Courtesy PhotobucketThe 1970s were a good time to be a high school girl. Fashions were changing. Opportunities were opening up. And women role models were taking the bull by the horns, asking -- even demanding -- to be treated equally in the workplace and the world.
During those years, I dreamed that I wouldn't have to worry about being treated equally and paid equally, and it seemed as if that time was on the horizon. In 1970, that's also what a group of women Newsweek employees thought, until they realized that they weren't getting anywhere and filed a gender discrimination lawsuit against Newsweek just to have to chance to get beyond the mailroom and into the newsroom.
They did make it into the newsroom eventually, producing some amazing women's voices like Anna Quindlen. But in a country where women make up 52% of the population, we're still a long way from equal numbers many arenas, including Congress and many white-collar professions.
In 2010, we're really not as far as many of us had hoped we'd be. I thought I wouldn't have to worry about such things for my daughter or myself. But 40 years after that bold lawsuit, while things have moved forward, the state of women in traditionally male-controlled industries -- like the media -- hasn't changed all that much in terms of women's voices.
Recently, Newsweek ran an article on the 40th anniversary of that lawsuit entitled Are We There, Yet? The answer was a pretty straightforward "no."
At about the same time, National Public Radio released a report detailing the small number of women voices included as experts in the stories they run. It also featured some commentary from male reporters who were stunned at the difference from having a woman's perspective on their stories!
As the mother of a 10-year-old daughter, these concrete examples of what I suspected was still the case in our world makes me wonder whether we'll ever reach the goal of having our voices represented equally in the places where they matter.
Joanne Bamberger also likes to hang out around the blogosphere using her alter ego, PunditMom.
This Hot Dad Wants to Do Your Ironing
This Hot Dad Wants to Cook You Dinner
This Hot Dad Cooks AND Does the Dishes
Kanye West is Gay?! 
Comments 9
As the mother of a daughter, I can't help but worry about her future simply based on her gender. In a country where Nancy Pelosi can be speaker of the house but is still subject to criticism for her gender first, I'm not optimistic.
There are so many women who are criticized, and even mocked, for their gender ... I wish I could hold out some hope for our daughters for when they are adults. BUt I don't. :(
As a mother of a daughter and having seen firsthand myself -- with a bachelors of science degree and making the exact same amount as my husband who hold only a GED -- I'm not exactly optimistic myself either.
However, I don't see the reason Nancy Pelosi being criticised is for being a woman. All the criticism I've seen was earned through her stances and actions. She's a poison for our country.
Using sexist terms to describe the most powerful political woman in America isn't hurtful to all other women in the long run? I don't think one needs to agree with her political positions to object to how she is described and treated by the press and colleagues.
It's one thing to disagree with her politics, it's another thing to call her a "b--ch" or a "house whore." Those are very much related to her gender not to her political leanings.
People were playing the "sexism' card when Sarah Palin was running for VP. I don't think Sarah Palin is an Idiot. I think she has a specific audience and she plays well to it.
Sexist coverage of women doesn't have anything to do with whether Sarah Palin, Hillary Clinton or any other women are smart or not. Sexism in the media is about others using inapporpriate terms to describe them which belittle their accomplishments. Asking whether Palin could be a good mother and run for VP is a sexist question, regardless of what you think of Palin herself. Saying that Hillary Clinton reminds men of their first wives standing outside of probate court is sexist, no matter what you think of Clinton. Not sure how we're getting on this topic here, since sexism is a slightly different topic from gender discrimination.
I'll admit, I believe I would be the source of the skew on the topic. I was saying from what I've seen of Pelosi's character, she is a poison in my eyes. I was not talking about the sexist comments being thrown her way or her political position. I do think sexist remarks are wrong for anyone on any level. However, I feel that she, herself, does more harm for all other women than any sexist comment thrown her way. If she wants to stand up for women, she needs to stop playing the victim and, like Joanne said in the beginning of the article, take the bull by the horns, brush off the comment and give a strong retort. She's not doing that. Instead, people run with it and say "Oh, poor Nancy! She was just called a 'house whore'." and she lets them.
<tbc>
Maybe I'm just jaded but I hear the term "b--ch" thrown around at guys too where I am, so I don't exactly see it as a "female specific" degrading term anymore, I've kind of outgrown that. To me, words like that are for people with a limited vocabulary. Don't get me wrong, it doesn't mean I'm looking at people who say degrading terms with esteem -- I feel people who have to resort to those words have already lost whatever verbal battle they were trying to fight.
But seriously, words are words -- they only hold meaning if you allow them too. Even if you make everything politically correct, all you're doing is changing which word is now the "bad word". If you want to stamp out inappropriate terms, you have to stop reacting to them as inappropriate. (What's that motherly advice? Oh, yes, "don't fuel the fire.") That's why I'll never understand why people -- who want everyone to come together and no longer see each other as "black" and "white" -- put so much emphasis on race.