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.

Tell me that this is a SNL skit. Of course, it probably will be this Saturday.

Amazing women like Barbara Jordan and Shirley Chisholm are probably rolling in their graves. I can also imagine that even Elizabeth Dole & Kay Bailey Hutchinson are hanging their heads.

I have now watched this clip several times and each time I tell myself that this just can’t be real. Not only was Ms. O’Donnell unfamiliar with the first amendment but then she proceeded to act obtuse when she was provided with correct information. Not even the audience’s laughter seemed to phase her. Did she believe that they were laughing with her?

As the saying goes, “ignorance of the law is no excuse”.

Women, from all backgrounds and political persuasions have worked too hard and waited too long to be taken seriously. Now along comes Ms. O’Donnell who quite frankly has embarrassed us all.

One of the speakers, also a member of the Board of Directors, was Carly Fiorina.  By this time, she had served at Lucent Technologies.  (Her tenure there is examined by Scott Woolley in an 10/15/2010 article for Fortune entitled, “Carly Fiorina’s troubling telecom past.”) She had completed her run as the CEO of Hewlett-Packard (1999-2005), a period when she was considered one of the most powerful women in business.  Her accolades included making the Forbes list of the thirty most powerful women in America (2001) and the description as the “first woman” to lead a Fortune 20 company. After she resigned and wrote her book, Tough Choices, Fiorina picked up a stream of speaking engagements. She appeared at a 2006 women’s business conference where I was present, offered as a role model for women in business. There was a subtext implying that sexism can sabotage women when they get up into the ranks and play with the big boys.

At the in 2008 event, she was billed as the CEO of Carly Fiorina Enterprises.  Her presentation included a lot of business jargon, mixed in with information about how creating opportunities for those in need would help create a market for “us.”  She referred to it euphemistically as “enlightened self-interest.”  For those who may not have caught the core of what she was suggesting, she reaffirmed that helping women become self-empowered was beneficial because, “It’s good for us.”  “Us” cut a wide swath, which I construed to include the West, the United States, and American business.

Shorty afterwards, she signed on as the “economic spokesperson” for the John McCain campaign.  When I would see her appearing on news shows as a talking head, I would recall that day. Her repeated gaffes took center stage, from her suggestion that neither John McCain nor Sarah Palin had the smarts to be a CEO of a major corporation—to the bag of worms addressing health insurance coverage that pitted Viagra vs. birth control pills.  By 2009, Condé Nast Portfolio had listed Fiorina as one of “the 20 Worst American CEOs of All Time.”

Now, having won the California Republican Senatorial primary—with the help of $5.5 million of her own money—Fiorina has positioned herself as the one to straighten out California’s fiscal problems.  Some people are looking at her past performances, as well as her currently held opinions, for what type of Senator she would be.

As the CEO of Hewlett-Packard, Fiorina laid off 30,000 people.  When she left the company, she received $21 million in severance pay.  She opposes Net Neutrality, a woman’s right to choose, and same-sex marriages.  She supports the death penalty and the Arizona immigration law.

When Californians focus in on the election, just sixteen days away, they will need to parse out who Carly Fiorina is and what she stands for.  As someone who ascribes to the philosophy of doing “what’s good for us,” it’s important for the state’s voters to determine if they would fall into her category of “us”—or “them.”

This article originally appeared on the website mgyerman.com.



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.

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.

Health care costs wouldn’t be so high and there wouldn’t be so much concern about the cost of a public health care plan if so many Americans weren’t so sick.

Right?

On Monday, the New York Times reported on the hundreds of thousands of gallons of toxic waste being dumping into the nation’s water supply by coal-fired power plants. In the article, “Cleansing the Air at the Expense of the Waterways“, Charles Duhigg reported:

“For years, residents here complained about the yellow smoke pouring from the tall chimneys of the nearby coal-fired power plant, which left a film on their cars and pebbles of coal waste in their yards. Five states — including New York and New Jersey — sued the plant’s owner, Allegheny Energy, claiming the air pollution was causing respiratory diseases and acid rain.

So three years ago, when Allegheny Energy decided to install scrubbers to clean the plant’s air emissions, environmentalists were overjoyed. The technology would spray water and chemicals through the plant’s chimneys, trapping more than 150,000 tons of pollutants each year before they escaped into the sky.

But the cleaner air has come at a cost. Each day since the equipment was switched on in June, the company has dumped tens of thousands of gallons of waste water containing chemicals from the scrubbing process into the Monongahela River, which provides drinking water to 350,000 people and flows into Pittsburgh, 40 miles to the north.

‘It’s like they decided to spare us having to breathe in these poisons, but now we have to drink them instead,’ said Philip Coleman, who lives about 15 miles from the plant and has asked a state judge to toughen the facility’s pollution regulations. ‘We can’t escape.’

Even as a growing number of coal-burning power plants around the nation have moved to reduce their air emissions, many of them are creating another problem: water pollution. Power plants are the nation’s biggest producer of toxic waste, surpassing industries like plastic and paint manufacturing and chemical plants, according to a New York Times analysis of Environmental Protection Agency data.”

If the air pollution caused by coal-fired plants has already been linked to chronic asthma and COPD, just imagine the result of ingesting large quantities of the same toxins in your drinking water.

In an article for Care2.com, Melissa Breyer reported on the link between pesticides and Parkinson’s Disease.

A study by eminent oncologists Dr. Leonard Hardell and Dr. Mikael Eriksson of Sweden concludes that there is a link between “the world’s biggest selling herbicide, glyphosate (commonly known as Roundup, marketed by Monsanto), to non-Hodgkins lymphoma, a form of cancer.”

The following video clip is from the documentary “The World According to Monsanto” which took an in-depth look into the bio-chemical companies impact on agriculture, the environment and health.

And while we’re discussing Monsanto we certainly can’t forget their efforts to bury the truth about rBGH (bovine growth hormone) in milk.

There are many, many more instances of links between toxic waste and disease but I think that you get the picture.

Corporations have been dumping toxins in the water, air and food supply with impunity. The American public has grown sicker which has in turn driven up health care costs. Health care insurers are profiting from this illness. And now the corporate lobbyists and insurance industry spin machine are waging a full scale assault on health care reform.

Dear Members of Congress and President Obama,

if you really want to reform health care please take a comprehensive approach to this problem. How can you not pass health care reform with a public option when the government agencies which were supposed to protect the environment, agriculture and public health have failed us so miserably.

The previously cited New York Time article shows that the Riverhead International Coal Plant in Macon GA has been cited for 124 violations, paid $0 in fines and hasn’t been inspected since 1979. 1979 – 30 years ago.

Let the teabaggers and birthers rant, rave and spread lies about “death panels” but don’t give in to the insanity.

Americans can diet, exercise, visit the doctor and take all the pills we want. But if the biochemical and power industries continue to poision the air, water & food, we will grow sicker and sicker. Health care costs will both bankrupt consumers and increase the federal deficit. And in the end, we will die. Those without health care coverage will just die much quicker.

Congress must pass health care with a public option and if you want to reduce costs take on the corporations that have contributed to this crisis. Fine them. Shame them if you have to. Expose them for the greedy, heartless profiteers that they have become.

How dare Wellpoint sue the State of Maine to ensure that it is guaranteed a profit!

Enough is enough.

originally posted on Pam’s Coffee Conversation

Finally, the health insurance reform debate turned its focus — albeit briefly — on women and girls. About time. Women make most of the health care decisions in American families, and because of our longevity we tend to use more health care services as well. Further, because a persistent wage gap deprives many women of fair pay, women also have a harder time paying for health care and health insurance. And, to add insult to injury, insurance is typically more expensive for women. Without commonsense reform, insurance companies could continue the discriminatory practice of gender rating, and women could continue to pay monthly premiums ranging from four percent to 48 percent higher for individually-purchased health care plans than men. FLOTUS Michelle Obama’s first foray into the health care debate was quite welcome, and could not have come at a better time.

Enjoy a clip, and read the full text below.

[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.

Below is a DNC video that I recently was sent a link to.  And this is some of how I feel about it…

I don’t claim to have any answers – just questions.  So, here goes.

I could understand the Republicans being against Obama’s healthcare plan if they at least had a plan of their own.  Do they?

Sometimes I wonder if our elected government  has forgotten that they represent The “United” States of America…and that this issue is about LIVES not elections.

Okay, that wasn’t really a question, more like a statement.

And I’m totally NOT for taxing the top 2% of Americans to subsidize the 15% without insurance. But just out of curiosity…

Who are these people?  The top 2% people?  Are you one of them?

And how many of them would be totally against donating some of their wealth or business savvy (at least temporarily) to finding a way to help the uninsured of their own country?

Seriously. Did anyone think to ask? Maybe this population of our country isn’t as heartless and greedy as some people would like us to believe?

Anyway…Here’s the video from the DNC.  What do you think about all of this?  Dare I ask?