that's how often it plays out. >> the world that i enhibt which is about international law, framings and policy. strangely, i think there's a different play. refugees are framed rather than people entitled to various types of protection. and the framing is deeply troubling and we couldn't speak more about why that is, there's a way in which there's a category deployed to exclude people from both material benefits and material assistance in ways that are damaging and produces a struggle to be defined as a refugee. as opposed to a migrant who represents this kind of greater threat. the other piece that i think is interesting to think about is, we tend to think of refugees not just vulnerable and needy, but sort of a population defined by its humanitarian needs, which eliminates agency, which removes their ability, again, to gordon

to benefit in terms of framing and produces a kind of way that thinks about them that requires them to continually perform gratitude, in arriving ways, which i think is really stifling. >> expecting all of us to say thank you thank you thank you thank you. >> for deeply traumatized to get them into quite different cultures, languages, et cetera. also that expectation of performance is something that is very problematic. by virtue of our culture, we have a slightly different framing. at the international level, this refugee migrant dichotomy is being performed in a different way. >> does that possibly have to do with how the u.n. itself defines "refugee" that sends the message in a humanitarian way. >> it has to do with the resfu

gee convention and the ways we thought about different legal avenues for safe mobility. many more barriers have done up, barriers are being raised high europe represents front line states. they're not actually the front line state. the real front lines are for the region of the middle east and there's been a deep effort to contain the population there. >> lebanon, turkey, jordan, iraq and egypt are the five countries by far have the largest. >> a koun tli that's produced 4 million refugees have absorbed more than germany has in terms of actually incorporating those populations on a sort of long-term basis within their border. they have been the true front

line space. the response has been to limit legal avenues to continue to travel beyond them. in that universe, refugee status becomes one of the very very few relatively safe and legal means to travel, if it enables you to over come that barrier. i think we have a different kind of international crisis. it's where our frameworks are not capable of coping with the numbers, not because those numbers are uncontrollable or imaginable to represent kind of a challenge that could be a crisis in terms of resources. it's a crisis of political will and political frameworks. >> what you're saying -- first off in terms of church's context. i ran one out of every five people in turkey is refugee of some sort, does that sound true? >> that is true in lebanon. it's a country of four million people that's absorbed

1.1 million, so the equivalent in the united states would be if over a course of five years we absorbed 80 million refugees, one in five people is a refugee. turkey is a larger country, has abdomened the largest number at over 3.5 million syrian refugees, that represents a smaller portion of turkey's small population. a small country like lebanon or jordan, all of these are countries in the developing world. if there's mention that worldwide refugees are housed 8 # 5% are hosted by countries in the global south. but, regardless, demographic meaning of that, of course, is very different than it would be for united states or for european union or for larger wealthier to about similar number. >> right now, i think i saw a

newspaper article now accepted something 8,000 out of and a lotment of 10,000. it took 155 and i think that have speaks to the point that the issue of crisis is a political issue. we could absorb it if we want to for political reasons. if we're talking about it, one thing this picture tells us that's powerful, is that one hand it could be construed as a invasion or rescue. that's how they've chosen to see this. we're a part of issue of gratitude comes up. the united states sees itself as having rescued hundreds of thousands of refugees from southeast asia.

>> it serves both st united states or deplit sizes who are afraid to bring up the history they don't want to be seen as ungrateful. >> we can kind of see you out there. i'm sure many remember when they arrived in 75, 76. camp penal ton had a huge camp. and texas, too, i believe. >> the four camps were arkansas, california, pennsylvania and florida, e norm mouse numbers, we're talking only 10,000, looks like we'll hit that figure, a little bit more this year. just a small number compared to what we'll get absorbed in the past. >> in contrast to middle eastern refugees, for example. you have to remember in 1975 the majority of americans did not want to except it.

this is congressional act that turned out well that was forced on the american people. we had forgotten that in the narrative of successful refugees. >> when does that faed away. when does the refugee who doesn't go back home. what do they have to do to reach that plateau or reach that place? >> that points to two things i think are interesting to think about temporarily. one is when does someone become vietmanese american and so on. i think, typically, that's a generational question, i think the general that are born second generation become that person. in some ways the person who has arrived almost never is able to fully shed the identity of someone who arrived as a refugee, even if they resettled. that's a open question for anthropologyist to pursue. there's a second type of question, though.

there are populations in the world who are refugees for multiple generations, three, four, five more. for example, ta city in syria hs turned into a city but never stopped being a refugee there. they remained refugees now they're refugees again, there were starvation conditions. there was a seize of that city. people were slaughtered on mask and some that have reached europe are palestinian for a third or fourth generation. similarly, there's a camp in kenya that have three, four generations of people still framed as refugees. the question, there, the challenge to people who are working in the refugee framework is how long can you frame in the ways that the were described, a population as to be rescued or subject to humanitarian assistance, as opposed to indeed

of -- and secondly, development assistance, meaning an investment and integrated and the framing of refugee across multiple generations, helps basically while those communities off from that possibility. >> and do you think in terms of how we portray immigrants/refugee that is we're doing a good job now. >> in terms. >> well, i think that the photographers on the exhibition and we can go to any of the images, maybe go back to -- go back one. i think that the images and exhibition are actively trying to address a lot of ideas that we've just discussed the image of the refugee is passive as a victim, all f these photographers are portray it. we see it in a photograph like this, photographing men waiting

for a train, but notice, so this is a landscape that is, you know, strewn, obviously, with lots of debris and these men standing and pose him in front of this tree to suggest a sense of resilience for these people. and also to suggest that they are not victims here. they are actively trying to, you know, formulate a life for themselves. i think you see that throughout the images and exhibition. these photographers have absorbed a lot of the debates about how photography shapes our understanding of political events and they are examples trying to work to actively change the way they wish they're portrayed, these type of populations in the past. in many ways they are working in a way that a lot of photographers don't have the luxy of doilu luxury of doing, commissioned to

do a project and working and spending lots of times. >> that gets into other issues. >> yes. >> this isn't the first time that they have partners with an ovrge to produce a photographic body of work and actually 199 # 5 a book called exodus was produced alongside a group called sigman. and they produced a book that was purposefully trying to explore through photography and use it as a tool. they've done this before. they recognize how photography done in different ways and new interpretative ways can really speak to audiences and teach them new things about this experience. >> you know what strikes me, i mean, as a reporter and then somebody whose job it is to communicate the stories, at least, in the context of what we

are in the los angeles, i'm always struck how poor of a job we do collectively in explaining these new communities that have arrived. they often, like, they live in separate universities, wlit's more established, american community now, or meeting community and then order or newer arrivals. i'm just wondering if you all have any reaction to that in terms of how refugees are covered in contemporary coverage by the media. >> i think that most americans don't know a whole lot about newer communities, refugees of any kind. the american society as a whole is structured to ignore these people. i grew up in the lgbtq community and it's so many americans who are not to be, we never knew about this perspective. even people who live next to the

vie yet the vietmanese, the entire way in which they're structured is geared not to pay attention to people who don't have chipotle. >> -- there's so much work that has to be done, who are working on these community the odds are stacked against us. we don't have access to hollywood to get these stories out there. the stories of everybody else will stories of unwanted. >> if you go to the portrait strt. you see that this is one -- this is one of the things that he's trying to do, so put a face to people to show us the people that we see, you know, might see on the street, there's a story behind them. he creates these images in a way portraits of obama or any of the other politicians or and he works consistently in the same way in order to create, what he calls a democratic platform, his

images, treat everyone the same way in order to kite. >> to insist there are stories behind each of our public presentation. >> one of the contradictions, i think, we want to argue that refugee have agency. you know, they have power. they've made concern conditions, someone who is exploded from these types of things. he's not a refugee and he's taking the photograph. by the time he actually came and did something like this like make a movie or write a story, so we're already distance from the population that we once were. by structural condition, despite the fact that they have the agency to come their vote. you need to come down. >> they're doing other things,

they're trying to survive. >> one of the things fastest things they are telling the story through cell phone. they're making photographs, they're doing their own documentation. we're beginning to see them tell their own stories and their limited time, obviously, people are doij that through cell phone photography. it has to do with distribution, how did the stories get out and we blow up on them much later. but we are seeing the stories starting to emerge. >> i've been on the coast where people are coming from other parts of nigeria. they have nothing. nothing. maybe a change of cloets, but a lot of them. i know how to re. >> i was going to say, i think social media and the cell phones have images more -- has meant

there's a capacity to season tifs through the eyes even if i travel. there's an example today mg you've may have seen. there's a story in which the -- has footage that he took during his journey and furniture of himself and upon arrival and mer lean, in this case, described what that journey looks like and while at the same time the accompanying story he left the construction that he feels confined to offer of being good refugee in an attempt to take new narratives about the kind of threat raepted. he feels the need to tell a story and not duplicating. >> he's performing, the story that he wants to tell good refugee, but it's front. one other example of u.s. of social media and this goes back. another good seem. deploying images is -- the

courtney case that's including in the exhibit here where you have a very young woman, turkish photo yournlist, takes a picture from the agency, very few of our ud yens here today will have seen an image and it's circulation. but peter whorvegs the head of the emergency's tim, was president at the time and also on the radio. an image that we have taken and it got retweeted. you have human rights watch which had been attempting to get a message about the tragedy that was taking place and with the drowning children and families, managing to frame a fay -- disconnected the context in which it was launched into social mia. when you trace them, you see how they being hornest.

it's shifted the narrative in europe about the arriving. tens of thousands over the sum -- >> this is the terrible photo the three-year-old washed up on the beach. >>. >> and in a very, you know, sort of an it will come all the time for -- it has a kind of residence because of its location beyond what we might here along the poll. in terms of they might know, it's becoming a graveyard of imag images. it shows us one picture that has a chance of showing four infants and child deaths in the mediterranean a death, now, this

summer, which is up that's twice the number that was the case in 2015. >> i mean, every crisis gets its image or two attached to it. it is almost inevitable. you'll speak about the republican shoulder gets shot as he gets fall to the ground. does that disturb you that, you know, that along with the attention of focus, focuses on the issue, does it disturb you that that photo, in particular, got so much potential. or is there a draw back that we may not realize, any way. >> well, i think that what's different now the number of issues that we see in the spanish. that put it only one of its kind. i can pick you up and add you to my group. these images, we have all of this time to kind of sit with them and to react to them and what i think is best thing now is the speed of which -- they

come out and disappear. >> you can go online and see millions of images of families trying to cross the mediterranean. you still get that one image that explodes beyond that. the globe starting talking about it. the positive are recognizable does that mean he's doing it. are there any drawbacks. >> what's an image that goes viral. it doesn't matter what the intention of the photographer is. i think back to the vietnam war and everybody seeing the pictures, there's a photograph of the general. shooting of the suspect in the head. i -- it was actually justified the way the world remembers, is not. let's photograph of the girl burned and that image is now, literally, this figure ra tifly burned in everyone's memory. to draw that, the positive

important part it shaped a great opinion. >> but the draw back the vie yeet ma these, people all over the world as victims. that is crippling kind of story that's kind of hard for vietmanese people to get out of. you ve people in the united states and -- vietnam is not a war, it's a country and they feel like they have to keep on saying it. in the west, when you say vietnam, everybody automatically thinks war. that's what that photograph does. >> the soundtrack in the back glound, did you see that. >> it's em imagines of vun ability, the young girl, obviously. images of mothers an children. images that resinate because of the christian origins of this country. the certain themes constantly coming up with the photographs

that people are inspired too, anything to add. >> one thing i know experienced the peter watch emergency's director who chose to tweet that picture was a backlash of people saying that there's something almost pornographic about disseminating this image. his response was, you know, what was truly grotesque were the city of policies that were forcing on the part of yours to exclude that, so on and so forth. the policies that lent themselves to this. i mean, i think that is the place where tension lies, an image has the capacity to fully shape the narrative if it's into our mind. it will shape how we understand, the policies and in this case, it indicted a policy at how children to be drowned in the seas around europe rather than

allowing them to cost. that caused a major thift for that particular moment. but in the broader, i think framing, the idea that was pointed out, that this is a framing of run blt, that's what i'm pointing, call me if you have any other questions. >> the problem is. crisis that these, you know, individuals face to a framing of a whole city as a crisis and i think that's where you'll end up with the problems that we've been discussing. >> the photos to your right, immediately when you enter into the exhibit area and it really hits you in the gut. it really does, i mean this is so much power to it. >> i will just say that i think that these photographers and exhibition and many photographers today do try to actively address their own position of as we have a saying, dot -- i can speak.

the problematic aspect of me speaking for an experience that's not theres. the photographiers will try to do something about it. they're actually trying to is the up -- they're trying to portray something that you don't see in the media. >> those images being kind of normal life. the ordinary. >> each of these photographers are trying to address if we can go forward maybe. >> no, that's okay. tell me where. something like this. fashion photographer doing this kind of new imagery taking it if you need me, images that we see photography of a mother and a child. he's doing something fascinating which is referencing a whole history history of african stewed

photography and self-portraiture in africa. in that way showing that they are agents of their own creation, right, that they are individuals. so you see these photographers acti actively trying to do something you don't commonly see. diap doesn't usually work this way. he came up with this idea, using blue in particular. the choice of color in a lot of these images is important as well. color is not something you see in this kind of subject matter, because it connotates action. we're used to black and white which connotates crisis and drama and the past and horror. >> and it's a smile. it's not a grim visage. >> right.

this seems to be their own portrait, not a portrait that he made, right? >> we only have a few minutes left in this conversation. we simply have to address the united states in 2016 and this election year and the conversation about immigrants, refugees. we have a presidential candidate, i think you know who he is, he's said you can look into the eyes of a syrian refugee child and say, i'm paraphrasing, you cannot come into this country, sorry. i mentioned i was at the political conventions in leave land. i heard a lot of people talking about refugees being a front for jihadis coming in, refugees being a way for diseases to get into this country. what do you -- this is open to anyone. what do you just make of the tenor of this conversation about refugees this year versus years

past? >> i'll start, returning to where we began, which is this crisis framing, really helps en trench these kind of far aactivists. i can throw out anything, we could have said 60 million, 250 million. it would have been plausible at some level. you can say, for example, there's a crisis at the southwestern border, mexicans are flooding in, as repeatedly the same presidential candidate has said, when in fact that's a net outmigration of mexicans from the united states, it doesn't matter, because the crisis is the only way we have the best way to understand it. the solution is what can we come up with in terms of walls, barriers, exclusions and so forth. it points to the need, obviously crisis models are constantly deployed for political strategic purposes, and we're witnessing that, there's nothing new about that. there are many shocking things about our current political moment. the deployment of crisis language and the depiction of

migrants and refugees as viruses, as threat and so on, resonates with our ordinary politics, unfortunately. that isn't a piece to my mind that's extraordinary. it's just the depth of the toxic xenophobia we see, not just in the united states, but in the west and globally. we have this challenge, can we start thinking about global migration. future trends success migration patterns will increase, mobility will increase, more so because of climate change and conflict. we can address it by trying to come up with rational policies or do the ad hoc dance that's generated what you see in the united states and europe. our current political moment helps illustrate how ugly a choice it can be. >> makeda? >> the current climate reminds me that images matter and that our passive consumption of images, of immigrants and

migrants and refugees as hordes of nameless, faceless people invading, those images, even though we may passively consume them, we have an impact on a lot of people, and it's important for us to seek out and to support other venues that are showing other representations. you know, the media, our everyday media doesn't have the space or time supposedly to show images like what we see. you might find it on a special section of the "times" called the lens blog. but that's a special area. how do we find the space in our everyday media to look more deeply and differently at these types of issues? >> i go back to history. all those things that you see that donald trump is saying that syrian refugees and other refugees will do, bringing contamination, be a religious threat, a mortal threat to the united states. if you go back historically and look, just at the chinese, those

same things were being said about the chinese in the 19th century, they would bring vice, evil, they would destroy the american family, undermine the american working man. they were considered completely antithetical to american culture. i really don't believe simply because syrians are muslim that somehow they are different than other populations that have come to the u.s. before. the other thing about history that i think is important is that typically, you know, europe and the united states have played a major role in shaping the historical conditions that have produced refugees in the first place. you go back far enough in history, the role that the u.s. has played and europe has played in the shaping of the middle east, that has led to the refugee crisis. but we don't like to think about those kinds of things. and, you know, the fact that we're in an economic, supposedly economic crisis today, if you believe that, the crisis of globalization and of neo-liberalism, we are putting the game for the economic fallout of those things on

refugees, when refugees are only themselves the product of those same kinds of economic decisions that the u.s. and europe have made. >> let me challenge you very quickly, and this will wrap it up. does anyone have any sympathy for the argument that a country, no matter how wealthy, can really only sustain so many people coming in over a certain period of time? certainly that's maybe even a larger conversation now, at least in terms of western countri countries, in germany. is there anything to that? and the concern that you let one person in in this outflow and that guy decides to put on a suicide vest, there is a risk there. or they're completely looney to have these concerns? >> so any society may have a sort of threshold on what it can do in terms of resources, in terms of its political context, social, demographic, economic and so on. but i think the thing to look at is we need an international

framework of responsibility sharing. the current international framework places the responsibility for any crisis on those who are most proximate to it. turkey, jordan, lebanon, had far less to do with the circumstances that led to the unraveling of syria than the united states. the three largest refugee flows that we've seen over the last ten years, they've been out of syria, iraq, and afghanistan. in order to acknowledge and embrace a threshold, one has to come up with a framework of sharing of responsibilities that doesn't place the burden on the immediate front line states. had there been a transfer of resources to those countries, iraq, jordan, egypt, you probably wouldn't have had the onward migration you saw en masse into europe. until that onward migration occurred, there was no migration crisis. there was no acknowledgement that there was a refugee crisis associated with syria until the syrians started showing up on

the shores of europe. and as long as that determines the resource allocations in the international system, the question isn't do individual countries have a threshold like germany or the united states, but where is the breaking pointe, to what extent can a lebanon of 4 million absorb 4 million and 4 million after that. there's going to have to be a massive resource transfer to enable people to survive. these aren't people traveling to make a better life. these are people who are traveling to stay alive. as long as the conditions for them to be able to maintain basic subsistence are absent from the places they can first travel to, they will continue traveling. and questions like what's the threshold are not going to be the determinant of whether they keep trying to move. >> i would like to thank you all three of you for a fascinating

hour. [ applause ] and of course the an enberg space for photography and this fabulous exhibition that sparked this conversation and so many other conversations like this are part of this exhibition. again, if you haven't seen it, i hope you do walk over there and see it. and you come back and talk to others about these issues. certainly this is the year to do it in the united states, as we face elections in november. i'm sorry, are we taking questions and answers? >> good evening, everybody. >> i guess we are. >> we are taking questions. that concludes our lecture for the evening. it brings us to q&a. there will be two people with microphones, myself and kirk to my left. if you have a question, please raise your hand. if your question is selected, try to make your way to the end of the aisle so we don't have to reach over your neighbor. remember, this is being recorded, so if you can please talk clearly into the microphone. first question. a question over here to the right. >> i would just like to know why

a large segment of the world seems to be exempt from a consideration of all these factors you've discussed tonight, like asia. how many refugees or immigrants are heading towards asia? are they welcome? are they not? japan i know doesn't take anybody. vietnam? china? south korea? why aren't they in the news? >> saudi arabia, if you're going to take a very wide scope of what's asia. kuwait. anyone like to tackle that? >> well, i can start with a point you made about the gulf countries. the gulf countries make the claim that they actually host very large populations of expatriated syrians, palestinians and others, but not as refugees, and they don't recognize resettlement as such. also, you know, for what it's worth, so unlike china, unlike some of the other countries that were raised by the actual questioner, they do pay into a system of trying to at least

create some resources. but anyway, that isn't to excuse the gulf countries or any of the other parts of the world that have absolutely not participated. there are only 26 countries that participate in the u.n.hcr's resettlement program. one of the reasons that people don't head to other countries, for example in asia, for starters, they do. as you may know, there was a major crisis, again, of people fleeing in boats who are leaving myanmar, muslims and bangladeshi muslims, basically trying to go anywhere in asia that they could land. in the moment of extremeis, around violence, people flee to their immediate neighbors, they don't try to go to the united states or europe, they try to go to lebanon, thailand, the place that is nearest where they hope to find safe haven. the truth is those societies are already at the breaking point in terms of their economies, managing a set of challenging social and economic circumstances in which the likelihood that a refugee, large

refugee population arriving is going to be able to integrate and maintain lives where they can actually have any hope of meaningful long term subsistence is more limited than in the countries that have larger resources. so understandably, the motivations of populations that are fleeing in any eve attempt stay alive will move to places where resources are more likely to be available. that isn't to say refugee populations from asia are flowing to europe or the united states. they're trying to go to australia, and at the beginning we described what kinds of constraints they're facing in that attempt. in any case, almost always the destination points are best described in terms of their relatively much greater resources. why those other countries aren't being required to join the resettlement program is one of the questions that what i'm suggesting, a responsibility sharing framework in which international responsibilities for what are global crises are

more fairly allocated, that would have to be part of the conversation for south korea, for japan, saudi arabia, a whole host of countries that have relatively large economies and relatively small refugee populations. >> so although people may not settle there, they can do more, they're wealthy and prosperous enough to play more of a role in solving this issue. okay. am i calling the questioner? >> we have another question right here to the right. >> hello. thank you for coming. i'm hoping you can talk a little bit about the violence in central america and mexico and also why that's not being framed as a refugee or humanitarian crisis in the same way, when you think about the cartels. also related to photography, i often wonder, reacting to violence and so-called gratuitous photos, when something becomes you cangratui versus showing what's happening.

people sometimes don't understand the level of violence that's happening, and maybe if we saw these photos regularly on media, it would wake people up a little more. >> one of the fascinating things about the photography is the way in which she addresses the history of violence in mexico, while at the same time telling the story of the migrants. if you look at her images, she's often staging her subjects in very specific locations. and if you read her captions, you see her reference a particular historical event. one of the things she's trying to do in her photography is to remind us of the history of that violence, that migrants have faced, and that could possibly endure, and what it takes to do what these individuals, these people do. so that history is there. i think it's being interpreted in ways that respect as what you're saying, this issue of gratuitous images of violence, which is very common in images

of conflict in central america and mexico, lots of bloodshed. she's trying to do something different by referencing this history without actually showing that gratuitous violence. >> if i could offer one additional thought, the refugee convention frames those who are entitled to material assistance when they flee violence around a well-founded fear of persecution that is connected to five recognized categories: religion, race, political opinion, nationality, and membership in a social group. and the challenges for those who flee violence, like criminal, gang violence and so forth, to find a way to fit that framing. historically they have not been found to fit the framing. although they're fleeing persecuti persecution, they're not fleeing persecution that entitles them under the convention. we have a basic instinct and

understanding that anybody that is fleeing and has a fear of persecution and violence that is a risk to their life is entitled to some form of protection. there are two possible ways to rethink our framing. one would be to reopen the current refugee convention for negotiation. most experts agree that if we did that, it would probably involve a scaling back of protections instead of an expansion of protections. and i think what we -- probably your question is motivated by a desire to see an expansion of protections. so a second strategy is to develop sort of what is called soft law or guidelines or guidance that suggests that the refugee convention remain as it is but that subsidiary forms of protection be adopted by countries. the united states, for example, has something called temporary protected status which is a kind of protection from being returned that does not involve asylum or permanent refugee status, but nonetheless offers protection from -- for individuals that are fleeing a circumstance of deep instability. because, as i mentioned, the

sources of global migration, of forced migration, are as much natural disaster or will be in the near future in climate change as violent conflict. the urgent need to come up with broader protections that entitle anybody at risk of their life should they be returned to a place to protection, is acute. so one thing is to develop that political will. and that involves individuals, especially in a powerful country like the united states, which is convening a summit around the u.n. general assembly meetings in september in new york on the question of forced migration and population mobility. that conference could take up this topic of subsidiary protections. given the political climate in our country at the moment there seems little appetite for a groundswell of support in the united states. without that leadership, it's difficult to come up with a framework for broader expansion of protections. >> when we think about migrants from central america, we think there's an issues of coming just purely for economic reasons and

to find a better life. but, you know, if central american gang member is trying to kill you, you're just as dead as if it's a syrian soldier, right? you face the same degree of lethality in the world you live in. but it's a good point. next question, left side, third row. >> i want to follow up on that last question and what professor bali said, because i think it's something that a lot of us don't even realize. last fall, i was one of a group of attorneys that went to a place called dilly, texas, where women and children from central america have been held there. when i came back to los angeles, by the way, most people said, oh, did you go to europe and help the syrians? i said, no, you know, we have refugees crossing the border into the united states. just a couple of things, since

we're at the annenberg. number one, i thought it was interesting, they didn't let us take cameras or cellphones in. so we couldn't actually take any pictures of the people. there were a few people that t got freed afterwards, and i took pictures of them and posted it. that's one of the reasons that maybe it doesn't get as much press coverage as it should. the other thing is what the professor said, there's only five bases for asylum. the fact that you're going to die or some gang member is after you doesn't necessarily mean that you qualify for asylum in the united states. but having interviewed dozens of the women there, the typical story i heard was this: outside of their homes they would start a business, they would have a restaurant, they would sell clothing, they would do something like this. so let's say they started a restaurant and some guy would come there for lunch every couple of days. and they knew he was a gang member.

but he would say something like isabella, your little 5-year-old girl, she's so cute. i always see her going down this boulevard and then she turns left to go to school. oh, and by the way, you know, we have a little organization that's trying to help the community, and you're doing pretty well with this restaurant, maybe if you could donate $100 a month or something, that would be good. and they knew that that meant that their daughter's life was in danger if they didn't come up with that $100 or whatever it was a month. though cross over to the united states. they don't try to sneak in. they immediately look for the first border patrol agent, turn themselves in, and then they end up in these camps. some of them, at the time i went there, some of them had been there over a year in the camps. and i think it's something that we really should be cognizant of, because they're right here in this country, and there's no

possible -- you know, nobody's afraid that central american women are going to go into a bus and blow everybody up or something like that. so it's purely, are we going to provide safety for these people or not? they're not a threat to the u.s. >> right. anyone, response to that? i guess it just relates to what you were saying earlier, in terms of how people are described and categorized and the need to revisit that, and the fact that i think with this woman who opens a store and people like her, again, i think the issue is, there is a recognition that she could be just as dead by that gang member who kills her versus the syrian child who is killed by a soldier of assad, right? it's the same level of threat. the feeling of, i have to leave this place because i could die and my kids can die. even if it's not a strict -- even if the international community doesn't see that as a civil war or, you know, an event that's worthy of refugee status.

>> one thing to say is that the idea that these camps exist and that americans don't know that they exist for the most part is not unusual. i think most countries have these kinds of camps, these detention camps, border camps, places where people can live in a semi permanent or even permanent or even multi-generational state of statelessness, is something that's unknown to most citizens of many countries, but yet together they comprise, as you were mentioning from the u. u.n. hcr report, the 24th largest country in the world. that's a crucial part of many people's existences. if you're a citizen, you're invested in not knowing that these countries have these place where people can just be put away. >> we also don't understand how the immigration court works, where you don't necessarily have representation at all, and you have 5 and 6-year-olds who go in with no lawyer at their side. next question. >> following question, to the

right front. >> thank you for being here today and sharing in this very, very important topic. i wrote a screenplay about world war ii refugees and put a very human face on the story of the refugee. and, you know, they went through very difficult circumstances and ended up in china, in shanghai, to follow up your question about china. and i guess my question pertains to, how do we light a fire up under our nation, and it includes the story of the st. louis, i don't know if anyone is familiar, the st. louis, where we turned away a boatload, people who went back to face the atrocities there. what can we do as citizens to continue this conversation, how do we get a roomful of people having this conversation that

will perpetuate change? >> i'm going to turn that over to my smarter people. >> i mean, there is almost no substantial organized political voice in the united states arguing for the united states to resettle larger proportions of refugees. i think that would be the starting point of, you know, lobbying your elected representatives for that. and because really the numbers that the united states are willing to take in or just such an absurdly small, as we've just discussed, 60 or 65 million people are in circumstances of displacement, let's put it this way, and we're prepared to take 10,000, 15,000 in crisis alleviation mode. that's really an absurdly low figure, clearly, and that's the figure that's taken on the syrian case. one could make an argument for broadening protected status to for example extend to central americans.

the story we just heard is typical, yet at the time, and again, this is what i mean by the crisis framing, encouraging a kind of distortion. there was actually a description of a crisis at the southwestern border, again, of central american arrivals. the notion that those numbers represented a crisis is absolutely absurd in a country with, you know, the size, population, and economy of the united states. but they actually became an entrenched national framing that authorized extraordinary action to deport, basically summarily, huge numbers of people. inordinate each step to resist the political tendency to do the expedient thing in the face of these framings requires organizing, even if it just means organizing yourself to contact elected representatives, but even better would be organizing with your friends, community members, people who attend events like this one, to engage in more meaningful political action. but basically it's a grassroots story of religious communities and civic associations and

others pressing a case, because at the top of our leadership at the moment, the political climate we've described several times now on this panel is one that is really not propitious for an improvement in the kind of responses our country -- and it is a leading country, both in the causes of producing the kinds of instability that have generated the crises that we see, but also it's a leading country in authoring the frameworks that determine how we respond to them internationally. so it's i think a heightened obligation for citizens here to act. >> if i could add, have you talked to immigrants, talked to refugees? it relates to what i said earlier, we live in paralittle universes in los angeles, people who were born abroad and come to this place, we don't know them at all. it's important to just get outside and talk to folks. this is very -- kind of a no-brainer to me. also talk to people who think, you know, the next immigrant could be the next jihadi, and

they're obviously wrong. there's a lot of americans, i've been with them in recent months, a lot of americans who just have some pretty extreme views about the threat immigrants and refugees pose to this country. and i think conversations with them are equally important. so we're not in our separate political camps as well. that may be even a more important conversation to have than with the immigrant or refugee. that's my two cents. >> also it's important to support cultural organizations such as this that are telling these stories. because people do listen when people show up. so a lot of these stories are being told in many ways, in many places, but people don't come. people don't buy the book or people don't, you know, buy the magazine or they don't support it. a very easy way is to actually support these things. >> yes. yes. but they're probably -- i would guess there probably aren't a lot of donald trump supporters in this audience, i must say. and i think it's important that -- maybe there are. but i think it's important to reach out to those who you don't agree with and talk to them

about these issues and talk to them about the future of this country and the place of outsiders in this country. if you are donald trump supporters, my apologies. you should give your views back. anyway. left side, last row. >> hi. and thank you for this very interesting talk. i have to say first, i'm very grateful to see that this was a sold-out conversation and to see how much interest there is in refugees in our city. my name is carolina seinfeld, the chair of the refugee forum in los angeles. here locally, people don't know that we have one of the largest humanitarian community of agencies here working in los angeles. the refugee forum has 21 agencies at this time, that include not only resettlement agencies but also legal service

providers, lausd, lapd, school districts as well. i just want to point out that if you're interested, definitely go see the exhibit, because it's very educational. but then also reach out to the agencies if you want to volunteer. if you want to participate in additional activities. in september, there is going to be happening, welcoming week starts on september 16. so look up for information on that, our events around the city. and world refugee day every year, around june 20th, there's also a lot of public events. i hope people stay informed and engaged. and thank you for being here. >> yes, certainly a ton of organizations with the central american community, there's chirla, there's catholic charities that works a lot with that community. no shortage of great groups here in southern california that have the refugee and immigrant population. >> all right, folks.

that concludes our lecture for the evening. if you guys can all join me in thanking the panelists. [ applause ] [ room noise ] join us friday for a discussion on the legacy of america's first ladies. at 11:15 a.m. eastern, following a panel discussion, michelle

obama and laura bush will join the conversation to offer their perspectives as the two most recent first ladies. watch that live, starting at 9:30 a.m. eastern on c-span3. join us friday for remarks from u.k. independence party leader nigel farage. we expect to learn who the new party leader will be. that person is expected to speak as well. watch it all live starting at 6:45 a.m. eastern, friday, on our companion network, c-span2. later we have more "road to the white house." first lady michelle obama is on the trail. she'll be in fairfax, virginia, to stump for the democratic standard bearer, hillary clinton. watch ms. obama's remarks live starting at 3:00 p.m. eastern on friday on c-span. this weekend on "american history tv" on c-span3, saturday

evening at 6:00 p.m. eastern. >> in any war, at any time, weapons dictate tactics. you've probably heard the civil war was fought with modern weapons and antiquated tactics. and that's not quite true. the civil war is actually an evolutionary war, as both weapons and the men who employ those weapons learn different methods to fight with. >> author david powell talks about military theories, battle tactics, and formations during the civil war. then at 9:00, military historian michael neiberg talks about the 1945 meeting of truman, churchill, and stalstalin, to t about the he found world war ii. >> the power in europe became a zero sum game. the way to solve the problem

under this viewpoint was to merge europe together, create the european union, and the phrase is already out there, so that france, russia, poland, don't see event on the continent as a zero sum game. on sunday night, 8:00 p.m. eastern. >> the idea that presidents have always gotten the very best health care available in whatever era they lived, i want to tell you this is a charming myth. and problems began almost immediately with george washington. >> parkway central librarian richard levinson on myths surrounding presidents and their health. he'll talk about how doctors have sometimes contributed to a president's death or saved them from dying without public knowledge. for our complete "american history tv" schedule, go to c-span.org. it's that time of year to announce or 2017 student cam video documentary competition.

help us spread the word to middle school and high school students and their teachers. this year's theme, your message to washington, dc. tell us, what is the most urgent issue for the new president and congress to address in 2017? our competition is open to all middle school or high school students grades 6 through 12 with $100,000 awarded in cash prizes. students can work alone or in a group of up to three to produce a five to seven-minute documentary on the issue selected. include some c-span programming and also explore opposing opinions. the $100,000 in cash prizes will be awarded and shared between 150 students and 52 teachers. the grand prize, $5,000, will go to the student or team with the best overall entry. this year's deadline is january 20th, 2017. so mark your calendars and help us spread the word to student filmmakers. for more information, go to our website, studentcam.org. blogher is a media company

that began in 2005 with a conference on women and blogging. from this year's conference, here's a conference on what feminism means today and how it's changed from the 1970s. from earlier this summer, this is just shy of an hour. [ room noise ] >> thank you so much for coming and i'm so sorry for the wait. but the best things come to those who wait. my name is jamia wilson. it is my pleasure and honor to be honoring our feminism across generations conversation today. we had some technological difficulties but maybe that's a

sign this is going to be a feminist organizing meeting as well. now that we're getting started, the first thing i wanted to do was talk about why this conversation is important. and why i was thrilled to be invited by blogher to have this conversation. i have been part of the feminist movement officially since i was in college and first organizing on behalf of choice usa. and several other feminist organizations. and now i'm running a feminist organization called women action in the media, and i'm also a writer on a feminist beat with that intersectional race/class analysis. and also on the board of various feminist organizations. this feel very important to me as a person who probably calls herself a feminist and a womanist. but it's very important to me at this time in our history as a people. the conversation about the election that's happening right now, no

matter where we stand within it, the conversations around policy issues that are facing us. as someone who is working toward building my own family and thinking about issues of motherhood and equality as it relates to that as well, that there's so much that i know that i want to learn from the generations before me and i also believe that there's so much insight that my generation and the generation after me has to give us about how to make this world more equal. i'm really thrilled to be joined by these dynamic bad ass women who with here to talk about the triumphs of the movement, the sacrifices and the mistakes that were made in the past that will help inform our present and future. we're going to talk about our perspectives, talk about feminism from where we stand. i'm a person who believes in multiple feminisms. i have a specific point of view and a way that i live and do

feminism but i believe there are a lot of other people who do it differently. i'm of the mind-set that other people can call their feminism different things too and to me it's still feminism if it smells like feminism and looks like feminism and helping the world be more equal. i know there are people who disagree with me on that too. we're going to talk about how we can work together to grow movements and move beyond the tension points that we have to be able to build together for a more equal future. what we're going to do to get this started, because we want to also have time for the organizing meeting. can't be an organizer without taking advantage of these amazing women and minds in this room right now and saying that we're going to give kind of an opening where everyone is going to tell you who they are and what brought us to this place and then we're going to get into questions i have and then get into your questions as we explore this topic. so first i am going to just introduce each panelist by name and then they're going to tell you the real heart of who they are.

so we have kelley skoloda, a partner at ketcham, also on author and global trend spotter. we have alex regalado, the co-founder of twighowto.com. and i had the pleasure and honor of being one of the judges for the f word contest winner and i voted for her video to be number one so i was really excited that the will of all of the judges also came to this conclusion because it was the right one. and also angelique roche who is vice president of external affairs at ms. foundation for women, who has also just been sister colleague friend of the movement and i would not want to be in the trenches with anyone else but angelique, spent a very negative 22 degree weathering the primaries together with her not that long ago. i'm really pleased to be with this group and to dig into our discussions. first we're going to talk to

kelley and hear what feminism means to you and what brought you to this conversation and what excites you about feminism across generations. >> thanks jamia and thanks panelists. is this on? can you hear me? >> that one is on. >> there we go. thank you. so it's great to be here. i have been to all 12 of the 12 blogher conferences over the years and so it's -- i met alisa and lisa way back before they got started, even before their first conference. when i heard about what they were doing. so i've been with them every step of the way. as jamia said, i'm kelley skoloda from ketcham where i'm a partner, and i have run the practice for the past decade. i'm also a published author of the book "too busy to shop" marketing to multi-minding women. and most importantly i'm a mom,

a sister, a friend, an aunt and a woman who thinks about feminism and what it means to me and have done that many years of my life. i do it from a couple of perspectives. one is from the personal perspective, right, as a woman. and especially these days now that i have a son who is 16 and a daughter who is in the hatch program next door who is 12, i think about what it means to me as a woman. as i was really thinking through what i would say what feminism means to me, i was in a conversation with my kids and it's amazing how perspectives between generations can change, right? so my daughter and my niece who were there when i asked them what feminism means to them, you know, i don't know. i mean does it matter? you know, what does it mean. and i've raised my kids in a pretty, i guess, feminist household and when they said that i thought, what does that mean? did i not do a good job? am i doing a good job? or is that things are so equal in their world that they don't

need to think about that. and that's pretty much what it came down to when i asked the girls. we can do what we want. you know, we feel great in the classroom. they're just so comfortable in their own skin and feel so good about their opportunities. it's not even a question. and then when i talked about this topic with my son who is 16, he said, mom, you're sitting on a feminist panel? what if you went to a conference and there was a mennist panel. wouldn't that seem pro-man and wouldn't you not like that. what does it say if you're on a feminist panel. so because in his world too, things seem to be so equal and girls and boys are treated pretty equally. he doesn't see the disadvantage. when i talk about unequal pay and those things, it's foreign concept. i think about it from that perspective and how have their views changed my views of feminism. and then of course i think about it from the professional side because i'm a professional brand

marketer. and what i do every day is counsel clients on how to represent women, men, families in their communications. and i get to work with big ad agencies on what they do and within the realm of pr and marketing. i feel like i have a great privilege but also a great responsibility to help marketers understand who women are and how important it is for them to be portrayed in the right way. so when i think about myself and feminism, that's how i think about it and on those two different levels. >> thank you. and now i'd like to hear from alex and hear about the same question, what brought you to feminism and what does feminism mean to you. >> yeah, thanks. so my name is alex regalado. i work as a video editor here in los angeles and i specialize in dominicary and documentary and social justice work.

i'm really into women's rights. so for fun my friend katelyn and i who is here, we cofounded a website called twighowto, and it has articles and videos that we think all young women need to know. we're creating a damsel free world one article at a time. so it really, it came from this idea that after you graduate college or you enter the working world, there's so many things you still don't know how to do, like how do you set up a 401(k). what happens when your air conditioner is broken, how do you fix it. it's become an open forum where women can join a nationwide network of women. i work on the website with a bunch of other awesome ladies and we decided to enter a video kest, #thefword. we came together to create this video and i wanted to share it with you today. i hope you like it. ♪ >> this part of me is seen as too distracting for class.

this part of me is taken less seriously in boardrooms. this part of me make others think i shouldn't show my vulnerability. some say this part of me is asking for it. this part of me determines my privilege. feminism to me means my part in this world isn't dictated by my gender or the parts of my body.

this part of me takes a stand against prejudice. this part of me pushes my creative boundaries. this part of me lifts up others in my community. this part of me develops ground breaking innovations. this part of me shatters glass ceilings. feminism to me means my part in this world is determined by my choices, my actions and the parts of my character.

♪ >> it's beautiful. [ applause ] and now angelique, tell us about what feminism means to you. >> so, i actually will start off with my video, because i have a very interesting story that goes about how i even got to the ms. foundation and the fact that i was not always a feminist. at least i didn't think i was. and so what i am actually going to start with was a little bit of a project that happened for me when i first started working for the ms. foundation, a lot of my friends were why are you working for the ms. foundation. i consider myself a black feminist, or i consider myself a womanist or i consider myself a humanist. i don't understand why you would work for a feminist organization. it led me to ask a question as

to, okay, so what does feminism mean to you. so the ms. foundation, we put together over three days 42 different women, men, transgender men, black, white, from the ages of 72 all the way through 81, which is what gloria steinem was at the time and asked them that exact question because i asked that question to myself before taking the position at the ms. foundation. this is a composite of what happened. ♪ >> people have their own impression of what feminism was about. many people oftentimes felt that the word itself left out the history or left out individual voices and it was oftentimes defined in the media by white men. and at the end of the day, when i'd look at myself in the mirror, i'm a black woman and i didn't quite know where i fit in that.

>> feminism at the beginning profoundly makes people uncomfortable. >> i never identified as a feminist and it's largely because i guess the images of what i had of what a feminist was growing up were really these images of white women and privilege. >> the act of creating who i was as someone who was born female was very much a feminist act. that was at on the soldiers of so many freedom fighters before me. >> in the '60s and '70s there was one way to express your feminism and today there are just as many ways as there are women. >> as a woman with a disability, traditional white middle class feminism never worked for me because i was never going to be equal to a white man. >> we all come to the table with our own stories. you know, we bring, i want to call it, our personal histories and we often bring the collective histories of whatever tribe we come from with us.

>> feminism is a question. and the question is what truths are missing here. so in that sense my feminism is intersectional because intersectional feminism is to ask what truths are missing here, what voices aren't being heard here, who isn't at the table that you don't even realize who is not at the table. >> 21st century feminism needs to center those most impacted and look at all of the conditions that women face. >> i was raised by a feminist. i was raised not to be a feminist but to have a level of understanding of human interaction and justice. and i think being in that environment it was easy for me to be like yes, i'm a feminist. it wasn't a hard thing for me to say. >> when i go throughout my day i really try to align my politics using an intersectional feminist lens which means i make decisions on is this good for a poor black woman. >> what defines me as a feminist is this core belief that all

individuals, men, women and anybody who defines themselves in between should have access to the social, political and economic equality that this world presents to us. >> what makes me a feminist is that i understand that if women aren't free i can never be free. you know, as a gay man, really understanding that their struggle is actually my struggle too. >> the feminist values that i want to raise sara with are an understanding that every single person is equal. >> my feminism is a form of faith. it's a form of faith. it is having the faith to believe, do you know what i mean, that women are whole, complete, you know, human beings and should have all of the rights and privileges of you know, every male human being on the planet. ♪

>> feminism is the social economic and political equality of all genders. >> all genders. >> all genders. ♪ [ applause ] >> so one of the great things about this is it is actually the definition of what i have come to believe is why i'm a feminist. as you noticed, there are a lot of times there's stereotypes when it comes to feminism. there are a the propaganda that people say oh no, i don't burn my bra, or i'm not man hating, why would i be a feminist. i don't need to be part of a movement. and one of the things that i love about how feminism is transitioning is that it's about identity. it's about defining who you are and having the ability to say, you know what, i'm not a

feminist or i am a feminist. and that's cool. but it's also about setting the table the right way. as you noticed, we didn't just have a video of the same people who all looked alike and did the same job who are all from the ms. foundation who were all the same age who came and talked about it. and we were okay with people saying i didn't define myself as a feminist. and some of our interviewees said i'm going to say this before i get on camera. i'm like, cool, say it. we want you to say it. that's part of the conversation. and so one of the things that i love about being a feminist is that every day i get to wake up and i get to have this conversation. i get to have the conversation where someone goes, well i don't agree with that. it's like you know what, you have the freedom not to. and that is the core part of this, you have the freedom to get up every single day and not have the fear that if you

disagree with someone else that all of the sudden you are devalued. you have less opportunities. because you decide to wake up and you feel at your core that your identity is not female, your identity is not male, that you are not binary. if you wake up one day and you decide that hey, i'm going to paint my toenails green and dye my hair purple that you can walk out of your home and have the same social, political and economic opportunities and value as any other human being. and so the core part of it is exactly why i'm a feminist. it's exactly why i get up every day and i work as hard as i possibly can to find people of all genders who are working for that core part. and i'm lucky enough to work at the ms. foundation, where that's our missive, amplifying the voices of women to ensure that they're empowered and

engaged to be able to create the solutions in their own communities to be able to change that imbalance of equity. so i will yield the mike. >> thank you so much. and i think -- i just want to dive into this question and have some real talk about what comes up at happy hour that we can bring to the light today. so i've been a part of a lot of conversations, sometimes, you know, that happy hour will be a lot of women of color, sometimes it will be black women, sometimes it will be millennials all together and sometimes i will be the only younger person in a conversation where it's a lot of older women. and i've heard some common themes. wow, working with millennials who haven't paid their dues. they don't know what we had to fight for. they need to get on board and understand that we know the right way to go. one thing i've heard. another thing i've heard is wow, i never get to take ownership of my power. people just want me to do busy work. i'm not getting the support that i need.

i'm not getting to express passion in the way that i want to because my workplace doesn't understand that social media has actual impact. another thing that comes up at happy hour, this is one of the most important historic moments of our time. i cannot believe that these young women are not supporting x candidate. and on and on and on. so i'm sure many of us have heard these conversations. many of us have been a part of these conversations. many of us probably felt strongly triggered or some were in between of the things i brought up. that's why it's important for us to have this conversation. because let's get real. in 98, 97 days, i'm scared to count, we are going to be facing some very serious impacts no matter who wins around economic

justice, paid childcare, health care, education in this country, the supreme court reproductive rights. all of those things are going to be impacted by the decisions that are made. and right now there's varying and diverse theories of change that a lot of us have who call ourselves feminist or people who believe in equality. and there is a debate out there about whether it's a good or bad thing that we have different theories of change or different approaches about how to reach that equality. and i just wanted to ask you to have this be a conversation right now about what you think about this time and this moment. is this a time where we have to have complete unified strategy, unified terminology, unified jargon or is this a time where we can dig into these contradictions or dig into these tensions? is there a space for us to have people who don't want to call them feminists within the movement. these are the questions i would

like to hear from you in asking about what feminism means to us and also about whether this moment in time necessitates specific action. >> interesting question. >> yeah, i mean, i feel like if i'm being true to myself and my beliefs and even the feminist movement, which is more about opportunity and dreams that can come true for everyone, regardless of gender, race, ethnicity, you know, any difference, then i feel like there is room for people to go about it in many different ways. right? depending on where you have in your life and what your area of responsibility is, i'll go back just to my personal perspectives and how i feel like i can impact feminism, you know, as a parent and being able to talk to my kids about why this is a historic moment and engage them in conversation. i mean if you don't think about

it, you don't explore it. so just having that conversation and understanding the differences of opinion with them i think is an important step. and then when i think about myself as a brand marketer and how every client i counsel can't go about it the same way. nor might they be so inclined to do it in a really aggressive way. but if they can do it in a way that i think is right for them, their company and their brand and still be true to showing humans as humans and doing those things right, then that's the way they go about it. when i think about myself in the workplace and not every situation is the same, but being able to -- being active in supporting women and helping them think about what's going on and enabling them to make their own decisions. i think that freedom of choice

to decide how you want to pursue it is important from where i sit. >> i think it's an interesting question and it brings up two things for me, which is, one a motto that i have which is my liberation is not yours to define. i'm an extra millennial. i'm an '80s baby and i'm right in the middle and i think that does make a difference. i think it makes a difference also that i am a core identifying woman of color from the south who worked in d.c. and now lives in brooklyn. right? my problems are different. and i think it boils down to that, right. when i first walked into the ms. foundation, i had come from politics and i looked at my boss who is an avid feminist and i said hey, so, teresa, you know i'm not a feminist, right? and she looks at me, she brought

me to the mission on the wall of the ms. foundation and i read it. i was like, cool. she's like do you believe in the social, political and economic equality of all genders. and i'm going to censor myself because we're being videotaped. of course i do. who wouldn't believe in that. that's like a principle. we later found out in polling there's a significant amount of people that don't believe in that. but even when we did that polling we didn't get 100% of people who believed in it. but when we say hey, do you consider yourself a feminist, only 16% of people said yes. men, women, black, white, cross generation, completely split across the united states. but when we asked them to you believe in the social, political and economic equality of all genders, it jumped three times that. so i think that something you said is poignant.

not every client is going to approach equality and feminism -- and i don't say women's rights. i say issues that impact women in their communities. because our identities have so much broader than what people consider to be those quote unquote women's issues. that i truly believe you're right. everyone comes to the table differently, everyone brings it to the table differently. and about three months after working for the ms. foundation i walked in my boss's office and i was like hey, so you know i'm a feminist, right? and she kind of looked at me, very dry, slight roll of her eyes, she's like, okay. glad you figured it out. and i walked away. but one of the things i really appreciate about that conversation, and this goes back to your question, is she didn't force that on me. she didn't say you have to be a feminist or you can't work for the ms. foundation. which some people would absolutely and totally believe

in. but i think as we approach these issues we've got to approach them like that. we've got to be able to say no, i don't think a man can't be a feminist. of course a man can be a feminist. do you believe in a political, social and economic equality of all genders. cool. come on board. we're totally down for you. you don't have to say feminist as long as you believe everybody should have the same opportunities. because i think we close our doors, we close the opportunity of being able to have more partners and more allies and more people at the table with brilliant ideas, brilliant ideas. you know, we even came up with black men in feminism this year. we has a trans man talk about how there's privilege in being a trans man and the fact that he has seen both sides of it. that part of the conversation would not happen if the table wasn't open to different perspectives and different ideas.

and people who are allowed to identify themselves in such a way in believing that it's about equality. right? so, you know. >> this idea of it being about equality, that to me is the connective tissue beyond all of our own individual dogs in the fight, so to speak, if you'll allow that metaphor, there is that goal. liberation can look like many different things for different ones of us based on our identity. i think a lot about how there's a difference between righteous debate and deep diving into questions we need to dive into about our various identities. and then also sometimes the media appropriating movements and disagreements that we have in order to perpetuate stereotypes about women and trans people that are divisive. about catfights and feminist hysteria for example in order to then undermine women's agency and undermine the progress

that's been made. so i was wondering if you all could talk a little bit about what your thoughts are about how to challenge this trend. what should we do when we do disagree. in this culture of think pieces and call out culture and twitter to support each other and not derail each other when we disagree on tactics but agree on overall strategy. >> you can have different views but for me it's about promoting something that's still empowering, inclusive and positive overall. so you don't have to spread the call out culture. you can create your own sphere if you don't see yourself in the media. create a place where you can talk and discuss things openly. as long as we're just really trying to amplify all voices equally, then we're already working towards something good. >> i think there's a second part to that, though. within the silos and within

creating your own voice, there has to be organizations that are sitting out there going, hey, we're going to make space for you. so i think that's also something that's very very important in the conversation, is having those people at the organization saying, oh, wow, this one xyz is doing something amazing and creative. and intersectional. let's make sure we're making space for them so that they're part of the conversation. and that's an interestingly difficult demand sometimes in the world of click bait as i call it where they would rather see a cat fight on twitter between nicki minaj and whoever it is last week. i'm sure. i don't pay attention. or you know pulling out who was naked on what cover of what magazine last week. and i think that all comes down to consumers. are we being responsible consumers or are we really interested and bored with our

lives and want to see what's happening between neek mills and whoever last week. literally what is that. >> and i'm wondering about the best practices and ethics since i was thinking about your work and kelley's work too about that. because i think in the spaces i'm in we're talking -- we have a lot of work to do to be more inclusive and to do the work better always. but i think in the spaces i'm in we have a lot of people who are thinking about intersectional theory and feminism, for example. and i'm wondering when you are in a position as a brand marketer, when you're in a space, in a industry like in tech for example that might be male dominated, how do we bring up the parts of best ethics or when there might not been multigeneration views representing the voice of feminism, so to speak, in that context.

and i'm really interested in what your thoughts are about that. >> there are a couple of things. from a marketing standpoint i think we can -- and i always try to be really smart stewards of my client's marketing and image and make sure it's very much in line with the research that we see. and at ketcham we do tons of research into women and moms and make sure they're portraying women and moms in a way that's consistent with how women want to be seen. we try and match that. i think also being more outspoken and trying to really be change agents within your organization. and there are wonderful things happening in the marketing space ranging from the 3% conference to just i see a whole kind of resurgence of women finding their voice. and also helping men find their voice so we can all work on that together. i also think there is something very specific that we can all do to help each other, and it's not so much finding your voice but

last -- about 18 months ago we did a global research study in conjunction with blogher and it was all about trying to understand women and moms and the role they play as breadwinners. and the research was called "breadwinner phenomenon." and so what it found to no surprise is that each more than expected -- and i think pugh said four in ten women were now the breadwinner in their family. it was actually closer to five to ten, half of the women are on par or breadwinners in their family. which is fantastic. the earning power of women has gone up so dramatically. a lot with that came a couple of things that were disturbing. more stress. and importantly when i heard sheryl crow mention that you have to nourish yourself before you nourish others, women tend not to do that. the number one thing that women start to do when they make more

money is they lose track of their own health.