BELLY GOOD

So a couple of weeks ago, I slipped a disc in my back and was laid out for about 5-6 days. For those of you who have never experienced a herniated disc, consider yourselves lucky. It is truly one of the most painful experiences of my life next to childbirth and kidney stones. One evening, as the Vicodin and Flexorall coctail I'd been taking religiously had begun to wear off, I was bemoaning my situation whilst I tried unsuccessfully to find a comfortable way to sit. My husband (God love him), said "You know, when you get better, you really need to start working out....I mean you ARE overweight." Now....I'm no moron! I know that I've packed on the pounds in the last couple o' years. I've also had two children, have a marriage going on 15 years, am completing my second Master's degree, have a job where I am well -respected and liked...and which pays for our housing and utilities. I have published articles, published a children's book (reviewed in the NY Times), have a wealth of good friends and so on and so forth. Not a bad resume, if I say so myself. But one statement about my weight and all of those accomplishments fly out the window. I can't help feeling as though I'm always defined by my body. And this bugs me, you know? I DO need to exercise. I COULD stand to lose a few pounds, but weighing more shouldn't make me less of a person. It shouldn't define who I am. Sure my jean size has gone up in the last 15 years, but so too has my IQ, my salary, AND my list of accomplishments! Recently, Jennifer Love Hewitt, Tyra Banks, Oprah and others have been chastised for the size of their bellies. How often do we judge a man by the size of his belly? We don't! We also don't begrudge a man a small penis, either. Women just don't do that! Until women start standing up for their bodies and demanding equal treatment--until we learn that weight does not define worth...things will never change. America will continue to fixate on the least accomplished of our gender--Paris Hilton, Nicole Ritchie and the like...and the real role models, who would NEVER make it as fashion models--will be rendered meaningless. I leave you with a poem by my favorite poet, Marge Piercy, entitled BELLY GOOD!

Belly Good

A heap of wheat, says the Song of Songs

but I've never seen wheat in a pile.

Apples, potatoes, cabbages, carrots make lumpy stacks,

but you are sleek as a seal hauled out in the winter sun.

I can see you as a great goose egg or a single juicy and fully ripe peach.

You swell like a natural grassy hill.

You are symmetrical as a Hopewell mound, with the eye of the navel wide open,

the eye of my apple, the pear's port window. You're not supposed to exist at all this decade. You're to be flat as a kitchen table,

so children with roller skates can speed over you like those sidewalks of my childhood

that each gave a different roar under my wheels.

You're required to show muscle striations like the ocean sand at ebb tide,

but brick hard.

Clothing is not designed for women of whose warm and flagrant bodies

you are a swelling part. Yet I confess

I meditate with my hands folded on you,

a maternal cushion radiating comfort.

Even when I have been at my thinnest,

you have never abandoned me but curled round as a sleeping cat under my skirt.

When I spread out, so do you.

You like to eat, drink and bang on another belly.

In anxiety I clutch you with nervous fingers

as if you were a purse full of calm.

In my grandmother standing in the fierce sun

I see your cauldron that held eleven children shaped under the tent of her summer dress.

I see you in my mother at thirty in her flapper gear,

skinny legs and then you knocking on the tight dress.

We hand you down like a prize feather quilt.

You are our female shame and sunburst strength.

"I am an Optimist Who Worries A Lot." - M. Albright

On Monday several of my classmates and I braved the winter storm in order to hear Former Secretary of State, Madeline Albright speak at JFK Library. There to promote her new book, Memo to the President, Albright spoke about the foreign policy challenges facing America in the coming years with China, Iran, and North Korea at the forefront. She was funny and charming, and remarkably optimistic...although she did suggest that whomever assumes the presidency next January will be inheriting "the worst foreign policy disaster in the last hundred years" (Iraq). Similarly, she compared the relationship of the US and China to that of a "drug addict and pusher...but you never know who's who!" Surprisingly, there was little to be said about the state of affairs for women in the United States and throughout the world. In the world of women's rights advocacy, there are many who would charge that the world has begun to witness the 'feminization' of poverty, disease and poor education. Nonetheless, Albright did not identify this as an issue to contend with in the coming years. As the first woman to hold the position of Secretary of State in America, she has been a beacon to many of us in this country who aspire to be a more integral part of the political and policymaking world. It begs the questions whether once again even our most successful female leaders have found that they are most effective and heard when they divorce themselves of their gender in the political world. But, if women don't speak up and advocate for women...who will? In March of 2003, Madeline Albright attended and spoke at an event put on by Marie Wilson's White House Project. On the issue of women for women, Albright said, "if women and government do their jobs, they will improve the lot of women and girls everywhere. They will raise issues that others overlook, pass bills that others oppose, put money into projects others ignore, and seek and end to abuses others accept." Though I am an admirer of her work and have tremendous respect for her, I can't help feeling as though this time around, she's dropped the ball.

"Men are taught to apologize for their weaknesses, women their strengths."-Lois Wyse

It's been some time since I last posted anything. Truth be told, I'm still trying to come up with a way to respond to the events of last week's primary in New Hampshire. Before I continue, I want to make one thing apparently clear: I'm no apologist for Hillary Clinton, nor am I necessarily planning on voting for her- but damn it! I want to know when America will progress far enough, that a woman can run for office and NOT be expected to act like a man. And why is it that Mitt Romney can cry on cable tv and it's barely a blip on the radar screen...those who did see it spent very little time anaylzing it. But if a woman candidate cries, she's either too soft, or faking it for the cameras! I want to know why Hillary's 3% win was 'eked out', but McCain's 5% win signified a 'sweep'. I remember feeling this way another time--when Harriet Myers was nominated for the Supreme Court. We criticized her relationship with the President, criticized her inability to think for herself...hell, we even criticized her wardrobe, her hairstyle...no stone was left unturned. And while it's true that she likely wasn't the most qualified candidate in the pool, it's not like the lady didn't have a law degree...in fact, her past clients included the likes of Microsoft and Disney. But we discounted her nomination on the basis of appearance...and if you want my opinion...her gender. What does a woman have to do in order to play the political game? Does she divorce herself of her gender altogether, or does she revel in her womanhood? Does she wear the heels or the pumps? The skirt or the slacks? I mean really, people...doesn't experience, character and record carry just as much weight for female candidates as it does for males? Why is an assertive, bull-headed male politician a go-getter and a strong leader, but a female politician with the same characteristics just a 'cold hearted bitch?' And so, to Hillary...and all the other women out there who want to lead...to my daughters and yours...I leave you with a quote from one of my favorite feminist artists, Virginia Fitzgerald. "Stop thinking and just follow your muse!" Sooner or later the rest of America will either catch on, or lose out!

Should Women Vote for Women?

Back in October, I had the opportunity to attend a political rally for Hillary Clinton. Being a liberal independent and a feminist, there was something special about a real female presidential contender. The rally would be my first ever, and it didn't disappoint- there were protests, counter-protests, shouting matches, camera crews galore and a lot of vote lobbying...and all that happened before we even entered the building. Inside, the rally was all pomp and circumstance. The music, the colors, the light show, the speeches-it drew me in big time. In just minutes, I had decided that I would vote for Hillary. I mean, she was a woman. She was a mother and wife with a career. She was knowledgable and spoke rather eloquently-AND she was ultimate FOB, afterall. However, once the rally was over and I began to take a closer look at her platform, I came to realize that I was in a bit of a fix. What arose was the following conundrum: As a woman, is it more important to support the woman candidate, or the candidate whose platform and policies are most "woman-friendly?" This question has kept me awake at nights, and I wonder whether there are other women out there who feel the same way I do.

At the rally, I remember overhearing a conversation between two elderly women sitting in front of me. One of the women remarked "When I came into this world, women couldn't even vote yet- and now I might just live to see the day that a woman actually becomes president!" When one looks at the plight of women in the political world, it seems only logical that women should vote for women candidates. Think of how our agenda could be advanced. This might change the way our country views and subsequently treats women in the workplace, at school, and even at home. Former Secretary of State, Madeline Albright once said that "if women and government do their jobs, they will improve the lot of women and girls everywhere. They will raise issues that others overlook, pass bills that others oppose, put money into projects others ignore, and seek and end to abuses others accept." So it seems only wise to assume that having women in significant positions of power would help bring women's issues to the forefront. And a woman president would be a good start. After all, today only about 16% of our Congress are women! As an advocate and a student of women in politics and public policy however, I have had the opportunity to look closely at the platforms/agendas of the candidates. And what I've discovered is that there are other candidates out there (of the male persuasion), who are far more women-friendly than Hillary. In fact, many have argued that Hillary has divorced herself from her gender rather than embraced it. This sadly is the plight of many women in government. American politics, as it is, still is largely a man's game. Thus, there is the sentiment that if you want to play with the big dogs, you've got to learn how to bark. But women voters don't necessarily want to vote for women who come across as unfeminine...or rather, as women take on the desired characteristics of male leaders (i.e. assertiveness, strong-willed, pushy, etc.), they actually become less desireable to women who vote. But, a woman who is too feminine is assumed to be weak and comprimising--thus she loses votes as well.

So, now the Iowa caucuses are over, and Hillary came in third to Obama and Edwards. Despite all her money and connections, it seems that the one thing that she has tried most carefully to avoid, has become her greatest shortfall. As women, we cannot divorce ourselves from who we are- nor should we expect our women leaders to. So, should women vote for women? I fear that the most common answer to this question is: "Only if she is the best man for the job!"

Do You Suffer From Wage Envy?

What would you do with $1.2 million dollars? Buy a home? Send your children to the best colleges and maybe even go back to school yourself? Maybe you'd travel to the far corners of the world...take up hobbies that you never before had time for. As part of my advocacy work this year, I've taken up the issue of gender pay disparities. And what I've learned is pretty astounding- Despite the passage of the Equal Pay Act in 1964, we have yet to close the pay gap between men and women. In fact, according to economist and former Massachusetts Governor, Evelyn Murphy, when holding education and experience constant, women on average only earn 77 cents to every dollar earned by a man. The disparities are even greater for women of color, as African-American and Latina women earn an average of 69 cents and 58 cents to the dollar respectively. Add this up over a work lifespan of 47 years, and you're looking at a loss of between $700,000 to $1.2 million! Nonetheless, our government has been slow to act. I don't know about you...but I want my house and a Harvard education for my children! Take a look at the figures for yourself at http://www.wageproject.org/. Visit the salary calculator and discover how gender is impacting your earning power. (The graph above can also be found on the aforementioned website as well as others that will curl your toes!)

I am a woman. I am a daughter, a sister, a wife, a mother. I am the continuation of my mother, my grandmother, and her mother and so on. As I have been shaped by those who came before me, I too will bear some responsibility for influencing those who come after me. This notion is at the crux of my journey. About a year ago, I began to ask myself, "What sort of legacy will I leave to my daughters?" Immediately, I began to take inventory of my life. I was an educator of young women, a writer of multi-cultural children's books, an involved and devoted parent...but I couldn't help feeling as though there might be something more out there that I could do. Gandhi has said that "we must be the change that we wish to see in the world." But what change did I wish to see? The answer came to me one day in my Political Science class, during a rather heated debate between my students and I. We were exploring the concept of feminism and its place in the 21st century, when one of my students suggested that there was "no need for feminists now because men and women are equal." Most of the class nodded in agreement, while another young woman added that "feminists hate men, and don't shave their legs or armpits...and they want to fight in war, too...I mean, that's just silly!" I was floored. And yet, as we began to discuss women as political leaders, the girls' opinions seemed to shift- "If a woman wants to be a leader, she has to think and act like a man!" "I would NEVER vote for a woman! They're so bitchy and emotional!" Was what I was hearing real? As a product of the feminist era, I was the first to recognize the tremendous advancements women had made in the last 30 years. But I was also conscious of the vast disparities between men and women- Women were often paid less than men, less likely to be promoted because of maternity- Women were more likely than men to be the victims of domestic violence and sexual abuse by a ratio of 5 to 1. Moreover, while women made up roughly half of the US population, they were tremendously underrepresented in state and federal government (At the federal level, women comprise only 16% of the Congress, and 24% at the state level.) But if young women truly believed that equality had been achieved, how might that reflect in their future actions as tomorrow's leaders? I applied for a year's sabbatical from my school and thus began my journey- an in-depth exploration of women in leadership, and the influence of gender on womens' leadership pursuits, sucesses and failures...with a heap o' activism and advocacy work on the side. I hope that you'll check in with me periodically to learn of my experiences. Feel free to comment as you wish! -H