Just don’t make me learn this dance to take part!

The White House Project.    She Should Run.   Take Your Seat.    Emerge America.   The 2012 Project.

These are just a few of the groups that try hard — really hard — to find and recruit women to get into the arena with the political boys.  Their common goal is to train and motivate women to run for elective office to bring a fresh perspective to running our towns, our states and our country, instead of just leaving it to the guys (and mostly white guys, at that).

Every election season these organizations lament the fact that so few women run for elective office in comparison to men and try different approaches to increase their recruitment efforts.  Studies have shown that one reason to explain the fact that women comprise such small percentages of elected officials is that women have to be convinced to run.  Unless they’re asked more than once, many qualified women candidates just don’t get out there; men, on the other hand, seem to wake up in the morning, look in the mirror and just say, “Hey! I think I’ll run for office today!“  No wondering whether they have enough qualifications.  No hesitance about whether they’re the best for the job.  Men are usually just more confident about throwing their own hats in the ring.

What is it about us gals that we need our arms to be twisted to get in a race?  More than one person has suggested I should run for office, but there is no way on God’s green earth I would ever do that.  I love writing about politics and analyzing them and parsing and dissecting.  But I think there are other ways I can be useful to help make the change I want to see.  Campaign life is not for me.

As for other women, there’s more to our collective reluctance than the idea that we don’t see ourselves as candidate material.  I know there are plenty of women who are confident that they are better qualified than a whole heck of a lot of those guys out there. (The photo above is Exhibit A).

So if we think we’re just as, if not more, qualified than men, what’s holding us back?

1. Women don’t want to subject their families to the uber-scrutiny that comes with being a candidate these days. Political life has always put candidates and their families under a very public microscope, but that’s become exponentially worse with the need to feed the 24/7 cable news monster, as well as the increased use of airing the “dirty laundry” of one’s opponents, even if it isn’t all that stinky.

2. Political rhetoric is violent and vindictive. Think former Congressional candidate Krystal Ball and those “racy” college photos that her opponents found.  Think newly-minted Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren being the target of one right wing blogger’s not-so-subtle reference to his revolver and a “contract.” Even if most of that sort of thing is just talk, who wants to roll the dice?

3. Getting elected doesn’t mean getting anything done. One Congressman from Texas said in a recent XM POTUS Radio interview that the only bills that have a snowball’s chance of getting passed in Washington, D.C. right now are ones just to keep the government from shutting down.  No one — on either side — wants to touch what really needs to be done, and that’s finding ways to create jobs.  If political office is seen as a place where nothing can be accomplished other than spinning wheels, most women will view that as a waste of their precious and limited time.

4. Children. There are certainly high profile examples of mothers of young children in positions of power like U.S. Senator Kirsten Gillibrand and Congresswomen Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Cathy McMorris Rodgers.  And yes, Nancy Pelosi has seen to it that there are breastfeeding rooms in the halls of Congress.  But most women I know struggle just to keep up with a “regular” job and family responsibilities, let alone the grueling schedules that these women have.  Yes, there should be more moms of young children in the halls of Congress because we need that perspective — as with so many other points of view — but I don’t know many women with young children who could find a way to keep things running smoothly at home and with constituents.

5. No one wants to be Speaker of the House John Boehner’s tanning buddy.  OK, I just made that one up for fun.  But there is a LOT of extracurricular stuff elected officials have to do to know the right people and be heard and seen in the right places to position themselves for re-election.  Just as in the days of working at a large law firm, I know you can do OK in a job by showing up and working hard.  But unless you’re willing (and invited) to hang out over the occasional beer or golf game with the power players, you’re always going to be looked over for advancement opportunities.

Am I wrong?  Would you run for political office while you still have young children at home?

Image via Joanne Bamberger.  All rights reserved.

I sometimes use my experiences as PunditGirl’s mother as a lens through which to view issues that are important to me.  But PunditGirl isn’t the only daughter in my life.  I also have two adult step-daughters.  They don’t need me much at this stage of the game — they’re women with their own professional lives and relationships and, yes, one of them is married with a toddler of her own — another girl.

The presence of three different generations of girls in my life colors how I view this day — Women’s Equality Day — that many are celebrating.  And it’s not a happy color.  I was tempted not to write anything about Women’s Equality Day because, in all honesty, I can’t think about it without laughing and crying at the same time.

Equality?  We’re not even close.

Sure, we’ve come a long way, as the saying goes, but that doesn’t acknowledge just how far we still have to go for anything resembling true equality for women in America.  President Obama issued a proclamation yesterday stating that although women have achieved a lot in terms of gaining the vote and participating in politics that “disparities remain.”

So how does he explain to his daughters and mine why more isn’t being done to fix that once and for all?

Nothing close to equal pay for equal work exists for women.  While the president did sign the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, he and his administration have dragged their feet on making the Paycheck Fairness Act — one that would mandate equal pay — a priority, notwithstanding their continued promises to do so.  Ledbetter only gives women (and men) additional rights to sue for back pay and benefits after they find out they’ve been discriminated against.  Various commissions and committees established to promote, study or advance the idea of paying people fairly and equally for the same work only delay real change.

Women are still fighting to be treated equally and fairly in the workplace when it comes to getting paid sick days and paid family leave for the birth or adoption of a child or to care for other family members.  In order to have flexibility in some jobs to manage the work/life balance dance, there are women who agree to be paid only 80 percent of full wages, even though they’re really working 120 percent, putting in time at home once the kids are in bed, just to get the scheduling flexibility they need without the fear of losing their job.

Women are still fighting for fair treatment when it comes to health care — some men on Capitol Hill still believe that health insurance shouldn’t have to cover maternity benefits, and coverage for injuries from domestic violence incidents can still be denied under some policies pre-existing condition language.

Women are still less than 20 percent of Congress, women publish less than 20 percent of op-eds in major newspapers, and women are still significantly less than half of governors, as well as law firm and accounting firm partners.  Women might make up close to 50 percent of the workforce these days, but that is hardly the equality we’ve been looking for or deserve.

So how do I explain all that to my daughters and, yes, to my granddaughter when she’s old enough to understand?  My stepdaughters are adults and know that things are the way they are.  But PunditGirl, as she enters middle school, still believes the story we tell all our kids — that boys and girls can do the exact same things if they want.  Which is true in a limited way.  We as parents don’t have the nerve to tell our daughters that they’ll only get paid three-quarters of what the boys make.  We conveniently leave out the part that as girls they will face obstacles, barriers and ceilings, both glass and cement, that I had assumed in my girlhood we wouldn’t have to worry about anymore in the 21st century.

In his proclamation, President Obama stated:

Women’s rights are ultimately human rights, and the march for equality will not end until full parity and equal opportunity are attained in every State and workplace across our Nation.  It remains our responsibility to ensure that the principles of justice and equality apply to all Americans, regardless of gender, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, disability, or socioeconomic status.  If we stay true to our founding ideals and the example of those who insisted upon nothing less than full equality, we can and will perpetuate the line of progress that runs throughout our Nation’s history for generations to come.

I agree with all of that and to have the President of the United States acknowledge that women’s rights are human rights is crucial to making any strides for true equality.  But it’s time for the President and others who use these words to take actions that make them a reality.

So forgive for not inviting you all over for a Women’s Equality Day celebration.  I’ll save my party for the day when the idea of a governmental commemoration devoted to women’s equality is as ridiculously outdated as those 1980′s power suits with the big shoulder pads they said I had to wear to be viewed as “equal” to my male colleagues.

Image by Joanne Bamberger.  All rights reserved.

Thanks so much to genConnect and Randi Zucker — chatting with you was a lot of fun!

So here’s the announcement!!

I’m so proud of how it turned out and so grateful to the many fabulous women who agreed to to be a part of the project by allowing me to include their thoughts and writing.  Not to mention the enthusiastic reviews it’s been getting.  I promise, I did not pay anyone to write those things!

Interested in hearing a little bit about it before heading over to Amazon.com or BrightSkyPress.com to pick up a copy?  Take a listen to an interview I did with David Wescott of It’s Not a Lecture about the inspiration for the book, the power of social media and how I would advise a political woman who is called a flake or the queen of rage.

So now I’m just waiting for the calls from Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert — because I know if they’re interested in books about Davy Crockett and William McKinley, they’re going to be bowled over by this one, especially as they head out for their beach vacations to steel themselves for the 2012 campaign!  If they want a window into how women — the majority of American voters — they just need to spend a day with Mothers of Intention!

While at the BlogHer ’11 conference this past weekend, I got a sneak peak at this ABC News story that left me awed and in tears.

While I didn’t get to go to Kenya, I am honored to be one of the “ONE Team Member” asked to spread the word about how we, as moms, can make a difference for other families across the globe.r

Even better, I got to see some lovely women from around the blogosphere, including Karen Ballum from BlogHer, Ellen Gerstein from Wiley Publishing and Florinda Vasquez of The 3 R’s blog, who all came by to wish me well, give me a hug and be some of the first to walk away with the book.

The other highlight of my mad dash to BEA was meeting and being interviewed by Kelly Wallace, chief correspondent at iVillage.  Kelly and I have been chatting on the Twitter machine for a while, but met in person finally for this amazing video that’s up on their site now about getting away from the soccer mom myth at election time.  AND, Part 2 of our interview is still to come.

WHEW! With that whirlwind behind me, shortly, I’ll be off to Netroots Nation where too many amazing women to mention are throwing me my official book launch party, I’ll be moderating a fantastic panel called, Tiger Moms vs. Mama Grizzlies: How to Engage Moms to Advance the Progressive Agenda, and I”ll be signing books at the Netroots book strore.

Of course, I don’t want to forget that I’ll have a chance to hang out with some good friends (and sell books, of course!) at Type A Parent Conference in Asheville, N.C. later this month.  And I’ve even received my first “official” review of the book from Lara at Chicken Nuggets of Wisdom blog, who also reviews books for the Examiner.com. (Yeah, she kinda liked it!)

Needless to say, the Pundit Family thought my schedule would slow down a bit once Mothers of Intention was written and on the virtual book shelves, but, hey, a girl’s got to plug the book, right?

I thought with 18 million cracks in the proverbial glass ceiling we were moving away from that tired ‘but who’s taking care of the kids’ meme.  Apparently the New York Times (again) didn’t get that memo.

In writing about Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz and her selection to head the Democratic National Committee, the first paragraph of the article entitled,  “In a Life Filled with Firsts, One More,” states:

Open lunchboxes are sprawled on the kitchen counter. Four dogs dart in and out. And three children rummage through backpacks. With the predawn bedlam at its height, the harried mother asks: Do you have your baseball glove? What do you want for a snack? How about the form I have to sign?

“Harried mother.” Hardly what I’d guess would be in the first paragraph in an A Section article about the one Democrat who is now responsible for making sure that her party wins and wins big in 2012.

A few paragraphs into that article, Wasserman Schultz is further described in this order — “mother, wife, Girl Scout leader, legislator, fund-raiser and House vote counter” and, then, finally, as the first woman elected to lead the Democratic National Committee  (though she is not the first to hold that post).

If this was a fluffy profile piece for the Style section or one of the traditional women’s magazines, I’d be less annoyed.  There are many women in general, and mothers in particular, for whom Wasserman Shultz’s story will resonate.  But here’s the rub — being the head of the DNC  is one of the most powerful positions any Democrat can hold — the primary duty of the DNC Chair is to support all Democratic candidates and their campaigns around the country.  Heading up the DNC isn’t about signing permission slips or weighing in on whether your tween daughter can wear faux leopard flats to school; it’s about wielding real power with big time donors and supporters, getting the grassroots inspired and staying in close contact with other Democratic leaders.

Publishing an article in ostensibly the biggest newspaper in the country that begins with a description of stereotypical mom duties and that places Wasserman Schultz’s professional responsibilities at the end of a list that starts with typical mommy chores does exactly what you would assume — it insinuates that it’s OK for women to move up the ladder of political power, as long as they packed the lunch boxes and washed the gym uniforms first.

Two years ago, when Tim Kaine was named the head of the DNC, the New York Times made no mention of what his daily duties were when it came to his three children.  It didn’t describe him as a father or a husband.  It didn’t feature a photo of him in the kitchen with his kids while wearing pink sweats– in his picture, he wore the typical Washington, D.C. power suit while sitting at the side of the president.

It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to read between those work/life balance lines.

I can only conclude that it just doesn’t even occur to those writing or assigning and editing stories about political men to ask about or highlight their care-giving roles.  Yet, when profiling a woman, no matter how powerful or high-profile, those with children get defined by the mommy card.  It happened to Hillary Clinton and to Sarah Palin.  And tt was a topic that almost defined the last Oklahoma governor’s race. Now it’s happening to Debbie.

I get tired thinking about this topic and whether there will ever come a day when the media stop seeing women, no matter how accomplished or educated, primarily in that early morning rush of getting kids out the door with their homework, lunches and backpacks.   Maybe I should just be happy that women like Wasserman Schultz are finally getting the plum political assignments and any attention from  the Gray Lady.  As I was reminded by a friend, maybe should we lighten up and celebrate the fact that a down to earth Jewish mom with fabulous curly hair is going to be in charge of a LOT of those guys.

Image via Debbie Wasserman Schultz for Congress website.

Takes you back, doesn’t it?

That’s all about to change as Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz stands ready to move into one of the most important roles in her party — the chair of the Democratic National Committee.  So what can we expect from her? Business as usual or is she going to show the Dems a path to electoral victory in 2012 they haven’t thought about yet?   As she takes the helm as the Democrat’s chief fundraiser and strategist, it’s fair to ask, especially if you’re not from her home state of Florida, why Debbie?  Here are just five good reasons we can assume that Wasserman Schultz is the perfect woman for the job:

1. She can raise money like nobody’s business.  In 2006, she was surpassed only by Nancy Pelosi and Rahm Emanuel in her ability to raise millions for Democratic candidates.

2. She’s a tireless advocate for women’s health issues, especially early detection of breast cancer, a disease that she has fought herself.

3. She calls ‘em like she sees ‘em, and she’s one of the few to call out the Republicans for coining “Obamacare” and turning it into a dirty word, and one that actually violates the rules of Congress.

4. She knows that political power can come from real friendships, especially the kind where you’ve got your friend’s back.

5. She’s the mom of three young children, so she is an expert on the art of juggling to get things done and not worrying about too much sleep.  Plus, she doesn’t take crap from anyone about the fact that, as a mom, she carries crayons in her purse.  I can also guarantee you, she won’t take any of  that Jim McDermott “that job will be too much of a strain on her” crap.  That’s just tired old code for “hey, little lady, why don’t you leave the heavy lifting to the big boys?”  She’s already kicked cancer’s ass — I think she can kick his, as well.

Isn’t it about time we had a woman like this in charge of moving our country away from the ideas of the almost-all-boys club we have today?  Wasserman Schultz has always been a serious force to be reckoned with and she definitely isn’t your father’s political party chair.  She doesn’t shy away from the media spotlight when it comes to advancing the causes she cares about, which should shake things up.  I have no doubt that she’ll make sure that she gets better coverage in the future than the few column inches her DNC slot got that were buried in the Washington Post or the tiny blurb on the bottom of page A17 in the New York Times.

She’s got a whole heck of a lot more going for her than Sarah Palin or Michele Bachmann.  Wouldn’t it be nice if the media covered her that way?

Even though middle school and high school are a couple of decades back in my rear view mirror, I still remember the taunting and teasing I took at the hands of my school’s mean girls. But as I made my way to graduation, I figured there would come a day when, as grown-ups, we’d move past that.

When it comes to today’s political world,  I couldn’t have been more wrong.  Mean girls are still out there and loaded for bear (though not their beloved mama grizzlies).

According to a vocal few, conservative women are “hot” and progressive feminists are ugly “freaks of nature.” Liberal women are “fat and nasty.”  And, apparently, we’re a LOT stupider than Tea Party women, who believe  they’re the keepers of common sense.  Progressive women are “trust fund socialists” and liberal feminism only involves a bunch of  irrelevant older women.

WHEW! I need to put on some Kevlar for those kind of attacks!

Some “smart girls” want people to think they’re the only women who know anything about politics and that the rest of us should just be ignored.  For some reason, the most vocal of the bunch are apparently afraid of  a little actual political conversation.  Which is too bad, because  I know plenty of women who don’t always agree with me on politics but they’re never catty, rude or mocking in the way that a vocal handful of conservative standard bearers have become.  I don’t know who created The Real Housewives of 2010 Politics, but it’s getting old — I guess just like us!

A Newsweek article a few months ago by Rosalind Wiseman, author of Queen Bees and Wannabes (which was the basis for the movie Mean Girls), as well as Mean Girls Grown Up: Surviving Catty and Conniving Women, commented on the left-over mean girl tactics that growing numbers of women are resorting to:

“In our culture … we get rewarded for mean-girl behavior, so we see adults behaving in ways that we typically assign to teens … Getting attention is the most important thing.”

The funny thing about mean girl behavior, though, is this — it turns out that if you’re talking about what nature expects, the mean girl mantle is something we’re supposed to outgrow by our mid-twenties.  The current group of political mean girls seems to be enjoying the attention they’re getting from their heckling and I don’t see any sign of it slowing down, even as they march toward their idea of what an “older woman” is.   If the media would stop giving these mean girls the attention they crave, I bet we could actually have some multi-partisan female discussions!

I just want to give these gal flame-throwers a little head’s up on one thing — we live in a flavor-of-the-day world, so the attention they’re loving now will surely be gone as quickly as it came.  So if they want to make a difference for whatever they believe, some other tactics might be in order.  But the women who stand out as the worst mean girls in the bunch aren’t about real change.  They’re more concerned with the bright spotlight of celebrity.

One other thing.  The new crop of “smart girls” needs to be careful about tossing around phrases about irrelevant “older women.”  It won’t be that long before they cross over into the world of oldsters, and generations of their daughters and granddaughters will be more than happy to remind them of that.  Unless, of course, they’ve got pictures hiding in their attics.  But we all know what happened to Dorian Gray in the end.

As for mean girls, things don’t usually end well for them, either.

UPDATE: It turns out I’m not the only one ruminating on the whole political mean girl phenomenon.  My fellow mom pundit Jill Miller Zimon has a few things to say at her place, Writes Like She Talks!