women

Yesterday on Mashable there was an article titled "Why Social Media Means Big Opportunities for Women". The article brings up some very compelling points as to why social media is opening more doors for women in many ways.

Women have firmly established their presence on the social web, and account for the majority of users on many popular social media sites. But what does this mean for the future of women in social media?

One word: Opportunity.

Companies looking to reach women — whether as consumers, entrepreneurs, employees, or advocates — have an unprecedented opportunity through social media to engage them. For women, social media presents abundant opportunities to lead, effect change, innovate, and build relationships across sectors, locally, nationally, and globally.

Not to take away from the point being made but I believe the arguments provided can apply to youth in general. The article argues that companies, through the usage of social media, are gathering real time feedback from female consumers about products, ideas, marketing, etc. Companies are starting to use social media to do their product testing and aiming directly at women (and youth).

Conversations between companies and female consumers are moving beyond “what do you want?” types of questions. Companies are starting to use social media to secure real-time feedback from women on products, services, and marketing campaigns—sometimes before they go to market.

Unilever used social media to launch their new Pond’s Age Miracle moisturizer in China, recruiting bloggers to try the product and share their findings. The strategy was risky because of the heavy usage of social media there, but it came with a huge upside: If the bloggers liked the product, word of mouth could lead to major success. If not, the poor publicity from blogs would make the launch difficult to salvage. The risk paid off and the moisturizer was a hit, leading to the adoption of social media strategies by other Unilever offices in Asia.

If companies use targeting like Unilever did they can be just as successful, regardless if they are targeting and gathering feedback from women or youth. However women are dominating the usage of social media sites, and they are gaining the lead in mobile web usage too.

A significant opportunity exists for companies to connect with women using mobile technologies. Women comprise 47% of current mobile web users, and between 2008 and 2009, the number of women using the mobile web increased by 43%, compared with a 26% increase in the number of men.

While women's influence is growing in the world of social networking and technology the article does provide some insight to where it isn't exactly the most inclusive.

not all conferences are women-friendly. At some, sexualized images of women are still included in presentations. Others feature scantily clad women as props or for entertainment. Stone, Page, and Jardins observed that “the organizers of many conferences, especially tech conferences, don’t seem to appreciate that women don’t want to sit through presentations — PowerPoint, video and otherwise — that depict women as porn stars and/or sex objects.”

However there is optimism that it will change, as women continue to become even more influential in the world of social media we will hopefully see a move that way.

The number of women programmers, entrepreneurs, bloggers, consultants, community managers, and social media users continues to grow. It’s only a matter of time before these numbers translate into greater visibility and influence in the social space.

Trapani, too, is optimistic: “Ladies, now is not the time to be timid. Step up, take chances, push yourself beyond your comfort zone, use your powers and influence for good, and let your expertise shine.”

There's a women's blog called The Women on the Web or wowOwow, I've been reading for a year or so that has some pretty amazing women that write for it. It's a total deviation from blogs like Feministing or Feministe etc.. which are typically younger, more partisan, and have more of a political focus. Wow tends to be more middle aged and often times focused on pop-culture things and unbelievable profiles of talented women who do amazing work across the country.

They bring up a topics dujour and give some of their writers an opportunity to respond with a few sentences. Its like microblogging but more than the 140 characters one would get on twitter. Today's topic was with regard to the tea-party and David Brooks' column in the NYTimes asking if the up-tick of the Tea Party means there is a greater need for a recognition of a third party.

Candice Bergen, who I credit with being my childhood mentor to feminist values via her popular late 80's and 90's television show Murphy Brown, commented about NYC Mayor Bloomberg and his Independent leanings. She thinks they may be a good indication that some are defecting to parties/policies in the middle.

With the recent health care bill, I would argue that we have a hard enough time with Democrats being progressive, and if Independent means having more Joe Liebermans I think we can all agree a giant no-thanks is in order.

Rasmussen had a poll recently looking at the impact of the TeaBaggers on demographics and parties:

"In a three-way Generic Ballot test, the latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds Democrats attracting 36% of the vote. The Tea Party candidate picks up 23%, and Republicans finish third at 18%. Another 22% are undecided."

When you take a gander at the crosstabs, which you have to have the super sexy premium account for, young voters (18 to 29) trend TeaBagger to the tune of 20% eclipsing the GOP completely who scored a pathetic 9%. Dems get 47% and "not sure" gets 24%.

"As for the voting preference, the Tea Party bests the GOP among both men and women and in all age groups except those over 65."

Brooks correctly asserts

"A year ago, the Obama supporters were the passionate ones. Now the tea party brigades have all the intensity."

And I would argue that they were the only ones doing the talking and the campaigning in an off year while both parties were legislating. Brooks points out that Rasmussen's data points to the largest uptick among Independents who are typically the coveted voters to get either D's and R's over the top in general elections.

Jean Chatzky, Liz Smith, and Joan Ganz Cooney respond to question as well. Liz Smith's comments are particularly poignant

"I fear he [Brooks] is right in the potential that disaffected Republicans will shape the coming decade. I don’t believe we are going to actually see a new political party; just the same old same old, and, I fear, the same attacking, harrowing kind of politics we are all so sick of – whether we are liberal, conservative or in the middle."

This is exactly the reason that young people tend to like progressive policies but are resistant to join in on party politics. During the 2008 Election USA Today's poll reported a 40%-21% division among young people who consider themselves Democrats vs. Republicans.

I posted on Bergen's comment that the problem with a 3rd party is that it means more money in politics, more spending, more TV ads, direct mail pieces, yada yada at least until we put spending caps or enact meaningful campaign finance laws that the US Supreme Court doesn't undermine. I'm somewhat in favor of term limits because it rolls in a new crop of often times younger elected officials, but they're often times inexperienced with legislation (young or old) and in Oklahoma a concern I've heard is that former legislators turn lobbyists have become the helpful voices to electeds who don't know how to write the budget, which just wreaks from the stench of conflicts of interest.

In the end I blame the whole thing on FoxNews. Because this whole teabagger movement isn't based on any kind of meaningful policy initiatives, its just political bickering for the sake of bickering. They aren't presenting their own bills for legislation and having their elected officials present them to Congress. They aren't registering their party in states across the country and recruiting candidates to oppose Republicans in primaries or challenging incumbents. Instead, they're just stockpiling money and contributions from protesters and taking their show on the road.

Talking Points Memo reported recently that the majority of the funding received for the "tea party movement" went to one specific GOP political consulting firm. To the tun of over $857,000 in three months. I think this is the nail in the coffin for the credibility of the AstroTurf "movement" and proves its all really just a funneling mechanism for the industrial right wing campaign consulting complex.

I don't know about a third party. As Joan Ganz Cooney alludes, if we can't get the two we have to work what makes us think a third is a good idea.

In a report released yesterday by Women's Voices Women Vote (pdf) evidence of continued voting problems are particularly high among women.

According to a report on the... report in the Chicago Sun Times

"While the study discusses obstacles to voter participation in general, it focuses on the unique impact it has on traditionally under-represented groups who comprise the majority (52%) of the population -- African Americans, Latinos, unmarried women and young voters -- it is unmarried women who drive this majority and the mission of Women's Voices Women Vote."

I would say it amazes me, but I'm not the least bit shocked. Particularly, since Oklahoma's Legislature which had promised to allow previsions for students to vote with their ID's, passed a bill that will go to a vote of the people to vote provisional ballot if they don't have an ID or voter card.

Anything to reduce the power of that 52% right?

As TWW accurately says "If women were the only voters, the Democrats would win in a landslide every time. If men were the only voters, the GOP would be the left-wing party." But I digress.

This 2008 Brennan Center map below also illustrates the state variations related to identification needed to vote:

(click to make larger)

"Moreover, because of unclear and complicated rules in states and counties regarding who receives a provisional ballot, some voters who should get provisional ballots are turned away from the polls and others who qualify for a regular ballot are given provisional ballots."

The report goes on to say that in 2004 the top five problems at the polls had to do with provisional ballots. Not just the highest problem... but the top five. Fer realz.

Mike reported almost two years ago about unmarried single women and the important role they would play in the 2008 election. What WVWV found recently was that not only were they key players, they are also an ever increasing demographic.

"Unmarried women are the fastest growing large demographic in the population, comprising 25% of the voting age population," said Page Gardner, president and founder of WVWV. . . "Challenges that affect unmarried women most particularly, include greater mobility and access to less economic resources -- they have the highest poverty rate of any cross-section of the adult population," said Gardner. "Yet it is exactly this portion of the population for whom we make voter registration most difficult in this country."

The study also makes great mention of Election Day Registration (aka Same Day Registration) saying that in areas that have it there was a indeed a higher turnout - but further those areas lead in the highest turnout areas in the country.

In a report (pdf) from our good friends over at Demos, EDR has increased turnout as much as 10% in some areas and the administrative costs for EDR are often times lower than the non-EDR states.

Finally, the WVWV data outlines "the the most significant obstacles to voter participation."

1. "Voter Registration: controversies over voter registration produced more litigation than any other election issue in 2008, primarily due to outdated and problematic voter registration systems. By allowing reforms such as universal registration and greater uniformity of registration standards, many registration issues could be resolved. (emphasis mine)
2. Absentee and Early Voting: the rate of voters casting ballots via absentee or early voting methods is on the rise (38 million Americans in 2008). However, the rules surrounding these methods vary significantly from state to state. . .
3. Voter Identification Requirements: lack of consistency across state lines in relation to the types of ID required (e.g., driver's license, proof of citizenship) as well as whether ID is required at all, make it confusing and cumbersome to register and/or cast a ballot.
4. Provisional Ballots: among the top five complaints logged by the Election Protection Coalition's hotline during the 2004 election were problems with provisional ballots. . .
5. Voter Lists: state regulations are notably inconsistent when it comes to the maintenance of voter registration lists -- from who updates them to how the state maintains them, whether state or local election officials allow for name variations, and how and when the lists are purged."

Rep. Jackie Speier (D-CA) introduced legislation yesterday calling for a long-term official Commission on Women. While this might be similar to the President's announcement about his White House council on women and girls, the Commission on Women would be a constant council that would outlast any White House administration.

In a recent Politico piece

"some women said the interagency council Obama announced March 11 fell short of the full-time office or Cabinet-level influence they had hoped for. Mason offered no criticism of Obama's action, but said it spurred more calls for a broad-ranging national panel."

The Commission would be apprised of a 15 member group including four appointed by the President, three by the Speaker of the House, two by the Minority Leader in the House, three by the Majority Leader of the Senate, and two by the Minority Leader of the Senate. Other woman working on the President's Council on Women and girls would serve in an advisory capacity and liaise between the two.

Most notably is the mention in the bill that the Commission would mandate at least one member be between 18 and 24 to ensure there is a youth perspective. Each member would serve a term of 5 years on the Commission and represent a diverse background regionally, generational, racially, economically, and from various industries as a means of representing a wide range of women's issues and problems facing women.

Another commitment would be that the Commission is dedicated to grassroots outreach, and allowing all women to have a voice in advocating to the Commission and the members doing outreach themselves to ensure a broad group of women are being heard.

Rep. Speier's Communications Director relayed a story she told him of her own first elected position in the 1980's on the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors. There she held a hearing on the area's women in poverty and at that time, he said, women were the face of poverty. It developed in Speier a desire to work for women's issues across the board not merely at the county level but then at the state level as well. Her commitment to women continues through this legislation as well.

The Commission is part of a project of the national organization Women Count who has partnered with 55 other organizations across the country to encourage other members of Congress and the Senate to approve if not co-sponsor the legislation.

Women Count says the Commission is necessary in large part because

"as the economy became the single most critical issue in the election, the role that women play in our economic structure has never been clearer. Women are the backbone of the nation’s workforce and control 70 percent of its buying power."

Speier continues in the Politico piece

"If you look at statistics, it’s very telling. Women represent only 17 percent of Congress. The amount women make in comparison to men is only 77 cents on the dollar. ... It’s that kind of insidious discrimination that lingers.

They announced the bill Thursday because it was the anniversary of the swearing-in of Rep. Jeanette Rankin of Montana in 1917 - the first women to ever serve in Congress.

I'm pleasantly surprised by the call for at least one young woman to be on the Commission. I commend Women Count in addition to Rep. Speier for their thoughtful and youth friendly approach to solving the problems unique to the women's community and young women specifically.

David Frum wrote an interesting blog on New Majority, a conservative site that is pushing for ... well.... a new kind of republican majority (something like what Meghan McCain is pushing).

Starting out, Frum is dealing with the Bristol Palin/Levi break up. He says its good that its over, so that she can go back to her life rather than pretending to have a life for the political appeasement of the Republican Party. Regardless of whether this is true or not and totally disregarding the saga of the love life of someone I don't know nor do I concern myself with - the political side of this is noteworthy.

Frum says that the fact that Bristol was required to keep up appearances with Levi as a happy couple is the kind of "out of date generation" thinking that will ultimately prevent the GOP from being able to connect with any audience outside of their existing one.... which as we've seen hasn't been too successful in recent years.

"Take a look at Table A17 in this report (pdf) by the Educational Testing Service. Of children born to white women with a college degree, only 8% were born out of wedlock. But of children born to white women who did not finish college, 28% were born outside of marriage. Of children born to white women who stopped their education after high school, 42.1% were out of wedlock. And of births to white women like Bristol Palin, who have not completed high school, almost 61% were out of wedlock."

According to Frum these rates continue to be on the rise and when you look at Hispanic women or children born to Hispanic women with some college 38.6% are born out of wedlock and 48.6% are born to women who only graduated high school.

He argues that Pat Buchanan thinks these are the core of social conservatives. I've heard the same from a friend who is a state Rep. from a conservative district. He once told me that when he is knocking doors he can tell you by age only, regardless of which party they identify with, whether the voter will be supporting him or not. He said that young voters who never went to college who are at home with children and can't manage to get a leg up, he thinks that they're so angry at their own misfortune that they would rather vote for someone that would make beer illegal than vote for someone like him that is young and stepping up to fill a leadership position.

This is similar to the premise for Thomas Frank's What's the Matter with Kansas, which is now on its way to being a feature documentary. Frank argues that the people who are the most in need are easily captured by the "values" of the GOP and will eagerly vote against their own best interest.

His quote from Buchanan is a gem, however.

"there remain many socially conservative voters who are “white, working- and middle-class, Catholic, small-town, rural, unionized, middle-age and seniors, and surviving on less than $50,000 a year.”

Frum emphasizes "middle aged and seniors" from that statement, hoping that younger white downscale voters are a whole different deal.

" It is marriage that creates culturally conservative voters – and young downscale Americans are not getting married. When they do marry, they do not stay married: While divorce rates among the college educated have declined sharply since the 1970s, divorce rates among high school graduates remain ominously high.

The socially conservative downscale voter is increasingly becoming a mirage – and a Republican politics based on that mirage will only lead us deeper into the desert."

Not to gush but, wouldn't that be cool if it turns out to be true??

I don't usually wear my feminist hat on here at FM, but March 8th is International Women's Day. Events actually occur throughout March to mark the economic, political and social achievements of women while also looking at ways we can move forward to protect women around the world who are still facing oppression.

Each year there is a different theme that countries and organizations choose that focuses on the progress and the hope for progress. This year the United Nations has chosen as their theme: Women and men united to end violence against women and girls.

Another more local group has also chose this as a theme: The state of Kansas. But more importantly Governor Kathleen Sebelius has signed a proclamation recognizing it as "Jana Mackey Day in Kansas."

This isn't something I talk a lot about, because it was such a difficult time, but last year in the throws of the campaign season one of my dearest friends was murdered by her ex-boyfriend. She had dedicated her life to fighting for women, women's issues, equality, and against domestic violence.

We'd worked together on campaigns for good EMILY's List endorsed candidates and Jana went even further when she worked as Lobbyist for the National Organization for Women, working behind the scenes to pass more comprehensive sex education in Kansas - which we lovingly referred to as Abstinence Plus.

After her death, family and friends established a national campaign to help Jana's service live on through others. Symbolic of the number of people who attended her funeral, the Eleven Hundred Torches campaign urges hundreds of ordinary citizens to serve others. They've encouraged us to inspire others to work in our communities and use this day to not only honor women but to help develop stronger citizens everywhere.

Governor Sebelius has joined the campaign and is calling on all Kansans to set aside time on March 8th to volunteer in their communities - I'm asking that we all use this day everywhere, inspired by our mothers, our grandmothers, our wives, our sisters, daughters, and our friends to build a better world.

Important and quick facts on young women and violence from the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence:

• 61% of female homicide victims were wives or intimate acquaintances of their killers.
• 10% of female homicide victims are less than 18 years old and only 9% are over 65.
• The average age of a female homicide victim is 36.
• More than 8 times as many African American women were murdered by a male they knew than were killed by strangers.

This is a pretty substance-heavy Quick Hits. Any one of the items here should merit a full blog post. There's just not enough time, damn it! Not enough time . . .

• CNN Money has an almost great segment on how the economic downturn may be driving young voters to the polls. My only quibble - in the final line the reporter claims that in the past "young people were eager to register, but not to vote." That's just not true. 80% of registered young voters actually cast a ballot on election day. Registration is the problem, not turnout. Or, as I've been saying - higher youth turnout is not about curing apathy but increasing access. (h/t Chris Kennedy of Rock the Vote)

• In the wake of GOP voter suppression efforts that have ensnared young people and veterans in Montana, Forward Montana has launched Montana Voter Suppression (.org), a website to track, report, and prevent voter suppression efforts in the state. Earlier today, the group also held a protest in front of the office of MT Rep Dennis Rehberg's office. Rehberg's chief of staff, Erik Iverson, is the Chair of Montana GOP, the group behind the voter challenges.
• Speaking of voter suppression, Nancy Scola and Allison Fine have a spectacular post over at Tech President detailing how Twitter could be used as an election protection tool.
• GQRR has a new poll out, this time of women. The results show that unmarried women, including many young women, are the key to Obama's success among that demographic. Unmarried women are supporting Obama 62 - 33%. So much for the "Palin Effect."

• In Kansas, Jim Slattery is embarking on a campus tour to drum up youth support for his Senate campaign. All down-ballot candidates should consider this if they want to ride the youth wave to its fullest. As much as we'd like to think they do, Obama's coattail don't necessarily extend all the way down the ballot.
• Veterans group IAVA issued it's congressional score card today, and John McCain earned a big fat D. The Disabled Veterans of American didn't score him much better, giving the Senator a 20% rating. So much for supporting the troops.

I've never heard of Anderson Analytics before, so take this with a grain of salt, but in a poll of 1,000 students, they found that Sarah Palin's presence on the ticket did not help McCain draw support among college students generally, or among young women attending college:

Stamford, CT (PRWEB) September 30, 2008 -- According to the Anderson Analytics GenX2Z College Poll, 60% of college students (ages 17-34) prefer Senator Obama while only 25% prefer Senator McCain.

Interestingly, the choice of Sarah Palin does not seem to have helped McCain much among female college students. Females were significantly more likely than their male counterparts to prefer Obama (62.9% of females vs. 55.4% of males preferred Obama while only 23% of females vs. 28.4% of males preferred McCain).

The overall 34% youth vote difference between the two candidates is larger than what has been reported in earlier polls among youth. To benefit from the lead, Democrats need to ensure that these students actually visit the polls on Election Day.

I'm looking forward to tomorrow night's debate. Each new Katir Couric interview with Palin that comes out is another nail in the GOP coffin. All Biden has to do is sit back, direct his attacks at Bush and McCain, and say as little as possible. Sarah Palin will self-immolate during the 2 minute response periods when she won't be able to rely on straight talking points (or look foolish doing so).

Over at The New Republic, Elizabeth Cline wants to know why young women aren't voting for Sen. Clinton. Her answer seems to be twofold. First, non-college young people, who tend to favor Clinton, are not turning out in numbers as high as their college peers. Second, and more importantly, young women in college are living in a meritorcratic system with little to no gender bias, effectively neutering gender as a deciding factor in their politics:

Obama's support gets even stronger as voters get younger. Among college students, it's even stronger. As far back as April 2007, polls showed Obama with a 17-point lead over Clinton among college Democrats. During that same period, Obama's lead over Clinton was only three percentage points among 18-24 year-olds not enrolled in a four-year school. Fortunately for Obama, this non-college group has abysmal voter turnout. According to CIRCLE, in 2004, the voter turnout for college students and college graduates under 25 was 59 percent; it was 34 percent for non-graduates. In other words, those young voters are mostly college students or recent grads.

Anyone who has graduated in the last decade has anecdotes of guys who come to class late or hungover, while their female classmates seemed to have all their work done. College has become one corner of American life where hardworking females are consistently and fairly rewarded, and they are succeeding there, to a much greater degree than their male counterparts. It's possible, maybe even likely, to graduate college with little sense and zero experience of institutionalized gender discrimination--with almost complete freedom from the type of covert, daily setbacks that drive blacks to the polls for Obama and older women to vote for Clinton.

I don't know if it is true or not, but it is certainly an interesting theory.

Two quick things to note.

First, on the three theories as to how Clinton won the 25 - 29 vote, exit polling by The Harvard Institute of Politics suggests that it was NOT young women who drove Clinton to victory. According to the IOP, Obama and Clinton split young women (under 30) evenly. I spoke with John Della Volpe from the IOP, and he seemed to think that Clinton's messaging about issues to young voters (vs talk of hope) resonated with non-college youth, and he also thought that my theory about college graduates migrating out of state might be correct.

Also interesting - IOP gives Obama a narrow win among 25 - 29 year olds. I also saw some private polling from those involved in the Clinton campaign last night suggesting the same thing. CNN and the network exit polls MIGHT be wrong here.

Second, Rasmussen's youth cross tabs taken in the days prior to the New Hampshire primary showed a much tighter race than what we saw in Iowa:

Obama: 38%
Clinton: 26%
Edwards: 17%

Turns out his results were much closer to the truth. It's too bad he didn't break them down beyond 18 - 29, but the samples were probably impossibly small. So this wasn't entirely unpredictable. We, and I, bought into some of the hype.