Single Mothers in America: Demographics

Read more here.

The Zaftig Redhead. All Rights Reserved.

Unemployment Among Single Mothers Remains at Highest Level in Over 25 Years

(Washington, D.C.) -- Analysis by the National Women’s Law Center of August jobs data released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) this morning reveals unemployment among single mothers remains at the highest level since the recession began.

“For millions of women and their families, there is no recovery yet,” said Nancy Duff Campbell, Co-President of the National Women’s Law Center. “Unemployment among single mothers has almost doubled since the recession began and is at the highest level in decades. Yet critically needed help for these vulnerable families will expire unless Congress acts soon.”

While the BLS data show little change in the unemployment rate among women and men overall for the past few months, a closer look reveals significant changes for some groups of women. Unemployment for women who head families increased to 13.4 percent in July and August from 12.1 percent in June. The 13.4 percent rate is almost twice the pre-recession rate of 6.9 percent in December 2007, and the highest unemployment rate for this particularly vulnerable group in over 25 years.

The picture for women of color is also bleak. Unemployment among African American women increased to 13.2 percent in August, up from 12.9 percent in July and 11.8 percent in June. Unemployment among Hispanic women dropped from 12.1 percent in July to 11.6 percent in August, but is still higher than the 11.0 rate in June.

Before leaving for the August recess, Congress extended enhanced unemployment benefits through November to help workers unemployed for six months or more and approved additional funding to states and localities for health care and education that will help stem further job losses and deeper cuts in public services. But Congress has yet to act on a more substantial jobs measure, the Jobs for America Act, additional funding for child care assistance, restored funding for child support enforcement, and an extension of the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Emergency fund, which has allowed states to create jobs and provide emergency assistance to families.

“Families across the country are in crisis. Yet some members of Congress have been blocking measures to create jobs and help vulnerable families but urging the extension of costly tax breaks for millionaires,” Campbell said. “Congress needs to get its priorities right.”

Young Women Now Less Likely to Work in Same Jobs as Men Wage Gap Continues Due to Occupational Segregation

WASHINGTON, DC - A new briefing paper from the Institute for Women's Policy Research charts occupational segregation since the early 1970s. Women continue to enter some high paying male-dominated professions, for example, rising from 4.0 percent to 32.2 percent of lawyers between 1972 and 2009, yet overall progress has stalled since 1996, according to one common measure, the Index of Dissimilarity. Slowing progress, women continue to dominate professions traditionally done by women, which typically pay less, accounting for over 95 percent of all kindergarten teachers, librarians, dental assistants and registered nurses in 2009.

A few occupations have witnessed a sharp reversal in desegregation, with women's share falling from over one-third to less than 21 percent of computer programmers since the late 1980s, and women's share of civil engineering declining from 13 percent in 2005 to just over 7 percent in 2009. Most troubling, young women experience more segregation today than they did a decade ago; since 2002, their Index has worsened by 6 percent, erasing nearly one-fifth of the improvement since 1968.

IWPR's Briefing Paper "Separate and Not Equal? Gender Segregation in the Labor Market and the Gender Wage Gap" analyzes data from the Current Population Survey on women's share of occupations from 1972 to 2009. Based on 2009 earnings data, it examines the relationship between median earnings and the gender composition of occupations, differentiating between occupations that are predominantly male, have a relatively even gender balance, and are predominantly female -- for low-skilled, medium-skilled and high-skilled fields.

“It is very likely that the stalled progress in integrating the labor market is contributing to the failure of the wage gap to close,” says Heidi Hartmann, President of the Institute for Women’s Policy Research.

Working in traditional female occupations can come at a steep price. Women are now proportionately more likely than men to have some years of post-secondary education. Yet, whether an occupation requires college level education or medium-level skills or is low-skilled, typically occupations that are predominantly held by women have lower median earnings than occupations with a more even gender balance or occupations predominantly held by men. There are important exceptions, particularly among medium-skilled occupations: dental hygienists, an occupation almost exclusively held by women, have higher weekly median earnings ($956) than occupations almost exclusively held by men such as electricians ($856) or carpenters ($665). Yet, while over 80 percent of dental hygienists have at least an associate degree, only one in five electricians, and even fewer carpenters, have similar levels of education. To achieve similar earnings, women have to acquire more formal education than do men.

"All workers are likely to do better if they have at least some post-secondary school qualifications. Yet while it is still possible without college to earn a decent wage in some male-dominated occupations, the same is not true in female-dominated occupations," says Ariane Hegewisch, a Study Director at the Institute for Women's Policy Research. "Almost as important as getting a qualification, however, is the field in which you qualify. A speech language pathologist--an occupation that is predominantly female--on average makes $1,153 per week, compared with a pharmacist--an occupation nearly half female--who receives median earnings of $1,841, a difference of close to $700 for a week of full-time work."

The difference in median earnings is not as big in absolute dollar terms for workers in low-skilled occupations. Yet working in a female-dominated, low-skilled occupation (the Bureau of Labor Statistics identifies nursing and psychiatric aides, maids and housekeepers and cleaners, and personal and home care aides as the largest occupations in this group) is much more likely to result in earnings close to the poverty threshold than working in low-skilled male dominated occupations (such as truck drivers, laborers and ground maintenance workers). Median weekly earnings in low-skilled, male-dominated occupations were $553 in 2009, compared with $408 in female-dominated occupations.

"Policy makers need to pay attention to the stalled progress in gender desegregation," says Robert Drago, Research Director for the Institute for Women's Policy Research. "Occupational segregation carries costs for the economy and employers by exacerbating skill shortages and causing reduced productivity. It also costs working families. Particularly in low-skilled jobs, working in an occupation predominantly held by women instead of one held by men, may be the difference between earning a poverty wage and earning a family supporting wage."

IWPR's research on occupational segregation and earnings is supported by the Ford Foundation, the Annie E. Casey Foundation, and the Rockefeller Foundation. The Institute for Women's Policy Research (IWPR) conducts rigorous research and disseminates its findings to address the needs of women and their families, promote public dialogue, and strengthen communities and societies. The Institute works with policymakers, scholars, and public interest groups to design, execute, and disseminate research that illuminates economic and social policy issues affecting women and their families, and to build a network of individuals and organizations that conduct and use women-oriented policy research. IWPR's work is supported by foundation grants, government grants and contracts, donations from individuals, and contributions from organizations and corporations. IWPR is a 501 (c) (3) tax-exempt organization that also works in affiliation with the women's studies and public policy programs at The George Washington University.

Women's Careers: The More Things Change, the More Things Stay the Same

It's 2010. These days, girls and women can be whatever they want, do whatever they want -- the world is our oyster. Right? Equal opportunity is ours, doors have been flung open, and career and family choices are no longer constrained by gender-based stereotypes.

If you believe that, I have a bridge in a certain NYC borough with your name on it.

According to the Women's Bureau of the Department of Labor, the 16 most prevalent occupations for employed women in 2009 were as follows:


Secretaries and administrative assistants: 3,074,000
Registered nurses: 2,612,000
Elementary and middle school teachers: 2,343,000
Cashiers: 2,273,000
Nursing, psychiatric, and home health aides: 1,770,000
Retail salespersons: 1,650,000
First-line supervisors of retail sales workers: 1,459,000
Waiters and waitresses: 1,434,000
Maids and housekeeping cleaners: 1,282,000
Customer service representatives: 1,263,000
Child care workers: 1,228,000
Bookkeeping, accounting, and auditing clerks: 1,205,000
Receptionists and information clerks: 1,168,000
First-line supervisors of office & admin support workers: 1,163,000
Managers, all other: 1,106,000
Accountants and auditors: 1,084,000

Do these occupations look barrier breaking to you? Lots of them likely don't pay living wages and are unlikely to have health insurance, paid sick days, vacation, and retirement plans. They also are distressingly, well, typical. That is not to say its not respectable work. What I mean is that women are still very much constrained to career paths that are extensions of their traditional roles in the home. But we know when women get good career counseling that covers the range of options -- including typical pay and benefits -- they often make different choices. These pink collar jobs are often a low-paying self-fulfilling prophecy. The majority of women might now be in the workplace, we still have a ways to go for true equal opportunity. The more things change, the more they stay the same.


Copyright 2010 (text only). The Zaftig Redhead. All Rights Reserved.

Take the 2010 Ask a Working Woman Survey

The Great Recession has hit American workers in the gut—unemployment is up, jobs are scarce, foreclosures are occurring at record rates and health care costs are skyrocketing. Even if you are working, wages are stagnant and many seniors will have to work past retirement age just to pay bills.

In this brutal economy, what is on the minds of today’s working women?

The AFL-CIO’s community affiliate, Working America, is providing a chance to share those concerns through the just-launched online 2010 Ask a Working Woman survey. The biennial survey enables working women to share workplace concerns.

The Ask a Working Woman survey runs through the end of July.

More than 12,000 women responded to the survey in 2008, when they said the top item that would make their lives easier is a 10 percent raise. While issues such as affordable health care and quality child care were major concerns for working women, paying the bills, buying the groceries, filling the gas tank and paying the rent and mortgage were the concerns women said worried them the most.

AFL-CIO NOW BLOG | Take the 2010 Ask a Working Woman Survey

The Zaftig Redhead. All Rights Reserved.

WPI's 111th Congress, First Session At-A-Glance: Legislative Action Affecting Women and Families

Women’s Policy, Inc. has produced an excellent summary of legislative action affecting women and their families in the first session of the 111th Congress (2009).

Read this wonderful recap for the latest substantive legislation action on the following issues:

Adoption
Appropriations
Breast Cancer
Federal budget
Child Support
Children’s Health Insurance
Domestic violence
Early childhood education
Employment
Equal Pay
Family and Medical Leave
Hate crimes
Health Care Reform
HIV/AIDS
Housing
Indian Health
Infant Mortality
International Women’s Day
Juvenile Justice
Microloans made to women-owned small businesses
Military families
Missing children
National Domestic Violence Awareness Month
National Women’s History Month
Nutrition programs
Ovarian cancer
Paid sick days
Postpartum Depression
Science, Techonolgy, Engineering and mathematics education
Sexual Assault
Small Business
Stalking
Teen Dating Violence
Violence against women
Women and business


Copyright 2009 (text only). The Zaftig Redhead. All Rights Reserved.

FLOTUS Wows with Speech on Women and Health Care Reform

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.



REMARKS BY THE FIRST LADY
ON WHAT HEALTH INSURANCE REFORM MEANS
FOR WOMEN AND FAMILIES

September 18, 2009
Eisenhower Executive Office Building
Room 450

11:33 A.M. EDT

MRS. OBAMA: Thank you. Thank you all. Please, sit. Rest. (Laughter.) First of all, good morning. I am so thrilled to see so many of you here this morning at the White House. Welcome. And that’s including my good friend, Dr. Dorothy Height. (Applause.) You know, she is always there, for the past eight months and before. If there was a big event, an important event, she finds a way to be here. She is my inspiration, and it is wonderful to see you again today. Thank you so much. (Applause.)
�
Thank you all for joining us today for the outstanding work you’re doing every day on behalf of women and families all across this country. I have to thank our extraordinary Secretary of Health and Human Services, Kathleen Sebelius, for taking the time to be here. (Applause.) And for her tireless efforts to keep our nation healthy. And that includes not just pushing for health insurance reform but preparing us for H1N1, pursuing cutting-edge research to find treatments and cures for tomorrow. Clearly this is not the easiest portfolio she could have, but she is doing a terrific job, and we are grateful for her leadership.

And I also want to thank Tina Tchen, who you all know, for emceeing today. (Applause.) She, too, is doing a fabulous job as Director of our Office of Public Engagement, and she played a critical role in pulling together today’s event — not just as an emcee but as a key figurehead, making sure that we’re all aware of what’s going on.

And finally, I want to thank the three women behind me — to Debi, Easter, and Roxi. (Applause.) It is not easy to come here and tell your story. And these stories aren’t new. You know, these stories are happening all over this country, not just for thousands of women — for millions of them. For two years on the campaign trail, this was what I heard from women, that they were being crushed, crushed by the current structure of our health care. Crushed. But these stories that we’ve heard today, and all of us — if we’re not experiencing it, we know someone who is. These are the stories that remind us about what’s at stake in this debate. This is really all that matters. This is why we are fighting so hard for health insurance reform. This is it. This is the face of the fight.

And that’s why I’d like to talk to you today. That’s why I’m here. That’s why reform is so critical in this country — not tomorrow, not in a few years, but right now. People are hurting in this country right now.

But there is also a reason why I invited this particular group to talk today. There’s a reason why we’ve invited the leaders not only from family advocacy groups and health care advocacy groups, but for so many organizations that have been fighting for decades for empowerment for women. And that’s because when it comes to health care, as the Secretary said, as we all know, women play a unique and increasingly significant role in our families. We know the pain, because we are usually the ones dealing with it.

Eight in 10 women, mothers, report that they’re the ones responsible for choosing their children’s doctor, for getting them to their checkups, for managing that follow-up care. Women are the ones to do it. Mothers are the ones that do it. And many women find themselves doing the same thing for their spouses. (Laughter.) And more than 10 percent of women in this country are currently caring for a sick or elderly relative. It’s often a parent, but it could a grandparent, or a mother — or a relative of some sort — but it’s often a parent. So they’re making critical health care decisions for those family members as well.

In other words, being part of the sandwich generation, is what we are now finding, raising kids while caring for a sick or elderly parent, that’s not just a work/family balance issue anymore. It’s not just an economic issue anymore. More and more it is a health care issue. It’s something that I have thought a great deal about as a mother.

I will never forget the time eight years ago when Sasha was four months that she would not stop crying. And she was not a crier, so we knew something was wrong. So we fortunately were able to take her to our pediatrician that next morning. He examined her and same something’s wrong. We didn’t know what. But he told us that she could have meningitis. So we were terrified. He said, get to the emergency room right away.

And fortunately for us, things worked out, because she is now the Sasha that we all know and love today — (laughter) — who is causing me great — excitement. (Laughter.)

But it is that moment in our lives that flashes through my head every time we engage in this health insurance conversation. It’s that moment in my life. Because I think about what on earth would we have done if we had not had insurance. What would have happened to that beautiful little girl if we hadn’t been able to get to a pediatrician who was able to get us to an emergency room? The consequences I can’t even imagine. She could have lost her hearing. She could have lost her life if we had had to wait because of insurance.

And it was also fortunate that we happened to have good insurance, right? Because if we hadn’t had good insurance, like many of the panelists up here, we would have been saddled with costs for covering that emergency room visit for her two days in the hospital. We would have still been paying off those bills.

And this issue isn’t something that I’ve thought about as a mother. I think about it as a daughter. As many of you know, my father had multiple sclerosis. He contracted it in his twenties. And as you all know, my father was a rock. He was able to get up and go to work every day, even though it got harder for him as he got sicker and more debilitated. And I find myself thinking, what would we have done as a family on the South Side of Chicago if my father hadn’t had insurance, if he hadn’t been able to cover his treatments? What would it have done to him to think that his illness could have put his entire family into bankruptcy? And what if he had lost his job, which fortunately he never did? What if his company had changed insurance, which fortunately never happened, and we became one of the millions of Americans, families, who can’t get insurance because of a preexisting condition?

So these are the thoughts that run through my mind as I watch this debate and hope that we get it right.

But let’s be clear: Women aren’t just disproportionately affected by this issue because of the roles that we play in families. As Tina and Kathleen mentioned, women are affected because of the jobs that we do in this economy. We all know that women are more likely to work part-time, or to work in small companies or businesses that don’t provide any insurance at all.

Women are affected because, as we heard, in many states, insurance companies can still discriminate because of gender. And this is still shocking to me. These are the kind of facts that still wake me up at night; that women in this country have been denied coverage because of preexisting conditions like having a C-section or having had a baby. In some states, it is still legal to deny a woman coverage because she’s been the victim of domestic violence.

And a recent study showed that 25-year-old women are charged up to 45 percent more for insurance than 25-year-old men for the exact same coverage. And as the age goes up, you get to 40, that disparity increases to 48 percent — 48 percent difference for women for the exact same coverage in this country.

But it’s not just women without insurance, as we’ve heard, as we know who are affected. Plenty of women have insurance. But it doesn’t cover basic women’s health services like maternity care or preventative care like mammograms or pap smears, which we all know we have to have. We can’t go without these basic services. But many insurance policies don’t even cover it.

Or policies cap the amount of coverage that you can receive, as you’ve heard, or it drops coverage when people get sick and they really need the care. Or maybe people have coverage but they’re worried about losing it if they lose their jobs or if they change jobs or if the company changes insurance carriers. Out-of-pocket costs get higher and higher. It’s hard to be able to plan your monthly bills when you don’t know what your premiums are going to be. So a lot of people find they have to drop their insurance because they can no longer afford it.

Just think about it. Many women are being charged more in health care coverage, but as we all know, women are earning less. We all know that women earn 78 cents on the dollar to every men — to a man. So it’s not exactly surprising when we hear statistics that more than half of women report putting off needed medical care simply because they can’t afford it.

Now, we have trouble putting ourselves first when we have the resources — just making the appointment when you have insurance to get your regular screenings, to take care of those illnesses, those bumps and lumps and pains that we tend to ignore. But then not to be able to do it because you can’t have insurance, you don’t have insurance — it’s not surprising that so many millions of women around this country are simply going without insurance at all.

See, and the thing that we all know is that the current state — this current situation is unacceptable. It is unacceptable. (Applause.) No one in this country should be treated that way. It’s not fair. It’s not right. And these are hard-working people we’re talking about, right? People who care about their kids, care about their lives. And these circumstances could happen to any of us. This is one of those, “There but for the grace of God go I” kind of situations. None of us are exempt — ever.

So I think it’s clear that health insurance reform and what it means for our families is very much a women’s issue. It is very much a women’s issue.

And if we want to achieve true equality for women, if that is our goal; if we want to ensure that women have opportunities that they deserve, if that is our goal; if we want women to be able to care for their families and pursue things that they could never imagine, then we have to reform the system. We have to reform the system. The status quo is unacceptable. It is holding women and families back, and we know it.

Fortunately, that is exactly what my husband’s plan proposes to do, and it’s important for us to understand some of the basic principles of that plan. Under his plan, if you don’t have insurance now, or you lose your insurance at some point in the future, you’ll be able to purchase affordable coverage through an insurance exchange — a marketplace with a variety of options that will let you compare prices and benefits. This is exactly the approach that is used to provide members of Congress with insurance. So the thought is that if it’s good enough for members of Congress, it should be good enough for the people who vote them in. (Applause.)

And this is also an important part of the plan. If you already have insurance — and it seems that there are a lot of people who are worried that they’ll lose what they have under this plan — but under this plan, if you already have insurance, you’re set. Nothing changes. You keep your insurance, you keep your doctors — and you’re blessed. (Laughter.) This plan just puts in place some basic rules of the road to protect you from the kinds of abuses and unfair practices that we’ve heard.

Under this plan, insurance companies will never again be allowed to deny people like Debi and her son coverage for preexisting conditions. Sounds like a good thing. So whether you have breast cancer, diabetes, asthma, or hypertension — or even just had a C-section, or some mental health treatment that you had in your past — none of that will be a reason to refuse you coverage under the plan that my husband is proposing. Because when you’re fighting an illness, he believes that you shouldn’t also have to be in the process of fighting the insurance companies at the same time. (Applause.) It’s a basic idea.

Under this plan, insurance companies will no longer be able to drop your coverage when you get too sick, or refuse to pay for the care that you need, or to set a cap on the amount of coverage that you can get. And it will limit how much they can charge you for out-of-pocket expenses, because getting sick in this country shouldn’t mean that you go bankrupt. That’s a basic principle of this plan.

And finally, this plan will require insurance companies to cover basic preventative care. Seems simple. (Applause.) From routine checkups, to mammograms, to pap smears — and this would come at no extra charge to the patient, so folks like Roxi can get the chance to get the kind of screenings that she needs to save her life, because we already know that if we catch diseases like cancer early — we know this — it’s much less costly to treat, and we might just be able to save some lives. We know this.

So, under this plan, we can save lives and we can save money. It’s not just good medicine but it’s good economics as well.

So I think this is a pretty reasonable plan. I don’t know about you. (Applause.) But I know many of you believe it’s a good plan as well. And I know that many of the groups that you represent believe that what we’re doing here, this fight, is important. It’s important to this country, it’s important to women, it’s important to families that we succeed.

And now more than ever, as Tina said, as Secretary Sebelius said, we need to act. No longer can we sit by and watch the debate take on a life of its own. It is up to us to get involved, because what we have to remember is that now more than ever, we have to channel our passions into change.

That’s nothing that you all haven’t done before, right? (Laughter.) You all have been the driving force behind so many of our greatest health care achievements, whether it’s been children’s health insurance; to funding breast cancer research, stem cell research; to passing the Family Medical Leave Act. The folks in this room, you’re the ones that made those phone calls, right? That you wrote those letters, you knocked on those doors. You’re the ones that helped make that happen.

And that’s exactly what we need you to do today for health insurance reform. We are going to need you over the next few weeks to mobilize like you’ve never mobilized before. We need you to educate your members about what the plan really is and what it isn’t, because education is the key to understanding, and it’s going to take phone calls to explain, to talk things through, to make sure that people understand not just what’s at stake but what this all means.

And we know there will be all sorts of myths and misconceptions about what the plan is and isn’t, so it’s so important that you make sure that people know the facts, and at least they make their decisions based on the truth of what this plan is and isn’t. We need you to make your voices heard right here in Washington. And you all know how to do that. (Laughter.)

And no, it won’t be easy, because there are always folks who are a little afraid of change. We all understand that. We talked about this all during the campaign. Change is hard. Sometimes the status quo, even if it isn’t right, feels comfortable because it’s what we know. So it is understandable that people are cautious about moving into a new place in this society. There will always be folks who will want things to stay just the way they are, to settle for the world as it is. We talked about that so much. This is one of those times.

But look, I am here today, standing before you as the First Lady of the United States of America, because you all didn’t settle for the world as it is, right? (Applause.) You refused to settle. And as a result of many of your efforts, as a young girl, I was able to dream in ways that I could have never imagined, that my mother could never have imagined, that my grandmother could never have imagined. And thanks to so many of you, I am raising these beautiful young women, you know — (applause) — who are going to be able to think so differently about their place in the world because of the work that you’ve done.
�
Health care reform is part of that movement. Health insurance reform is the next step. So we’re going to need you all, focused and clear, picking up the phones, talking, calling, writing your congressmen and women, making this something that is the highest priority for all of us, so that we can make sure that every single family in this country can move forward as we hope that they can; that they don’t have to worry about whether they can insure themselves. They don’t have to worry about whether their kids are going to break an arm. That’s what kids do, they break stuff. (Laughter.)

So I am grateful for all of you, for the work that you’ve done, and for what I know that we can do together over the next several weeks. But we have to be, what, fired up and what?

AUDIENCE: Ready to go!

MRS. OBAMA: And ready to go. A little fired up and ready to go. So thank you so much. God bless you all, and God bless America. (Applause.)



Copyright 2009. The Zaftig Redhead. All Rights Reserved.

Impressions of the Obama Administration -- So Far

Well, it's been a month since I've last blogged... life gets in the way sometimes, you know? Nothing horrible -- in fact, some good things politically -- but that's a topic for a future blog. In the meantime, I wanted to pass along a few tidbits of information as well as my impressions of President Obama's first few weeks in office. They have been eventful, to say the least.

The Stimulus/Recovery bill: The media is calling this a great victory for the new administration. Maybe, but at what cost? Yes, we needed both a stimulus and recovery package, that would create and save jobs and pour needed funds into our frozen economy. But the Obama Administration sold a lot of progressive ideals down the river in the name of bipartisanship -- a pipe dream at best given the tenor of congressional Republicans -- and the bill was hugely weakened as a result. It's too heavy on tax cuts and not enough pure spending -- which pretty much all economists say we need to make this plan work. They even agreed to cut some of the food stamps to try to lure Republicans -- food stamps that not only feed the increasingly hungry masses but also, dollar for dollar, are the most stimulative program you can fund. On the plus side, Obama went on the road and sold the plan campaign-style -- very smart, very well done, and just want the country needed to hear. My greatest fear about Obama all along was that he'd pull a Jimmy Carter and be too nice by half in the name of bipartisanship. I am hoping that after this experience, he will begin the uncomfortable realization that it takes two to tango, and while Obama has been extending his hand in friendship the Republicans have been sharpening their knives to cut the new president off at the knees.

Ledbetter: President Obama made the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act the first bill he signed -- mostly because the Recovery Plan and S-CHIP weren't ready. But it still sent a powerful message that pay equity was an issue the new president took to heart -- he speaks about it quite eloquently, recalling his grandmother's experience. Indeed, Ledbetter campaigned for Obama -- making several well received commercials and speaking at the Democratic National Convention in Denver. She also rode the inaugural train, and was the second woman to dance with the president -- second only to his wife -- at the inaugural balls. The Obama's treated Lilly Ledbetter wonderfully well -- and like the shero she is. But Obama could have pushed the recalcitrant Senate to also pass the Paycheck Fairness Act -- a Clinton bill the then-Senator from New York wanted to finish before she changed addresses, and that had been passed in a good bipartisan vote in the House just a week before the Senate took up Ledbetter. Granted, Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) is a wuss of the first order, and Ledbetter lead sponsor Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) was a huge roadblock -- she only wanted her bill, the sure thing -- but the president could have pushed more. I will do an entire blog on this issue when I have more time -- I am that disappointed in both the Senate Democrats and the president on this one. It was a change for true economic justice -- and a stimulus hit, too.

Cabinet Nominations: Well, gotta cut the guy a break here. No president gets them all through without some stumbles. It makes the leader of the free world more human, I think -- and shows early on how they will deal with such problems. Obama stepped up and owned mistakes -- good for him. So, generally a good cabinet. LOVE Hilda Solis. Her husband's minor tax issues are his alone -- they file separately, she has nothing to do with his business. Of course, the Republicans hate her because she is pro-labor. Well, tough shit. You lost the election -- what did you expect? The Senate needs to get off their ass and confirm her pronto, and the Republicans need to remember they aren't in charge any more (well, only Snowe, Collins and Specter are in charge, but I digress. Ha!). They already roughed up Attorney General Eric Holder -- they got their pound of flesh -- time to move on. As for Tom Daschle's withdraw -- I was not unhappy. I didn't think he was a great choice anyway -- all he cared about was health care and HHS is sooo much more and needs so much repair after the Bush years. I was not all that happy with Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner's confirmation. Granted, unlike Larry Summers he seems to think girls can do math, but his excuses about his taxes -- like Daschle's -- were disingenuous at best, flat out lies at worst. Truthfully, if Daschle has gone first he would have been confirmed, and Geithner would have gotten the brunt of things and might still be at the New York Fed. Timing, as they say, is everything. Last but not least, I was glad to see Obamanites throw Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH) under the bus after his unexpected withdrawal. Gregg never should have been nominated, so this worked out for the best -- and showed Gregg for the climber he is. The bad news is, well, Gregg is still awfully smart and awfully conservative and now a hero in the Senate -- ugh -- which means we still have to deal with his smarmy ass. Give it two years and New Hampshire will send him the way of John Sununu.

White House Staff: Obama's White House Team is generally quite good and accessible. I see a lot of energy and commitment in these folks, and that's refreshing. I am especially partial to Melody Barnes, the Chief Domestic Policy Advisor. Not only is she good people, but she's smart as well and a progressive at heart. You can read more about his West Wing team, and get a layout of the offices, in this great interactive feature from the Washington Post called
Inside Obama's West Wing. The First Lady has also put together a good team, a clear indication she will be doing more than Book Festivals -- not that there's anything wrong with that. In fact, her first official act as First Lady was attending the signing and speaking at the reception for the Ledbetter bill. You can see some of her staff and the president's as well in this great spread from Vanity Fair.

VP Joe Biden: I love Joe, I really do. It's only been a few weeks and he's already spouted off with some zingers that have made the boss uncomfortable. Everything from poking at the Chief Justice for screwing up the oath of office to welcoming Big Labor back to the White House to jesting about how the openness and transparency of his office will be a big change from the last VEEP. He was a busy man working is home away from home, the Senate, on the recovery package. He has also been very involved in foreign policy matters -- no surprise there, and good for all of us. Lastly, he has been named the chair of the Middle Class Task Force, a new White House entity to look at pressing issues facing the middle class -- from jobs to balancing to work and family to pay equity and retirement -- and the executive and legislative measures needed to address these issues. He's a good choice for the job.

Well, I think that's enough for now. No doubt there will be more later. :)


This blog has been nominated for the Bloggers' Choice '09 awards. Vote for The Zaftig Redhead!

Copyright 2008. The Zaftig Redhead. All Rights Reserved.

Sock and Awe: Need to Release Some Pent-up Aggression as the Bush Administration Limps to a Finish?

President George W. Bush likes to say that his administration is "sprinting to the finish." Well, I suppose if you count the continued trampling of our civil rights -- right up until Jan. 20th -- a form of sprinting, than he'd be right. Bush and his cronies are wasting no time in pushing through horrible new regulations -- as a lovely parting gift to the nation, including the President-elect who will have to clean up this mess.

From a horrible narrowing of the Family and Medical Leave rules, to the disastrous expansion of so-called "conscious exemptions" related to workers providing reproductive healthcare (simple stuff like birth control and referrals, not just abortion), to new permissible -- and scarily intrusive -- techniques for collecting information on Americans even where there is no evidence of wrongdoing, to new environmental regs that create significant exceptions to rules requiring scientific review of any federal project that might harm endangered species or impact climate change. These rushed through regulations are a case of so little time, so much damage. Actually, here's a great chart of all the midnight regs coming down the pike.

So, if you're feeling a little additional antipathy towards W. and company in light of about 100 new regulatory missles aimed our way in these last weeks, I have a great suggestion for you to work out that aggression. Inspired by the now infamous Iraqi shoe hurler, some creative folks have created the Internet game, Sock and Awe. It's kinda like whack-a-mole, only you get to launch shoes at the president himself. At the time of this blogging, 33673756 shoes have successfully found the mark -- and presumably left one. The site also lists the top 25 "Bush Shoeing Countries;" not surprisingly, the United States tops the list, with France a close second. But you might be interested in the other 23 countries making up the list. Even the peace-loving Swiss are getting into the act.

Copyright 2008. The Zaftig Redhead. All Rights Reserved.

Gov. Rendell: Beware the Open Mic When Putting Your Foot in Your Mouth

It is truth universally acknowledged that an open microphone in a direct feed to a 24-hour news outlet must be in want of a clueless politician. In this case, Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell (D), also chair of the National Governors' Association, was the clueless pol.

While chatting near the podium Tuesday at the NGA's meeting in Philadelphia, Rendell made free with his opinions about Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano (D) -- President-elect Barack Obama's nominee for Homeland Security Secretary. Said Rendell, most conveniently into the open mic:

"Janet's perfect for that job. Because for that job, you have to have no life. Janet has no family. Perfect. She can devote, literally, 19-20 hours a day to it."

Now, I am particularly suspicious that Rendell was pontificating about this specific position -- a post for which he himself had been rumored a candidate. Is he trying to excuse why HE didn't get the job?? Because he has family and so thus is not a good candidate? Um, not so much.

Rendell apologized for his foot-in-mouth disease today, saying: "What I meant is that Janet is a person who works 24/7, just like me." Pardon my French, but that's horseshit. Rendell did not misspeak initially; he said exactly what he meant, and he meant what he said -- that women without kids are the only kind of women able to take on the big time jobs. Or, by definition, that women with kids can't do such critical work because of family obligations. Of course, such obligations or lack thereof don't seem to recommend or disqualify men -- but for women, the mommy track is alive and well. It just goes to show that as far as women in the workplace go -- well, we've not come as far as we thought, baby.

CNN's Campbell Brown used her platform on her show No Bias, No Bull to present a marvelous commentary, politely but clearly given Rendell all kinds of hell. Way to go, girlfriend, and what an excellent example of why having women in high places does make a difference -- if only to call the boys on their crap. Watch the video, below.



BTW, if you know the famous book from which this blog's leading sentence is derived/paraphrased, you get brownie points!

Copyright 2008. The Zaftig Redhead. All Rights Reserved.

Alice Walker: An Open Letter to President-Elect Barack Obama

This letter was circulated to me via email, but I traced its origins back to The Root. This site "is a daily online magazine that provides thought-provoking commentary on today's news from a variety of black perspectives...[that] aims to be an unprecedented departure from traditional American journalism, raising the profile of black voices in mainstream media and engaging anyone interested in black culture around the world." A truly wonderful site to explore.

Walker's letter is a heartfelt letter from the legendary Alice Walker, and has some simple words of wisdom we'd all do well to heed in our own lives. Read on.

Dear Brother Obama,

You have no idea, really, of how profound this moment is for us. Us being the black people of the Southern United States. You think you know, because you are thoughtful, and you have studied our history. But seeing you deliver the torch so many others before you carried, year after year, decade after decade, century after century, only to be struck down before igniting the flame of justice and of law, is almost more than the heart can bear. And yet, this observation is not intended to burden you, for you are of a different time, and, indeed, because of all the relay runners before you, North America is a different place. It is really only to say: Well done. We knew, through all the generations, that you were with us, in us, the best of the spirit of Africa and of the Americas. Knowing this, that you would actually appear, someday, was part of our strength. Seeing you take your rightful place, based solely on your wisdom, stamina and character, is a balm for the weary warriors of hope, previously only sung about.

I would advise you to remember that you did not create the disaster that the world is experiencing, and you alone are not responsible for bringing the world back to balance. A primary responsibility that you do have, however, is to cultivate happiness in your own life. To make a schedule that permits sufficient time of rest and play with your gorgeous wife and lovely daughters. And so on. One gathers that your family is large. We are used to seeing men in the White House soon become juiceless and as white-haired as the building; we notice their wives and children looking strained and stressed. They soon have smiles so lacking in joy that they remind us of scissors. This is no way to lead. Nor does your family deserve this fate. One way of thinking about all this is: It is so bad now that there is no excuse not to relax. From your happy, relaxed state, you can model real success, which is all that so many people in the world really want. They may buy endless cars and houses and furs and gobble up all the attention and space they can manage, or barely manage, but this is because it is not yet clear to them that success is truly an inside job. That it is within the reach of almost everyone.

I would further advise you not to take on other people's enemies. Most damage that others do to us is out of fear, humiliation and pain. Those feelings occur in all of us, not just in those of us who profess a certain religious or racial devotion. We must learn actually not to have enemies, but only confused adversaries who are ourselves in disguise. It is understood by all that you are commander in chief of the United States and are sworn to protect our beloved country; this we understand, completely. However, as my mother used to say, quoting a Bible with which I often fought, "hate the sin, but love the sinner." There must be no more crushing of whole communities, no more torture, no more dehumanizing as a means of ruling a people's spirit. This has already happened to people of color, poor people, women, children. We see where this leads, where it has led.

A good model of how to "work with the enemy" internally is presented by the Dalai Lama, in his endless caretaking of his soul as he confronts the Chinese government that invaded Tibet. Because, finally, it is the soul that must be preserved, if one is to remain a credible leader. All else might be lost; but when the soul dies, the connection to earth, to peoples, to animals, to rivers, to mountain ranges, purple and majestic, also dies. And your smile, with which we watch you do gracious battle with unjust characterizations, distortions and lies, is that expression of healthy self-worth, spirit and soul, that, kept happy and free and relaxed, can find an answering smile in all of us, lighting our way, and brightening the world.

We are the ones we have been waiting for.

In Peace and Joy,
Alice Walker

Guest Blog: Michelle Obama -- Partner in Leadership

Hello readers. Enjoy this guest blog from my friend Gunfighter. It's worth the read.

Everyone who has five spare minutes to listen to me talk, knows that I am devoted to the task of getting Barack Obama elected President of the United States. I am proud to support Senator Obama because of his clear thinking, and the sound, cogent, policies that he plans to pursue when he is elected. I am prouder still, to support Senator Obama because of his family. Yes, because of his family.

Senator Obama has a great family, and by any indication that I can use, he seems to be a great husband and a great dad... and you all know that Gunfighter is all about being the best dad in the world.... but, that's enough about Barack Obama for the moment. Where I really want to go in this post is to point out that no man is an island. This statement is particularly true if the man in question is vying for the Presidency of the United States. This is no less true of Barack Obama.... and isn't he a lucky dog to have Michelle at his side?!

Michelle Obama is a treasure. A National Treasure. She is an inspiration to people across political lines, across generational lines, and across racial lines. Michele Obama is the quintessential American woman. She has achieved great professional success on her own intellect and merit. She is a loving wife and mother, and she is a tireless campaigner for her husband.

My friends over at Momocrats, are particularly fond of Mrs Obama because she is one of them, a sister, a kindred spirit. Not only are they fond of her because of the things that she has said, and the things that she has accomplished, they also love her for recently guest posting at their blog... which, I have to say, was pretty cool.

Mrs. Obama, I salute you. As the father of two daughters, I can't tell you how pleased I am that you, and other women like you (and Mrs. Gunfighter, and all of the other strong, intelligent and accomplished ladies that I am privileged to know) are there as great examples and role models to the young women of our country, not because of the men that you graced with your partnership in marriage, but in your own right. I am also pleased that you are there at Barack's side during this long campaign. I know that both you will continue to be assets to each other, to your children, and to our entire country.

GF

Is it Live or is it Memorex? No, It's Tina Fey as Sarah Palin on SNL!

When you have a hard time telling the difference between the real thing and the satire -- well, lets just say, that's not a good sign. Even folks in Palin's own party are getting a little nervous. Listen to this from conservative columnist Kathleen Parker:

"Only Palin can save McCain, her party, and the country she loves. She can bow out for personal reasons, perhaps because she wants to spend more time with her newborn. No one would criticize a mother who puts her family first."

Ouch. And that's from someone who liked her. Thursday night oughta be interesting, folks. :)

Just What Every Woman Needs: A Wild Cherry Steam Thing

In this critical election year, women will most likely be the deciding vote. It's quite a responsibility, really -- the direction, indeed the future of a nation rests in our hands. As such, women are more engaged than ever -- 18 million cracks in the glass ceiling don't lie; neither does the fact that pay equity is front and center this election season.

In many ways, this decision-making power rests well with women. We're comfortable with it. We have long been the primary family economic and social decision makers -- whether it's buying the family home, choosing a car, when to go to the doctor, or what laundry detergent or mustard to buy. Marketers have long known this, and therefore target women directly. Unfortunately, their advertising has not necessarily caught up with women's key roles and critical decision-making positions. Take this ad... "A woman has needs. And right now I need this wild cherry steam thing." All this shit happening in the world today, and all they think women can think about is a snappy new red washer/dryer set? Now, as you all know, I am not without humor, and I appreciate clean clothes as much as the next person -- perhaps more. But this ad is whacked. All I could think when I read it was "Huh? WTF?"


Personally, I think women have more important needs. In fact, I am quite confident we do. Let me enumerate -- for the benefit of the manufacturers of the LG steam washer and dryer and their marketing "gurus" -- just a few of the things that I need, in no particular order.

1) Got equal pay? Um, no. Well, women did just get a one cent raise -- the average went from 77 cents on the male dollar to 78 cents. Woo Hoo. So let's start there -- pay us fairly, and I can buy your fancy appliances.

2) How about a fair and balanced judiciary? So the precious few civil rights and liberties women do have are protected. And so when I sue your ass for sexual harassment and pay discrimination, I have a better than 5 percent chance of winning -- which are the current odds, by the way.

3) While I'm on the subject of the judiciary, hands off my reproductive rights, okay? And let's make them real -- ensure docs are trained in abortion techniques and women's health; make sure hospitals have to offer emergency contraception (even the Catholic hospitals); ensure Rx drug plans cover birth control, especially if they cover Viagra; teach comprehensive, age-appropriate comprehensive sex education in our schools; repeal the global gag rule and increase national and international family planning funding. Course, the more kids I have the more I'm gonna want your fancy washing machine, I guess.

4) How about a basic guarantee of paid family and medical leave, and paid sick days while I'm at it. Yes, we have a federal FMLA law now, but lots of folks don't take advantage of the protections because it's unpaid. If you work in a job with no vacation or paid sick time, then you're shit outta luck. This country's work/family policies are the joke of the developed world -- hell, lots of "underdeveloped" countries do better than we do. Gimme some time off, and I can do my laundry in your super dupper machines.

5) Can you say health care? I knew you could. We need comprehensive, universal, affordable, high quality health care. End of story. 'Nuf said.

6) How about the best public schools on the planet? And affordable colleges so that everyone can explore and reach their full potential. This isn't just the right thing to do, it's the smart thing to do -- it's about global competitiveness and national security. You want smart workers who can build your washing machines? Then we need to do a lot better by our K-12 system and make college more accessible. Oh, wait, you probably outsourced those factory jobs overseas, didn't you? Made in China? Or maybe you just outsourced your advertising efforts -- which would explain your piss-poor ability to relate to American women in this particular ad.

7) Stop violence against women and children -- rape, incest, domestic violence. We need better enforcement of current laws, more funding for prevention and victim support programs, and fundamental social change that tips in favor of simply not tolerating this crap. Can your washing machine, which you seem to think is what women really long for, take care of that problem, please?

8) I hope your cherry red washer/dryer set is energy efficient, 'cuz our environment is in a world of hurt. We need more research and federal support for alternative energy sources, more recycling, environmental education in the schools, better public transportation, etc.


Okay, so I'm on a rant, but damn! These ridiculous ads make me a little crazy. So tell me, what do you really need this election season? Do tell....


Copyright 2008 (text only). The Zaftig Redhead. All Rights Reserved.

Why Don't Women Run for Elected Office? Ambition Gap or Responsiblity Overload?

The latest report from the Brookings Institution's Issues in Governance Studies series underscores what many of us have known for a good long time: more women aren't running for elected office because the daily circumstances of their lives just don't make room for it. In short, the traditional social supports that encourage men's political ambitions have not yet been extended to women in quite the same way.

Things aren't all bad. As illustrated by Hillary Clinton, the country in many ways has generally accepted the notion of voting for women as candidates and politicians, and when women run they generally do pretty much as well as their male counterparts. Yes, there is still sexism -- the coverage of Hillary clearly shows that -- but this study shows that the acceptance levels of women politicians is supposedly better than we thought -- to the extent this is true, this is the good news.

Women's underrepresentation, say authors and political scientists Jennifer Lawless and Richard Fox, "is not because of discrimination against women candidates. In fact, women perform as well as men when they do run for office. In terms of fundraising and vote totals, the consensus among researchers is the complete absence of overt gender bias." I'm not sure I buy the idea of a complete absence of gender bias -- I suppose the key word here is overt. Plus, I'll keep in mind that this survey was done in 2001, prior to this seemingly endless primary campaign.

The researchers did find something interesting in terms of women's political candidacy: something they're calling an ambition gap. Specifically, the researchers believe that the "fundamental reason for women's underrepresentation is that they do not run for office. There is a substantial gender gap in political ambition; men tend to have it, and women don't." Huh.

The researchers came to this rather interesting conclusion based on a survey conducted with thousands of educators, business leaders, and political types. They found "compelling evidence that women, even those in the highest tiers of professional accomplishment, are substantially less likely than men to demonstrate ambition to seek elected office." Apparently these outcomes were consistent regardless of age, income, partisan affiliation and occupation.

The number of women seeking political office grew steadily during the 1980s, surged in the early 1990s courtesy of the Year of the Woman, and has since leveled off. Today, women account for fewer than a quarter of elected statewide officials, one in six members of Congress, and most relevant to the road to White House -- eight of 50 governors. So, this ambition gap has apparently not changed much over the years, despite women's expanded opportunities.

I have a completely different take on the situation than the Washington Post's Ruth Marcus, who penned an op-ed on the study and seemed to think that women were our own worst enemies. "Sometimes the hardest glass ceilings are the ones women impose, whether knowingly or unconsciously, on ourselves," wrote Marcus.

Whoa. Hold on, there, Ruth. Your own op-ed and the study itself lays out quite nicely the tangible reasons why women have fewer political ambitions than men -- and they certainly don't seem to be about self-imposed barriers to me. Let's consider the issues the study raised that seem to impede women from harboring political ambitions.

According to Lawless and Fox, women are:

1. Less likely than men to have the freedom to reconcile work and family obligations with a political career. In other words, traditional family dynamics persist -- so a woman my dream of running for office, but dollars to donuts she's going to raise her family first. That's just the reality. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is a great example of this phenomenon -- she didn't run until her kids were all in high school or older. Interestingly, the career women in the Brookings' survey were much less likely to be married or have children than the men, and those that did were responsible for the majority of child care: 60 percent of the women, compared with just 4 percent of the men. Given that arrangement, which person in those marriages do you think had the time to seek elected office?
   
2. Less likely than men to be willing to endure the rigors of a political campaign. Gee, do you think that has anything to do with number 1, above? I don't read this reluctance as being anything about physical limitations, but rather about concerns related to being apart from family, as well as the infringement on privacy that comes along with today's campaigns.
   
3. Less likely than men to be recruited to run for office. Also related to number 1. Think about the PR challenges of running a woman candidate with small kids at home, and the questions she would get -- "who's taking care of your kids?" -- that a similarly situated man never has to field. Everyone would just assume his wife was minding the homefront. A woman candidate doesn't have that luxury.
   
4. Less likely than men to think they're 'qualified' to run for office. Now this is fascinating but not at all a surprise -- the cockiness gap has been documented, ladies. According to the study, about one-third of men but just one in five women rated themselves as "very qualified" to hold elected office, while twice as many women (12 percent) as their male counterparts (6 percent) considered themselves "not at all qualified." Men were more likely to try for federal office, women for the local school board (hmmm...perhaps because it keeps them close to home and the campaigns are more manageable?). Now, women do need to own our part for this particular one, if self-esteem is getting in the way of our running for political office -- but truthfully, I think number 1-3 are much bigger barriers than this one.

So where does this leave us? For those of us lucky to have made it close to the roof, it seems like we're in much the same place knocking on whatever glass or marble ceiling we may be contemplating. No matter how far women have come, these fundamental truths remain self-evident and inescapable: women are the caretakers -- of our children, our partners, our parents, our communities. And despite the personal satisfaction we may take in these roles, despite the economic necessity of our performing these roles, women are consistently penalized rather than rewarded because of these roles. We are penalized in our professional lives in a society that has yet to adapt its corporate culture to value caretaking and support families, or evolved gender roles to allow women to relinquish a substantial portion (half!) of our caretaker responsibilities to the men in our lives -- many of whom would be happy to take on some of the caretaking if only they, too, would not be punished for doing so.

Copyright 2008. The Zaftig Redhead. All Rights Reserved.