Women have been fighting for a long time......For the right to vote, right to be free to make their own decisions....This has been a long battle for women....Civil rights,reproductive rights etc.
I was born in 1953 and I am part of the 60's and 70's movements that are responsible for Roe v Wade 50 years ago....back alley abortions were what we were fighting to end and now shockingly we will be back at it again. I love that new young men and women will be joining us....Fight on!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It just amazes me--in a very bad way--that the GOP has made it necessary for us to be fighting once again for reproductive rights. It also amazes me that Republican women aren't telling the men that they'll get no sex until women regain their reproductive rights. It's such a no brainer, with women often dying, or being in great pain when they can't get needed reproductive care. The notion that as far as GOPers are concerned women can be sacrificed on the alter of fetal personhood, or some such nonsense.
In other matters, I was born early in the first summer of the Eisenhower Administration.
Millions of unregistered women trend heavily Democratic. To protect American democracy, reach out to millions of unregistered likely Democrats using a dedicated database using every outreach method possible (phone and text, postcard, email and targeted ad, and in-person too), where new Democratic voters will make the most impact – in the most flippable states and districts.
I truly believe that a lot of 'those' women tell their partners what the partner wants to hear (if asked) and then go to the polls and vote their conscience. Hence the surprises. We all just need to help them get there.
My dad was a Republican. Before every election, he would tell my mom the same thing: "If you don't vote for (insert R name), you're just cancelling my vote!" She never argued or agreed; just smiled and kept dusting.
I remember a story from the 1964 election (Johnson v. Goldwater), where a Democrat guy went to his Republican friend and said, "I'll make you a deal; I won't vote for Johnson (or anyone else) in this election if you won't vote for Goldwater. We'll just cancel each other out." His friend agreed - and so did the dozen or so others he made the same deal with!
Sometimes it's better to not pick a fight. I'm always happy to cancel an R vote, but I like it best when there are two D's in the house (as it is now).
In my extended family--very extended--I can think of just a couple of examples of Rs--both husbands of my cousin Wendy--both of whom she ultimately left, thank heavens. Wendy's children--by the first of these husbands--are both Ds.
On the maternal side, my mother's great uncle Philip Hornbein ran the Colorado Democratic Party for most of the first half of the last century. He gave the speech recommending an end to prohibition at the '32 convention. My maternal grandmother, his sister, was one of the first few female Coloradans to earn a PhD. Both of her daughters also did so. My sister has been a Democratic activist in Virginia.
I began arguing politics in the second grade, which was the year of the JFK/Nixon race. My best friend was Ralphie, whose grandfather was a founder of Nordstrom's (this was Seattle), and whose mother was interior decorator to the wealthy of Seattle, including John Ehrlichman, who became a major aide to Nixon during his presidency, but who was already working for him. My parents were both trained economists.
I was aware of Nixon's having smeared Helen Gahagan Douglas (D) with an epithet that GOPers commonly used against Dems back then, when they were facing off in the California senate race of 1946. But I didn't really understand what had gone down there, even after having a parent explain it. Nonetheless, I knew it reflected poorly on Nixon.
One day my mother was driving, with Ralphie and me in the back seat. "You know, Ralphie," I said, "You really shouldn't vote for Nixon, because he called that lady in California something like an economist."
I'm quite certain I'm quoting myself accurately, because my mother, for whom laughter was a scarce commodity, thought this was absolutely hilarious, and she told the story numerous times.
Unfortunately, some of "those" women are living with a control freak partner and/or are afraid for their safety for one reason or another. More common than I would have guessed. So helping them get to vote is imperative.
I think that will happen. The question is how much. An overwhelming blue vote from women married to trumpers or from trumper families would certainly be wonderful. And given the way elections have gone since Dobbs, I think that's highly likely. But we're going to have to remain active and/or keep donating money to make sure it happens.
I was born in 1948 so I'm of your era and, yes, it's been such a horrible surprise to see what we fought for and won ripped away. I'm really hopeful about the young people.
1948 for me too; my mother and grandmother had gotten the right to vote just 28 years before. I remember they did not miss one election in their lives!
Galvanize USA https://www.galvanizeusa.org/ is perhaps one of the most effective organizations at engaging women and getting out the women’s vote. I’d encourage awareness and participation!! They collect data and use focused efforts. I support them.
As always, remember the BIDEN/HARRIS Administration and Democrats are working to make sure all Americans have internet access. Rural areas are particularly vulnerable. Children should not have to go to a fast food parking lot in an attempt to complete their homework.
The GOP and MAGA would take away access.
Many companies, particularly those generating bill invoices, have gone paperless.
Internet access, therefore, should be considered a utility service,
not a luxury companies can gouge individuals and families to use.
Yes, indeed. And the utilities should be publicly owned. Not in the hands of money grubbing oligarchs who add layers of additional costs - making the basics of life more expensive than they should be.
Efforts at "de-regulation" were based on the idea that private enterprise and its competitive nature would lower prices. That is a joke and part of the capitalist con. There is little competition and there is lots of price fixing.
In most other developed countries internet service is faster, cheaper and universally available. That's called civilization. What we have is feudalism.
Or at the very very least be honestly competitive. An electric company in the country near us held up putting the lines underground where power was out a third of the time due to trees and limbs knocking it out because they were trying to get the dominating internet company (more apt to be competitive than electric companies for obvious reasons) to agree to share the cost to be able to put fiber optics through. They wouldn't do it because of the houses being less densely spaced and they could use the underground tubes via laws whereby they can use existing telephone poles etc., so the electric company eventually said "oh Yeah?" and put in the underground tubes as small as they could go so nothing can be added, and the ultimate losers were the people, who still have to rely on expensive unreliable satellite for internet.
That would be an example of where even competitiveness with physical infrastructure can be problematic, and a reason to favor public utilities, if graft, influence and inefficiency could be minimized somehow.
We also have an nearby electric company that is a cooperative, organized many years ago to bring electricity to rural areas being left out. That works great, with board elections of local people, and most years there is a check at the end of the year dividing up the profits that didn't go back into the company.
I have two old ladies in my life, one 95, one 85. Neither has a cell phone, a computer, or internet service. They literally cannot do some banking functions or service maintenance where the company wants to text a verification code. And often there is no corporate workaround. Internet access IS a necessary utility. All Americans should have guaranteed, low-cost access to it.
Not surprising about the role of women. My late mother--1923-2000--was tough, and fought hard for her successes in life. She all but earned a PhD in economics--from Harvard, or maybe I should say from Radcliffe. Her mentor told her to spend a month on something she'd already written for one of the economic agencies in DC, and he'd give her the PhD. But at that point she'd decided to switch to psych, and she thought the one PhD would do. She taught at Tufts for nearly 30 years, and students who liked to work hard liked her a lot. She was very political--left wing. (Her mother's brother, a lawyer who had litigated against the Klan, had also run the Colorado Democratic Party for most of the first half of the 20th century.) And she was always involved in projects helping other people.
Thanks, Jennifer! Happy Mother's Day to you, and Jill, and all of the other Hubbell family moms! And wish Robert and Jill luck in their no-wifi retreat! I'm sure it will be lovely. Happy Mother's Day to everyone who celebrates! And happy Step-Mother's Day too!
I am ucky to have stepkids and grandkids who have always treated me with the same love and respect as their biological mother/grandmother…we all have our roles in raising wonderful children. 10 of the children are adopted so the preference for biological ties are a little different!
Very sweet, Jess! Sometimes Mother Nature takes care of us when we need a break. (In the form of an Internet outage No less!) Happy Mother's Day to everyone who counts themselves in this group.
I have an observation that I wonder if others share. When I read an article or listen to a podcast and hear commentary to the effect that we just don’t know how much of a role Dobbs will play in 2024–that the hubbub seems to be dying down—I take a look at the writer and/or commentators. It is 100% the case that they are men, often well-meaning, Democratic men, but men. There are a few men (Simon Rosenberg comes to mind) who speak regularly of how profound the Dobbs effect will be, but few. And it’s not just a game changer for child-bearing age women voters. I’m angry because I’m in Texas, and now the child-bearing women in my life will not live here or raise their families here for the very practical reason that they are not guaranteed healthcare.
But I digress…back to my original observation. I think the potential impact of Dobbs may be woefully underestimated, and more often than not by men, even the “good guys.”
Another man who understands how profound the effect of Dobbs will be in the 2024 election cycle is Jason Berlin of Field Team 6 (www.fieldteam6.org). I write postcards with them and quite a few of their scripts tie back to the Dobbs decision as encouragement for women to register to vote. I 'm writing to women in NC. We absolutely must defeat Mark Robinson in his bid to become NC Governor (https://www.realmarkrobinson.com/).
Cheryl, this is super helpful. Thank you. I will look into joining that effort. Just returned from an hour in a dog park near an apartment complex...hoping to catch some young professional women and register them to vote. No success today, but I'm continuing to look for more targeted approaches.
Totally agree and maybe it's partly because I, too, live in Texas and have mostly for 50 years or so. I think this is one of those things that is almost stereotypically attributed to women, though, which is that we tend to be more 'socialized' and more cooperative and many of us have been trained not to make a fuss. So, we'll just make a Quiet Fuss and hopefully set the patriarchy aback.
Sarah Longwell, who does incredible focus groups for The Bulwark and has made ads of Republicans against Trump, said none of her focus group women ever bring up abortion as their major concern. If they don’t, I believe it’s because the media doesn’t talk about what’s happening.
On this Mother’s Day weekend, honoring my mother (1938-2012) who fought so hard for others—especially prisoners’ rights and reproductive rights. Dobbs would have devastated her, but she would have rolled up her sleeves and kept on fighting.
Thank you, Jennifer, for keeping us informed. Sorry - not sorry! - to hear there are places where no internet service is available! The most important thing to know is that Robert and Jill are otherwise okay.
Thanks for thinking of me, Kathy. I think it was Jay Kuo in his column who mentioned she was talking so fast that the judge and one of the lawyers for the prosecution told her she needed to slow down for the court reporter. Apparently, she apologized but then went right back to "going a mile a minute." You know it's bad when someone not behind that steno machine notices that they're talking too fast!
I've been there more than a few times in my career. It's torture!
I've wondered why women are a large majority of so many social justice/environmental activists. In the causes I've worked on, a few men have done terrific work, but it's women who've done the lion's share of all the work necessary for success. Does anyone know why more men aren't more active?
Because most men don’t like to do the detailed work involved in organizing social justice movements. They’ll give speeches and lead marches, the visible roles. Women will roll their sleeves up and do it all. That’s my experience.
I've wondered that, too, about many issues but right now -- can't understand why more men aren't out there fighting for their women and, of course, themselves by association. My other ? along this line is why more medical associations and doctors, many of whom are male still, aren't up in arms about their inability to provide life-saving and life-giving care to their patients. They're afraid of being sued and/or going to jail and women are afraid of dying.
A central and important question. I noticed in our own Today's Edition community, as shown in a sampling in the pictures of the people who met with Jill and Robert on their Mississippi River trip recently, women take a leading role. And certainly the commentators here who mean the most to me have included numerous women. Our colleagues have offered some responses that are worthy of merit: women tend to be committed to getting things done and to worry about the community of school, family, neighborhood, while men inhabit, often, a more public space of work and organizations exerting power in hierarchies. In one, leadership designates service; in another, authority and exerting one's will -- getting one's way. I have had male candidates for positions of authority telling me they know how to lead because they know how to, in effect, give orders (not successful candidates). But women have been generally acculturated to the scut work of getting things done. Men tend to write the manifestos. Women tend to find the paper, do the printing and distributing. Having taught at a women's college for 18 years and led leadership programs there before (go figure!) becoming the president of a men's college, I have thought long about these questions and think they are worth some real thought and planning as we find ways to change the world. But I do think we have to be careful about essentialist thinking -- e.g. women are necessarily and innately collaborative and men are intensely hierarchical climbers. There is a difference between the leadership work of Hilary Clinton, Lauren Boebert, Marjorie Taylor Green, Margaret Thatcher, Fannie Hammer, Golda Mier, Cady Stanton, and Harriet Tubman.
(Apologies for a distinctly binary tone to these comments. Gender is much more complex of course, but I am trying to be uncharacteristically brief here.) Let's keep this thread in mind as we work through this years because we need to find ways to motivate male-styles and female-styles to action and detonate the notion, particularly embodied in the dictatorial strongman, that the characteristic tough guy a la Trump and Mussolini are able leaders at all.
I taught and worked as Associate Dean and Dean for 18 years at Saint Mary's College, on of the nation's leading women's colleges. There I initiated and led some significant explorations of women's leaderships, some of which still endure. I then, go figure, became president at Wabash College, one of the nation's last four colleges for men. In both places I saw men and women finding their own significant ways of leadership. (Apologies for a distinctly binary tone to these comments, gender is much more complex of course, but I am trying to be uncharacteristicallly brief here.) And the similarities are more striking than some of the difference. In both places, men and women were concerned with what their peers thought of them, but even more with what the other gender thought and both places freed their classroom performance and their leadership to an extent from the gaze of that other. Thus women were allowed to lead and men were allowed to lead and to follow and to express enthusiasm for learning, upright behavior, and the "gentleman's rule," and to express in both cases ambitions for leaderships.
These experiences and learning paths are not available to all,
Sadly, women like Green and Boebert have adapted to being like men or their sick interpretation of how men behave and get by, probably because being their woman selves got them ignored, raped, abused or minimized. Women often try to compete with male bravado to succeed in a male dominated world and mindset. And this is not to say that all men are abusive, etc. Not at all. But perhaps they faced situations where if you can’t best em, join em was the best option. Just a thought…and no excuse for their behavior. I am most concerned about the people who vote for them because they like and feel protected by that false bluster. Oy.
Remember the 80s? We all had to wear navy blue suits, white blouses, and TIES and "act IBM" if we wanted to be taken seriously in our jobs. Making women behave like men before you agree to consider respecting them is a mistake, yet one both women and men have fallen prey to since at least the consciousness-raising era. Wonder if there ever was an era before the 1970s when women rebelled in any society where they weren't already equals? (Remember Women's Lib?)
I don't disagree that Boebert and Marjorie Taylor Green are bad leaders, but like Trump and lots before him they exert influence and people follow them. I was trying to make a point against an essentialist argument: i.e. that if we only had more women leaders all would be right with the world. Women can be as terrible at true leadership as men.
IGNORE The Last two paragraphs of my previous post -- Garbled and repetitive.
CORRECTED Version. My Apologies.
I noticed in our own Today's Edition community, as shown in a sampling in the pictures of the people who met with Jill and Robert on their Mississippi River trip recently, women take a leading role. And certainly the commentators here who mean the most to me have included numerous women. Our colleagues have offered some responses that are worthy of merit: women tend to be committed to getting things done and to worry about the community of school, family, neighborhood, while men inhabit, often, a more public space of work and organizations exerting power in hierarchies. In one, leadership designates service; in another, authority and exerting one's will -- getting one's way. I have had male candidates for positions of authority telling me they know how to lead because they know how to, in effect, give orders (not successful candidates). But women have been generally acculturated to the scut work of getting things done. Men tend to write the manifestos. Women tend to find the paper, do the printing and distributing. Having taught at a women's college for 18 years and led leadership programs there before (go figure!) becoming the president of a men's college, I have thought long about these questions and think they are worth some real thought and planning as we find ways to change the world. But I do think we have to be careful about essentialist thinking -- e.g. women are necessarily and innately collaborative and men are intensely hierarchical climbers. There is a difference between the leadership work of Hilary Clinton, Lauren Boebert, Marjorie Taylor Green, Margaret Thatcher, Fannie Hammer, Golda Mier, Cady Stanton, and Harriet Tubman.
(Apologies for a distinctly binary tone to these comments. Gender is much more complex of course, but I am trying to be uncharacteristically brief here.) Let's keep this thread in mind as we work through this years because we need to find ways to motivate male-styles and female-styles to action and detonate the notion, particularly embodied in the dictatorial strongman, that the characteristic tough guy a la Trump and Mussolini are able leaders at all.
As a retired child psychologist and one who embraces a nonbinary, fluid understanding of gender identification I believe humans can learn to be empathetic communicators and nondictatorial leaders regardless of their gender. I notice that more men who are fathering children today are involved in child care, more little boys are supported when they adopt the role of baby nurturer in child care settings, more kids are allowed to explore who they are regardless of gender identification at birth. I know we see headlines about the anti LGBTQ movement just as we see the repeal of women’s rights to control their own bodies. However, I also think we as a society are in a developmental stage of change which comes with turmoil, uncertainty, and backlash. We can come out on the other side one step closer to that “more perfect union” of acceptance, tolerance, and justice. Such an outcome is possible because we already see it in some of our communities in our everyday lives.
The bottom line is men and women are programmed differently almost from birth and having worked with very accomplished woman leaders they bring an empathy and inclusion into their management style. Hillary Clinton in person and in a team environment is a much different leader than the public face we all see. Here teams loved her.
Just read through the responses. Some good thoughts. But the missing element is forgetting that we are talking about one culture: ours. Gender roles are not fixed and, as some point out, both men and women (and variants thereof) have a wide variety of capabilities relating to leadership. Our culture favors a highly structured leadership model, historically led by males, who simply assume the roles. This is not the template for the human race. Many cultures are not so rigid, not only in the roles people hold, but also in the style of decision-making: both history and cultural studies show that collaboration and consensus-building are the "default" mode for human beings, with our cultural model being among the outliers. It's not surprising that some people seeking prominence in power adopt authoritarian styles, regardless of gender.
But we are in the midst of significant change- as demonstrated by the predominance of women who are actually doing the work. As a result, many of these women are now in positions of moving into the decision-making positions in business, politics, and as a strong influence in other areas, such as the arts and literature. Yup, there are some clinkers like Greene and Boebert and others, who adopt the so-called "male" model of doing things. But they stand out because they are exceptions who represent what we are moving away from. Along with this are men like Biden, who is capable of working effectively using collaboration and building consensus. We don't "see" these men very well, because we aren't used to looking for them.
And then there are the men like Robert, smart as he is, who encourage us to be the leaders many women have become. My group of postcard writers is almost all women, but one of our leader's son comes to postcard-writing meetings regularly, and our other's leader's husband is there at all meetings. He is raising two little girls and is so sweet with them!
This isn't specifically about the women who are leading the fight to save democracy -- probably around the world as well as in the U.S. -- but I wanted to share with this community my appreciation for Stormy Daniels. Because it looks like the current election interference aka hush money trial of Trump will be the only one to take place before the 2024 election, its importance has escalated over time, and it's now been actually holding Trump accountable to the rule of law -- at least as far as being indicted, charged, and now under trial -- for 4 weeks. Daniels has been a key witness for the prosecution and is a complicated person and somewhat of a difficult witness because she tends to over-explain and relate narratives, include her feelings in answers, not stick to the 'script', and Not Back Down from anything. Her career choice has made it impossible for many people to admire anything about her, but I just can't help but really enjoy, appreciate, and respect her in many ways. And, you know, all those things I just listed that make her a 'difficult' witness? They pretty much mirror all the criticisms lobbed at women and girls from the time they're toddlers until and including cronehood. Too much of everything and not enough of the 'right things' is what we hear and incorporate and usually spend a good part of our lives trying to adapt to whatever the current right thing is to get along in the patriarchy. Anyway. Just wanted to share this with y'all. I feel sorry for Stormy because, based on what she's told us about herself and her life, she approaches everything with the assumption that she'll have to fight to take care of herself... Tough way to live but so very common.
Agree. Stormy Daniels the human being tends to get lost in all the hoopla as people try to make her into whatever their needs require or to fit her into their narrative agendas. But from what I can tell she's an impressive person and she's doing something important, especially (but not only) if Trump is convicted.
I shouldn't have mentioned that I feel sorry for her; she wouldn't appreciate that, I'm sure, and it might sound condescending ... she's a strong, intelligent woman who's made her own life and in many ways I find her a very encouraging example for younger women to consider. Men, too, as far as that goes, but I think her career choices and ways of working with- + outside-the patriarchy fit better with women in general. A man couldn't go amiss, though, by using her as a role model. :) And, see what I'm doing here? Wandering/rambling/not responding directly to your message, etc. Just Like a Woman. (Thanks, Jeff. You made a kind, thoughtful remark...)
Yesterday I received ,yet another, anonymous snail mail letter in response to my writing about Governor Noem and the normalization of violence by the GOP. It was non-threatening and, yet again, contained the ramblings of a “pro-life Christian”.
Today I am posting an unrelated, but totally uplifting story about a rescue dog Noem most likely would have chosen to eliminate.
Tomorrow, as every day, I will honor my mom. She would have been 103. Mom was a huge animal lover and never turned away a stray. She also adopted four children…and was pro-choice.
Every single one of the issues we identify as a women’s issue is also a men’s issue. Forced birth, prenatal care, healthcare, Title IX, equal pay, etc. etc. As a parent of daughters , as a father-in-law, as a husband of a woman, and as a son of a woman, I know these are my issues too. There is no doubt in my mind that healthy and empowered women make all our lives better.
I'm out camping through the weekend in the mountains and was delighted to discover I still have some signal! However for the most part am on "Airplane mode" so have only sporadically been reading Substack articles.
Hope you still can enjoy being offline and spending time together this weekend. Perhaps you might even get a chance to stargaze and appreciate the night sky out there in the mountains.
Speaking of stargazing, tonight Seattle was treated to a rare and spectacular northern lights display, even with all the light pollution, but cloudless sky. What a thrill!
"The open secret in the modern grassroots movement is that it is 90% women! When the history of this period is written, women will be credited with the leading role in saving our democracy."
Women have been fighting for a long time......For the right to vote, right to be free to make their own decisions....This has been a long battle for women....Civil rights,reproductive rights etc.
I was born in 1953 and I am part of the 60's and 70's movements that are responsible for Roe v Wade 50 years ago....back alley abortions were what we were fighting to end and now shockingly we will be back at it again. I love that new young men and women will be joining us....Fight on!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It just amazes me--in a very bad way--that the GOP has made it necessary for us to be fighting once again for reproductive rights. It also amazes me that Republican women aren't telling the men that they'll get no sex until women regain their reproductive rights. It's such a no brainer, with women often dying, or being in great pain when they can't get needed reproductive care. The notion that as far as GOPers are concerned women can be sacrificed on the alter of fetal personhood, or some such nonsense.
In other matters, I was born early in the first summer of the Eisenhower Administration.
Millions of unregistered women trend heavily Democratic. To protect American democracy, reach out to millions of unregistered likely Democrats using a dedicated database using every outreach method possible (phone and text, postcard, email and targeted ad, and in-person too), where new Democratic voters will make the most impact – in the most flippable states and districts.
https://www.fieldteam6.org/actions
Already doing this, Daniel, as are many women readers of this newsletter!
I'm not yet, so I appreciate any reminder.
I wasn't doing this and just signed up. Thanks for bringing it up, Daniel.
I truly believe that a lot of 'those' women tell their partners what the partner wants to hear (if asked) and then go to the polls and vote their conscience. Hence the surprises. We all just need to help them get there.
My dad was a Republican. Before every election, he would tell my mom the same thing: "If you don't vote for (insert R name), you're just cancelling my vote!" She never argued or agreed; just smiled and kept dusting.
None of the women in my family take orders....kinda genetic.
I remember a story from the 1964 election (Johnson v. Goldwater), where a Democrat guy went to his Republican friend and said, "I'll make you a deal; I won't vote for Johnson (or anyone else) in this election if you won't vote for Goldwater. We'll just cancel each other out." His friend agreed - and so did the dozen or so others he made the same deal with!
ACK!!!
Based on trust, but who knows what really happened in the voting booth?
Very clever!
Sometimes it's better to not pick a fight. I'm always happy to cancel an R vote, but I like it best when there are two D's in the house (as it is now).
In my extended family--very extended--I can think of just a couple of examples of Rs--both husbands of my cousin Wendy--both of whom she ultimately left, thank heavens. Wendy's children--by the first of these husbands--are both Ds.
On the maternal side, my mother's great uncle Philip Hornbein ran the Colorado Democratic Party for most of the first half of the last century. He gave the speech recommending an end to prohibition at the '32 convention. My maternal grandmother, his sister, was one of the first few female Coloradans to earn a PhD. Both of her daughters also did so. My sister has been a Democratic activist in Virginia.
I began arguing politics in the second grade, which was the year of the JFK/Nixon race. My best friend was Ralphie, whose grandfather was a founder of Nordstrom's (this was Seattle), and whose mother was interior decorator to the wealthy of Seattle, including John Ehrlichman, who became a major aide to Nixon during his presidency, but who was already working for him. My parents were both trained economists.
I was aware of Nixon's having smeared Helen Gahagan Douglas (D) with an epithet that GOPers commonly used against Dems back then, when they were facing off in the California senate race of 1946. But I didn't really understand what had gone down there, even after having a parent explain it. Nonetheless, I knew it reflected poorly on Nixon.
One day my mother was driving, with Ralphie and me in the back seat. "You know, Ralphie," I said, "You really shouldn't vote for Nixon, because he called that lady in California something like an economist."
I'm quite certain I'm quoting myself accurately, because my mother, for whom laughter was a scarce commodity, thought this was absolutely hilarious, and she told the story numerous times.
Unfortunately, some of "those" women are living with a control freak partner and/or are afraid for their safety for one reason or another. More common than I would have guessed. So helping them get to vote is imperative.
I think what happened in Ohio, Kentucky and soon in states like Missouri and Florida is that women did exactly that.
I think some will vote blue in the voting booth without saying it out loud. At least I hope so.
I think that will happen. The question is how much. An overwhelming blue vote from women married to trumpers or from trumper families would certainly be wonderful. And given the way elections have gone since Dobbs, I think that's highly likely. But we're going to have to remain active and/or keep donating money to make sure it happens.
I was born in 1948 so I'm of your era and, yes, it's been such a horrible surprise to see what we fought for and won ripped away. I'm really hopeful about the young people.
1948 for me too; my mother and grandmother had gotten the right to vote just 28 years before. I remember they did not miss one election in their lives!
1945 for me! Keep on fighting!
Galvanize USA https://www.galvanizeusa.org/ is perhaps one of the most effective organizations at engaging women and getting out the women’s vote. I’d encourage awareness and participation!! They collect data and use focused efforts. I support them.
And keep speaking up Jennifer.
If anyone is interested, Galvanize now has texting programs. I went thru training this week!
Right there with you, sister!!
Unplug and enjoy the awesomeness of nature.
As always, remember the BIDEN/HARRIS Administration and Democrats are working to make sure all Americans have internet access. Rural areas are particularly vulnerable. Children should not have to go to a fast food parking lot in an attempt to complete their homework.
The GOP and MAGA would take away access.
Many companies, particularly those generating bill invoices, have gone paperless.
Internet access, therefore, should be considered a utility service,
not a luxury companies can gouge individuals and families to use.
Yes, indeed. And the utilities should be publicly owned. Not in the hands of money grubbing oligarchs who add layers of additional costs - making the basics of life more expensive than they should be.
Efforts at "de-regulation" were based on the idea that private enterprise and its competitive nature would lower prices. That is a joke and part of the capitalist con. There is little competition and there is lots of price fixing.
In most other developed countries internet service is faster, cheaper and universally available. That's called civilization. What we have is feudalism.
Or at the very very least be honestly competitive. An electric company in the country near us held up putting the lines underground where power was out a third of the time due to trees and limbs knocking it out because they were trying to get the dominating internet company (more apt to be competitive than electric companies for obvious reasons) to agree to share the cost to be able to put fiber optics through. They wouldn't do it because of the houses being less densely spaced and they could use the underground tubes via laws whereby they can use existing telephone poles etc., so the electric company eventually said "oh Yeah?" and put in the underground tubes as small as they could go so nothing can be added, and the ultimate losers were the people, who still have to rely on expensive unreliable satellite for internet.
That would be an example of where even competitiveness with physical infrastructure can be problematic, and a reason to favor public utilities, if graft, influence and inefficiency could be minimized somehow.
We also have an nearby electric company that is a cooperative, organized many years ago to bring electricity to rural areas being left out. That works great, with board elections of local people, and most years there is a check at the end of the year dividing up the profits that didn't go back into the company.
That’s a good point about internet access; in our zeal to go paperless we have forgotten about the millions of people without that “service””.
The Biden Administration has not forgotten, however.
I have two old ladies in my life, one 95, one 85. Neither has a cell phone, a computer, or internet service. They literally cannot do some banking functions or service maintenance where the company wants to text a verification code. And often there is no corporate workaround. Internet access IS a necessary utility. All Americans should have guaranteed, low-cost access to it.
AMEN, Ms. Falls!!!
Not surprising about the role of women. My late mother--1923-2000--was tough, and fought hard for her successes in life. She all but earned a PhD in economics--from Harvard, or maybe I should say from Radcliffe. Her mentor told her to spend a month on something she'd already written for one of the economic agencies in DC, and he'd give her the PhD. But at that point she'd decided to switch to psych, and she thought the one PhD would do. She taught at Tufts for nearly 30 years, and students who liked to work hard liked her a lot. She was very political--left wing. (Her mother's brother, a lawyer who had litigated against the Klan, had also run the Colorado Democratic Party for most of the first half of the 20th century.) And she was always involved in projects helping other people.
Thanks, Jennifer! Happy Mother's Day to you, and Jill, and all of the other Hubbell family moms! And wish Robert and Jill luck in their no-wifi retreat! I'm sure it will be lovely. Happy Mother's Day to everyone who celebrates! And happy Step-Mother's Day too!
I am ucky to have stepkids and grandkids who have always treated me with the same love and respect as their biological mother/grandmother…we all have our roles in raising wonderful children. 10 of the children are adopted so the preference for biological ties are a little different!
That's wonderful. Those kids were lucky to have you, and they apparently knew it! The more love in the world, the better!
Very sweet, Jess! Sometimes Mother Nature takes care of us when we need a break. (In the form of an Internet outage No less!) Happy Mother's Day to everyone who counts themselves in this group.
No internet sevice. Now that's a VACATION!!
I have an observation that I wonder if others share. When I read an article or listen to a podcast and hear commentary to the effect that we just don’t know how much of a role Dobbs will play in 2024–that the hubbub seems to be dying down—I take a look at the writer and/or commentators. It is 100% the case that they are men, often well-meaning, Democratic men, but men. There are a few men (Simon Rosenberg comes to mind) who speak regularly of how profound the Dobbs effect will be, but few. And it’s not just a game changer for child-bearing age women voters. I’m angry because I’m in Texas, and now the child-bearing women in my life will not live here or raise their families here for the very practical reason that they are not guaranteed healthcare.
But I digress…back to my original observation. I think the potential impact of Dobbs may be woefully underestimated, and more often than not by men, even the “good guys.”
Another man who understands how profound the effect of Dobbs will be in the 2024 election cycle is Jason Berlin of Field Team 6 (www.fieldteam6.org). I write postcards with them and quite a few of their scripts tie back to the Dobbs decision as encouragement for women to register to vote. I 'm writing to women in NC. We absolutely must defeat Mark Robinson in his bid to become NC Governor (https://www.realmarkrobinson.com/).
Cheryl, this is super helpful. Thank you. I will look into joining that effort. Just returned from an hour in a dog park near an apartment complex...hoping to catch some young professional women and register them to vote. No success today, but I'm continuing to look for more targeted approaches.
Totally agree and maybe it's partly because I, too, live in Texas and have mostly for 50 years or so. I think this is one of those things that is almost stereotypically attributed to women, though, which is that we tend to be more 'socialized' and more cooperative and many of us have been trained not to make a fuss. So, we'll just make a Quiet Fuss and hopefully set the patriarchy aback.
Yes Dobbs was/is the breaking point. Plus, SCOTUS isn't done. Waiting for mifepristone decision; buckle up!!!
Sarah Longwell, who does incredible focus groups for The Bulwark and has made ads of Republicans against Trump, said none of her focus group women ever bring up abortion as their major concern. If they don’t, I believe it’s because the media doesn’t talk about what’s happening.
I 100% agree, Cathy!
Jenny, how nice to see you appear on this blog! Happy Mother’s Day to you and your mom.
On this Mother’s Day weekend, honoring my mother (1938-2012) who fought so hard for others—especially prisoners’ rights and reproductive rights. Dobbs would have devastated her, but she would have rolled up her sleeves and kept on fighting.
Mine too (passed in 2014)!
Sorry for your loss!
You are sweet! Peace to you on your loss of your dear mom. 💗
Thank you, Jennifer, for keeping us informed. Sorry - not sorry! - to hear there are places where no internet service is available! The most important thing to know is that Robert and Jill are otherwise okay.
Lynell, Thought of you yesterday…Jimmy Kimmel was talking about Stormy Daniel’s testimony and the orange 💩: “Quite a day to be a stenographer.”😂
Thanks for thinking of me, Kathy. I think it was Jay Kuo in his column who mentioned she was talking so fast that the judge and one of the lawyers for the prosecution told her she needed to slow down for the court reporter. Apparently, she apologized but then went right back to "going a mile a minute." You know it's bad when someone not behind that steno machine notices that they're talking too fast!
I've been there more than a few times in my career. It's torture!
Enjoy a great weekend, Robert and Jill.
I've wondered why women are a large majority of so many social justice/environmental activists. In the causes I've worked on, a few men have done terrific work, but it's women who've done the lion's share of all the work necessary for success. Does anyone know why more men aren't more active?
Because most men don’t like to do the detailed work involved in organizing social justice movements. They’ll give speeches and lead marches, the visible roles. Women will roll their sleeves up and do it all. That’s my experience.
Mine too.
Not mine. I remember the Civil Rights movement (MLK, Jr., Roy Wilkins, et al.).
LaurieOregon - I don't have "the" answer, but one observation is women are "relational" while men tend to be "hierarchal." Just a thought.
Beverly, this sounds reasonable. Though I've worked w/ a few women who definitely love hierarchy, especially when they're in charge. :- )
I've wondered that, too, about many issues but right now -- can't understand why more men aren't out there fighting for their women and, of course, themselves by association. My other ? along this line is why more medical associations and doctors, many of whom are male still, aren't up in arms about their inability to provide life-saving and life-giving care to their patients. They're afraid of being sued and/or going to jail and women are afraid of dying.
Well-said.
A central and important question. I noticed in our own Today's Edition community, as shown in a sampling in the pictures of the people who met with Jill and Robert on their Mississippi River trip recently, women take a leading role. And certainly the commentators here who mean the most to me have included numerous women. Our colleagues have offered some responses that are worthy of merit: women tend to be committed to getting things done and to worry about the community of school, family, neighborhood, while men inhabit, often, a more public space of work and organizations exerting power in hierarchies. In one, leadership designates service; in another, authority and exerting one's will -- getting one's way. I have had male candidates for positions of authority telling me they know how to lead because they know how to, in effect, give orders (not successful candidates). But women have been generally acculturated to the scut work of getting things done. Men tend to write the manifestos. Women tend to find the paper, do the printing and distributing. Having taught at a women's college for 18 years and led leadership programs there before (go figure!) becoming the president of a men's college, I have thought long about these questions and think they are worth some real thought and planning as we find ways to change the world. But I do think we have to be careful about essentialist thinking -- e.g. women are necessarily and innately collaborative and men are intensely hierarchical climbers. There is a difference between the leadership work of Hilary Clinton, Lauren Boebert, Marjorie Taylor Green, Margaret Thatcher, Fannie Hammer, Golda Mier, Cady Stanton, and Harriet Tubman.
(Apologies for a distinctly binary tone to these comments. Gender is much more complex of course, but I am trying to be uncharacteristically brief here.) Let's keep this thread in mind as we work through this years because we need to find ways to motivate male-styles and female-styles to action and detonate the notion, particularly embodied in the dictatorial strongman, that the characteristic tough guy a la Trump and Mussolini are able leaders at all.
I taught and worked as Associate Dean and Dean for 18 years at Saint Mary's College, on of the nation's leading women's colleges. There I initiated and led some significant explorations of women's leaderships, some of which still endure. I then, go figure, became president at Wabash College, one of the nation's last four colleges for men. In both places I saw men and women finding their own significant ways of leadership. (Apologies for a distinctly binary tone to these comments, gender is much more complex of course, but I am trying to be uncharacteristicallly brief here.) And the similarities are more striking than some of the difference. In both places, men and women were concerned with what their peers thought of them, but even more with what the other gender thought and both places freed their classroom performance and their leadership to an extent from the gaze of that other. Thus women were allowed to lead and men were allowed to lead and to follow and to express enthusiasm for learning, upright behavior, and the "gentleman's rule," and to express in both cases ambitions for leaderships.
These experiences and learning paths are not available to all,
Sorry but Boebert and Green are not leaders or worthy of being in the list of women on your list.
Sadly, women like Green and Boebert have adapted to being like men or their sick interpretation of how men behave and get by, probably because being their woman selves got them ignored, raped, abused or minimized. Women often try to compete with male bravado to succeed in a male dominated world and mindset. And this is not to say that all men are abusive, etc. Not at all. But perhaps they faced situations where if you can’t best em, join em was the best option. Just a thought…and no excuse for their behavior. I am most concerned about the people who vote for them because they like and feel protected by that false bluster. Oy.
Remember the 80s? We all had to wear navy blue suits, white blouses, and TIES and "act IBM" if we wanted to be taken seriously in our jobs. Making women behave like men before you agree to consider respecting them is a mistake, yet one both women and men have fallen prey to since at least the consciousness-raising era. Wonder if there ever was an era before the 1970s when women rebelled in any society where they weren't already equals? (Remember Women's Lib?)
Agreed. I was surprised to see them listed.
I totally agree. They are not leaders.
I don't disagree that Boebert and Marjorie Taylor Green are bad leaders, but like Trump and lots before him they exert influence and people follow them. I was trying to make a point against an essentialist argument: i.e. that if we only had more women leaders all would be right with the world. Women can be as terrible at true leadership as men.
IGNORE The Last two paragraphs of my previous post -- Garbled and repetitive.
CORRECTED Version. My Apologies.
I noticed in our own Today's Edition community, as shown in a sampling in the pictures of the people who met with Jill and Robert on their Mississippi River trip recently, women take a leading role. And certainly the commentators here who mean the most to me have included numerous women. Our colleagues have offered some responses that are worthy of merit: women tend to be committed to getting things done and to worry about the community of school, family, neighborhood, while men inhabit, often, a more public space of work and organizations exerting power in hierarchies. In one, leadership designates service; in another, authority and exerting one's will -- getting one's way. I have had male candidates for positions of authority telling me they know how to lead because they know how to, in effect, give orders (not successful candidates). But women have been generally acculturated to the scut work of getting things done. Men tend to write the manifestos. Women tend to find the paper, do the printing and distributing. Having taught at a women's college for 18 years and led leadership programs there before (go figure!) becoming the president of a men's college, I have thought long about these questions and think they are worth some real thought and planning as we find ways to change the world. But I do think we have to be careful about essentialist thinking -- e.g. women are necessarily and innately collaborative and men are intensely hierarchical climbers. There is a difference between the leadership work of Hilary Clinton, Lauren Boebert, Marjorie Taylor Green, Margaret Thatcher, Fannie Hammer, Golda Mier, Cady Stanton, and Harriet Tubman.
(Apologies for a distinctly binary tone to these comments. Gender is much more complex of course, but I am trying to be uncharacteristically brief here.) Let's keep this thread in mind as we work through this years because we need to find ways to motivate male-styles and female-styles to action and detonate the notion, particularly embodied in the dictatorial strongman, that the characteristic tough guy a la Trump and Mussolini are able leaders at all.
As a retired child psychologist and one who embraces a nonbinary, fluid understanding of gender identification I believe humans can learn to be empathetic communicators and nondictatorial leaders regardless of their gender. I notice that more men who are fathering children today are involved in child care, more little boys are supported when they adopt the role of baby nurturer in child care settings, more kids are allowed to explore who they are regardless of gender identification at birth. I know we see headlines about the anti LGBTQ movement just as we see the repeal of women’s rights to control their own bodies. However, I also think we as a society are in a developmental stage of change which comes with turmoil, uncertainty, and backlash. We can come out on the other side one step closer to that “more perfect union” of acceptance, tolerance, and justice. Such an outcome is possible because we already see it in some of our communities in our everyday lives.
The bottom line is men and women are programmed differently almost from birth and having worked with very accomplished woman leaders they bring an empathy and inclusion into their management style. Hillary Clinton in person and in a team environment is a much different leader than the public face we all see. Here teams loved her.
Just read through the responses. Some good thoughts. But the missing element is forgetting that we are talking about one culture: ours. Gender roles are not fixed and, as some point out, both men and women (and variants thereof) have a wide variety of capabilities relating to leadership. Our culture favors a highly structured leadership model, historically led by males, who simply assume the roles. This is not the template for the human race. Many cultures are not so rigid, not only in the roles people hold, but also in the style of decision-making: both history and cultural studies show that collaboration and consensus-building are the "default" mode for human beings, with our cultural model being among the outliers. It's not surprising that some people seeking prominence in power adopt authoritarian styles, regardless of gender.
But we are in the midst of significant change- as demonstrated by the predominance of women who are actually doing the work. As a result, many of these women are now in positions of moving into the decision-making positions in business, politics, and as a strong influence in other areas, such as the arts and literature. Yup, there are some clinkers like Greene and Boebert and others, who adopt the so-called "male" model of doing things. But they stand out because they are exceptions who represent what we are moving away from. Along with this are men like Biden, who is capable of working effectively using collaboration and building consensus. We don't "see" these men very well, because we aren't used to looking for them.
And then there are the men like Robert, smart as he is, who encourage us to be the leaders many women have become. My group of postcard writers is almost all women, but one of our leader's son comes to postcard-writing meetings regularly, and our other's leader's husband is there at all meetings. He is raising two little girls and is so sweet with them!
Women are the worker bees, as well as the queens! 🌸💙
Football.
No. But the men on this site are involved!
This isn't specifically about the women who are leading the fight to save democracy -- probably around the world as well as in the U.S. -- but I wanted to share with this community my appreciation for Stormy Daniels. Because it looks like the current election interference aka hush money trial of Trump will be the only one to take place before the 2024 election, its importance has escalated over time, and it's now been actually holding Trump accountable to the rule of law -- at least as far as being indicted, charged, and now under trial -- for 4 weeks. Daniels has been a key witness for the prosecution and is a complicated person and somewhat of a difficult witness because she tends to over-explain and relate narratives, include her feelings in answers, not stick to the 'script', and Not Back Down from anything. Her career choice has made it impossible for many people to admire anything about her, but I just can't help but really enjoy, appreciate, and respect her in many ways. And, you know, all those things I just listed that make her a 'difficult' witness? They pretty much mirror all the criticisms lobbed at women and girls from the time they're toddlers until and including cronehood. Too much of everything and not enough of the 'right things' is what we hear and incorporate and usually spend a good part of our lives trying to adapt to whatever the current right thing is to get along in the patriarchy. Anyway. Just wanted to share this with y'all. I feel sorry for Stormy because, based on what she's told us about herself and her life, she approaches everything with the assumption that she'll have to fight to take care of herself... Tough way to live but so very common.
Agree. Stormy Daniels the human being tends to get lost in all the hoopla as people try to make her into whatever their needs require or to fit her into their narrative agendas. But from what I can tell she's an impressive person and she's doing something important, especially (but not only) if Trump is convicted.
I shouldn't have mentioned that I feel sorry for her; she wouldn't appreciate that, I'm sure, and it might sound condescending ... she's a strong, intelligent woman who's made her own life and in many ways I find her a very encouraging example for younger women to consider. Men, too, as far as that goes, but I think her career choices and ways of working with- + outside-the patriarchy fit better with women in general. A man couldn't go amiss, though, by using her as a role model. :) And, see what I'm doing here? Wandering/rambling/not responding directly to your message, etc. Just Like a Woman. (Thanks, Jeff. You made a kind, thoughtful remark...)
You're welcome. I will pass on all of the Dylan quotes which come to mind, none of which will read funny on the screen ;)
Yesterday I received ,yet another, anonymous snail mail letter in response to my writing about Governor Noem and the normalization of violence by the GOP. It was non-threatening and, yet again, contained the ramblings of a “pro-life Christian”.
Today I am posting an unrelated, but totally uplifting story about a rescue dog Noem most likely would have chosen to eliminate.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/10/style/westminster-dog-show-agility.html?unlocked_article_code=1.rE0.X8x7.L24v2LVr1sS0&smid=url-share
Tomorrow, as every day, I will honor my mom. She would have been 103. Mom was a huge animal lover and never turned away a stray. She also adopted four children…and was pro-choice.
Every single one of the issues we identify as a women’s issue is also a men’s issue. Forced birth, prenatal care, healthcare, Title IX, equal pay, etc. etc. As a parent of daughters , as a father-in-law, as a husband of a woman, and as a son of a woman, I know these are my issues too. There is no doubt in my mind that healthy and empowered women make all our lives better.
Jennifer, thanks for filling in tonight. Glad your folks could have a night off.
Also thanks for acknowledging the work of women. It’s nice to hear, especially on this Mother’s Day Eve.
I'm out camping through the weekend in the mountains and was delighted to discover I still have some signal! However for the most part am on "Airplane mode" so have only sporadically been reading Substack articles.
Hope you still can enjoy being offline and spending time together this weekend. Perhaps you might even get a chance to stargaze and appreciate the night sky out there in the mountains.
Speaking of stargazing, tonight Seattle was treated to a rare and spectacular northern lights display, even with all the light pollution, but cloudless sky. What a thrill!
"The open secret in the modern grassroots movement is that it is 90% women! When the history of this period is written, women will be credited with the leading role in saving our democracy."
Quoted for truth.