Here’s Schwarzenegger’s take on single moms in 2001:

“The parents are the single most important influence on a child, followed by education and the peer group…The number of single parents in the U.S. has quadrupled since the ’60s, and there has also been an increase in violence and school shootings. All that stuff has increased largely because of a lack of parenting, and many households only have one biological parent — so many of them are fatherless. It really creates a big problem.”

An excellent speech on the importance of good parenting. Just one thing. Schwarzenegger should’ve made clear that this ‘big problem’ only applies when the dad is not a movie star. For those tragic cases, Schwarzenegger could say something like this:

“Unfortunately, I can’t be the one to impregnate all the women in California. Therefore, we’ve got to put some policies in place to better support those women who are not involved with me or with men like me. Many women in California, I’m sorry to say, will need to find a way to financially support themselves.

So, first, we must significantly increase the minimum wage which is predominantly earned by the female dominated service industry.

We’ve also got to make it a high priority that all women in California and their children get access to affordable health care.

We must expand family planning and funding services, making sure they are available to all women. We should lead the country in mandating that all health insurance providers cover contraception.

Because teen pregnancy is the number one indicator that the mother and her child will spend a life in poverty, we must make it the highest priority to reduce teen pregnancies. All schools must teach sex education including STD prevention.

And speaking of those public schools, we’ve got to fix the broken public school system of California, ranked as one of the worst in the country. Only when women are well educated can they acquire good jobs that enable them to become breadwinners for themselves and their families.

I’ve decided to follow the great example of my Democrat wife, Maria Shriver, a well-known advocate for women. Without her support, I could never get elected (especially with pesky tattle-tales accusing me of groping them.) Improving the status of women in this state will also be my priority, because, though there are many womanizer bosses in California, I’ve come to realize, there are simply not enough of us to go around.”

In recent times, we’ve seen the tide turn. After discovering secret affairs, instead of standing by their men, several high profile women decided not to stick around. The list includes Jenny Sanford, Elin Nordegren, Eva Longoria, Sandra Bullock, and, now, Maria Shriver. I guess that’s progress for the women who can afford to leave.

Originally posted to my blog ReelGirl on May 14th.

Why write fiction?

I’ve always loved to, but I also felt like it didn’t matter as much. Writing about politics and culture is important. If you write about ‘issues,’ you can use your writing to change the world. Or try to. Making up stories might be fun but what’s the point?

Then I had three kids. Of course, I read my daughters stories, watch movies with them, and also, TV shows. I witness how the stories they listen to shape their imaginary play, how they dress, who their heroes are, the language they repeat, the art they make, and their own creative writing.

In her best-selling book Cinderella Ate My Daughter, Peggy Orenstein writes extensively about children’s brain development, how babies don’t come into the world with fully formed minds that we, parents, are just supposed to observe and discover. Their brains are constantly being formed, rapidly growing and changing as they take in language, pictures, adult reactions, and all kinds of stimuli. Neurons fire in reaction, neural pathways are formed, and connections are created, assimilating the outside world to create the internal one.

So I’ve got to wonder: How might kids’ brains (and then, of course, adult brains) be different if the stories they were exposed to weren’t so dramatically and predominantly shaped by men?

If you ever doubt fiction is important in forming our deepest reality, beliefs, and actions, look at the most influential historical novel of all time: the Bible- not known for its female authors or kindness to women. We’re still fighting wars based on these ancient, repeated, and recycled stories.

One reason the stereotypes in kidlit are so sad is because we’re supposed to be experiencing fantasy, magical worlds. Yet, what we see, way too often, is the same sexism, depicted in cartoonlike proportions, that exists in the real world.

What would our world look like if most great artists, film directors, and novelists were women? And had been for thousands of years?

Here’s just one modern example of how reality shapes fiction and fiction shapes reality. Every year, Forbes Magazine does a survey on the richest imaginary characters. This year, the list includes tycoons like Scrooge McDuck, Richie Rich, Smaug (the dragon from J. R. R. Tolkein) Bruce Wayne (of Batman) and Mr. Monopoly.

Of the gender gap on the list, Forbes‘ Michale Noer writes:

“There are 14 male characters on the list and one female character on this year’s Fictional 15. Sadly, that’s not unusual. There are always women on the list, but too often, only one.

The highest-ranked woman ever was ‘Mom’ from the television show Futurama, who placed fourth in 2007, with a fictional net worth of 15.7 billion. Lara Croft, star of the Tomb Raider video games and movies has appeared on the Fictional 15 three times since 2005. There have never been more than two women on the list in a single year.

Our fictional reporters- the best in the business- have worked hard to rectify this gender imbalance, even breaking the Fictional 15 rules against folkloric characters (the Tooth Fairy appeared in 2010.) But the gap persists.

Some female characters are perennial candidates. Miss Havisham, the well-off spinster from Great Expectations, is considered every year and dismissed on the grounds that she simply isn’t rich enough. And at every fictional story meeting, someone is sure to nominate one of Disney’s princesses, usually Snow White or Ariel. One problem here is that you need to infer their wealth from the fact they live in castes and wear fancy dresses. They aren’t known for being rich within their fictional worlds the same way as C. Montgomery Burns or Bruce Wayne.”

Forbes‘ Caroline Howard gives this explanation:

“Why so few? The answer is quite simple: a small pool of candidates. For some reason, authors, screenwriters, directors, and comic book artists haven’t been creating many ultarich female characters. that is equally true for writers of yore, present and those tackling future or fantasy.

Kind like the real world. Look at the Forbes Worlds Billionaires list. A paltry 1.5 % are self-made women- 19 out of 1,210. And if we include heiresses and widows, that makes 103 ladies, or just 8.5%.”

Obviously, a crucial step towards ever achieving gender equality is imagining what it would look like. Does anyone know what that would be?

“A fascinating and empowering text for women of all ages.”
–Publishers Weekly

Click here to purchase from an independent bookseller.

Click here to purchase from Amazon.

Click here to purchase from Barnes and Noble.

Sugar In My Bowl, edited by Erica Jong, is a collection of essays and short fiction about female sexuality by writers like Julie Klam, Fay Weldon, Jennifer Weiner, and many others including me. The book is coming out June 14, but you can preorder it on Amazon.

Gail Collins, an op-ed columnist for the New York Times, has a hilarious essay in the book that describes how her Catholic education warped her perceptions of sex.

She writes:”I was possibly one of the least sophisticated teenagers in the United States outside of Amish country, and although I knew the mechanics of how babies were made, I had not yet really come around to imagining that people actually did that kind of thing voluntarily.”

Until Collins was well past puberty, she believed that virginity was the same thing as being unmarried and was completely mystified by whatever was going on between Elizabeth Taylor and Richard Burton. She warns that’s what can happen to a girl when she’s “taught about sex by women who didn’t have any.” That would be nuns, who, apparently, had all kinds of special insight into gender differences:

“Boys were not much more than little sex robots, and they could not be held responsible for their actions. Once, we were all called to assembly to hear Charles Keating, the head of the Citizens for Decent Literature (and future star of a huge savings-and-loan scandal), who told us the story of a young mother who went walking down the road with her two small children while she was wearing shorts. The sight of her naked legs so overwhelmed a passing motorist that he swerved off the road and killed both the kids. And it was all their mother’s fault. We were then asked to sign a pledge never to wear any kind of shorts, including the long Bermuda ones.”

In another great essay, novelist Min-Jin Lee writes that it wasn’t until her husband pointed out to her that she’d left sex out of her writing that she realized she had. Re-examining her literary heroines (and their creators) including Emma Bovary, Jane Eyre, and Hetty Sorrel, all scandalous for their day, Lee writes: “Looking backward at my betters made me realize that I was shy at best, cowardly at most. Okay, I was terrified to write about sex. Why?”

Lee, a Korean-American, traced part of her reticence back to a disappointing class she took in college called “Women’s Studies and Asian-American History and Literature” that didn’t inspire her quite as she’d hoped:

“Alas. In print and visual media Asian women were often hookers, mail-order brides, masseuses, porn stars, dragon ladies, submissive sex slaves, and yes, cartoon characters with long black hair, red lips, and racially improbable bosoms. Asian men were sinister gangsters, inscrutable businessmen, angry nerds, and scheming eunuchs. If Asian women were oversexual, then their brothers were asexual.”

Twenty years later, after her conversation with her husband, Lee googled “Asian women” and got 14 million hits, mostly sexual references in the same genre as her college course.

“I may see myself as a forty-two-year-old writer, mother, wife, and former lawyer, but fourteen million hits trumped my subjective reality.” This distortion changed Lee as a writer. From then on, “When relevant, I wrote about sex, even Asian pornography and date rape, because I wanted to be honest about what was significant inside and outside my world. For most of my adult life, I had been uncomfortable with my body- my racial and sexual envelope. This time, in my pages, I thought, maybe I can talk about how it is for me, and I wrote it down. If I had been angry about the lack of self-determination of Asian women’s bodies and lives, I had been staging a feeble and arrogant protest by refusing to write about sex.”

One of my favorite pieces in the anthology is by critic, novelist, and New Yorker contributor Daphne Merkin. Her essay– about how she abandoned a prestigious literary fellowship to pursue the magnetic lust of a summer romance– shows how sexual obsession colonized “all the available mental space in my head.”

My story is called “Light Me Up.” I wrote it because so many narratives, especially those with female protagonists, end with ‘happily ever after,’ when the girl gets the ring. I wanted to introduce a newlywed couple and then throw some scary challenges– involving sex, money, and a new baby– their way.

You can read an excerpt from Sugar In My Bowl here.

The headlines screamed the news – Osama Bin Laden Is Dead. The electronic media devoted entire days to discussing and dissecting the killing of Bin Laden by a secret American anti-terror force whose sole target had been to capture—dead or alive—the most evil mastermind of terrorism in history. The news of Bin Laden’s death resulted in an outpouring of celebration along with vows of vengeance throughout the world. Horns honking and people cheering at Ground Zero or around the White House made the reaction of any winning country of the World Cup pale by comparison. Crowds in the United States sang the Star Spangled Banner, while demonstrators in Europe and South America simply cheered America by shouting USA! USA! Even President Obama, usually a bit too cool and unemotional in the face of myriad of national and international disasters exclaimed, “The death of Bin Laden marks the most significant achievement to date in our nation’s effort to defeat Al Qaeda…” As for the vows of vengeance, Al Qaeda sympathizers along with much of the Arab world, Asia, and a laundry list of anti-American pro-Muslim organizations, promised retaliation in the form of random killings of Americans and general terrorist strikes that would paralyze the western economy.

Osama is dead. I’m prepared to buy that, though I must admit I thought he had been dead for a while, actually from kidney failure since he was on dialysis for many years before he thought up the mother of all terror attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Call me silly, but I believed the stories about the portable dialysis machines that followed Osama from one remote hiding place to another. But never mind. No one knew anything for certain anyway. If and when he was dead from an attack by American forces and not kidney failure or any other malady, the world needed to see a body. The world needed proof. Somehow DNA just wouldn’t cut it, especially since so many of Osama’s supporters, worshippers, followers, doctors, Saudi government officials and even his own siblings have betrayed him and provided, throughout the last decade, samples of Osama’s DNA. In the past, when rumors spread that he had been killed, it was always in their interests to have the world believe that he was alive to send out the message that Al Qaeda was still powerful and still led by the most feared man on the planet. Now that the Obama administration has decided not to release photos of a dead Osama Bin Laden, conspiracies would have spread if Al Qaeda itself had not made the announcement that American had killed their beloved leader by means of deception, that is, betrayal of one of his couriers which gets to the next part of the story.

Two days ago, CNN did an interview with Peter King, a Republican Congressman from New York who is also Chairman of the Homeland Security Committee in Congress. A reporter asked him if he knew who happened to implicate the courier who ultimately gave the Americans the directions to Osama Bin Laden hiding place. In his inimitable conversational tone and without drama, just typical New York speak as King is want to do, he replied and here I am paraphrasing…SKM gave the name up when he was water-boarding. Water boarding? As in water skiing, or surf boarding?? A new sport that the guards at Guantanamo allow the prisoners to do as part of their exercise regime? The next question a reporter asked, however, was and here I am quoting, “Who is SKM” to which King replied, “Sheik Khalid Mohammed, the alleged mastermind behind 9/11,” and if any of you don’t recall the name, he is the man who is either photographed dressed and looking quite spiffy in a stylish kaffieh, or pictured nude from the waist up and looking rather hirsute.

But here’s my problem and call me a stickler for grammar. SKM gave up the name of the courier while “he was waterboarding,” which in my mind, is a rather bizarre use of a verb that should be passive rather than active. Perhaps the answer should have been, while SKM was being water boarded by his interrogators. Water boarding as in a type of torture that we, the Americans, have taken to use to gather intelligence from those we suspect had links to Al Qaeda or Osama Bin Laden

Since when is torture by the United States discussed and admitted to in such an offhand way? Some of us knew about the transportation of terror suspects to secret places throughout Europe where they were tortured. Guantanamo was the least of the unspeakable prisons where these terrorists were held. When photos appeared of guards at Guantanamo posing prisoners in degrading positions or allowing dogs to terrify them, there was a horrified press that demanded statements from those in charge and I am still chuckling at the names of the three most powerful people in the last administration who claimed shock at seeing such horrendous pictures—bush, dick, and colon—but that’s another story. Does the administration think it is acceptable to admit to water boarding Sheik Khaled Mohammed because his information could possibly yield the whereabouts and capture of Osama bin Laden? Does torture depend on who is being tortured and for what gain? Are we now part of those countries that regularly apply torture to prisoners—either prisoners of war or simple every day serial killers? Where does it end?

There is something contradictory about what is happening throughout the Middle East as well as right here at home. Apparently, torture in American is now admitted by our elected officials without any apology or regret. Our forces shoot unarmed criminals or terrorists. Not only do we give a tacit nod to torture, but we also seem to have a hierarchy concerning who is a “bad” Arab leader and who is an “acceptable” Arab leader. Our litmus test is not so much how they treat their own people but how they treat the world, most specifically their attitude toward us and of course Israel.

When the uprising occurred in Egypt, Mubarak was our friend and ally until the crowds got too big and then he was a despot and dictator that “had to leave.” Mubarak finally relinquished power and people went around demonstrating about democracy and freedom and all those good things which were simply not going to happen. Now, according to press reports, Mubarak faces execution, and Egypt has brokered a deal between Fatah and the Hamas that will cancel out the peace accord Egypt once had with Israel. Add to that scenario the fact that the Muslim Brotherhood is part of the new provisional government.

As for Ghadaffi, not only do we and several other European nations send in troops to depose Ghadaffi but even NATO is part of the strike mission that bombs Tripoli and other cities. Ghadaffi is the target. This method seems to be another of our admitted and approved MO’s— we resort to killing those Arab leaders that we really didn’t like so much in the first place and who were really not particularly beneficial to our economy or who did not fit into our emotional agenda.

Does that mean that the next step is that ambassadors at the United Nations will be armed? Instead of voting and other diplomatic measures, there will be shoot-outs on 49th Street?

Frankly, the lack of human rights—and never mind equal rights—are far worse in Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Kuwait, and the rest of the Gulf States. There are beheadings, public stoning for crimes such as adultery, theft, or protest against the government. But then there is the big equalizer that stops us from interfering—oil.

America has always been criticized for posturing itself as the “world’s policeman.” Since 9/11, we have become a nation that has actively participated in invading other countries. Despite Obama’s pre-election promises, we are at war in one way or the other in three different countries—Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya. We have also taken up “targeted killings” which previously we have condemned when Israel targeted terrorists that attacked their civilians and cities. Of course, the response is that Osama bin Laden was the one exception as he was the most evil terrorist in the world. Once that line has been crossed, however, invading foreign soil or targeting a particular criminal or terrorist, we are no longer just the “world’s policeman.” We have graduated to top dog in a group of countries that does not adhere to a sound moral agenda. We have become the “cowboys” the world always accused us of being. The big difference, of course, is that once we wore the white hats while now we are wearing the black ones.

“If politicians want to defund the National Endowment for the Arts, it may be because they are afraid of the power of art. If they are afraid of the power of art, it’s because they recognize the potency of the poet’s words. And if politicians are indeed unnerved by the potency of the poet, then they should indeed be intimidated by Poetic People Power, and the political feats it accomplishes outside the realm of politicians. Each spring, some of the fiercest poets are united in New York City to tackle thorny topics–universal health care, voting, democracy–with the power of the spoken word. With wit and fearlessness, they have systematically challenged the status quo, creating a ripple effect over the last nine years.

Tara Bracco, the founder and producer of Poetic People Power, has a cool demeanor that belies her indestructible energy. She created Poetic People Power–often referred to as P3–in 2003 as “the project I wish existed when I got out of college.” Each year’s show is curated around a single topic. The theme is no accident; each year P3 strives to settle on a timely issue. As Tara says, “We have a track record of choosing topics that help our audience understand what they are hearing or reading about in the media.” Her dual identities as writer and producer feed each other and fuel her mission to unveil deeply seated thought patterns and educate a hungry public through art. This mission is evident in all manifestations of her work. In addition to her accomplishments as a poet, Tara is also a founder of the Project Solution, a nonprofit which aims to fund several small-scale projects every year, as part of a solution to global problems and to make a tangible difference for a group of people somewhere in the world. Though these two organizations might seem quite different, they both point in the same direction: helping people to envision the world through a different lens and offering them a way to take action and make a difference. They are two sides of her identity, as artist and activist.

Read the Full Article on The Brooklyn Rail Here!

Poetic People Power’s ninth annual show, The Revolution Will Be… is May 25 at 7 pm at Nuyorican Poet’s Café located at 236 East 3rd Street (between Avenues B & C). Tickets are $15 and can be purchased at www.nuyorican.org.  For further info: www.poeticpeoplepower.com

Tuesday, May 10, 2011, 6:30 PM
NOW-NYC hosts a special workshop with leading feminist activist, Shelby Knox, who will give the inside track on igniting change in the blogosphere and beyond.  Learn how to sharpen your blogging skills and tap the power of social networking for good.  Join us for expert advice on how to be an effective activist and revolutionary thinker on the web.
RSVP: contact@nownyc.org | 212-627-9895
Location: 150 West 28th Street, Suite 304, NYC (@7th Ave)

About Shelby Knox

A seasoned feminist organizer, Shelby Knox knows how to utilize social media and blogging to inspire individuals and make change.  With more than 8,000 followers, it’s no wonder Forbes listed her as one of “20 Inspiring Women to Follow on Twitter.”  Today, Shelby is the Director of Organizing for Change.org, where her online petition in response to the irresponsible reporting of a New York Times journalist covering the gang rape of a young Texas girl received national attention and forced the Times to issue an apology and follow-up story.

It’s called, Melvin Way: The Man, the Pen, and the Moon, and appears in the March/April edition of fluence magazine, published by Ricco/Maresca Gallery.

Marie tells us “The Woodhull Writers Retreat has been tremendous and I feel compelled to mention that it has given me more confidence to pitch new ideas and make things happen!” Congratulations Marie!

Dear Friends,

I’m pleased to announce that my next LYJ (Love Your Job) Search class for women will be Tuesdays beginning June 7th.

~~~~

“I wanted to email you personally and let you know that I got the job and negotiated for a higher salary!  Thank you so much for your support, encouragement and belief in me!  LYJ was such a great experience and really helped me to take that next step.  Thank you!” – L.C.

Calling all women job seekers!

LYJ (Love Your Job) Search provides you with 5 weeks of group coaching and 1 one-to-one coaching session so that you can be well on your way toward achieving fantastic, lucrative job opportunities that are right for YOU while enjoying the process along the way. Find out more  at LYJ: Love Your Job

In this coaching group, you will:

• Do thoughtful exercises to gain clarity on your goals, allowing you to move effectively in the right direction and secure a job in a more timely manner.
• Receive one-to-one “career-matchmaking” including job leads, introductions made on your behalf for informational interviews, and access to an extensive network of contacts in a wide range of fields.
• Understand the power of networking to get a foot in the door and learn to make better use of your own network.
• Develop weekly job search goals and have a forum for overcoming setbacks and celebrating achievements.
• Learn to write a winning resume and customized cover letters, and receive honest feedback.
• Employ strategies to interview as your best self, as well as negotiate your highest possible salary.
• Set yourself up to “attract and allow” success rather than struggle for it.

In the one-to-one session you may wish to focus on:

• In-depth writing of your resume to highlight the many transferable skills and accomplishments you bring to the job.
• Creating a networking action plan and employing strategies to get the most out of your informational interviews.
• Mock job interviewing and negotiation conversations.
• Continued clarity on your career path, such as aligning short-term and long-term career goals.

Limited to 8-10 women to ensure lots of personalized attention.  Full details here: http://lyjnow.wordpress.com/lyj-search.

Next 2011 NYC Dates:

• Tuesday June 7
• Tuesday June 14
• Tuesday June 21
• Tuesday June 28
• Tuesday July 5

Time and Location for NYC classes: 7:00 pm to 9:00 pm; Convenient downtown Manhattan location (details provided upon registration).

EARLY Rate: The class is $425. Register by Friday, May 20 and pay $345. (You may also put down a deposit.)

Deposit option: You may put down a $200 deposit to reserve your space. The final payment will be due on the first day of class or you may submit a post-dated check for 6/15 or 6/30.

Feel free to email me with any questions you may have. Look forward to working with you on your job search for meaningful, fulfilling work.

All best,
Suzanne