At the Wall Street Journal’s Women in the Economy Conference in late April, Jack Welch created quite a stir by referring to corporate mentoring efforts for women as “victim’s units.”   What a pity the moderator, Alan Murray, Deputy Managing Editor at the The Wall Street Journal, didn’t let Suzy Welch finish her answer instead of asking Jack to “save her.”   Suzy has actually worked and raised a young family – who better to discuss the challenges facing female executives in today’s workforce.

The discussion was on how to increase the women in senior positions in corporate America.  The original discussion was about cultural biases that limit women’s progress and Suzy was answering it quite clearly when Alan Murray cut her off.  He redirected the discussion and when Suzy started answering, he spoke over her and redirected the question to Jack.  Why?  Jack Welch’s answer went off point and caused quite a stir with the audience.  Did he really think Jack Welch would understand the challenges facing today’s female executives?  While he was very successful, he is of a different era – he made it to the top by having a supportive stay at home wife whom he later divorced.  He then strongly urged his 2nd wife to give up her career as a powerful New York attorney.  He divorced her after starting his relationship with Suzy, who is his 3rd wife.  I’m not sure he really appreciates the sacrifices women made in supporting him – therefore how do we expect him to empathize with the choices millions of working women make when they choose to start a family?

This was exactly Suzy’s point.  Women want meaningful and successful careers, but many also want a family. Unfortunately our bodies control the age when that is optimal to occur – which by the way happens to also be at a point when many professionals’ careers are beginning to accelerate.  To “hit the breaks” at this time is tough – and not an easy decision for many women.   They have worked hard to open doors — only to find that biology is a cruel timekeeper.   Things are shifting in today’s workforce – there are more men choosing to downshift – but there are still very few examples of dual-career couples where both spouses stay on the “fast track” and have a houseful of kids.   Those that do – have a lot of external support – from extended family or hired caregivers.

Many women in the first wave of the modern workforce chose to delay or forego having children.   Personally, I was advised early on in my career to wait until “I made partner” or “find a wife”.  I credit these women for breaking down many barriers – they were the “firsts” in a lot of places and made the road smoother for my generation.   I was never told that a certain career was not “for women” – and I entered a workforce with a peer group that was fairly balanced along gender lines.

I think this may have given us a false sense of security.  Referencing a famous ad from my youth, “We’d come a long way, baby.”  We felt we were the equal to men and had the same opportunities.  We decided to push those boundaries – e.g. we didn’t wait until we reached the corner office (e.g. into our mid to late 30′s) to start having families – we started having them in our late 20′s and early 30′s.   In doing so – it was as if we had violated an unwritten rule.  However, many companies saw that we were still productive employees — we asked for and often received extended unpaid maternity leave, we asked for flexible work-hours and received it.  I know many women on a “part-time” schedule who work well over 40 hours per week.  We traded movement up the ladder for flexibility and work-life balance.    However – it meant we were not accelerating up the ladder at the same rate as our peers who hadn’t downshifted.    That deceleration is reflected in the numbers being seen today.

The thing is — not many people are talking about this group which now wants to return to the workforce. What is missing from these conversations is how to on-ramp these workers again.   Many business schools try to sell “refresher” courses, but I always question why?  As I mention in a previous blog post – these women have not been sitting at home watching Oprah and eating bonbons all day.  They have been active contributors in local communities – contributing their time to local non-profits and community organizations.   They have saved many local school districts (and paid elected officials) from the true consequences of their budget cuts.   They have found other avenues to use and hone their skills that provided the work-life balance they needed when raising a young family.  The same sacrifices Jack’s first wife made.

I have been lucky – I worked for a company that supported my decision to downshift and similarly has been supportive as I have been on-ramping.   Though I quickly realized I was blazing new ground.   I found support in the women who had chosen a similar path, as well as the men whose wives made similar choices.   I have also found support in women who did not off-ramp but grapple with similar issues.

I am lucky to have a strong network that I formed earlier in my career which I am now reactivating.   However, I am lucky that I had that network to begin with.  That comes back to these “victims units.”  While many of my male peers and mentors have been very supportive, it is a few key women who really understand the trade-offs that I have made and have provided some key guidance.  They also understand the emotions I am grappling with as I make the regular tradeoffs to be home for dinner, or miss a sporting event.   They are also the ones who are there to take the kids in a pinch – knowing I will do the same for them.   They understand the constant balancing act.

Funny thing is though — not one of these women calls themselves a victim.  We made our choices — we just think that employers would be wise recognize the skills and talents we bring to the table and the value that we can add, and without remorse.  Our kids our older – they don’t need us 24/7 — if anything it is easier to make the trade-offs now because we know which ones matter and which ones don’t.

Pity that Mr. Murray didn’t let Suzy talk more about what the decision point meant…. I think she was on the right track….

Update:  On May 14th, Scott Thompson stepped down as Yahoo’s CEO.  Amid the controversy around his credentials, media reports are stating that one reason for his resignation is his recently diagnosed thyroid cancer.

Earlier this week, I woke up to find that a female corporate board member was resigning over Yahoo CEO Scott Thomson’s false information on his CV.   When he was hired, Mr. Thomson’s bio supposedly stated that he graduated with a computer science degree, which in reality turns out to be an accounting degree.    I am not privy to internal Yahoo Board discussions, but I presume there is debate as to whether or not Mr. Thomson should stay or go.  Other blog posts at the Washington Post and Forbes are already addressing this issue.

I am asking a different question:  why is the first collateral damage in this story a woman?  Why is Yahoo director Patti Hart the first person to step down (technically she isn’t standing for re-election)?  Granted the Board at the company she runs wants her out of the limelight, yet why is the Yahoo fracas falling on her shoulders?   Yes, hiring a CEO is one of, if not “the”, Board’s most important duties.  However, presuming she and her fellow Board members ran a robust process, why should this error which Mr. Thomson generated and then didn’t refute, bring her down?   I am sure corporate boards will be reviewing their CEO hiring processes as a result of this.

There are already too few women on corporate boards – why should one of them take the fall for the CEO’s admitted falsification?   Are women just “better team players”?  More willing to take one for the team in this case?   Isn’t the wrong head rolling at Yahoo?

A recent op-ed in the Boston Herald postulates that because of Sarah Palin’s supposed failures as the vice presidential pick will prevent any woman from being considered for the Vice Presidential nomination. The writer, Kimberly Atkins, a woman herself, titled her op-ed, “Sarah Palin factor puts women in the back row.” She goes on to speculate:

But Romney won’t choose any of them [Sen. Ayotte, Former Secretary of State Condolezza Rice, or Govs. Brewer, Haley or Martinez]. He’s playing it safe. And after Election 2008, safe means Mr. Wonder Bread. (Pack those bags, Rob Portman.) Picking a woman may make people think of what happened four years ago — that gamey-changey stuff — and Romney does not want that. At all.

Thanks, Sarah.

Being a woman in the world of politics was a hard enough endeavor to begin with. But now we are feeling the full brunt of the additional Palin Factor: Whatever a candidate’s political liabilities may be, they seem somehow amplified by the lack of a Y chromosome.

[…]

“I do think that the extent to which Palin had liabilities as a candidate and as a public official has had some implications as to what we think of all women in office,” said Kay L. Schlozman, a political science professor at Boston College.

The theme of Atkins’ op-ed essentially is that Palin’s liabilities and failures both led to Senator McCain’s loss in the 2008 presidential election and that her liabilities have handicapped any women from being selected for the VP nomination.  In reality, Palin gave the McCain campaign the only lead they had during the general election season. Even inept and disloyal McCain campaign strategist, Steve Schmidt, noted that if Palin had not been on the ticket, “our margin of defeat would’ve been greater than it would’ve been otherwise.” Governor Palin’s addition to the ticket was a net positive for the campaign and to the potential for Republican women running for office throughout the country.

Three of the women that Atkins’ mentioned as potential VP picks—Kelly Ayotte, Nikki Haley, and Susana Martinez –were endorsed by Governor Palin during their GOP primaries in 2010. In fact, Palin endorsed Nikki Haley in her bid for the South Carolina Republican gubernatorial bid when Haley was in fourth place in the primary polls. The poll released following Palin’s endorsement showed Haley leading the primary.  Additionally, as Haley has noted in her recently released book, Palin stood by her more fervently than other endorsers when Haley was being maligned with vicious and false affair rumors during her campaign.  Haley, of course, ultimately won the primary and the general election.  Due in part to the endorsement of Palin and the subsequent media buzz and donations that followed, these three women were voted into office in November of 2010. While Atkins tries to assert that these women will not be picked as the VP nominee because of Palin’s 2008 performance, the fact that they are even being considered for the nomination is due at least in part to the support they received from Sarah Palin during their respective electoral bids.

The support of women from other women is key in all aspects of life, including politics, and female political pioneers have paved the way for the women being discussed in this election cycle. Without the candidacies of both Sarah Palin and Hillary Clinton in 2008, a woman as a potential VP pick would not even be discussed to the extent that it is today. The candidacies of women like Margaret Chase Smith in 1964 as a GOP presidential candidate, Geraldine Ferraro as a Democratic vice presidential nominee in 1984 paved the way for Clinton’s and Palin’s candidacies. It is not that these women each do not have their own impressive qualifications in their own right, but the women before them provided them shoulders to stand on to get their voice out.

The same is true for the women who are being discussed as a potential Vice Presidential pick this election. Although she has adamantly denied she’ll be the VP pick due to family situations, Susana Martinez is an accomplished governor who has turned deficits into surpluses and signed anti-corruption legislation in New Mexico during her first less than a year and a half in office. She is the first Latina governor in the county and also has a fourteen years experience as a district attorney where she namely focused on prosecuting public corruption and child abuse.  Nikki Haley, in addition to being the first Indian American woman governor, was previously a three term state representative in South Carolina. Senator Kelly Ayotte, elected to the Senate in 2010, was previously New Hampshire’s attorney general. She now serves on the Armed Services, Budget, Commerce, and Small Business and Entrepreneurship committees in the Senate. Condolezza Rice, who is the top choice for VP among many Republicans, was President George W. Bush’s Secretary of State and national security adviser in addition to being a professor at Stanford University. Another woman who has been considered for the vice presidential nomination is Congresswoman Cathy McMorris Rogers. Rogers is the highest ranking Republican women in the House, and, according to a Republican strategist, has “been a big help in making sure that the party and the leadership know that women are not an interest group but 53 percent of active voters.” All these potential choices bring accomplishments that bolster the ticket.

As women we do not want to be pandered to by politicians who treat us like a special interest group or a grenade in the “war on women.” We vote based upon our priorities, not on our genetic makeup. Mitt Romney may ultimately not select a woman to be his running mate. However, this will not be because of the Sarah Palin “put women in the back row,” nor will it be because there is a shortage of qualified women. There are several accomplished women who can be considered potential VP picks in part because other women have paved the way.

Eighty women were raped over a period of three years at the University of Montana, and eleven sexual assaults were reported within the last eighteen months. The FBI decided the cases were handled so poorly that the feds have stepped in and are now investigating. Attorney General Eric Holder called the university’s failure to properly investigate “very disturbing.” With about 15,000 students on campus, Missoula Police Chief Mark Muir said the numbers fall at or below the statistics for a college that size. A recent New York Daily News article stated, “Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez, head of the Justice Department’s civil rights division, said in a press conference Tuesday that the investigation’s primary focus isn’t the number of allegations, but rather the response.”

In 2005 the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) studied sexual violence on college campuses and released its findings. One in five women are raped each year while in college. This statistic mirrors the national average related by the CDC. The difference is that the Justice Department estimates that among the general population, only forty percent of sexual attacks are reported. At institutions of higher learning, however, fewer than five percent are reported. Put another way, more than ninety-five percent of sexual attacks go unreported at campuses all over this country.

There a number of reasons why so many of these assaults go unreported. The NIJ found that only half of the schools studied encourage anonymous reporting, and fewer than half inform students how to file charges. Also, “Half of all student victims do not label the incident ‘rape’. This is particularly true when no weapon was used, no sign of physical injury is evident, and alcohol was involved.”  The following are reasons given for why campus sex crimes are so underreported:

• Campus policies on drug and alcohol use (adopted at three-fourths of the schools studied) may inhibit reporting;
• Campus requirements that victims participate in adjudication discourages reporting;
• Overemphasis of the victim’s responsibility to avoid sexual assault
•  A lack of balanced messages stressing the perpetrator’s responsibility for committing a crime, as well as strategies bystanders can use to intervene;
• Trauma response, including high levels of psychological distress, some of which is triggered by shame and self-blame; and
• The desire to avoid the stigma of having been victimized.

Fewer than two in five schools train their security personnel to respond to sexual assault complaints, even though they are the most likely to receive these reports. What training they do receive is often inadequate. Lisa M. Friel is Vice President of Sexual Misconduct Consulting & Investigations at T & M Protection Resources, LLC. She believes the skills necessary for in-depth investigation of sexual assault and rape cases are seriously lacking on campuses. In her article at The Huffington Post, she writes, “While many campuses send their security officers to sexual assault trainings, a one day course does not enable these officers to deal with the difficulties inherent in an on-campus sexual assault investigation.”

The good news is that institutions of higher learning actually are working to make reporting sex crimes more palatable for victims, and they are taking steps toward ending sexual violence on their campuses. The NIJ identified promising practices at eight of the schools studied, including access to a full-time Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner (SANE), an anonymous reporting option, and providing an official statement prohibiting retaliation against anyone who reports a rape or sexual assault, outlining consequences for any attempts at retaliation.

On April 4, 2011, the Education Department’s Russlynn Ali, Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, issued what is now known as the “Dear Colleague Letter”, writing, “The sexual harassment of students, including sexual violence, interferes with students’ right to receive an education free from discrimination and, in the case of sexual violence, is a crime.” She went on to clarify that sexual harassment and sexual violence – in any form – is a violation of Title IX. The White House also issued a document called Know Your Rights: Title IX Prohibits Sexual Harassment and Sexual Violence Where You Go to School, further clarifying the relationship between Title IX and sexual violence.

More recently, provisions of the Campus Sexual Violence Elimination Act, or Campus SaVE Act, were included in the Violence Against Women Act. Campus SaVE updates the Clery Act, which requires any institutions of higher learning participating in federal financial aid to keep the public informed about on-campus crime statistics. (As an aside, the NIJ found only thirty-seven percent of colleges and universities to be in compliance at the time it released its report.) SaVE will also “complement the new Title IX Guidance by the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights.” It calls for greater safety, transparency, and accountability from institutions of higher learning. Security On Campus, Inc. explains that SaVE is also intended to promote greater awareness by educating students and faculty alike on issues of prevention, consent, reporting, bystander intervention, and risk reduction. There will also be an increased collaboration among the Departments of Justice, Education, and Health & Human Services “to collect and disseminate best practices for preventing and responding to sexual assault, domestic violence, dating violence, and stalking on campuses.”

Assistant Attorney General Perez is correct – Chief Muir missed the point. His comment is insensitive to the women who were assaulted, implying that these kinds of brutal acts are acceptable in low numbers. Maybe he doesn’t know Title IX extends beyond the sports fields. It’s possible he never received a “Dear Colleague” letter. If Muir were to take a closer look at statistics reported back in 2005, perhaps he would find that the numbers do indeed fall within the reported average. And that should send chills down his spine.

I have always been a big fan of Meryl Streep, and even more so when I found out that she was determined to have the National Women’s Museum be more than a dream, but a reality. And not just in words, but in deeds. Ms. Streep had pledged a cool 1 million dollars to this important project. Having a museum on the Mall in DC that represents the vast contributions by women to this country seems a no-brainer, at least to me. (Photo credit: Gettys.)

Yes, we have Women’s History Month in this country and everything, but that is hardly sufficient to cover all that women have done to help form this nation from the Revolutionary War on. How many people are aware of Deborah Sampson, a young woman who actually fought in the Revolutionary War? Or how about Celia Burliegh, the first woman ordained to the Unitarian ministry in 1871? Or the 19th century humorist, Katherine McDowell? How many of us were taught what the Suffragists really went through, the imprisonment, the beatings, being choked, and more?

Or for a more recent example, Col. Martha McSally, the pioneering fighter pilot about whom fellow TNA contributor, Whitney Zahnd, wrote in terms of her Arizona Representative seat run? I could go on and on, but the bottom line is, much of the education and common discourse about US history glosses over or ignores the history of women.

The point is, we need a Women’s History Museum, and yet the current plan for one is fraught with difficulty, from finances to management (or lack thereof on both counts). Even a heavy hitting donor like Meryl Streep is having a hard time getting any kind of real response from the organization’s higher-ups about what is going on, according to this Huffington Post article.

Not only are there questions about how the funds are managed, but now those politicians who had been spearheading this endeavor have backed off:

[...] On Capitol Hill, where museum executives hoped a new bill would be introduced this spring to help secure a building site on the National Mall, lawmakers who have previously sponsored similar bills were silent.

A spokesman for Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.), chief sponsor of the new legislation in the House, offered a series of “no comments” when asked about its status. On the Senate side, numerous email queries to the companion bill’s main sponsor, Republican Susan Collins of Maine, went unanswered.

The unusual quiet from lawmakers, who are trying to stay clear of controversy particularly in an election year, follows HuffPost’s report that NWHM has developed only minimal educational programming or connections within the academic community. Internal documents and public records, along with interviews with NWHM staff, board members and advisers revealed little progress after 16 years toward a $400 million fundraising goal — even as a board member, Ann Stone, sold direct mail services to the museum. In addition, the article cited sources who said board members who questioned the arrangement or sought to recruit independent professionals to challenge Wages and Stone (no relation to story’s reporter) were forced out.

[...]

Maloney has given no timetable to introduce a new bill, even though NWHM previously indicated it would be this spring; NWHM has since backed off the spring deadline. Maloney spokesman Ben Chevat offered, “No comment” to numerous questions by HuffPost about the status of the legislation. A bill introduced a year ago in the House lists 68 co-sponsors. A similar bill in the upper chamber was co-sponsored by 23 senators. (Please click here to read the rest of this article.)

What gives with this? Why is the Museum’s CEO, Joan Wages, being so evasive on what is happening with plans and funds after 16 years? Just what is going on there? HuffPost investigated those very questions:

[...] “There is no official way for anyone in the public to have any say in what decisions are made by ‘the organization known as’ the NWHM,” Denise Baer, a Boston University political scientist and a close observer of the museum, said in an email. “Their decision processes to-date have been closed and insular, and not representative of the full range of views.”

In her four years promoting the museum, Streep said she had never been invited to a board meeting until late March — after Wages got wind of HuffPost’s investigation. “Believe me, I’m going,” said Streep of the scheduled June meeting.

[...]

When she became president of the museum in 2007, Wages seemed like a plausible candidate to head a legislative campaign to secure a dedicated site. “[My] credentials to lead the NWHM are primarily due to my experience as a lobbyist in Washington on behalf of three Flight Attendant unions,” she told HuffPost in an emailed statement.

Stone, too, seemed like an ideal backer: a well-connected Washington insider on the fault line of women’s politics, a pro-choice Republican with good fundraising credentials and a knack for publicity. Stone has been a member of the museum’s board since it was founded and has twice served as treasurer. She has been the senior vice president since 2007.

But a closer look reveals a project rife with apparent conflicts of interest, sloppy record keeping, murky objectives and a stubborn resistance to outside oversight.

As president and CEO, Wages earns a salary of $167,537. Since 2009, she has also served as chair of the board of directors. Wages and Stone both said they leave the room during board meetings when potential conflicts arise. (Please click here to read the rest of this story, along with numerous examples of mismanagement at the NWHM.)

There is something seriously wrong going on with this, from the management in place to the jumping ship by politicians in this election year. I am glad that that Andrea Stone at Huffington Post is investigating why this major project has come to a screeching halt. And it is good that Meryl Strep is not being shy in speaking out about her own frustrations with the delay in moving this forward.

Frankly, though, we deserve better than this. We deserve to have this museum on the Mall in DC. Women’s contributions to this nation have helped shape it in major ways, and that history should be on display for all to see.

At least that’s what I think. How about you?

The Avengers assembled a record-breaking box office take ($200.3 million from U.S. audiences) on opening weekend, breaking the record set by Harry Potter and the Deathly Hollows—Part 2. The Christian Science Monitor attributes the film’s opening-weekend success, in part, to women, who comprised 40 percent of the movie’s audience. CSM credits the movie’s performance to Disney’s “aggressive marketing” to women, which included “sending stars to The View.” (Attention Disney and CSM: You had us at Robert Downey, Jr.). Writer/director Joss Whedon deserves props for a script that fulfills comic book movie conventions while subtly challenging the genre’s stereotypical depiction of women. Although Scarlett Johansson’s Natasha Romanoff/Black Widow is a supporting character (and the only major female role, aside from Gwyneth Paltrow’s stand by your Iron Man cameo), she reminds the audience of the ways in which girl power can be both feminist and fun.

It’s true that Black Widow’s skin-tight black suit provides eye-candy to the 18-25 year-old moviegoing males who are considered box office bread and butter. But archetypes of masculine sex appeal are on display as well (from Thor’s brawny good looks to Bruce Banner’s brainy vulnerability). What’s interesting about Romanoff is that (unlike postfeminist comic book icons such as the S&M-y Catwoman or the botanic beauty Poison Ivy) her power stems from smarts rather than seduction. A master of interrogation, she extricates information from her marks by outwitting them. She is also an accomplished martial artist. In fact, it’s worth noting that unlike the four principal Avengers, Black Widow’s skills do not need to be augmented by a superhuman superpower or a fancy gadget.  She goes toe to toe with the bad guys, keeping pace with her male counterparts, fueled only by girl power. In that respect, she’s not unlike a postmodern Ginger Rogers—famous for matching Fred Astaire step for step, but doing it “backwards and in high heels.” The takeaway? What do you need to be in order to keep up with Iron Man, Hulk, Captain America, and Thor? A woman.

In the hands of a lesser writer/director, Black Widow might have fought her way into the foreground of the frame just long enough to flaunt improbable breasts in all their (superfluous postproduction) 3D glory. But I’m guessing that would have been too boring for Whedon. Instead, he drops his character into familiar blockbuster scenarios and allows her to extricate herself in less predictable ways. The fact that I can use the phrase “extricate herself” in reference to the action in a Major Studio Summer Blockbuster dominated by male characters is, in itself, notable. Sure, Thelma and Louise could drive themselves off a cliff [sorry, should I have said Spoiler Alert?], but it’s a riskier proposition to let a woman take charge when there’s a big, strong, male lead around (not to mention four).

Like Whedon’s other feminist heroine, Buffy (she was a vampire slayer before vampire slayers were presidents), Black Widow is strong and resourceful. She gets the job done by working with the materials on hand—be they a nondescript chair or a megalomaniac’s ego. She doesn’t seem averse to romance, but she knows that female characters can serve other purposes in films—even in Major Studio Summer Blockbusters. And although she begins the movie in a standard-issue Little Black Dress, she quickly dons the ultimate power suit, complete with appropriate firepower and sensible shoes.

So, why does it matter if The Avengers is recognized as a “feminist” film? Would it have set records at the box office with a more conventionally sexist portrayal of Black Widow? Most certainly. But the fact that it not only garnered solid critical acclaim but also positive word of mouth from women (and not just fangirls, mind you) means that there’s a market for  powerful portrayals of women even in standard genre films. The next step will be to convince studio heads that women writers and directors are capable of captaining these blockbuster ships. Additionally, perhaps the broad appeal of The Avengers will put to rest the notion that comic book movies, like 1960s tree houses and the front lines of combat, are “no girls allowed” zones (btw: we’d like into tree houses and combat too). As Moviefone recently found out, we don’t need a “Girl’s Guide to The Avengers.”

Finally, there was one uncredited innovation in The Avengers that I feel obliged to recognize. It was really nice of Wonder Woman to share the technology for her invisible plane with S.H.I.E.L.D. Think that happened in the aftermath of the “DC vs. Marvel” grudge match in the mid-1990s? (Take that, Moviefone).

Follow Karrin on Twitter @KVAnderson

The summer blockbuster season is upon us and Obama’s 2012 re-election campaign is officially in wide release. Unlike most Hollywood executives, however, Obama is targeting women. Last week, he launched a new slogan, debuted a campaign video, rallied supporters, and flooded the Twittersphere with appeals to women voters. Obama is attempting to demonstrate that his pro-woman sentiment is more than a bumper-sticker slogan . . . by offering to send women free bumper stickers with this slogan on it:

(See how the “Est. 2007” detail wipes out the pesky 2008 Democratic primary—when Obama alienated a large group of women voters.)

The campaign also introduced a new tool designed to reach out to its target demographic: an interactive timeline titled “The Life of Julia.” The timeline provides snapshots of the hypothetical American “everywoman” at different life stages, pairing snippets about Obama’s and Romney’s policy proposals with a vaguely mid-century modern aesthetic—like a dowdy Mad Men Yourself.

On the positive side, “The Life of Julia” focuses on policy rather than personality, highlighting significant differences between the two candidates and underscoring the ways in which policy stances affect everyday life. Unfortunately, certain stylistic choices reinforce common misconceptions about “women voters.”

1.  Julia is “everywoman”: Julia is meant to stand in for the “average” American woman voter—a demographic that politicians routinely attempt (unsuccessfully) to define. Jimmy Carter wooed “working women,” Bill Clinton championed “Soccer Moms,” and John Kerry tried to convince so-called “Sex and the City Voters” to help him hold George W. Bush to a single term. And it’s not just liberals who deploy catchy but reductive labels. Bush had his “Security Moms” and Sarah Palin her “Mama Grizzlies.” Each of these monikers reduces diverse groups of voters to a single, caricatured facet of their identity. “Julia” can’t be everywoman because no one woman is every woman.

2. Julia is thriving financially: although the presentation makes clear that 18-year-old Julia is attending college aided by a Pell Grant, the site’s visuals have the trappings of economic security—from the laptop she studies on to the small business she eventually owns. This fits the Obama administration’s narrative of economic recovery, but glosses over the fact that the bounce back has been termed by some a “he-covery“ Writing for the New York Times, Catherine Rampell observes that although “men bore the brunt of the job losses during the recession,” they “benefitt[ed] disproportionately from the modest job growth during the recovery,” with women’s employment declining as a result of “layoffs by local governments, which disproportionately employ women.

3. Julia is a Democrat: It’s true that the 2012 presidential election will be affected by the widening gender gap, and Obama knows that if he wants another four years in the White House, he has to convince women to send him there. But not all women see eye-to-eye with Obama on matters of policy. The short shrift given to GOP policy proposals in Julia’s narrative could backfire with Independent swing voters who would like both political parties to find compromise solutions to the problems Americans face.

In addition to the troubling overgeneralizations present in the “Life of Julia” narrative, there are more subtle verbal and visual cues that could be off-putting to women voters. Julia is white—or, more precisely—she is blank. Her pale skin also lacks two critical facial features: eyes and a mouth. I’m sure the Obama administration does not purport to speak for women—or claim to see the future more clearly than women—but Julia’s sightless, voiceless visage is off-putting nonetheless. Julia’s visuals might have seemed more innocuous if the Obama administration included more women, but after nearly four years in office, Obama’s inner circle remains largely a boys club. The patronizing tone is exacerbated by phrasing repeated in each text box, which describes Julia’s well-being in terms of which president she happens to be “under.” Had Hillary Clinton won the presidency four years ago, that phrasing would, no doubt, be off the table when characterizing Hillary’s relationship to her constituents. (For that matter, Bill Clinton would also have steered clear of that verbiage, but for an entirely different set of reasons).

Of course this close reading of the “Life of Julia” pictograph, is not meant to obscure the sexism that resides in other corners of political culture. The Funny Lists blog has aggregated some of the (so-called) “Funniest ‘Life of Julia’ Spoofs,” and their list features a litany of misogynistic, homophobic examples that deride everything from working-class employment to a liberal arts education to birth control. There is, unfortunately, plenty of sexism to go around. If women want our voices to be heard, we need to ensure that our elected officials listen to our perspectives and represent our interests more than once every four years. The “Life of Julia” should include her volunteering with civic organizations, donating to political campaigns, and running for elective office herself.  Now there’s a future worth picturing.

Follow Karrin Anderson on Twitter @KVAnderson

Quite often, I get a comment or e-mail along the lines of “Why do women need special treatment?” (to get a job), “Men have to struggle too” (but no one is helping us), “Why are you so obsessed with gender?” (just do your Science), and/or the tired old question “Why are you Female Science Professor and not just a Science Professor?” (like the men). Some of these questions are politely expressed, and some are not.

The answers to these questions are in the blog archives in various places, so that’s not what I am going to write about today.

What I’m wondering about today is whether there is any significance to the fact that some people (men and women) don’t see sexism and discrimination in academia or elsewhere, although supposedly objective measures as well as the personal experience of many indicates that these problems persist.

For the sake of this discussion, let’s ignore the more extreme, rude, and what-about-me viewpoints (including those held by people who think “feminazi” is a really clever word). Today, in May 2012, let’s consider instead whether an apparently neutral, non-hostile lack of awareness is:

1. overall a good thing, indicating a change for the better (sexism is so rare, some people have no idea it exists because they have never encountered it); or
2. the same-old bad thing: sexism is as prevalent as ever and the fact that some people don’t see it — in their own lives or in the experiences of others — is one reason why it persists.

Does anyone believe in the more optimistic of the two possibilities listed above? I think that it might apply locally to some people and environments, and in that sense a ‘lack of awareness’ (again, of the non-hostile sort) does indicate progress. But I don’t think this is the primary explanation, alas.

In coming to that conclusion, I dove into the archives to see what I have written about this topic over the past 6 years, and thought about whether I have — in my own career and life, keeping in mind the effect of my increasing age and seniority on my experiences — seen a change just since I have been writing this blog. I have seen a change for the better — a substantial one in my own life/career and a not-insignificant one in my general field of science — but still not as much as I would expect given the increasing number of female students, postdocs, and faculty in the STEM fields. The feeling (by some) that women get jobs, grants, awards etc. because they are women and not because they are highly qualified persists at a disturbing level.

The persistence of this view is surely related to the still-low numbers of women in some fields, but I wish it did not have to correlate quite so closely, given the slow rate of increase in the participation of women in some fields, particularly at the post-graduate level. For now, I suppose we have to hope that there is some critical level of representation — << 50% but >> 1-2% — at which these perceptions become exceedingly rare.