Obama's Desire for More Women in Science

I found an interesting article in the New York Times on how Obama plans to address issues of women in science.  It is not that women are not capable of researching such math-heavy and logic-oriented concepts.  Likewise, it is not that women do not not have the drive and stamina to keep up with the work of such time-consuming jobs. Rather, it is actually for a science-related reason that most women choose not to go into such demanding careers within the field of science.  Women are the child-bearers of our country.  Women are needed to have families and produce children that can continue our nation, our ways of living, etc.  This hugely time-dependent reason might be what is holding women back from pursuing careers in science.  Obama wants to try to fix this.  In the article, "In 'Geek Chic' and Obama, New Hope for Lifting Women in Science," Natalie Angier writes:

Dr. Mason and other legal experts suggest that President Obama might be able to change things significantly for young women in science-- and young men-- by signing an executive order that would provide added family leave and parental benefits to the recipients of federal grants, a huge pool of people that includes many research scientists.

This would probably cause there to be less of a gap between genders when it comes to math and science and research.  It is nice to know that Obama is looking out for women wanting to reach their full potentials, career-wise and all.

More than Just the First African-American President

New York Times writer Jodi Kantor's article, "Nation's Many Faces in Extended First Family," highlights all of the diversity and history that is being brought to the White House through our new president.  Not only does Obama bring the title of "first African-American president" to the capital, but he also brings a detailed and very diverse past with him.  Kantor writes:

The family that produced Barack and Michelle Obama is black and white and Asian, Christian, Muslim and Jewish.  They speak English; Indonesian; French; Cantonese; German; Hebrew; African languages including Swahili, Luo and Igbo; and even a few phrases of Gullah, the Creole dialect of the South Carolina Lowcountry.  Very few are wealthy, and some- like Sarah Obama, the stepgrandmother who only recently got electricity and running water in her metal-roofed shack-- are quite poor.

I think this extreme diversity that Obama encompasses will be an asset to the White House and to his role as president.  Having grown up with a family born into slavery, limited resources, and no fame to his name (has no predecessor like the former president, George W. Bush, had), Obama had to make a name for himself.  In order to propel himself this far, he had to have some serious dedication to his education and to reaching his potential.  Obama's self-determination for success can probably only be a benefit to our nation.

Letters From My Father

While watching CNN the other morning, I noticed an interesting piece on an internationally published letter from President Barack Obama to his two daughters Sasha and Malia. The entire letter, published on January 14th in Parade magazine, can be found here on the publication's website. In short, Obama expresses his belief in the advantages and responsibilities associated with being an American, outlining his reasons for "[taking] our family on this journey" and proclaiming his deep love and appreciation for both of his children. 

The message is sincere and heartwarming, but I have to question the necessity of publicizing these sentimental affects in one of America's most widely read newspapers. Clearly Obama's letter is addressed more directly to the American people as a whole than simply to 7-year-old Sasha and 10-year-old Malia. I suppose it makes sense to charm the public with such a touching demonstration of his fatherly capabilities, but at the same time I can't help but remember all of the criticism faced by Sarah Palin as she embarked on her own journey to the White House, family in tow. 

In September, ABC News reported on the many disapproving mothers who bitterly disputed Palin's ability to effectively raise a family while serving as vice president. It seems that in an age when so many women have proven the possibility of balancing work and home life, such disparagement would be less harsh.

In comparison, Obama has faced incredibly little interrogation in regards to his abilities as a father. His hyper-publicized letter is a prime example of the media's delight with the idea of the president as Father of the Year. While I don't at all doubt that Barack Obama is a genuinely good parent, it seems natural to doubt his ability to be at his daughters' side throughout the next four years, as Sarah Palin was seemingly expected to do. Moreover, Palin was only running for the office of vice president, while Obama has been elected to the office of commander-in-chief itself. With an even busier agenda than Palin, Obama's comparatively celebrated parenting makes it clear that there are still some serious double standards at play in presidential politics. 

Advice pours in for Michelle Obama

According to Rachel Swarns' story in the New York Times, the advice is coming from around the world, including some from Cherie Blair, who proffered hers in her regular column for The Times (London). Like French President Nicolas Sarkozy's wife, Carla Bruni, Blair continued to work while her husband was the leader of the United Kingdom. (Of course, they have very different careers: Blair is a senior barrister; Bruni is a singer). Blair wrote in her column:

You have to learn to take the back seat, not just in public, but in private . . . . When your spouse is late to put the kids to bed, or for dinner, or your plans for the weekend are turned upside down again, you simply have to accept that he had something more important to do. * * * It is something of an irony that in these days of pushing for equality those of us married to our political leaders have to put their own ambitions on hold while their spouses are in office and keep their views to themselves. I, at least, had my career. That is not an option for Michelle Obama.

I have recently recalled here Hillary's 1992 adjustment to becoming first lady. Swarns' story informs us that Hillary is the only first lady prior to Michelle Obama to have an active career until shortly before her husband became President. The only other first lady to have an advanced degree was Laura Bush, and I believe that degree was in the rather lower profile subject of library science.

Also of great interest for purposes of our seminar on gender's role in the 2008 election is the observation that Michelle Obama became more popular (or at least more "celebrated" by the media) once she quit her job and fully embraced the role of "mom-in-chief."

Leslie Morgan Steiner, editor of “Mommy Wars,” an anthology of essays (Random House, 2006), argued on the NPR program “Tell Me More” that Mrs. Obama had been “put in a box” and was only celebrated in the news media after she decided “to put her family first.”

In the online magazine Salon, Rebecca Traister bemoaned what she described as the “momification of Michelle Obama,” criticizing the news media’s focus on Mrs. Obama’s search for schools for her two young daughters, her fashion sense and her pledge that her No. 1 job is “to be Mom.”

Traister laments the lack of "curiosity about how Michelle will adjust to the loss of her own private, very successful, very high-profile and very independent identity." Leaving work that one enjoys is a huge adjustment, and Ms. Obama's last job was a $300K/year Vice Presidency at the University of Chicago Medical Center. Nevertheless, as one commentator points out, unlike most women who leave work to be a trailing spouse, Ms. Obama's career won't suffer long-term consequences. She will be highly sought after for law firm partnerships and other roles as soon as his Presidency ends.

What women are saying about Hillary's new role

Don't miss Jodi Kantor's story in the New York Times here. I particularly like the parts that focus on being one's own boss versus working for, well, the most powerful man in the world. Of course the parts that speak to her power and influence, whichever role she chooses, are also very heartening. Here are some excerpts:

As [HRC] pondered this week whether to trade her hard-won independence and elected office for a job working for a more powerful man, mothers and schoolteachers and law partners mulled in tandem with her.

* * *

As news spread on Friday evening that Mrs. Clinton had decided to accept the job, so did a basic consensus: the assignment was probably a triumph for Mrs. Clinton, if a costly one.

This part about (some) women relating to HRC and her experiences as a professional woman really resonates with me. That is, I am definitely one of the women who relates, both to showing emotion in the workplace and to accumulated sexist slights!

Throughout Mrs. Clinton’s presidential run, women across the country saw in her a mirror of their own career fortunes: when she teared up just before the New Hampshire primary that she was expected to lose, they remembered their own workplace humiliations, and when she lost the Democratic nomination, many saw it as an accumulation of all-too-familiar sexist slights.

The story is well worth a read for the sense it conveys of Hillary's past, present and future. Kantor summarizes what she calls Clinton's "feminist triumph" by tracking where she's been. In short, the decade reflects the adage, "you've come a long way, baby." A decade ago, Hillary was a first lady whose hairstyles were fodder for comedians. Now, however, she is poised to become the "world's top diplomat." Plus, working for a President is a whole different ballgame than being married to one.

Kantor's report features lots of thought-provoking quotes. Gloria Steinem, who lauds Hillary's decision to take the Secretary of State job, is quoted as saying, “The question of whether one has one’s own political power or goes to work for someone else is not only a feminist question” I guess it may be "not only" a feminist question, but I think it certainly is a "feminist question." I guess I am unsure that anything about Hillary can, after all these years, not be a "feminist question."

I am heartened by Kantor's conclusion that Clinton "is such an esteemed figure, no one will see her as a mere emissary." Certainly, I am delighted for Hillary, though I would also have been pleased had she chosen to stay in the Senate and continue to work on health care reform.

As a related matter, I wrote this post last week on my feminist legal theory blog. It discusses Hillary's then-prospects to become Secretary of State, as well as changing perceptions of her over the years since Bill Clinton ran for President.