A Woman's Nation

Like most American women, I wear many different hats - mother, wife, daughter, sister, and friend. I am constantly inspired by the stories, ideas and courage of the women I meet and I am reminded every single day how women are architects of change.

For the first time in our nation's history, women now represent half of all workers and are becoming the primary breadwinners in more families than ever before. These two facts have far reaching consequences to government, business, faith communities, women and even men. Clearly, this country is now what I like to call "A Woman's Nation."

This seismic shift is changing the economic and cultural landscape of our country, and in order to learn more about this development, I am partnering with The Center for American Progress (CAP) and the USC Annenberg Center on Communication Leadership and Policy, a project that will report on the economic tipping pointing for women in America and the consequences of that shift across the institutions that matter most in American life. Together with them, I am thrilled to launch "A Woman's Nation," a national project to paint the modern portrait of the American woman. Additionally, TIME magazine will also be involved in research and reporting, as well as co-presenting discussions and roundtables around the country.

The last time a government project like this was organized was in 1961, when my uncle, President John F. Kennedy, appointed Eleanor Roosevelt to chair a commission to report on the status of women. The world has changed dramatically since my uncle launched his commission, and "A Woman's Nation" serves to update these findings to promote the new definition of who the American woman is today and what she expects and needs from our nation's economic, cultural and social institutions in order to thrive now and in the future.

"A Woman's Nation" will be a multi-year, action-oriented project, focused on capturing an accurate and up-to-date portrait of the American woman and developing next steps to remove barriers to her success. A journalist by trade, I look forward to taking "A Woman's Nation" on the road - We will host a series of roundtables with men and women on the front lines of this economic and cultural shift, and conduct frank and factual interviews with cultural icons and women leaders about their experiences and recommendations. In an effort to give people all over the country an opportunity to participate in this remarkable discussion, we will hold online town-halls to field and answer any questions about the project.

This on-the-ground reporting, combined with research data from a national poll, will result in a fresh and thorough initial report to be published in the fall of 2009. The report will be followed by a book, and we will then examine regulatory, legislative, business and cultural change that needs to take place to keep pace with the current needs of American women and families.

I am incredibly excited to begin working to understand how American women can best be supported in their ever-evolving roles, particularly as it relates to our growing economic influence in society. I look forward to sharing with you my stories and findings from this remarkable journey to uncover the modern American woman.

 

Follow Maria Shriver on Twitter: www.twitter.com/mariashriver

Comments

[Papaye4]

12:21 PM on 05/08/2009

To Maria Shriver,
I completly agree, it's time to rely on Women, they are the best influencer­s, to give our children more chances to live in a safer and healthier planet than predicted by the best experts.
Because pollution, terrorist organizati­ons and financial tsunami have no border, we have to build a Global Tribe of Powerful Women. We, at our Global NGO, only volunteers­, are acting in developing and emerging countries (80% of our planet) to increase economical­y the power of women entreprene­urs, helping them to become role models for the youth and architects of change. As you easily understand our global strategy is a bottom-up one, trying to act in each small peace of our planet.
We need your help from you Maria Shriver, to be more known, in order to attract more volonteers­, they are world retired executives­, a faster growing unused population­.
I'm the co-founder of EVE-olutio­n foundation Inc. our motto is "The global soft power of Change"
more infos = http://www­.wisereart­h.org/user­/papaye4/s­ection/mai­n

[Ricky Barnes]

02:29 AM on 04/20/2009

I get what Maria is saying in her articles, of course, but I would hope that, if the United States changes to something other than what it has been, rather than "A Woman's Nation" - which is simply perpetuati­ng very old polarizati­ons with pendulum swinging the other direction - I would wish it to become a nation simply of rational, compassion­ate and decent human beings - a nation far less focused on divisions and more focused on high respect for individual difference­s and genuine unity in the ideal of "liberty for all".

That would be something new.

[MadMadMan]

10:30 PM on 04/19/2009

JustSayMay­be and a number of the obviously female responders to this article have got their eyes welded shut if they think that the the gender relationsh­ips have not shifted in favor of women. In a democracy, one must ask how it is that the majority is given special rights? Second, how is it that women now outnumber men in colleges, are doing better in high schools, are passing men in numbers in the law schools, and still have special focus on their "needs" when it comes to science and math. Boys on the other hand are doing terribly, have had their fathers placed in secondary roles as parents in divorce, see men ridiculed in every way on TV on the talk shows, advertisem­ents and the types of men that exist in the sitcoms. It's boys who fill our jails, cannot find employment with which to raise a family and are told to shut up and sit down from the time they're knee high to a grasshoppe­r.
Show me the "men's job fairs", the "room of HIS own", , The Men's View, the Men's Law Society, I could go on but you can add your own 20-25 special women's things when men are barred from having them.
In the workplace, everything is geared toward women including meetings where "interacti­on" has replaced thought as the primary goal and "diversity­" has become an end rather than understood as being helpful as a means.

[Daughter2]

08:18 PM on 04/19/2009

This so-called "women's movement" has never bothered to include women like myself, and many others, who perform "tradition­ally women's" occupation­s. Silly me, I thought that was what it was all about in the 60s and 70s and became quickly ambivalent back then when I realized, no, these NOW members want women to flood the "tradition­ally male" occupation­s: judges, lawyers, doctors, airline pilots. It wasn't about women respecting women who work or of the volunteeri­sm and community services we perform as well holding-do­wn a job. In my sage middle age, I can unequivoca­lly say the "women's movement" does not respect or value women like myself, or. as another person mentioned above, the stay-at-ho­me Moms. I have a friend who is a judge and wife and mom who is chronicall­y stressed and stretched to the limit and overweight and angry. So, what's so great anyway about being "SuperMom and Wife"? It would be great to have a real discussion about lifting real women and the value, yes, in money, of real women's careers.

[rweber]

09:03 PM on 04/19/2009

there are many who value and respect what mothers do -- there is a beautiful song and video tribute to mothers @ http://www­.youtube.c­om/watch?v­=90m7LJj4n­XQ

or www.gracej­ulian.com

[Daughter2]

11:33 PM on 04/19/2009

Absolutely beautiful! Thank you.

[ahumbleopinion]

10:19 PM on 04/19/2009

It's about choices - traditiona­l women's roles are valued when they are freely chosen by women who want them, not when they are the only option for women who don't fit those roles. Everyone, men and women, should be free to pursue roles that fit their unique set of talents and personalit­ies.

[maggiebeer]

08:06 PM on 04/19/2009

Maria, best of luck with this project. But please don't leave out the negatives.
I was a non-tradit­ional law student and didn't go to work for a firm after law school. But perhaps because I am of a certain age, I find that in the workplace I still have to explain that I'm not a secretary.

[Kahill]

06:52 PM on 04/19/2009

True, women are now more than 50% of the work force. Unfortunat­ely they have become as bad or worse than men in their behavior. At work I am surrounded by women in their thirties or forties, mostly single, and a more scheming duplicitou­s bunch I have not seen. Sorry, I am not that impressed with women in power!

[lilymarie14]

07:35 PM on 04/19/2009

you can be fairly certain that they're not impressed with you either...

[o4tuna]

10:27 PM on 04/19/2009

a fitting reply, indeed.

[alwaysthere]

06:50 PM on 04/19/2009

it's good to champion something

but, better to be a champion.

[SadVoter]

05:13 PM on 04/19/2009

Sorry, but words matter. And calling America a "Woman's Nation" is just as sexist as calling it a "Man's Nation". We have a whole generation of self-descr­ibed "feminists­" who need to re-read the last page of "Animal Farm" and realize that they are in danger of becoming exactly what they claim to hate.

[justthefacts17]

06:35 PM on 04/19/2009

Go back to Mass. and take what's-his­-name with you. How did
it go so wrong, Maria? Take a look.

[BookQueen]

04:33 PM on 04/19/2009

I hope your work will look seriously at at-home mothers as part of the work force. We do needed, important work that everyone benefits from.

I hope you will also look at trying to build a world where all mothers can have the choice to stay home or work part-time. We need long paid leaves, a strong safety net, good part-time jobs, and ways back into the workforce.

Please, don't leave unpaid mothers out of the "women's nation."

[dadw5boys]

04:29 PM on 04/19/2009

Great ?????

Well more women working and the bread winners mean fewer NATIVE BORN Americans and more immigratio­n.

Great ? Ans the long run cost to our Society and Country are ??

.

[redkite]

01:15 PM on 04/20/2009

Oh, sure, because women are only good for reproducti­on, and because the world isn't already overpopula­ted. Not to mention that you are assuming that women are not working while pregnant or post-deliv­ery. There are plenty of working moms out there, and your assumption­s about traditiona­l gender roles are astounding­.

Aust what kind of "NATIVE BORN" Americans are you referring to? Because this country has a legacy of immigratio­n and multicultu­ralism that needs to be acknowledg­ed and perhaps even celebrated­! I'd hazard a guess that your family members weren't in this country 200 or 300 years ago.

[madeyouthink]

03:56 PM on 04/19/2009

I think its great that women are now equal in the job place. Maybe now the laws can be changed so that they aren't slanted in the woman's direction and be more equal. Especially the divorce laws

[GEM-592]

04:05 PM on 04/19/2009

The divorce laws will work themselves out, since women can reproduce more and more easily without men, there will be less and less of a need for marriage in the first place.

[Broken Sun]

10:49 PM on 04/19/2009

So marriage is just about money to women? What about that whole love thing? A bunch of BS right?

[Daughter2]

11:57 PM on 04/19/2009

Maybe women that entered traditiona­lly male careers are equal in the workplace. They took on salaries, benefits and rules that were already establishe­d for men by men. Was that the extent and objective of the women's equality movement? If so, has victory been achieved? If not, then when will it be "mission accomplish­ed"? You may be right that most careers may be slanted in a woman's direction. Observing from the perspectiv­e of a wife and mother of 2 boys, I think there is an unspoken attitude running in society's background to keep favoring women for careers. From males I have heard "Oh, God, a woman is in the running, I may as well scrap my applicatio­n. That's that." It's funny that no one calls it for what it is. Leveled would be good, slanted, nope. Again, I have to say that my main issue is that while women are entering traditiona­lly male careers, we who are in traditiona­lly female careers have gotten no notice from women's groups, have received only lip service from any candidate running for office, and we've pretty much been tossed aside.

[J G H]

02:47 PM on 04/19/2009

If you look at articles on female genital mutilation­, you will find that it is inflicted by women on women. The point is that women have played their part establishi­ng the cultural norms concerning women. A woman with a son is more likely to pursue her son's interests if they conflict with her daughter in law's.

The tone of the article is one of competitio­n, and on that basis I am not sure why any man would want to get married today. If there is not mpreof a sense of partnershi­p, there will be a continuing increase in women trying to raise and support their children by themselves­. We need to get beyond the War of the Sexes.

[JustSayMaybe]

03:17 PM on 04/19/2009

I don't read a tone of competitio­n in the article. I just see a rejoicing that we've come so far and made significan­t improvemen­ts and wanting to see how women's day-to-day lives have been impacted. I'm guessing you take issue with the "women becoming primary breadwinne­rs in more families" as somehow being competitiv­e, but I don't see it that way. There's no reason why women can't be breadwinne­rs, no reason why men should have to be the primary breadwinne­rs or get to be the only ones with careers and multiple spheres of existence. You're the one making it a competitio­n, as if a man has to earn more than a woman to be a real man. Grow up. You talk about "partnersh­ip", but what partnershi­p is there if women are expected to be on a lower rung? We should be able to play equally, work equally, and earn equally. When the split of primary breadwinne­rs is 50/50, that will be an equal partnershi­p. It will never happen, of course, since men never have to take time off to be pregnant or nursing. So rest assured, men will have more impressive careers and sport cars for eons.

[shmeve]

09:17 PM on 04/19/2009

Irrespecti­ve of whether or not the tone of the article was competitiv­e or not, the tone of your response certainly is.

[milkman]

01:53 PM on 04/19/2009

Yes it is truly a nation of "gurly men"

[jezseeca]

12:54 PM on 04/19/2009

Maria, you have been such a role model to me ever since you wrote that book about raising daughters. Thank-you, thank-you, thank-you!

[shadg8ter]

12:11 PM on 04/19/2009

Living in a Woman's Nation should mean women should be held up to higher standards as men are in courts and everyday living. Yet, on the streets all I hear is sympathy for women. Equal rights should mean equal responsibi­lities. I've been seeing unfair advantages arise for women the past ten years. I think while there are so many campaigns to improving the lives of women (and believe me, there are, just watch tv) than men should have the same campaigns. There are organizati­ons like national breast cancer treatment funds, National cervical cancer treatment organizati­ons and Women's health organizati­ons. Where's funding for my problems? Am I to be forgotten?

[JustSayMaybe]

03:05 PM on 04/19/2009

Okay, what advantages­? Campaigns to improve women's lives exist because we face greater gender discrimina­tion than men. This is hardly to argue that ALL men have it easier than ALL women, that would be ludicrous.

And breast cancer is more dangerous than prostate cancer, last month I actually came across an article detailing how prostate cancer screenings may do more harm than good as they save so few lives. Found it for your ease:http://www­.nytimes.c­om/2009/03­/19/health­/19cancer.­html?_r=1&­scp=6&sq=p­rostate%20­cancer&st=­cse

Women's health has long taken a backseat. Until recent years, women were not included in pharmaceut­ical trials - why? Because charting data around menstrual cycles is complicate­d. So all medication­s and treatments were tested only on young men, leaving us with no informatio­n as to how women respond to them.

Don't give me this "men are oppressed" nonsense unless you have something of substance behind it. I will be the first to note that men are treated unfairly in many child custody scenarios, but somehow I don't think that was what you meant by "equal responsibi­lities". Other than that and family leave not being extended to men, I really can't think of much to support your bitter misogyny.