that she was not just as capable as any man; she was more effective than most people, regardless of their sex. Every evening, on the television in my living room, Thatcher stood resolute in a sea of green benches and suits, and she shouted the men down even as their voices rose in a cacophony of protest. I quietly loved her for it.

When I was 10-years-old, nobody could have convinced me that I was worth less and capable of less because of my gender. The Prime Minister shredded any chance of that.

Upon Lady Thatcher’s death, Britain and the world is engaged anew in the debate over her legacy. She was divisive. She was a genius. She was detrimental to Britain. She saved Britain. She will go down in history as the country’s greatest peacetime Prime Minister. The country’s worst Prime Minister. The history-writers will decide. I just hope the lady knew how much she gave to all the young girls who were watching her every move. To me, that’s the legacy that matters.