I’m sitting in this powerful session on empowering women and girls at CGI and encourage readers can watch along as well via the live webcast:

Empowering girls and women is both smart policy and smart business. When given opportunities to learn and work, women can drive economic growth and development. For example, women are likely to reinvest significantly more of their income into their families than men do. In some countries, an increase of just 1 percent in girls’ education can boost GDP growth rates by 0.2 percent. Businesses, governments, and development organizations that fail to invest in women are missing out on important ways to improve productivity, develop new markets, and address global challenges. This plenary session will explore new ways to empower girls and women, such as incorporating more women-owned businesses into global supply chains. Panelists will also discuss strategies for enabling girls and women to access education, high-quality health care, and viable economic opportunities.

Remarks:

Hillary Rodham Clinton, Secretary of State, United States of America

Participants:

Her Majesty Queen Rania Al Abdullah , Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan
Katie Couric, Anchor and Managing Editor, CBS Evening News
Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, President of the Republic of Liberia
Muhtar Kent, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, The Coca-Cola Company

Live from Boston’s Logan Airport, I wondered aloud (via Twitter):

(note: In the linked photo, the shelf above Men’s Journal, Fitness, and GQ held pornography)

To which my favorite mag CEO replied:

So what needs to happen to even out the breakdown?

The U.S. National Academies published a new report which finds no gender bias in the faculty hiring process. According to the data, women are being hired and promoted with equal access to resources once we make it that far.

Still, there’s no doubt it’s the journey that’s most arduous.

Here are some interesting figures from the latest issues of Science:

CNN asks ‘Is Feminism Obselete?‘ and Mary Matalin goes so far to suggest:

‘No conservative woman would choose to call herself a feminist as it’s described by liberals today.’

The story begins with David Letterman’s apology to Sarah Palin after a tasteless joke at her daughter’s expense. She accepted, but some conservatives took notice that many ‘feminists‘ didn’t stand beside her in the scuffle. In terms of Palin, I’ve said this before:

[Her] politics are not ‘pro-woman’ simply because she is female..a candidate’s gender should bear no role in his or her ability to take on the responsibilities of president. But our VP-in-waiting must be prepared on day one. In global decision-making, we don’t get a do-over. Sarah Palin’s positions on critical policies seem based on values that many throughout this diverse country do not share and she lacks the experience–especially in foreign relations–to lead…The message I advocate at The Intersection and elsewhere is that men and women should be considered equally for many roles, never that anyone should be afforded preference based on number of X chromosomes. Let our leaders be chosen, not by the composite of their gender, but by their readiness to preside over our great nation.

The CNN piece goes on to explore what feminism means and how it has changed since the movement began. Carol Costello asks who embodies feminism today and considers how ideals have changed. But must modern feminism be dictated by political ideology?

It’s complicated.  On the surface, Merrium-Webster defines ‘feminism‘ as:

1 : the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes
2 : organized activity on behalf of women’s rights and interests

Quite obviously, women polarized at liberal and conservative extremes do unquestionably hold very different interpretations of women’s rights. However, I sincerely hope that feminism does not become indistinguishable from the left because I fear it would be cast off as radicalism which would undermine the movement. We have so many miles to go toward achieving an equal voice in America and around the world. I may not agree with Ann Coulter or Laura Ingraham, but there are women across the aisle doing tremendously positive work that every ‘real‘ feminist ought to celebrate regardless of affiliation. We must rise above petty partisanship if we are to get anywhere.

No CNN, feminism is most definitely not obsolete.

Regular readers know how I feel about the benefits and costs of new media.  As a middle of the road user, I stay connected by way of a limited Facebook profile, but refuse to foray into the twitterverse for previously stated reasons.  And while I like the opportunity to create a virtual bookmark in time, there’s a dark side to so much accessibility: It provides ever more means to pass unfair judgment on others.

A friend recently pointed me to this particularly ridiculous article criticizing moms who post profile photos of their children*.  The author Katie Roiphe goes so far as to suggest feminist Betty Friedan would ‘turn in her grave‘ at such behavior:

The mystery here is that the woman with the baby on her Facebook page has surely read The Feminine Mystique in college, and The Second Sex, and The Beauty Myth. She is no stranger to the smart talk of whatever wave of feminism we are on, and yet this style of effacement, this voluntary loss of self, comes naturally to her. Here is my pretty family, she seems to be saying, I don’t matter anymore.

Huh?  (more…)

A couple of weeks ago, Isis emailed asking if I would participate in the Letters To Our Daughters Project–which she has also described on her terrific blog:

It’s not a secret that the largest attrition among female scientists happens in the transition between trainee and faculty. I also think that, for better or worse, there are things that are unique to being a female scientist that affect the ability/willingness of women to pursue careers in science. I know from my time at ScienceBlogs that there is a large group of women who are eager for the perspectives of successful women scientists as they consider their own careers in science.

In short:

The inspiration for my Letters to Our Daughters Project comes from my hope that we can recreate our family tree here, creating a forum where the mothers and aunts in our fields (which I hope to not limit to physiology, but that’s where I’ll start because that’s who I know) can share their wisdom with us. I think there is a wealth of information among these successful women and I hope to use this forum to share it with young scientists who are yearning for that knowledge.

I have written to a number of successful and well-known female scientists and asked them to write letters to you, their scientific daughters…I have offered these women no guidance, except to say that they have an open forum to tell you whatever important thing they think you should know.

Of course, I agreed immediately!  What a wonderful way to bring women in science together to share our experiences, ideas, and perspectives.  Back when I was considering my own path, I had very few female mentors to turn to and my hope is that eventually, this collection of letters will serve as a resource–perhaps even an anthology–for young women coursing through academia and beyond. I often discuss the need to break the mold of what we’ve come to expect of a ‘female in science‘ and hope the initiative may advance us one step closer toward overcoming the chicken and egg problem. I’m tremendously pleased to be a part of it.

Isis has already shared excellent contributions from Pascale Lane and Barbara E. Goodman .  It should come as no surprise that I will have plenty to say and am looking forward composing my letter shortly after returning to Durham later this month. I’ll cross-post it here so stay tuned…

In the mean time, I’m curious to hear from readers (women and men!): What would you include?

This story about a new DNA test outperforming the annual Pap smear is big.  From the New York Times:

Not only could the new test for human papillomavirus, or HPV, save lives; scientists say that women over 30 could drop annual Pap smears and instead have the DNA test just once every 3, 5 or even 10 years, depending on which expert is asked.

The news is based on a study published last week in The New England Journal of Medicine showing a single screening with the DNA test beats all other methods at preventing advanced cancer and death.

The study is “another nail in the coffin” for Pap smears, which will “soon be of mainly historical interest,” said Dr. Paul D. Blumenthal, a professor of gynecology at Stanford medical school who has tested screening techniques in Africa and Asia and was not involved in the study.

But whether the new test is adopted will depend on many factors, including hesitation by gynecologists to abandon Pap smears, which have been remarkably effective. Cervical cancer was a leading cause of death for American women in the 1950s; it now kills fewer than 4,000 a year.

Read on…

I’ve long pondered why more women do not pursue politics. Madeleine Kunin, the first female governor of Vermont, composed an interesting piece on the subject after visiting a Women’s Studies course where female students surprised her by expressing fear of being judged for speaking out. According to Kunin, we may be holding ourselves back by internalizing stereotypes about XX in power and politics:

Many women do not want to venture out into the “opinion world” until they are certain of themselves, the facts, and that they are right. They are afraid of being shot down. The result is often silence.

To be political means to speak out, to risk being called “catty”, or worse. I don’t hear men worrying about whether they may be right or not. They enjoy the fight, whether it is with words or fists. Women still tend to shy away from controversy, to be uncomfortable with competition. Perhaps that is why only 17 percent of the members of Congress are female, and men are still largely running the country.

Read her full thought-provoking article over at HuffPo…

The second panelist from Saturday’s STS conference was Christine Luk from Arizona State University who’s talk was entitled: Engaging Women in Science and Technology Policy-making: Beyond the Paradox of Under-representation of Women

Instead of discussing the usual challenges women face, Christine is interested in why the gender gap persists despite enhancement of female status and social change.  She began by highlighting regular policy recommendations that support affirmative action and the development of economic incentives for women.  According to Christine, enrolling women in science and technology is not enough because it’s not merely about increasing our headcount.  Rather she suggests we need a more visible role of feminist perspectives.  I agree, yet I’m convinced this is a chicken and egg problem. We must place more bright and capable young ladies in the public eye who break the mold of what we’ve come to expect of a ‘female in S&T’.

However, what stood out for me during Christine’s talk was the Queen Bee hypothesis which suggests (if I understood correctly) that the limited number of women who do rise in these areas may actually suppress others from doing so.It’s an interesting theory, although I’m not convinced.  In my own field of marine science, ladies are quickly climbing the ranks at record pace, not to mention Jane Lubchenco now heads NOAA.  Furthermore, despite progressive social change, there will likely be a very long lag time for women to rise to visibly prominent roles across fields.  Finally, we cannot hope to achieve gender equality in the S&T workforce under the status quo parameters.  As I’ve written in the past, if we are to encourage women to stay in the system, then the system will need to undergo fundamental changes to accommodate more of us.  I’m not sure whether that’s a practical expectation, or even whether it should be.

As for the queen bee hypothesis, it’s an idea I have not come across until now.  Has anyone experienced this?  The ladies I adore offline and around the blogosphere tend to be overwhelmingly supportive of each other.  Thoughts?

While I’m headed up to DC, some topics for discussion…

1)  With regard to Wednesday’s post on appearances, Erasmussimo asks:

how do we draw the line between egregious and demeaning behavior and restrained acknowledgment of our human foibles?

It’s a thought-provoking question. I’m interested to hear readers respond.

2) Our friend Jessica over at Bioephemera–a blog that does a wonderful job exploring the intersections of art and science–has posted some provocative pictures from Haute Macabre.  What’s your take?  Especially the image featured left?

3) Don’t forget to join us for Earth Hour 2009 tomorrow at 8:30PM (your local time)…

4) Go visit Isis over at On Becoming a Domestic and Laboratory Goddess. The American Physiological Society has agreed to fund an award at this year’s Experimental Biology meeting that grows with every click to her blog for 30 days. Resulting revenue will be granted to an undergraduate woman who submits the best abstract so I encourage you to click here. Often. It’s a terrific way to support a young scientist and draw attention to an initiative that promotes women in science. And Isis is already surpassing expectations!  Here’s that url again:  http://scienceblogs.com/isisthescientist/

With that, I’m hitting the road…