The Political Voices of Women

History doesn’t happen in a vacuum.   Often the individual steps it takes to get from Point A to Point B can only be understood as stops and starts — until the journey has been underway for decades.  Then it is possible to look back and say with an element of recognition, “I get it.”

In the documentary, !Women Art Revoltution—A Secret History, artist and filmmaker Lynn Hershman Leeson seams together forty years of her personal interviews with friends and colleagues to capture the story of Feminist Art.  In 2007, that creative output was described by critic Blake Gopnik as “the most important artistic movement since World War II.”

Hershman Leeson narrates her footage, stating without reserve that the timeline for the film is her own.  She is clear about the fact that “much is left out.” Regardless, watching the convergence of the feminist art movement with the rising awareness that led to “women’s liberation,” gives plenty to view and digest.

For those who didn’t live through the tumultuous 60s, separate dynamics are named as the factors for a seismic cultural shift.  The Civil Rights movement, the Black Panthers, Vietnam and anti-war activism all set the stage for another upheaval.  It was during the protests at the 1968 Miss America pageant, Hershman Leeson suggests, that “art and politics fused, and then transfused.”

Artists are documented during different periods of their careers. They come on camera, reflecting on and often revising their previous beliefs.  At the very beginning, Nancy Spero says that at first in women’s art, “Everyone felt isolated.”  Hannah Wilke comments dryly, “It’s hard to know you’re being censored when you’re not in a museum to begin with.”  Howardena Pindell reflects on the challenges of coming up “both as a woman and a black person.”  “It was,” she said, “daunting.”  Yet these single voices eventually found that they were not alone, and melded into a sort of unison.  However, like any other forged alliance, there were disparate points of views and eventually major disagreements.

One element that united them was their alienation from the prevailing art current of the day, Minimalism, which promoted art as a higher form devoid of content.  It was what was being exhibited and taught academically.

For many women, it did not reflect the landscape.  Adrian Piper felt that against the backdrop of the Kent State killings and civil unrest, her work needed to be “more concrete and confrontational,” so she turned to performance art.  As Nazi refugee Rachel Rosenthal pointed out, “Women were able to enter the art structure through performance.”  Women’s bodies became the “tool” of the work.  Martha Rossler created Vital Statistics of a Citizen, Simply Obtained, which addressed women being measured and judged by individual parts, on both a concrete and a metaphorical level.

As the decade wore on, women began making art that echoed their reflections on identity.  Consciousness raising groups stirred up concerns, as well as anger, that had either been ignored or pushed down.  “The personal is political” became the credo.  Women saw that they were being excluded from even the anti-establishment shows.  Faith Ringgold called artists Robert Rauschenberg and Carl Andre to demand that 50 percent of an exhibit they were organizing reflect both women and artists of color.  In a humorous anecdote, Ringgold relates that at the time her group, WSABAL (Women Students and Artists for Black Art Liberation), was actually a party of two — herself and her daughter.

Like all revolutions, there were strong leaders, cults of personality, and fervent ideological differences that led to fractures.  Miriam Schapiro, who was based at CalArts in Los Angeles, invited Judy Chicago, who had started the first feminist art track at Fresno State College, to join her in implementing a feminist art program.  Together, they developed Womanhouse, a woman-only art installation and performance series launched in 1971. Soon after, we learn, they stopped speaking.

Chicago went on to co-found The Woman’s Building.  One of the testimonies in the documentary features Martha Wilson, relating her encounter with Chicago — which left her in tears.  When she responded to work Chicago was championing as “prescriptive,” an enraged Chicago replied, “Can’t you see what we’re trying to do here?”  It was the beginning of an ongoing dialogue about “who owns feminist art?”  Wilson moved to New York and established Franklin Furnace.  In tandem with the on the ground artistic activity, a range of feminist magazines such as Heresies and Chrysalis were launched, that examined and disseminated the movement’s work.

The film also targets the trajectory of women who began their careers from within the system, and went on to forge their own independent paths.  A case in point was Marcia Tucker. She became the first woman curator at the Whitney Museum — after undergoing a barrage of questions during her interview that today would be illegal.  When she found out that she was being paid $2,000 less per year than her male colleague, she pushed back by suggesting the story would be of interest to the New York City media.  After eight years, and without explanation, Tucker was fired when a new director came in.  She turned around, rented a space on Broadway within days, and set up The New Museum.  She said, “I took the model for the New Museum from feminism.”

By the 1980s, Reagan was president and the Equal Rights Amendment had been voted down in the Senate.  Five years into the decade, the artist Ana Mendieta died.  Married to the minimalist sculptor Carl Andre, she allegedly fell from the 34^th floor window of their apartment.  He was charged with second-degree murder, indicted three times, and acquitted in a 1988 non-jury trial.  Calls for justice in her death became a rallying point for the Women’s Art Coalition.

Throughout the movie, the issues of power and exclusion are a constant.  So is the subtext about diversity and if roles were open to women of color, lesbians, and the working class women who did not emanate from the predominately white, middle-class, and straight ranks.

Despite this rich history, the crop of newer feminist artists in the film note that, when they went to the library to research their predecessors, they found little to no documentation.

Yet 2007 became a watershed year for a reexamination of feminist art. The exhibitions Wack! Art and the Feminist Revolution on the west coast and Global Feminisms on the east coast, dovetailed with the opening of the Elizabeth A. Sackler Center for Feminist Art — which is the permanent home of Chicago’s “Dinner Party.”

At this point, Hershman Leeson articulates, “I began to shoot this film forty years ago.  I’ve been waiting all this time for the right ending.”

The art continues.  The film provides history to those who were not present, and validation for those who participated in a groundbreaking period.  The Stanford University Special Collections Library has digitized the footage from the archive of the film, and it is accessible online.  The !WAR graphic novel written by Hershman Lesson, Alexandra Chowaniec, and cartoonist Spain, which includes a curriculum guide by Dr. Krista Lynes, Dr. Claire Daigle, and Dr. Fiona Summers, is a valuable supporting document.

With many national elected officials looking to rescind hard won reproductive rights, and global violence against women epidemic, a re-examination of the rocky road traveled in pursuit of gender equity could not be timelier.

This article originally appeared on AlterNet.

With the assassination of Salman Taseer, the Governor of Punjab Province in Pakistan and an outspoken opponent of religious extremism, the divisions within Pakistani society are once again in the news.  Perhaps there is no better time to see the documentary Bhutto, which not only tells the story of Pakistan’s first women Prime Minister, but also gives extensive background on this country’s history.

Out of an 111 minute running time, the first half-hour is devoted to the account of a nation that was birthed in bloodshed.  There is a full primer on Benazir Bhutto’s father, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto and the Pakistan People’s Party, which he founded on the platform of  “food, clothing, shelter.”  For Americans, who can be woefully ignorant of other nation’s narratives (even those we are seeking to engage in cooperation around the Afghanistan war), the lesson is welcome.

Pakistan, the sixth largest country in the world, has a population of 180 million people and is 97 percent Muslim. Approximately 60 percent of the citizens subsist on under $2 per day. There are 1,000 honor killings per year.  Since the death of Benazir Bhutto in 2007, there has been an average of three terrorist attacks each week.  The country has survived four military coups, and is in possession of 90 nuclear warheads.  After the 9/11 attacks, during the Bush administration, the United States funneled $15 billion in unchecked defense funds to Pakistan.  President Obama has since signed the Kerry-Lugar Bill, which provides $7.5 billion in civilian “non-military” aid to the people of Pakistan for health care, education, electricity, and infrastructure renewal.

Making an observation on the Bhutto family, which has frequently been referenced as the “Kennedys of Pakistan,” one of the film’s talking heads aptly states, “The whole story of the Bhuttos has the elements of a Greek tragedy.”  It is the interweaving of their personal history with that of Pakistan’s that creates the framework for the movie.

Bhutto was born in 1953.  Nobody came to visit her mother for three days; they were in mourning that she hadn’t given birth to a son.  She was given the first name Benazir, which means one-of-a-kind. Her father believed in equal rights for women.  When his daughter first donned the traditional burqa at age 13 he informed her mother, “There’s not a need for her to wear it.”  He saw education as being paramount, so Bhutto attended both Harvard and Oxford.  As the first democratically elected President of his country, Ali Bhutto groomed his daughter to carry on his political legacy.  This subtext of preference added to the ongoing struggles she had with brother Murtaza Bhutto.  They held distinctly different ideological and political points of view.  Later, this discord would extend to Bhutto’s husband, Asif Ali Zardari, and his role in the government.

While Bhutto was at university, she was exposed to the burgeoning women’s movement.  Her roommate at Harvard (interviewed in the film) was Kathleen Kennedy.  Bhutto learned how to straddle both the worlds of tradition and liberation.  Believing that she was on “a holy mission to bring democracy to her country,” she understood that in order to co-exist with the religious factions—and gain their support, she needed to abide by certain strictures of Pakistani society.  At the age of 34, she accepted an arranged marriage to Ali Zardari.  He was a Karachi businessman chosen by her mother, with no ties to the Pakistani intelligentsia. However, Bhutto said, “My mother picked him, but I fell in love with him as if I saw him across a crowded room.”  Despite these concessions, she believed that she had changed how Islamic men—and Islamic society—viewed Islamic women.  She wanted to show by example that “a woman could be as good as a man.”

Bhutto’s world was turned upside down when her father, then serving as Prime Minister, was overthrown in a military coup by his handpicked Chief of Army Staff, Gen. Mohammed Zia ul-Haq.  He was imprisoned for two years on charges of “conspiring to murder a political opponent.”  Bhutto was then 26.  It was the vigil for her father in prison that Bhutto credits as the training ground for her political career.  For two months before her father’s execution, when Zia had outlawed the speaking or printing of the “Bhutto” name, she and her mother were under house arrest.

Beginning in 1981, the next two decades included extreme highs and lows in Bhutto’s life.  After her two brothers were linked to the hijacking of a Pakistani airplane, she and her mother were included in a round up of political dissidents.  She spent months in solitary confinement before being transferred to house arrest.  She left the country in 1984.  The following year, her younger brother Shanhawaz Bhutto died in France, under mysterious circumstances. The family maintained that he had been poisoned.

In 1985, Bhutto returned to Pakistan to take up leadership of her father’s political party.  Eight months later, she persevered in calling for new elections, with the agenda of “bringing change to Pakistan through non-violent means.”  In December of 1988, at age 35, she was sworn into office as Prime Minister.  She took her oath using a Koran, to “debunk myths on the Jihadist views of Islam.”  She said, “I have avenged my father today.”

After twenty months in office, President Ghulam Ishaq Khan dismissed Bhutto’s government on the grounds of alleged corruption. Bhutto blamed the military. Continued jockeying for political power resulted in the People’s Pakistan Party recapturing a majority of seats in Parliament. In 1993, Bhutto regained the prime ministership. Her government was dismissed in 1996 by President Farooq Leghari, for corruption and “disregarding the constitutional limits on executive power.”  She was placed under house arrest. Her husband, who had served as investment and environment minister (and was derogatorily referred to by opponents as, “Mr. 10%”), was taken to prison. He was incarcerated for eleven years and released in 2004—without having been convicted of a crime.  Of that period she reflected, “We were in office, not in power.”

In 1996, Murtaza Bhutto was shot and killed in a gun battle with Karachi police. Her niece, Fatima Bhutto, is a vocal on-screen critic.  She explicitly states that her aunt “bears a moral responsibility” for her father’s murder.  Her unequivocal cynicism about Bhutto’s goals and actions were made clear in a Los Angeles Times article on November 14th, 2007, concurrent with her aunt’s return to Pakistan.

In exile and living in London, in 1999 Bhutto was sentenced to five years in prison on charges of corruption and barred from holding political office.  She denied the accusations.  Her children, speaking wistfully, said that while they lived in exile they spent more time with their mother than when she was in office.

An American-brokered deal with Gen. Perev Musharraf granted amnesty for Bhutto in October 2007.  All corruption charges were withdrawn.  Musharraf ran for President and Bhutto went back to Pakistan for the parliamentary elections.  Her message was that military rule was not the solution and that “she and democracy were a better choice.”  Knowing of the impending danger that faced her in Pakistan, Bhutto sent an e-mail to her long-time American advisor Mark Siegel, noting that Musharraf would be to blame if any harm befell her.

While participating as the leading opposition candidate in a political rally in Rawalpindi, she was killed in a suicide bomb attack and shooting.  In 2008, Musharraf resigned to avoid impeachment.  Bhutto’s husband was elected President of Pakistan the same year.  In 2009, he asked the United Nations to conduct an independent inquiry into his wife’s death.  On April 10, 2010, the results concluded that Musharraf’s government bore responsibility for her murder by “repeatedly rejecting basic security measures and intentionally destroying critical evidence.”

Interested in getting back-story on the film, I contacted Duane Baughman, the Producer/Director.   Speaking the day after the San Francisco premiere of Bhutto, he discussed the genesis of his film that had taken three years and $3 million of his own money to bring to fruition.

Baughman related his first awareness of Bhutto on the international stage in the 1980s, when he was immersed in political science. He said, “I was riveted by this woman who appeared to be straight out of Central Casting.”  Twenty-two years later, he found his work in the political sphere bringing him into impending contact with Bhutto, when Mark Siegel included him in a group of potential consultants for Bhutto to meet.  The introduction never took place.  After the assassination, Baughman felt strongly that Bhutto’s story needed to be told—particularly by a person who had a pronounced political understanding and could handle the overview of “an extremely complicated story.”  Siegel became the facilitator and conduit to the Bhutto family, as well as the producer on the movie.

Part of Baughman’s vision for the documentary was his commitment to shed light on Pakistan—a country that he sees “intrinsically intertwined” with America’s future.  He said emphatically, “If Pakistan succeeds, the United States succeeds.”

Commenting on the relationship between father and daughter, Baughman spoke about how in Ali Bhutto’s last year, Benazir Bhutto was his lifeline.  In turn, he was her “professor and tutor.”  Baughman quoted from Ali Bhutto’s A Letter from the Death Cell where he wrote of his daughter’s evolution: “She has the blood of warriors running in her veins.”

I asked Baughman what his take-away on Benazir Bhutto was.  He responded by e-mail, “She was the first woman in the world to rise up and lead a Muslim nation, and she gave her life for her country. The level of admiration and curiosity I have for her is wrapped up in this film. Like her or hate her, admire her or abhor her, she was a barrier breaker whose personal and family legacy is forever linked with Pakistan— and Pakistan is linked with America and the West. That makes her story one we should all be more aware of.”

This article originally appeared on the website mgyerman.com.

When it was announced that the TED enterprise—which features global conferences with idea innovators and change agents—was gearing up to present a TEDwomen conference, there was immediate push back.  Reactions included, “Why are women being siloed? Why not more diversity and gender parity in the TED conferences that are being held?  Is this marginalization?”  There were a lot of question marks.

The conveners took these responses into account when they put together the handsome program booklet titled, “Looking At Women’s Ideas in 2010 is  ___________.”  The adjective was left open.  Getting a jump on the controversy, they asked rhetorically, “How can we be discussing this? How can we be ignoring this?  The real differences between men’s and women’s lives.” With a sense of humor, and a measure of deflection, they suggested on opposite pages: “This is a good start; This is a good way to start a fight.”

Chris Anderson, curator of the TED conferences, and co-hosts Pat Mitchell and June Cohen tackled the topic with a group of attending reporters.  Anderson was emphatic in his declaration, “I couldn’t be more excited about the event.  I think it’s fantastic.  It has all the vibrancy of any TED conference.”  He added that it was his belief that “not too long in the future, the gender lense will go.”  When pressed on whether there would be succeeding TEDwomen events he replied, “This was always planned as a one-off.”  On complaints about the ratio of women speakers at TED he said, “We’re trying to do a better job of integrating women into regular TED programs.” He offered that TEDwomen was “our way of making a quantum leap forward.”  He underscored that in curating any TED, “The goal is always to find the best speakers for a theme.”  His direct comment on, “Why TEDwomen?” was a clear, “Because Pat Mitchell is a force of nature.”

Mitchell described the curation process as beginning with “huge outreach.”  She said, “We were inundated with guest speakers—more than 500 names.”  There were 23 countries represented in the definitive list.  Mitchell said, “The attempt was to represent a broad spectrum and be reflective of women’s stories.”  Cohen compared it to TEDIndia saying, “It’s very much a TED—The rapid-fire exchange of ideas, the transformation of the audience.”  Putting out stats on women speakers at TED events she stated, “Over the past three years we have worked to 30 percent to 45 percent women.”  She reiterated a phrase that I had heard previously about the conference from organizers:  “This is not an either/or; It’s a yes/and.”  She continued, ”We’re looking for more diversity.  We wanted the opportunity to take a long look at what’s happening with women.”  She acknowledged that the event, with 700 women in attendance, had brought a huge community of women into the TED fold.

I ran into Dina Kaplan, co-founder of blip-tv early on Tuesday.  She told me, “It was wonderful to be part of the group Pat Mitchell gathered earlier this year, when the idea for a women-focused TED was born.  I don’t see this [conference] as exclusionary.  Women should be a big part of TED, Davos, DLD and other premier events, but it’s okay for us to hole up and speak amongst each other, sharing stories and ideas a few times a year, too. It’s empowering to be surrounded by ambitious, thoughtful women—especially if you’re accustomed to working with men for much of your workday.”

Even Hillary Clinton, a surprise guest speaker, took a shot at the topic during her stint at the podium.  “Why a TEDwomen conference?” she asked.  “To focus on women as agents of change.  Where girls and women flourish, there is success for the world.  It a tenant of our national policy.”

Using the language of music to create the framework and structure for the two days, sessions were broken down into: Overtures, Life’s Symphony, Composers, Duets, Harmony and Discord, and Crescendo.  In an event of this scope, I wasn’t surprised to overhear a comment that raved about a presentation—which moments before someone else had pronounced as “unengaging.”  For me, there were plenty of new faces, equally dynamic as well-known participants Madeleine Albright and Nancy Pelosi.

Journalist Mona Eltahawy grabbed the audience’s attention with her opening line, “I’m Muslim, I’m a feminist, and I’m here to confuse you.  It’s not just about headscarves and hymens.”  Deborah Rhodes, on the medical front, spoke about the work she has been doing with Molecular Breast Imaging (MBI).  Currently FDA approved, the technology is breaking ground in finding small tumors in dense breast tissue.

Tony Porter’s persona and delivery was dynamic. He spoke about his “call to men” to break out of the “man-box.” He related the story of his own path of awakening, from a teenager assuming the macho pose expected of him—to his evolving awareness as a parent.  Pointing out that men’s violence against women is at an all-time high, he exclaimed, “My liberation as a man is tied to your liberation as a woman.”

Documentary filmmaker Penelope Jagessar Chaffer and biologist Tyrone Hayes teamed up to inform the audience about the chemicals affecting our planet and its impact on humans, particularly children.  Hayes, very humorous about some not very funny issues, discussed how we were losing species from the earth as a result of toxic elements in the environment.  His studies with frogs, and what it tells scientists about how humans may be affected when exposed to the pesticide Atrazine, was downright scary.

Naomi Klein also dealt with the relationship to the environment in her talk, “On Precaution.”  Monitoring the BP oil disaster in the Gulf, she spent a week on a research vessel with a scientific team from the University of South Florida. Their investigation found that water with even trace amounts of oil and dispersants could be highly toxic to the microorganism phytoplankton—essential to the marine food web.  Klein assailed a mind-set she named the “techno-fix”—the concept that technology will save us.  She raised the red flag on how we get ourselves into untenable situations.  “Why are we using cost/analysis as a yardstick?” she asked.  Why are we putting our foot on the accelerator when we should be putting it on the brakes?”  For Klein, the reasons are based on a false sense of security.  She also noted that those on the right had recast these concerns as “a culture issue and a threat to our way of life.”  Speaking later with reporters she said, “This isn’t a fight about the science.  Yes, climate change forces us to accept limits, [like] giving up SUVs and and redistributing the wealth.”  Discussing the effects of our consumption on the planet, Klein underscored, “This [BP oil spill] was a transformative moment.  What has this disaster changed?  People in their own communities are ready to push back and use the precautionary concept.”

During Tuesday night’s welcome dinner, there was a “bonus session” with a lineup that included Madame Callista Mutharika and Sia Nyama Koroma, the first ladies of Malawi and Sierra Leone, respectively.  They outlined the work they are doing to improve the lives of women in their countries.  Clean water, education, healthcare, and maternal mortality are top concerns.  In Malawi, one in eight women die in childbirth.

For me, the most powerful voice of the evening was Malaya Pinas from the Philippines, an on-the-ground writer getting her work out through the World Pulse “Voices of our Future “ program.  Her message to the gathering about the women of her country was, “We are not servants of the world.  We are not your domestic workers or your mail-order brides.  We are not little brown fucking machines to be used by United States serviceman. We are servants of peace and freedom.  When our whispers become a trumpet, we will become a power for change.”

The following day showcased those making statements in the cultural arena.  Palestinian-American poet, playwright, and political activist, Suheir Hammad read one of her works, “What I Will.”  Shirin Neshat, the Iranian-born artist who works in photography, video, and film, spoke about her directorial debut, Women Without Men, which she described as a film “balanced between the political and the feminist.”

In the closing session, Johanna Blakley persuasively articulated about social media as the “end of assumptions about gender.”  She posited that women were driving the social media revolution, declaring, “They dominate the space.”  Blakely offered that social media “allows us to escape our demographics.”  She explained, “When you look online at the way people aggregate and organize, it’s not around age.  It’s around interests.”

Listening to diplomat and humanitarian Stephen Lewis speak was an eye-opener.  He gave his talk with a no-nonsense attitude and a brutal frankness about the United Nations’ dismal record on gender parity.  His take-no-prisoners manner highlighted that women were second-class citizens in that world body.

Pat Mitchell introduced the closer with the line, “Who would want to be the final speaker? Someone very, very, brave.”  That person was Eve Ensler.  She wrapped up the two days with passion and energy.  Not surprising.  The playwright/activist and founder of V-Day, which has raised $75 million to end violence against women and girls, is a vibrant orator. She verbalized how her disconnect from her body was due to violence in her background. When she connected with her vagina, she was driven.  In coming to terms with her uterine cancer (she is now nine months cancer free), she saw it as, “The cancer that is everywhere from the carelessness.”  Through what came to be her realizations, she was able to draw analogies between her body and the earth. She said, “I know that everything is connected.”

There were numerous personal stories interwoven through the talks that dealt with overcoming obstacles and fighting tirelessly for social change.  The most visceral image that will stay with me as a metaphor for determination came from a video excerpt presented by the conservationists and filmmaking team of Beverly and Dereck Joubert. They presented a difficult to watch clip of an elephant being attacked by a pack of lions.  The footage showed the elephant’s hide being torn as one lion attacked its flank and another jumped onto its back, sinking in its teeth and claws.  The elephant went down, unable to fight back.  It appeared defeated.  Yet as definitively as it capitulated to the force of the lions, it then miraculously rallied to stand up and shake itself loose from the predators.

It was a reminder that as difficult and overwhelming challenges can be, either personal or global, there is always the possibility for triumph and hope.

Hillary Clinton

Photo: James Duncan Davidson/TED

This article was originally posted at the website mgyerman.com.

As part of a move to create a space for an “exchange of dialogue,” Patricia Duff founded the organization The Common Good.  Her goal is to make sure that people are willing to keep an open ear and have conversations that “aren’t limited to sound bites.”  The group has been the force behind numerous events.  They recently hosted a preview screening of the documentary Client 9: The Rise and Fall of Eliot Spitzer.  Duff told me that she had been a Spitzer supporter. “I think he did a lot of good work as Attorney General. This film is fodder for starting a discussion,” she said.  A question and answer forum with director Alex Gibney was part of the evening.

Having written numerous articles about the Eliot Spitzer saga, its intersection with prostitution and human trafficking, and his reemergence in the public eye—from speaking appearances to a co-host position on the CNN nightly line up—I was interested in learning what the film would have to offer.

Gibney’s account is a story with a motley cast of characters that only a screenwriter could dream up. It is a political intrigue tale, missing only a definitive “Deep Throat” anchor. Perhaps the closest element to that is the actress who portrays “Angelina,” the primary woman that Spitzer had assignations with.  (Despite her protracted presence in the public eye, Ashley Dupre had only one meeting with Spitzer.)

Spitzer is interviewed seated on a sofa, in comfortable and elegant surroundings.  On topics related to Wall Street and the Governorship, he is extremely verbal and forthcoming.  On matters requiring introspection, he is less articulate.  We do learn about how he was raised by a father who translates as more forbidding than loving.  His top lesson for his son was, “Don’t trust anyone.”

With references to Greek mythology (think hubris and exalted mortals with clay feet) the film intones, “No one expected him to go down like he did.”  As the “Sheriff of Wall Street” whose mantra was “attack, attack, attack,” Spitzer’s premise was that Wall Street couldn’t be left to police itself.  Spitzer saw himself as the people’s attorney, fighting to change a system through the law—which had turned a blind eye to white-collar crime.

Self-identifying as “a fucking steamroller,” Spitzer racked up an array of enemies.  They included Joe Bruno, the former Republican Majority leader of the New York State Senate; Maurice R. Greenberg, the former chairman of A.I.G.; and former director of the NY Stock Exchange, Kenneth G. Langone.  Eager to weigh in on the chain of events is Roger Stone, a flamboyant Republican political consultant, who delivers his insights with the nighttime Manhattan skyline as a backdrop.

On the dichotomy between Spitzer’s actions and the fact that as governor he worked to pass The Human Trafficking Law (June 6, 2007), little about this conundrum is addressed.  There is a brief clip showing prominent anti-trafficking activists witnessing the bill being signed by Spitzer. Yet, more time is devoted to an interview with a sex worker involved in the “high-end” of the prostitution continuum who states flatly that women in this well-paying line of work are not abused victims.  Rather, they like the checkbook net-gains.  Gabney also includes a visual montage of other politicians whose reputations have been affected by “sex scandals.”

As for Spitzer’s explanation of his behavior, he likens himself to Icarus, describing his activities as a release that was “easier than a relationship.”  Others suggest that Spitzer didn’t understand his own behavior.  On days when his severe political and personal style would be out of control, his staffers would wearily suggest that his evil twin “Irwin” had shown up.

When taking questions from the audience about whether the coverage of the Spitzer imbroglio was “skewed,” Gibney said, “There was salacious excitement that the ‘Sheriff of Wall Street’ was part of this escort service.”  He underscored that “other details weren’t looked at,” and suggested, “Federal investigators don’t get interested in this stuff [escort services].”  What was the purpose of the investigation? Was there corruption in the Justice Department? Did United States attorney Michael Garcia abuse his power?  These were the questions that Gibney was targeting.  He explained, “The film is dark.  It asks all of us to examine how we judge public officials.”

The movie consistently points to Spitzer’s knowledge about the inner workings of Wall Street, his understanding of the economy in terms of TARP and subprime mortgages, and his prescience about the Wall Street meltdown.  After the Q & A, I approached Gibney to ask him if he had reached out to anyone in the anti-trafficking community for their thoughts on the Spitzer situation, particularly as they had viewed Spitzer as an ally who understood their issues.  His answer was, “No.”  Gibney in turn asked me if I equated the Emperor’s Club V.I.P. with the sexual trafficking of children.  He related the fact that he had interviewed people in the “high end of the escort trade who didn’t feel in need of protecting.”  That singular point of view was represented in the documentary, with no parallel mention of the debate about the demand for paid sex, or whether it is acceptable to purchase another human being.

About the story line he had shaped, Gibney said, “I want people to come to their own conclusions.” Client 9 delves into an interesting set of circumstances.  However, it is not built upon the questions that I brought to the film.

In the end, I would have to agree with Spitzer’s reason for his “rise and fall.”  As he says without emotional affect, “There’s all sorts of rumors about bringing me down.  My view is I brought myself down.”

This article originally appeared on the website mgyerman.com.

Who gets to decide what the narrative for women in politics really is?  Is it the female candidates who choose to run?  The media that interprets them to the public? The platforms they align themselves with?

Currently, women comprise only 17 percent of Congress.  Women of color are completely missing in the Senate, and make up only 5 percent of the House of Representatives.  Oft-repeated stats show that when the ratio of women in national legislatures is examined, the United States places 71st out of 189 countries.  Even Cuba and Pakistan surpasses us in the rankings.

Headlines emerged declaring 2010 the year of the Republican women (although many appeared to fall under Tea Party jurisdiction). In my efforts to comprehend the competing story lines about this new breed of woman politician on the scene, I was getting a cacophony of competing arguments in my head.

A revolving loop with a series of questions kept playing.  Is gender trumped by ideology?  What is the subtext when two women candidates face off against each other? Why does the “Mama Grizzly” phenomenon, and right-wing women candidates staking a claim to the feminist legacy, leave me both incredulous and aggravated?  Since Christine O’Donnell, Michele Bachmann, and Sharron Angle oppose abortion in the case of rape and incest, do their supporters follow them down that road?  Every time Christine O’Donnell says something laughable, is it any more absurd than the candidacy of Alvin Greene?  Why do corporate titans who have turned their sights on elected office—such as Carly Fiorina, Meg Whitman, and Linda McMahon—embody the style of leadership that emanates from a traditional male model, and what do they bring to the party?  And finally, what’s with women using the “man-up” taunt? Is that any better than telling a woman in a debate to “act like a lady?”

I kept asking myself, “What makes women good leaders, regardless of their philosophy?”  I pulled out my copy of Secrets of Powerful Women: Leading Change for a New Generation.  The book, released earlier in the year, evolved from conversations that were part of the Lifetime “Every Woman Counts Campaign,” which encouraged women to run for office and be active in the political process.  I checked all the pages with the turned-down corners to see if any addressed the uncertainties that were gnawing at me.  I got more confused. Advice ranged from “Don’t be oversensitive” and “Be tough” to “Wield power like a woman”—referencing different life experiences for women that create “greater empathy.”  Susan Bevan, co-chairwoman of the Republican Majority for Choice, wrote about “protecting individual autonomy” and why “a woman’s right to control her reproductive health is absolutely central to our success as a civilization.”  Susan Wolf Turnbull, Former Vice Chair of the DNC, related, “The scrutiny of women’s clothing choices in politics is ridiculous.  There’s a double standard in the ways men and women are judged on appearance.”  Repeatedly mentioned was the “unique perspective that women bring to government.”  Rep. Shelly Moore Capito (R-W.Va.), said that “good policy depends on input from a wide variety of views and perspectives.”  Madeleine Kunin, the first woman governor of Vermont, advised finding your own voice and seeking power to empower others.  She also emphasized why women needed to be in charge…because of their unique understanding of families and women’s lives.

So if there was concurrence on how women could add to government in a special way, why was I seeing some women as über-destructive in their approach?

I called Lisa Maatz (also featured in the book), Public Policy & Government Relations Director at AAUW. She walked me through a few basics.  Regarding those women I find so alienating, she suggested that stylistically—in order for women politicians to get noticed in their caucuses and move their agenda forward—some research reveals that women who break the glass ceiling utilize more traditionally masculine strategies.  That’s what gets rewarded. “Typically, more women in politics lends itself to a more rational conversation,” Maatz said. Yet with all the hyper-partisan histrionics, and as Maatz underscored, “women in the political middle are getting edged out,” I was having trouble seeing evidence of evenhanded dialogue.  We parsed the “who has a right to call themselves a feminist” issue.  Maatz posited that “the goals of feminism were to create social, political and economic independence—allowing women to take full advantage of life opportunities and to express independent opinions and decisions.”  On the topic of choice, Maatz explained that one of the successes of the women’s movement is that “it has created opportunities for women and allowed them to judge, compare, and contrast women candidates in a way that is less dependent on gender.” However, she noted that there are still “crazy amounts of sexism” out on the campaign trail.  Regarding my O’Donnell vs. Greene question, Maatz saw reaction to O’Donnell as having “gender based undertones,” whereas in the case of Greene, there was “a general dismissal—with racist undertones.”  On a positive note, she assured me that “women can self-define and move forward.”

I was still feeling badly.  Elected women remain in the minority and we need more women in office.  But if they are using tactics and rhetoric that are unconstructive, where’s the benefit?

I checked in with Sam Bennett, President and CEO of Women’s Campaign Forum and former Congressional candidate.  The WCF is a partner in the “Name It. Change It.” action to fight sexism in the media coverage of women candidates.  “What we’re seeing are consequences of the conservative wing of the Republican party making abortion a wedge issue,” she told me.  “Back in the 70s, scores of Republican candidates that WCF supported were advocates of choice for women.  In the Senate, that number has dwindled to two women, Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe. Like Maatz, Bennett acknowledged traditional Republican women getting squeezed out by far more conservative candidates.  The only Republican women who are surviving electorally are the ones “that embrace the platform of right wing men.”

Bennett sees the solution as “oceans of women who support reproductive choices and options of both parties. The WCF endorses women standing up and running for office because women legislate differently than men.  They bring something to the table that men don’t.”  She added,  “But if I have to, I’ll even take a take a conservative woman over a conservative guy”—because part of the problem is that men are making all the decisions. Men don’t get pregnant—women do, even conservative women.”

I hit pay dirt speaking with Susan J. Carroll, Senior Scholar at the Rutgers Center for American Women and Politics.  She was able to nail the “Mama Grizzly” and “Man-Up” issues for me with succinct explanations.  “The Mama Grizzly thing is fascinating,” she said.  “It’s extremely effective politics in a very masculine space.  It’s tough for women to be both masculine and feminine.  It works for these Republican women, because it combines motherhood with the masculine.”  Okay, I see the visual iconography…the ultra-femme woman protecting her young and defending home and hearth.  She continued, “They cast themselves in a conventional, traditional kind of way.  It’s a creative, effective image.”  On adding the term “man-up” to the campaign jargon, Carroll elucidated, “You’re dealing with a masculine space, so it’s a way of telling your opponent, ‘You don’t fit in this space.’  It’s intentionally a gender thing. ‘I’m a woman, but I’m more masculine than you are.’  The job is defined as masculine, so it’s interesting strategically.  They position themselves as stronger for the job than their opponents, using gender to do that.”  Carroll expressed recognition of continued sexism articulating, “There’s been a lot of that, and it operates against all women.”

Which brought me back to the subject of “who gets to claim the feminist mantle.”  Carroll said, “Feminists opened the door, and right wing women politicians walked through.”  She asked rhetorically, “How much do we want to police the term feminist? I understand the frustration.  Yet, we have to learn from our own history that there is a problem when some people and not others get to decide.  In the past, someone has claimed, ‘I’m a feminist, and this [description] doesn’t fit me,’ whether it was working-class women, women of color, or lesbians.  That’s what makes this so complicated.”

More angst.  I went back to the original notes I had taken when I first read Secrets of Powerful Women.  I had gotten a quote from Kunin which contended, “Many women run for office because they are attracted by the issues, such as improving education or protecting the environment. They tend to be less ideological and more practical than men and are more comfortable with crossing party lines… If there were more elected women in the United States Senate today, I believe there would be less gridlock and more action.”

I also had an e-mail note from Michelle Bernard, political analyst and the President and CEO of the Independent Women’s Forum.  Her insights echoed some of what her colleagues had suggested, amended by a strong dose of pragmatism.  She wrote:

“Women absolutely can work across partisan and ideological lines to seek solutions that work best for people.  In fact, women who tend to be better listeners and more open to compromise and finding areas of common ground, may be better suited to this task than most men.  That said, it is critical that we recognize that there are real differences of opinion among women.  Some women firmly believe in the ability of government to do good, while others just as firmly and passionately believe that government tends to cause more problems than it solves and want government to leave their families alone.  We shouldn’t fool ourselves that just because two policymakers are women that they are immediately going to agree about a matter of policy. The 2008 presidential election demonstrated quite clearly that women are not a monolithic voting bloc.  Under one tent, we now hear the voices of both big and small government women voters and policymakers.”

Coming down the home stretch I was beginning to feel a modicum of clarity. I got some closure from Erin Vilardi, Vice President of Programs & Communication at The White House Project. She describes herself as “a young feminist who has dedicated her career to developing women as leaders and political candidates for the past seven years.”   She wrote,  “At The White House Project we tell women that our vision is a place where women can be judged on their agenda, not their gender.  And that’s something every woman can get behind.”

This article originally appeared on the website mgyerman.com.
Image courtesy of RVR Associates.

Political Wire has two teases.  The first highlights new poll results indicating that, “Sarah Palin is viewed unfavorably by 48% of Americans. She is viewed favorably by just 22% — including just 44% of Republicans, 21% of independents and 6% of Democrats.”

The second reports on new Pew information: “Fully 46% say they would be less likely to vote for a candidate who supported government loans to banks during the financial crisis two years ago, while nearly as many (42%) say they would be less likely to vote for a candidate backed by Sarah Palin.” [bold not in original]

On top of that information, Meg Whitman, Carly Fiorina and Linda McMahon are all struggling of late too. A poll out today from California says that the Palin support is more likely to hurt Whitman and Fiorina than help (Independents do not see Palin favorably). Those three candidates already are trying to fight the odds of self-funders (that they rarely get far). Nikki Haley just torpedoed herself by saying that she supports drug tests for all unemployment recipients (imagine losing your job because a plant shuts down – so you have to take a drug test to get benefits from a system you paid into and otherwise have no record?). And polls indicate that Christine O’Donnell is getting no traction while Sharon Angle is also having a rough time, although appears to have the most chance right now against a weak and targeted Harry Reid. And Democrat  Diane Denish is picking up steam against Palin-backed Susanna Martinez in New Mexico.  So far, Kelly Ayotte, whom Palin before her primary though in a state well-known for wanting to go its own way, really seems to be one of the few high profile, high level female candidates connected at all to Palin who is doing well.

What’s going on and what does it mean?  Read the rest of this post at Writes Like She Talks.

During the past few weeks it seems that events in US politics have been moving at light speed. It’s certainly more than this blogger can keep up with. Fortunately, as I member of the Political Voices of Women Community I can count on my fellow members to keep me up to date. Here are excerpts of a few blog posts from our community. Enjoy,

From “Baker’s Dozen About Obama” by Ellen Keim

Here are thirteen of my “Obamic” impressions, for what they’re worth:

First of all, I hope people can separate what they think of Obama–either his track record or the man himself–from the historical fact of his presidency.

Second, I can’t even imagine how much pressure he feels to be the best for fear that he may ruin the chances for another black candidate.

Third, I never thought he was the “Messiah” as some did, so I never expected him to be super-human. Some people are getting disenchanted because they expected perfection and instant gratification.

Fourth, I don’t think people are giving him enough credit for what he has done, either because they don’t agree with it or because it isn’t their pet project.

Fifth, he hasn’t been President for all that long. Considering the messes he inherited, we should expect fixes to take longer than a year.

Sixth, I don’t think we have seen the positive effects yet of the way he has reached out to the Muslim community around the world.

From Marcia G Yerman, “Thoughts for a New Decade: What I Wish for Women“

As we move into a new decade, I can’t help looking over my shoulder at all the things I would like to leave behind.

VIOLENCE: Number One – Violence perpetrated against the female gender. Whether it is domestic violence behind closed doors in the United States, acid being thrown in the faces of young girls in Afghanistan trying to attend school, or rampant rape as a tool of war…It must end.

DYSFUNCTIONAL HEALTH CARE: I would like to discard health care that doesn’t take into account the needs of women, and policies that don’t speak to the disparities in care for all members of the female community at the local, state, and national levels.

UNEQUAL CHANGE: I would welcome a roll back on the wage disparities between a woman’s paycheck and a man’s, taking into account a gap that is even larger for women of color. Moving forward, I would like more support for women working in the services sector, where wages are lower and benefits are commonly non-existent. More legislated awareness for the work/life balance issues that often drive women to choices based on the need for flexibility, as they seek to mesh family responsibilities with a career agenda, would be helpful.

From Margaret, “Free Speech and Corporations“:

Over the weekend, I posted a link on my Facebook page to a Keith Olbermann commentary on the SCOTUS decision that was issued on January 21, 2010. Now, I’m not a fan of Olbermann as a general rule, but I found what he had to say pretty much nailed what has me concerned about this decision. I don’t often publish anything on Facebook that is politically oriented, but I feel as if this decision has such far-reaching implications that it transcends “politics” and really has the potential to impact my daily life. In short, it scares the living crap out of me.

And from Onedia Hayes Sylvest, “Lifting the ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ Policy — Those Arguments Against Sound Familiar“:

I am a retired navy commander. I retired in 1994 just after the Don’t Ask Don’t Tell Policy was begun. I thought it was insufficient then and I thought the reasons for taking such a half-baked (read another word there) stand was a little brass short of what it should have been. I also heard lots of reasons (and some of those are being repeated now by such people as John McCain) that sounded remarkably familiar.

When I first entered the Navy women did not have pants in their uniforms, they had to leave the service if pregnant, their husbands could not be claimed as “dependents” without proof that the navy woman provided at least 51% of his monetary support. We did not have top ranks or positions, there were no women with stars on their shoulders and we were denied access to many jobs/skill areas solely because of our gender. Women could not serve on ships or on aircraft and the primary reasons offered sounded almost identical to those I heard in 1993 and that I am hearing now.

I know that I served with gays and lesbians in the navy. Most were talented and dedicate. Some were not or even disruptive. However, neither the talent and dedication nor the poor performance and disruptive behavior were caused by their sexual preferences. The same traits and performance were equally present in both heterosexual and homosexual service people. In those days if you wanted to get someone eyeballed by the chain of command then feed the rumor of homosexuality. In my early days many people even assumed that women in the military were probably lesbians and if not they were either looking for a husband or were not of good moral character. The environment bred, I think deliberately, some level of hostility to any who did not fit the accepted image of what a sailor, CPO or officer should be. In the 70′ the primary targets were women and homosexuals.

This is just a sampling of what women are saying.

Want to read more? Why not join us and make your voice heard.

Here is a guest post from community member Marcia G. Yerman, who also blogs at The Huffington Post.

[If you would like to be a guest blogger on The Political Voices of Women, just join our community, and start posting.]

With First Lady Michelle Obama leading the charge to put the struggle for work/life balance front and center, the issue is finally getting top-level attention. Although both men and women in American society are overstretched (working two weeks longer per year than their Japanese counterparts and several weeks more than Europeans), it is women who bear the greatest burden of trying to be all things to all people. Stress is prevalent as women strive to parcel out portions of time to the spouse, children, aging parents, their communities, and lastly…themselves.

A whopping 87 percent of polled women would like more equilibrium between the competing areas of their lives. Two professionals, at the highest echelon of achievement, have entered the conversation with their new book Womenomics. Co-authors Katty Kay (BBC) and Claire Shipman (Good Morning America) have subtitled their insights, Write your own rules for success; How to stop juggling and struggling and finally start living and working the way you really want.

The writers posit that “womenomics” will benefit the “entire working world,” and that there is a “brewing workplace revolution.” They point to the benefit of flexibility over promotions, the value of time as the “new currency,” and espouse a phrase redefining the old “having it all” as “The New All.” Kay, the Washington correspondent and anchor for BBC World News America, is the mother of four. Shipman, the senior national correspondent for ABC News’ Good Morning America, is the mother of two. The women undertook the book in response to a confluence of factors. It was a reaction to The Harvard Business Review article “Off-Ramps and On-Ramps: Keeping Talented Women on the Road to Success” by Sylvia Ann Hewlett and Carolyn Buck Luce, “The Opt Out Revolution” by Lisa Belkin, and their own career conflicts.

The genesis of the book was explained to me when I spoke to Kay by telephone. We discussed if the book’s pointers could be relevant to women who did not have college degrees and were not climbing the “corporate ladder.” Kay maintained that all women are looking for more control over their schedules. For her and Shipman the “New All” took on the meaning of enough professional success balanced by time and freedom.

Most of the statistics in the book reflect the demographic that Kay and Shipman set out to interview and study. Nationally, women hold 57 percent of the Bachelor’s Degrees and 58 percent of all graduate degrees. 46 percent of management is comprised of women. As for the overall workforce, women are approaching the 50 percent mark.

Women stepping up to the plate and asking for what they want, and getting employed on their terms is the ideal. A frequently quoted authority in the book is Dr. Kathleen E. Christensen of the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, which funds studies on families and the workplace. Christensen has given the modern women’s role in family life a new nomenclature: “The meaning maker.” She explains, “It’s the women who basically cultivate and sustain the rituals in the family.” This applies to women whether they are climbing a corporate ladder or working in lower paying service jobs. Christensen said, “Employed women increasingly feel more entitled to say, ‘I need and I want to work in a certain way.’” She pointed to the fact that “the one-size-fits-all workplace doesn’t work.”

Some employers are getting the picture. The Continental Airlines reservations department in Houston has allowed 600 agents to work form home. 25 percent of the staff gets an extra day off per week, on a rotating basis. Studies have shown that a majority of flextime workers have improved productivity and greater commitment to the job.

Regardless of a women’s level or field, the commonality lies in how to handle the stress that comes with juggling combined responsibilities. The Mayo Clinic’s article, ”Work-life balance: Ways to restore harmony and reduce stress” includes many of the same pointers outlined in Womenomics. Following are some of the quandaries that Kay and Shipman believe are problematic, and their proposed remedies.

• The inability to say no because of the need to please.
Women should keep a list of top commitments, and let go of saying yes to avoid conflict. Buzz phrases such as, “My schedule won’t let me take that on” or invoking the “family policy” clause (which includes the sanctity of date night, child’s rehearsal, parent birthday) are simple ways to side step unwanted obligations.

• Work Smarter
Recognize that time is a critical commodity. Use it to zone in on top concerns. When you compile a list, it must reflect what is most essential. Focus on the top five, and accept that you can’t get it all done. Set a big picture goal for the month, and even for the year. Make “assume control of your schedule” a mantra.

• The Tyranny of “Professional and Domestic Perfection”
Delegate, and be aware of when what you are achieving is “good enough.” Set limits. That includes tech boundaries as well. Cutting back on constant e-mail perusal and Blackberry usage can free up time for relationships.

During the election, candidate Obama frequently reflected on the strong females in his life. As Kay said to me, “You have a President whose wife gets it.” Since taking up residence in the White House, Michelle Obama has publically advocated for sick leave for parents, flexible work hours, and on-site childcare.

The “womenomics” theory of “writing our own rules for success” and getting past “internal obstacles” can give us a foothold on ratcheting down the pressure. In the meantime, let’s hope the marketplace gets in step with the realization that productivity, loyalty, and retention goes up with family-friendly policies.

This article previously appeared on Empowher.

We are only days away from the most scary important presidential election of our lives.  And, it’s getting more and more ugly with each passing day. So…For the sake of my sanity, and yours, let’s have a little chuckle.

Saturday Night Live Video – George Bush Endorses John McCain and Sarah Palin

I’m getting pretty sick of the “Joe the Plumber” stuff. Joe isn’t even a licensed plumber, and he blatantly lied to Barack Obama, with his question on the economy. Now, the McCain Campaign is using this in negative ads. I don’t see how having more people “claim” to be Joe the Plumber, over and over, is a smart campaign move? And, this ad is just ridiculous. Let me know what you think in comments.

So…What are they saying? Are they just like Joe the plumber, who makes over $250,000.00 a year? Do they know that guy isn’t a licensed plumber and doesn’t make even close to the income he claimed, and he never had any intention of buying a small business? Do they know, that under Barack Obama’s plan, Joe the plumber would have his taxes lowered? Do they realize, that unless they have incomes greater than $250,000.00, their taxes would be lower too?

What do you think of all the “Joe the Plumber” hoopla? Are you sick of it? Let me know in comments.