For decades, women who ran for office were by definition "the woman candidate," forced to simultaneously defy and embrace gender stereotypes while also going through the already-grueling candidate tasks of getting their issues heard and their supporters rallied. At some point, we needed to move beyond this; female candidates should be seen as unremarkable, rather than the electoral equivalent of unicorns. On Tuesday night, we saw that.

I have a pretty long list of political disagreements with the conservative woman who advanced on Tuesday night. But at the same time, I was pleased to see so many front-page stories about their ascent that focused exclusively on matters of substance: Sharron Angle’s statements on social security, Blanche Lincoln’s use of surrogate campaigners, the political environment that Nikki Haley faced in South Carolina, Carly Fiorina’s opinions on immigration, and Meg Whitman’s campaign spending. These women were, by and large, not reduced to sexist caricatures or stereotypes; they were treated like candidates. Even the accusations of extramarital affairs leveled at Haley didn’t cause the election to devolve into a sexist mess. Save a handful of feature pieces that noted the increase in the number of GOP women running and winning, all of the female candidates were judged in the press, for the most part, on the merits of their candidacies, and not their looks, their “femininity,” or who was home taking care of their kids.

In the coming months, I’ll be rooting for candidates that share my beliefs, and I hope to hear what the conservative women who advanced plan to do to protect and advance women’s rights and increase women’s political participation. But for now, I’m happy to set partisanship aside and cheer for the fact that at last, women running for office are no longer being treated as rare specimens. They’re being treated, as they should be, as candidates
 

But what also made me frustrated was the fact that the leaders of women’s groups interviewed for the piece seemed to be supporting this view of young women as uninformed and uninvolved. As Feministing pointed out, young women are quite involved at the local level (the article only cited national organizations in Washington, DC) and have taken more menial, unpaid-internship-type roles in the major feminist organizations for years. Much has been written about the "graying" of the leadership of NOW, Planned Parenthood and NARAL Pro-Choice America, and it bears repeating that these organizations need to do a much better job of actively seeking younger women to hand off the torch. If they did so, they would find no shortage of committed and passionate younger women who are more than qualified to start moving up the leadership ladder.

The one bright spot in this piece was NARAL President Nancy Keenan’s acknowledgement that NARAL and other women’s groups need to do a better job of framing the issue of abortion rights in a way that resonates with today’s generation. I could not agree more. We do not have to shy away from abortion as a moral argument; instead, we can effectively advocate for women being the best equipped to make those sorts of moral judgments. We can ask whether it is "moral" to legally compel a woman to continue a pregnancy she knows she is unprepared for. We can win on this ground.

And we can also connect choice to the lives of younger women. Millennials in particular are often hailed as being resourceful, more politically aware, and open-minded, eager to take advantage of opportunities and technology advances. Why aren’t we talking about abortion in this broader generational context? Choice means so much more than simply being able to choose a legal abortion. It means being able to choose jobs that will allow us flexibility, rather than leveling penalties, if and when we decide to raise families. It means being able to choose to further our educations so that we can better contribute to society. It means being able to choose when and under what circumstances we have sex, and protect ourselves accordingly. It means being able to choose many other things. Making this argument about more than just abortion is something that younger women are uniquely poised to do.

The organization heads interviewed by Newsweek are correct that a generational change is taking place that may change the landscape of the debate and its leadership. But what none of them seem to realize is that there is a new generation ready to take the reigns and change how we frame the conversation — for the better.

Want to take action? Sign the petition to for Newsweek to interview young women who support choice.

Interviews with Terry McBride, co-founder of Lilith Fair, suggested that the festival was unaware of the anti-choice history behind the CPCs. In fact, McBride basically stated that a quick search for "woman-focused" or "pro-woman" organizations with federal tax ID numbers was what yielded the list of CPCs on the Choose Your Charity list, rather than an ideological agenda. After an outcry online, including a Facebook  group that boasted more than 1,000 members, most of the CPCs were removed from the list, along with one of the pro-choice groups, NARAL Pro-Choice North Carolina.

Once I heard that the inclusion of CPCs was likely due to a "pro-woman" web search, my first thought was that that mistake is a pretty easy one to make. After all, most CPCs frame their mission as supporting pregnant women or women facing unplanned pregnancies. Out of context, that’s a pretty pro-woman message. The problem is that their support is predicated on providing women with misleading and false information about abortion, birth control, and other critical sexual and reproductive health topics.

If all CPCs did was offer support and health care to women who had already made the choice to continue their pregnancies to term, it would probably be fair to term them "pro-woman." (For that matter, if all pro-lifers did was support women who had made the choice to continue a pregnancy and battle for more resources for pregnant women and adoption services, the "abortion issue" would not be nearly as contentious.) It’s the exclusion of information, which carries with it the suggestion that those who run the centers "know what’s best" for the women who come to them for support, that makes them quite explicitly anti-woman. (The fact that most CPCs do not clearly state that they do not provide abortion services or contraception makes it easy to assume that they lack an agenda. Alas, it’s a pretty successful marketing tactic.) Pro-choice reproductive health centers, such as the Feminist Women’s Health Center in Atlanta that remains on the charity list, offer a range of information and support systems to expectant mothers, and are only interested in ensuring that women have all the resources available to execute the best choice they can make for themselves, be it to carry the pregnancy to term or to terminate it.

That Lilith Fair is now lamenting the involvement of "politics" in the charity selection shows that the organizers need a much better grasp of the implications of anti-choice and pro-choice reproductive health agendas. Unfortunately, only one is actually "pro-woman."

The best feminists are male feminists. Otherwise, with female feminists, it just sounds like they’re complaining about issues that do not exist. This is essential viewing.

He justifies his response by saying:

While my words may have seemed inflammatory, I was actually talking about how the oppressor is the best person to speak out against oppression. In reflection, I could have worded it better, as it makes it seem that males are better than females. What I was saying is that by males the oppression of females is given legitimacy, and the privileged party can help to enact change to that end. I did not say that women are useless at feminism, because that makes no sense.

As I read this justification for the supremacy of male feminism, my mind immediately went to my many queer friends. As a straight ally, every time I argue in support of marriage equality in a group of straight people, I’ve wondered whether my advocacy on behalf of my queer friends has the same (or better, or less) impact on straight audiences that it would if one of my gay or lesbian friends were making the same case to them. Similarly, as a woman and a feminist, I can also ask whether a male defending and advocating for feminist ideals is a more effective way to get these arguments taken seriously.

Privilege is a complicated animal; the last thing anyone should be trying to do is setting up feminists (or queer people, or any other oppressed group) as a helpless party incapable of speaking for themselves. I think that’s why I was most struck by this man’s assertion that men were the "best" feminist advocates. If one uses one’s access to spaces that are denied to others to advocate for their inclusion, that is responsible use of privilege. And I can imagine that in frat-house situations where one guy makes a rape joke, the most effective response may be for another guy to explain to him why that’s not cool, as opposed to another woman whom his sexist mind can easily dismiss.

But to suggest that men are always the best advocates for feminist ideals is a faulty presumption. Effective feminist advocacy can easily vary by context. I totally support men using the privilege they have to explain why patriarchy is bogus. But that does not mean that female feminist advocacy is by definition less effective. There are countless scenarios where the voice of the oppressed (in this case, women) is the most important tool in the fight for an egalitarian society, and to diminish its impact is to continue a problematic cycle.

To flip back to the queer/straight example, there are situations where a straight voice may be necessary to explain, for instance, why we are in no way threatened by the idea of marriage equality. But I also do not know what it’s like to have to hide a relationship with someone I love, or to have my relationships with men treated as a "phase" I will soon grow out of. My effectiveness will vary by situation, and I recognize that.

Ultimately, recognizing one’s own privilege and using it to advocate on behalf of others is something we should all embrace. After all, it takes men recognizing gender equality and straight people recognizing LGBT equality to truly create an egalitarian society. And that’s why no particular advocacy can call itself "the best."

Posted for Leading Lady’s blog carnival. To submit your own response, contact Leading Lady.

Though presenter Barbra Streisand announced the barrier-busting win with "Well, the time has come," Bigelow did not acknowledge the milestone in her acceptance speech. Instead, she offered gracious but fairly standard acceptance-speech fare: thanking her cast and crew, her family, and the troops serving in Iraq and Afghanistan who inspired The Hurt Locker. As she walked off-stage, however, the orchestra played "I Am Woman (Hear Me Roar)" by Helen Reddy, an anthem of the women’s movement recorded in 1972.

The orchestra’s choice sparked some debate among journalists, feminists, and Twitter users following the show. Was it a dated tune that caricatured Bigelow’s achievement? Or was it an appropriately anthemic song to honor the moment?

Truthfully, it’s a great song to play when commemorating female firsts. The problem — and perhaps what made the song seem annoyingly dated to some — is that we’re still having female firsts nearly forty years after "I Am Woman (Hear Me Roar)" was recorded at the height of the second-wave feminist movement. 

In fact, Bigelow’s reaction, when asked after the ceremony how it felt to be the first female filmmaker to win a directing Oscar, seemed to acknowledge this: "I long for the day when that modifier ['female' filmmaker] can be a moot point." She should know. Throughout the Oscar campaigning process, Bigelow has had to (gracefully and tactfully) avoid the relentless Kramer vs. Kramer-esque gossip about the fact that her ex-husband James Cameron was also nominated in the Best Director category (for Avatar). She’s also dealt with hordes of gawking journalists struggling to compute the notion of an attractive 57-year-old woman making a brilliant war film.

We should honor Bigelow for directing a fantastic film and shattering an important glass ceiling. But as we celebrate International Women’s Day and Women’s History Month in 2010, we should ask ourselves what the world will look like when there are no more firsts — when women can make great films, or run great campaigns, or start their own businesses, and not have it be a radical departure from the norm.

After a few strategic camera pans, I saw Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi to the President’s right, and Health & Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius to his left. A good start, I reasoned. And hey, it’s great that we have a female Speaker and more than one female Cabinet member, right?

Tebow’s mother, Pam, will be presenting an obviously difficult choice she made as an ultimatum. For those unfamiliar with the details, Pam Tebow became pregnant with Tim while in the Philippines as a missionary. Facing serious health complications that threatened her life and her fetus, doctors reportedly recommended that Pam Tebow seek an abortion. (How she would have done so in a country where abortion is illegal and punishable by jail time is another matter altogether.) Because abortion conflicted with Pam Tebow’s religious beliefs, she instead sought round-the-clock medical care throughout the remainder of her pregnancy and ultimately gave birth to a healthy baby, who later grew up to be a Heisman-winning college football star.

On the surface, this story is something pro-choice advocates should embrace, as Tracy Clark-Flory points out at Salon; Pam Tebow made the choice that was best for her and her family, and was quite fortunate to have the resources to get the medical attention she needed. It’s always wonderful to hear success stories like hers. But in this ad, we’re clearly not going to hear from anyone who made a different choice, their reasons for doing so, and their outcomes. We won’t hear from the family members of women who decided to continue a dangerous pregnancy and wound up dead, nor are we going to hear from women who chose abortion rather than take a huge medical risk and ended up leading happy, fulfilling lives, perhaps with healthy children from future pregnancies. And the worst part is that Pam Tebow, by partnering with the rabidly anti-choice Focus on the Family, will be telling women everywhere that her choice should not have been a choice at all.

Women everywhere should have the right to weigh the same risks and considerations that Pam Tebow did, and make whatever decision is best for them. It’s a shame that we’ll only be hearing about one choice in between the Clydesdales and the touchdowns on Sunday. Planned Parenthood came out with a wonderful counter-ad that says exactly what should have been said if politics had to be included in the Super Bowl: everyone, be they Pam Tebow or any other woman, has the right to choose:

The major issue with this debate, which most of those involved noted, was the phrasing of the motion. “Women have never had it so good” only asks whether women’s lives are better than they used to be. It’s certainly true that, generally speaking, conditions for women have improved over the last three decades, thanks to advances like equal pay legislation, the availability of contraceptives, and reform of divorce laws. But while I’m all for celebrating what women have achieved, a back-patting festival doesn’t make any real room for the more important debate about what we still need to do. It’s like saying that because we had a civil rights movement and Barack Obama was elected president, we don’t need to talk about eradicating racism anymore and should just bask in the glow of those milestones.

As O’Neill and some of the guest posters noted, many of the hurdles that women still face are the direct result of workplace designed by and for men. But today, more women than ever are entering the work force, most households basically require two breadwinners to make ends meet, and women are still making less than men; furthermore, the changing workplace composition has not altered the popular belief that regardless of whether she works outside the home, the mother is responsible for the children. A “never had it so good” society knows that families are the ones who should make those decisions and gives them opportunities to do so. As O’Neill pointed out in rebuking Donkin’s “choice” thesis, “Is it really a choice when a woman drops out of the workforce because her employer won’t make any accommodations for her need to care for kids or other family members?”

There’s also the persistent stereotypes about working women, some of which made unfortunate appearances in the comments. Unlike women with high-powered careers, male CEOs can devote their lives to climbing the corporate ladder without having anyone ask why they are “abandoning” their family (or, if they’re unmarried, whether they are truly “feminine”). You’ll never hear a man be referred to derisively as a “ball-buster” if he’s good at his job and demands respect. Men with both jobs and young families aren’t ever told to compete over who can be the best “Superdad.” If a man happens to be good-looking, he isn’t presumed to be sleeping his way to the top, nor do people hesitate to trust him.

I’m optimistic that we can create an economy that works for all families, as well as a culture that doesn’t devalue women based on looks or sexuality, but it starts with having an honest conversation about where we are in the present and where we need to go, rather than congratulating ourselves because women are no longer (totally) confined to typing pools. I also can’t help but wonder how much changes to the law have actually become a part of our culture; I’m glad that there are now legal routes for dealing with sexual harassment in the workplace, for instance, but I’ll say we’ve “never had it better” when we raise a generation of men who refuse to engage in such behavior because it’s wrong, not because they’re afraid of an expensive lawsuit. If only Dorkin and O’Neill had been given a motion that allowed them to consider the impact of sexual harassment laws on the workplace, or the need for family-friendly work policies, or whether the leadership styles of male and female CEOs are in fact distinct. There’s a lot more that needs to be said about women in the work force than simply “we’re there.”

But the effectiveness factor is a valid concern. Without disrespecting the passion and hard work of those who work at mainstream feminist groups, the fact is that many such groups have struggled to appeal beyond the older, seasoned-activist set and have thusly seen their political influence wane. The result is their inability to appropriately mobilize the millions of young, smart women who would probably be on board with a feminist agenda if it were just articulated to them. Rarely is choice, for instance, couched in a broader context connecting reproductive freedom to the way today’s woman leads her life. Every young women in this country should know that of course she should control her own sex life – just like she controls her bank account, her wardrobe, her car payments, her grocery list, and the host of other economic and societal issues women face on a daily basis.

I think many of these strategy struggles stem from the lack of younger women’s leadership at virtually all of these “Feminism Inc” organizations. Indeed, as younger feminists continue to clamor for power with second-wave leaders, I find myself searching the ranks for our own version of Amy Gardner, the head of the Women’s Leadership Coalition.

Before you Google either, I should point out that both the WLC and Gardner are not real. They are figments of Aaron Sorkin’s imagination, brought to life on the television show The West Wing. That both Gardner and the WLC are mere television creations is frustrating, but a few lessons can be learned from their fictional example. One, losing “the women’s vote” is something that the key White House players on the show are legitimately concerned about, and the frequent lobbying by Gardner and her ilk exerts obvious influence on the quality of legislation and public debate.

The second is Gardner herself (played by Mary-Louise Parker). Amy Gardner is not only brilliant, sassy, and effective, but she’s young, having worked her way (fictionally, that is) through Yale Law School, NOW and EMILY’s List before coming to the helm of the WLC sometime in her early-to-mid thirties. With more women than ever coming out of BA programs, as well as law and business schools, it’s insane that we haven’t selected more of them as leaders or at least found a way to tap into their concerns as women of the 21st century. Instead, the reins of power have yet to be turned over, with the exception of 36-year-old Stephanie Schriock’s recent ascension as president of EMILY’s List. Keeping younger women out of power hurts mainstream organizations in terms of strategy, marketing, and relevance. There is a new generation of feminist leaders bubbling up, and somewhere in that group is our own real-life Amy Gardner: young, fearless, and with the intellect and skill set required to move the feminist movement back from the margins to strong political influence. It’s time for the movement to let this shift happen.

1. The Fierce Ladies of Sex and the City

The first — and perhaps most controversial — is Sex and the City. The show’s well-documented problems discussing race and class should not be overlooked, but it is important to remember just how revolutionary a show centered on female friendship and sexuality was when it first aired, an argument that Naomi Wolf outlines in The Guardian. Samantha’s lust, for instance, was not punished but celebrated as part of her character throughout the series, and her battle with breast cancer further cemented her resilient personality. The one constant in the show was not men, or even relationships, but four women who share experiences and rely on one another. In my book, that’s an awesome step forward.

2. The Women of The West Wing

The West Wing dealt more directly with the question of women in the workforce. The show has been lauded for its superior writing, acting, and story development, but it also provided a diverse bevy of female role models in positions of power. Press secretary (and later chief of staff) CJ Cregg is the most obvious example, but National Security Advisor Nancy McNally (Anna Deveare Smith) and women’s rights advocate Amy Gardner (Mary-Louise Parker) were among the many strong, complex female characters presented on the show, without judgment by the writers as to the merits of their power. In fact, CJ’s struggles in the male-dominated world of politics were a frequent theme of the show, a topic the writers managed to deal with in a sympathetic way without resorting to tired stereotypes.

3. Tina Fey and Amy Poehler on Saturday Night Live

As a hardcore Saturday Night Live junkie, it was thrilling to see the first Weekend Update desk anchored by two incredibly funny women — Amy Poehler and Tina Fey — who were not only talented comediennes, but unafraid to call out misogyny. (This decade also launched the careers of fellow SNL funnywomen Maya Rudolph and Kristin Wiig.) Both Fey and Poehler have moved on to awesomely feminist post-SNL careers — Fey with 30 Rock and Sarah Palin impersonations, Poehler with Parks & Recreation and Smart Girls At The Party — but their joint newsmaking was an SNL first and a great inspiration for women with a sense of humor.

What are YOUR favorite feminist moments from the media this decade?