The women’s rights movement has been great, right?

In many ways, yes. In many ways women are much closer to equal income and in some college programs there are more women that men. All in all, women have been making strides over the years. But this isn’t the case for all women. While rich and middle-class women have been climbing all sorts of ladders, less fortunate women have the same amount of equality as back in the 1970s.

Economic Professor Nancy Folbre wrote for the New York Times’ blog, Economix, that 18 percent of women with only a high school diploma are granted paid maternity leave. This is in contrast to the 66 percent of women with a college degree, and just up from the 1970s when 16 per cent of high school grads received paid mat leave.

You probably haven’t given it much thought yet, but having children is especially expensive for women. What I’m talking about is childcare. If you don’t have the luxury of paid maternity leave and need to go back to work to pay rent, there’s a high cost associated with someone else watching your kids.

Folbre points out that in most other developed countries, paid family leave (often for either parent) is a universal entitlement. Childcare and early childhood education is also more heavily subsidized elsewhere. While in my own country (Canada) things are more funded by the government, there is still progress that needs to be made when it comes to affordable childcare.

So when you’re watching the Republican primaries and heading to the ballot box in 2012 it’s something to think about. Yeah, you might be okay with your higher education, but what about all the other women who have been left behind?

Leah is on the final lap of her Bachelor of Journalism at Ryerson University in Toronto. She spent the summer interning at a radio station in Ghana. Follow her @ElleandBee! 

I think we can all agree that college sports are a big deal. Whether it be March Madness or school rivalries or outstanding athletes, college sports are definitely worth commending. (And that includes women’s sports!) But even the best institutions have their issues and like many institutions before them some of the largest issues surrounding college sports right now are surrounding gender equality and Title IX.

Title IX is a federal gender equality law which seeks to ensure that equal opportunities exist for both men and women in college athletics. It requires that the number of sports available for men and women on a team are in proportion with the number of men and women on campus.

But in recent years, as the number of women attending college has begun to overtake the number of men  (women are now 56% of enrollment), the issues have begun to get more complicated. Unwilling to lose male athletes because of an increase in women attending college, athletic departments have begun searching for loopholes which would allow it to appear as though women and men are equally represented without actually increasing the number of female players. Whether that meant counting men who practiced with women as women, or putting women on the team, but never allowing them to play, schools like Duke, Marshall University, and Texas A & M have begun to get creative when creating the roster for their teams.

Some coaches say the “roster management” that comes with Title IX does more harm than good, eliminating men’s teams instead of creating women’s teams , but if Title IX were done away with the chance at equality would grow even slimmer.

It’s a complicated issue that  The New York Times does its best to unpack. Head on over there to take a look and then leave a comment and let us know what you think!

I wear push-up bras and high heels. I go gaga for lip gloss and lipstick, nail polish, and heavy eye-make up . And I’m not even going to lie, I’m a sucker for pouty boys that call me ma’am. But besides my affinity for sundresses, pearls, and men in ties, I’m a feminist. In fact, I’ve always considered myself to be one. But despite my own declaration in the fight for gender equality, this doesn’t seem possible to people.

“How can you be a feminist?” I’m asked all the time. “Do you even know what that means?”

While feminism can mean different things to different people, I’ve often felt like I didn’t fit the mold — like I wasn’t the ideal. Like I couldn’t claim it. And then it hit me: Feminism can be whatever you need it to be. And sometimes, what you need it to be will change from time to time.

This powerful realization hit me as an 18-year-old young woman sitting in on my first Women’s Studies class at a small, private, all-women university. This moment of feminist clarity has always stuck with me, and now as a 23-year-old post-grad, I am constantly revisiting feminism and its applicability in my ever changing life. Although feminism, even in 2011, often still sounds like a dirty word with a negative connotation, I’m constantly surprised at the way feminism finds itself in my day to day life — it really does come in all shapes, sizes, issues, prospects, and in all kinds of different people. And despite being so diverse and so varying from time to time, I’m still relieved that I can make feminism something all my own.

I like to think that I’ve been a feminist from the beginning. When I was seven years old, wearing overalls and pigtails, I remember raising my hand over and over again in class to answer the questions being asked by my teacher. I’d sit up as straight as possible and inch my hand higher and higher into the sky. I had something to say. I wanted to be heard. But instead, the boys in my class would always be the first called on. I would often come home and cry. “My teacher doesn’t like the girls, she doesn’t listen to us like she does the boys.” At the time, I didn’t have the words for it, but I knew it wasn’t fair. Instead of sitting back and taking it, though, I went with my parents to the annual parent-teacher conference and asked my teacher, “Why do you only call on the boys?” She didn’t have an answer, but from that point on she never overlooked my eager hand. This made me realize that sometimes speaking up can make a world of difference, and I like to think of this as my first moment of personal activism.

In high school, I refused to participate in the abstinence only sex-education program. I may have been sixteen, but I couldn’t sit there without throwing up my hand. “What about condoms? What about STDS? What about things that will actually prevent pregnancy and keep us safe?” I was silenced and shushed, but it lit the fire in me — a fire that came alive the minute I stepped foot onto my college campus. In college, I was always changing as a feminist — always.

There was the year I spent reading nothing but feminist literature; everything from Helen Cixous to Katha Pollit, Gloria Steinem to Jennifer Baumgardner and Amy Richards, and Bell Hooks to Ingrid Musico. There was the summer I spent interning for two of my favorite feminist authors in New York City. There was the year I ran the speakers’ bureau chair on campus and hosted the transgendered performance artist Kate Bornstein and the quick-witted blogger and author Jessica Valenti. There was the year I rejected all Women’s Studies classes — after I was told that I didn’t look feminist enough — and just spent time focusing on defining my gender and social beliefs through my own lens, even if that means sparkly pink nail polish and writing letters to my congressman by myself.

There were so many feminist discoveries throughout the last few years. Like the time I posed nude as Miss January 2009 for a feminist charity calendar. And there was the time I sold carrot cake cupcakes for a Wage Gap bake sale that charged men $1 and women only 72 cents. There were times when I was tired of talking about feminism and women’s issues, but at a women’s college it was inevitable. And then there were times when I couldn’t get enough and I didn’t understand why there wasn’t room for discussion about this in a quantitative reasoning class. Sometimes I would feel like a super feminist, and other times, not so much. Some days, feminism would be on my mind. And of course, some days, it won’t even cross my thoughts.

And while this fickle romance of always trying to work towards what I believe in isn’t perfect, it’s my journey. It’s ever-changing, but it’s exactly what I need it to be — when I need it to be. Feminism fascinates me in the way it’s solid but fleeting in my life. For example, my beliefs on abortion, breaking the glass ceiling, sexual assault, women’s education, contraceptives and abstinence-only education haven’t changed throughout the years, but how I apply feminism into my day-to-day life, whether it’s a job or in a romantic relationship, is constantly changing and evolving.

I’m not a perfect feminist (is anyone, really?), and I’m never claiming to be, but this is how it works for me. Some days, I’m ready with an iron-fist to protest and shout…in my heels and lipstick. And some days, I’m quiet and passive and just want to think about what Bell Hooks truly meant in Communion. But I personally want this feminist juxtaposition; the constant reminder that feminism is here, it’s mine, and it’s something I can always make my own just clicks for me, and I wouldn’t want it any other way.

[Check out the Feminist Portrait Blog Carnival to read other women's inspiring stories of their feminist "click" moments.]

So, I was surprised by the news this week that America ranks nineteenth in gender equality. In other words, based on factors including salary equality, education, political representation and life expectancy, the Global Gender Gap Report determined that women in eighteen countries come out ahead of us American females.

I was disappointed, but maybe I should have been happy- nineteen is a big improvement from 31^st last year, and 27^th the year before.

Nineteenth out of 134 countries really isn’t terrible…but it isn’t exactly wonderful either. In a high school graduating class, the land of the free and the home of the brave wouldn’t have even received Honors. Iceland would be the valedictorian of woman’s equality, but I don’t suggest a mass exodus of down-stuffed-parka-wearing women to the Nordic country. (I spent one shivering winter in Chicago and that was enough for me.) Even there, women don’t have it as great as men.

Many left dateless on the 60:40 male to female campuses won’t be surprised that the U.S. is one of twenty-two countries that offers equal education attainment for men and women. America is also near the top of economic participation and opportunity (number 6), an encouraging find as we graduate and join the workforce. In fact, in the U.S., women are ahead of men as professional and technical workers.

What screws us over, then, is the subindex category “political empowerment.” Now I know we’ve never had a female president, but there are women politicians out there. Look at our Secretary of State! And all those Congresswomen, like Olympia Snowe! And Barbara Boxer! And…  others? (I’m realizing now how many more male than female politicians I can name.)

America is 40^th in this category, after some countries not particularly known for their human rights, like Argentina, Cuba and Uganda. We’ll never improve our equality ranking if we keep electing so many more male than female politicians. Beyond the obvious gender gap this creates, there’s also the issue that policy concerning women’s right will be drafted, debated and passed by a testosterone driven government. We don’t get to make the rules that concern us.

I think the best way to kick Iceland off it’s glacial throne is by supporting as many female candidates as we can, even if they’re not running in our districts, and maybe even running for office ourselves one day.

What do you think? How can we decrease the gender gap in America?

Earlier this month, we were asking where chivalry had gone – and I’m down with that, I’d like to know where the little sucker slipped of to, too. But what I want to talk about now is, if chivalry is gone, do we really want it back? And should we expect it?

No matter how you slice it, chivalry always smacks of gender inequality. And yeah, it’s a lot harder to complain about inequality when you’re the one benefiting from it, but shouldn’t we still stand up against it? Are we hypocrites if we don’t? Add to that the fact that most of the little things we ascribe to the idea of chivalry (flowers, love tokens, professions of undying love) are all essentially just methods of winning over or even buying our affections. Isn’t that something that we in the post-feminist era should rebel against on principal?

We’ve fought for years to say that we’re just as good as men, that we shouldn’t be treated differently – and now, like it or not, this lack of chivalry is basically just guys treating us exactly like they treat each other. Hello, feminist victory here!

But at the end of the day, say what you like about feminism, we aren’t all the same. Genders are different, not better or worse, but different and we will always, in some ways, want and need to be treated differently. Beyond that even, when you really break it down, chivalry is a respect thing – it’s good when a guy will respect you enough to at least offer to pick up the tab at dinner or hold out a chair for you. I mean, ultimately, chivalry is as much manners as anything else, and what’s wrong with expecting a guys to have manners?! There’s nothing inequitable or anti-female about wanting and expecting a certain level of manners and courtesy!

OK, on one side, I’m a Southern girl and I was brought up with a definite emphasis on manners so chivalry has always been up there on my list of things a good guy should have. But, at the same time, I’m also a modern girl and I really don’t care who opens the door – if you get there first, open it – no big, right? Are these contradictory ideas? Can we really have our cake and eat it too?

What do you think ladies? Does the idea of chivalry just hold us back? Or are we taking the whole gender equality thing too far when we can’t even be treated special?

Duke it out!

The Rabbi’s argument was that Patti’s club is superficial and that if it is exclusive to millionaires, then those who join the club are essentially marrying for money, and not for any of the “right” reasons.  Patti defended herself insisting that her services provide men with the tools they need to have a successful relationship, and provide women with the comfort of knowing that their potential mate will be able to give them a safe and secure life if a match is made.

My first thought: If only this were the topic of discussion on the Bimah at my own Bat Mitzvah, I may have been able to stay awake.
My second thought: Wait a second, Rabbi may have a point.
My third thought: Uh oh, does this make me a crazy feminist?

Well I’m not ready to stop shaving my armpits quite yet, but I do think The Bearded One has a point.

For men, the club membership fees range from $25,000 to $150,000.  For women….it’s free.  So any women (whose physique is acceptable by Patti’s standards, of course) can be a member of the club.  They’re single, looking for love, and by joining, they may or may not be paired with the love of their life…who can jet them off to Paris for a first date.  Does this make them gold diggers?  According to the Rabbi, it does.  Money should not be the first thing that attracts a woman to a man; his wealth should be unknown until after a connection is made.

What happened to equality?  Are Patti and her efforts taking a step backward in making women equal to men when it comes to wealth and relationships? Let’s evaluate: to join, or not to join?

To join:

- For women, the club is free, so… why not? We have nothing to lose.

- It is a great jumping off point to meet men who are established professionally.

- Accoding to Patti, joining does NOT make a woman a gold digger.  It means she is interested in meeting a man that is financially stable.  It takes much more than money to make a connection, and Patti tells her girls not to put up with a guy’s “bullsh*t” even if he does have money.

- It does not make women less equal to men than if they were to meet them any other way.  Just because they are being set up on dates with millionaires, does not mean that they can’t be successful themselves.

Not to join:

- Money does not guarantee security or a life of stability. From the outside, yes, these guys look like they have their sh*t together.  Some do, I’m not claiming that all men who are successful are secretly a**holes, but I am taking a stance that just because a guy has money does NOT mean he is “stable” by any means.  A millionaire could have just as many emotional problems, if not more, than any average Joe lurking the streets.

- It is no secret that money provides us with comfort.  However, as cliché as it may sound, money cannot buy happiness.  No diamond is worth flaunting on your hand if the man who gave it to you does not make you happy every day.

- In order to join the club, men must prove themselves with money, and women with their looks.  This does sound superficial and sexist, and it does take a step backward from women reaching equality.

Like my mom always says: there’s a top for every pot.  If a loaded pot want to pay upwards of $50,000 to meet his top, well, power to him.  So, now it’s up to you…to join, or not to join?

And according to Charlotte Allen, it’s because all women are sluts.

In her recent essay The New Dating Game, Allen tries to communicate the message that because women now have the power to choose who they date (and sleep with), males, particularly beta-males, are being pushed to the back burner.  In the “New Paleolithic Age,” alpha males are “dragging women by the hair into their caves– and the women love every minute of it.” According to Allen, all women spend the better part of their 20′s dressing like hookers and going out to clubs to try and take home the most desirable dudes. That is until they get dried-up (at the ripe old age of 28) and are forced to settle for a less-than-stellar guy so they can get married and pop out a few babies.

Yeah, a woman actually wrote all that.
And now let me react.

Though it’s hard to find in that pile of horse poo and dribble, Allen makes one valid point: hot, confident men are pulling more booty than “beta” males – their less attractive, more awkward counterparts. (Uh, DUH!?) But besides that, there’s so much wrong with this article, I don’t know where to begin.

First and most obviously, she discusses the sexual liberation of women as a bad thing. No. Just no. Second of all, she criticizes “late marriage, easy divorce, and the well-paying jobs that the feminist revolution has wrought for women.” So it’s a bad thing that women have college degrees and careers now, and thus marry later? That women finally have choices and aren’t stuck in relationships because they can’t take care of themselves? That couples are divorcing because they are unhappy?

That there are well-paying jobs…FOR A WOMAN!?

W.T.F.

Maybe this lady should take a time machine back to when arranged marriages were the norm, because as far as I’m concerned, this essay is BS. (Although, maybe for her, an arranged marriage was the only way she could nab a man….) Women can and should enjoy sex, and be able to choose when, with whom, and how many times they want it.  If the so-called “beta” males are suffering at the expense of their better looking peers, maybe it’s time they step their game up a bit. It’s not our fault they have zero personality or a bad sense of style and we shouldn’t have to cater to them just because they are there and they are available.

Even if we are “dried up” and past our prime…in our late twenties.

Listen, Charlotte Allen – I’m excited to be a young woman during the first point in history where women actually have equal, if not more, power in the dating world. Although you criticize it, I’m happy that yesterday’s “loose” women are today’s “liberated” women. And, call me crazy, but I couldn’t imagine a society where I couldn’t go out there and get myself a job after college.  Women now have CHOICES – the same choices men have been given for years – and, like men, we’re going for the best.

Your “beta males” have been coasting through life at the expense of women, so maybe it’s time they stop crying and start trying. And maybe it’s time you enjoyed a little sexual liberation; I have a feeling you could use it.

It’s ridiculous – if we do the same work, we should get paid the same. Am I right!? [Crowd cheers.]

But I’m here to say that we not only deserve equal pay, but should actually be making more money than men. Here are 5 very real reasons why:

1. Women are biologically superior to men. We have a longer life expectancy, more grey matter in our brains (it’s useful stuff, trust me) and can have multiple orgasms. We aren’t as susceptible to many inherited diseases (like hemophilia and colorblindness) because we have two X chromosomes rather than just one.

2. We work twice as much. Most women and men work eight-hour days. But when women get home, they have to cook, clean, and take care of the kids. This extra work is known by feminists as the “second shift” and we deserve to be compensated for it.

3. Women are more qualified than man. Women get better grades and take more advanced placement classes in high school. Nearly sixty-percent of undergraduate college students are women, and women earn more bachelor and graduate degrees then men.

4. We should be compensated for all the years we were screwed. Women have made significantly less than men since we joined the work force. I’m not going to do the math but that adds up to a LOT of money, and we deserve to be paid more now to make up for it.

5. Women shop more than men. Women buy things for themselves, their lover, and their friends. Women do the majority of the grocery and household goods shopping. We decorate out homes, plan the family parties, and (increasingly) pick out the family car. Since we spend the most money, we should be making the most money.

It’s time women made what they were worth, and that’s a hell of a lot more than 80 cents to every male dollar. [Crowd goes wild.]

Ben and Jen: Super Fertile.

Too cloudy to go to the beach? Add these 80′s classics to your Netflix queue.

Exclusive look at the crazy new script from Tarantino. Awww yeah!

Nothing ruins a day at the beach quite like a shark. And I really needed a tan!

The new iPhone is out. We are not too happy about it, but what do the critics say?

Teen pregnancy on the up and up for the first time in over a decade. Could this be Juno’s doing?

Also on the rise, Wal-Mart stores. They. Are. Everywhere.

As if TV couldn’t get any worse – Nicole Richie gets another show.

2 words that should never go together: orgasmic and childbirth. Yes, there is a video.

Maybe this will inspire you to recycle. Think of the dolphins, people!

Gender equality on the road at last! Well, at least on the signs. Baby steps, ladies; baby steps.

The results surprised scientists, who had previously believed that happiness was stable when looking at societies over time. Bucking the conventional knowledge, happiness levels in forty countries “rose substantially.”

Denmark is the happiest nation, Zimbabwe the least, and the US was rated as the 16th happiest country. A similar survey released last week determined one reason America isn’t ranking higher on the list: Baby Boomers are generally miserable compared to other generations.

Is this true? Is our generation happier than our parents’ generation? Its probably true that our lives are busier as a result of being constantly connected through e-mail, blackberries, cell phones and social networks. I’ve often wondered if this adds or detracts from our general happiness — constant connectivity can be both a blessing and a curse.

As women, we certainly are afforded a collection of freedoms our mothers were denied. Our generation has seen increased educational and career opportunities, lessened social stigma of being single or a single mom and a rise in financial and social freedoms, just to name a few.

By my age, my mom was married with two babies and a mortgage. How times have changed! I’d like to think that my happiness level is higher than it would have been if I grew up in the sixties or seventies. True, I would have loved to hit up Woodstock or rocked a cute peace-sign studded shift dress, but these days I have a world of freedoms and options, unavailable to females my age just a few decades ago.

Whether its extensive travel or making our education or career the focus of our universe, we are truly able to choose our own adventure and need not be tied down to a hubby and rugrats so early in our lives. But does this make us happier? Or were women happier in simple times, when tradition and stability reigned?

I’m not quite sure where the modern, kick-ass, twenty-something female rates on the happiness scale. Some, like the author of What Our Mothers Didn’t Tell Us, would say our ambition and heightened goals have only lead to more unhappiness, confusion and insecurity. Others would say we are over-stressed, over-worked and overly obsessed with material things, body image and success compared to the Baby Boomer Generation. But I think us girls are doing just fine — we’re more socially conscious, more self-aware, more worldly and more open minded than our gray-haired counterparts. And so, somewhat tentatively, I do believe that we, the free and fearless females of our progressive generation, are happier than past generations.

What do you think?