out of the debt ceiling fight, there was the expectation that might be disappointment with members. they had almost nothing to show for it. there was unanimous support and the republican caucus for john boehner. longmains to be seen how he wants to stay in the job. host: this is from yesterday's "washington times" op-ed page. "a gift from the federal shutdown." adam brandon writes

guest: but the interesting thing is, this is a discussion where strategy and tactics and policy. was that the right call to shut down the government? a lot of people came out of it feeling as though that was not the right strategy. we have seen the republican party make a turn. you are seeing a lot more in terms of oversight in terms of focusing on the problems with the law and that has gotten some support from democrats, who also have their own tough questions for the administration. to the extent the republican party has turned its attention

away from the appeal, the public focus has been a fairly successful strategy. you have seen their approval ratings bounce back. about theral articles chamber of commerce and businesses and republicans fighting back against the tea party side. guest: we have heard this before. the question is, whether this is the year. you do not necessarily feel as is a real strategy for pushing back. there is a will for pushing back. certain candidates have pushed back against the tea party and the non-tea party candidates have come out on top. whether there is a concerted effort to target the tea party

in a way traditional mainstream republicans have been targeted by the tea party in the past, it is not clear that is happening at this point. there have been several attempts . we will see what happens in 2014. host: will the issue of gay marriage be an issue in 2014? guest: it is not clear whether it is something that politicians are eager to talk about. it is a sea change from where we were a decade ago where it was considered to be a decisive issue. now there is a reluctance on the part of most republicans to discuss this. even to the extent you oppose it, is not necessarily going to be a net benefit to talk about it publicly and is not going to help you keep your seat. host: is there any discussion

about changes to gun laws? guest: that is the big question. that is a leftover issue from 2013 that seems to have fallen by the wayside. there have been a number of executive actions. we may yet see more of those. several of the items of the recommendations that came out have been implemented at this point. in terms of progress and legislative progress, that is a question. the background checks, there is a constant focus on certain key votes to see whether it is safe to switch. certain people were seen as swing votes. pusher in fact there is a to bring it back to the floor and whether those votes could be brought over. that may be a tough sell in an election year. vivian tweet from

shepardson. host: gary from cleveland, ohio on the republican line. understand there is a provision in obamacare, they are setting aside $15 billion of the taxpayers money for insurance companies, if they do not make a profit. llarshe second year -- do set aside for the insurance companies. a gigantic bailout. would this be a big misstep as far as the democrats are concerned? guest: one of the keys for the administration in containing industry support has been making

sure that they feel as though they can depend on some of these projections. we have seen enrollments fall short of where insurance companies expected it to be. you want to keep their support and keep them in the mix in terms of her moaning it -- in terms of promoting it. we are not seeing the numbers that have been projected. the numbers that people pay, the rates that are based on that. the key is keeping the insurance in the street in the mix. host: what do you see as the biggest vertical danger to the president in 2014? guest: the lame-duck status. lastore time goes on, the ability he has to convince his party to push his agenda.

he is the one that people are still going to turn to in leadership. to the extent to start talking about the 2016 election -- "we" being journalists. to the extent we start talking about that, the less we will talk about the white house and its agenda. particularly in a midterm election year. and a lot of democrats might be nervous about the president and his agenda. may not be eager to be seen as close to him and be identified with the affordable care act rollout. that remains to be seen. the fight to remain relevant as it gets closer to 2016. he u: i have resisted to rge to pull out the chris christie-l.a. carton article --

hillary clinton article. caller: i just retired. i am 64 years old. i got a letter saying i'm increase in my income. how much do the government get in cost of living? i think it is more than 1.3%. guest: cost of living adjustments are a major issue for people living on limited income. one of the things democrat looking to highlight is going to be the issue of income inequality and the minimum wage, unemployment benefits. the money people are receiving from the government, whether it is keeping pace with need out there. that is going to be a major

issue in 2014. expect to hear more talk about that. sea of tranquility tweets in. guest: that is the question. it depends who you ask. there are a lot of seats that perhaps should not have been in play before that may be in play, on both sides. , heading into a midterm year, you usually see the president's party lose out. in the wake of the debt ceiling fight, they might be able to buck that trend, looking back to the second term of the clinton administration where democrats did fairly well. the question remains to be seen which dynamic takes hold. host: charles from illinois on

our independent line. caller: hi. thank you for taking my call. i wonder if the guest would be able to talk to any topic that less reported that drug policy. cover press is able to the kinds of hot traversal subjects going back to things like the iran-contra affair, leading right up to this building seven think that people keep calling about. i wonder if c-span can tell me, have you had any credible people that are skeptical or advocates of government complicity in this? host: thank you for your follow-up question. back to his question on drug holocene. policy.

guest: it is a fascinating issue to watch. we have seen for a long time that the issue, whatever the white house ask for public input on the issue that people would like to talk about, marijuana legalization shoots to the top of the list almost every time. they do not necessarily want to focus on that. we are seeing interesting experiments taking place in colorado where voters have approved limited legalization. you are seeing the question about whether the government will step in and enforce the federal laws and allow the states to continue this experiment and whether a legal industry can be created. host: we have this tweet.

we have seen some of that in the past few months. we saw that during the debt ceiling and the government shutdown. harry reid wanted to see the president take a tough line. that is something republicans did not expect him to hold. they expected him to fold under and look for compromise. that had been the copper mines in the past -- that had been the compromise in the past. we have seen that line coming from the administration. the president was asked about it. is the administration willing to deal on the debt ceiling, and the answer is always no. here.a couple of tweets

press conferences with the president. are those scripted? are they free for all us? do you feel you're getting a good give and take? guest: this administration has gutted a lot of heat -- has gotten and a lot of heat from reporters on access. we're seeing pushback from the white house press corps about the policy pushing their own photographs from you fence and restricting access. there was discussion before the winter holiday that took place between officials in the press office and representatives of the press corps. you heard the president say his new year's resolution is to be nicer to the white house press corps. we will see if that holds.

host: go ahead with your question or comment for rebecca sinderbrand. caller: thank you and praise be for c-span. hasclimate change problem not been discussed in the presidential election. a new book came out in october by alan weisman. is the countdown of the collision between growing population and running out of resources. is there must interest in how citizens promote the idea that in 2014 election and the agenda come is there any indication there is interest in this collision between growing population and running at of resources and what citizens can do to promote -- this does come up as a major issue. guest: climate change is an issue now.

we heard from the president earlier this year. he came out and talked about climate change. he said he would not get the kind of comprehensive legislation he.would like from congress he was leading with executive actions that he had been holding onto, waiting to see what would happen on capitol hill. one of the big issues is the keystone pipeline and what the administration is going to do on that. we expect a decision fairly soon into 2014. tweet.e have another guest: enough to say at this point the odds do not look rate for president obama getting a bill to sign on his desk. the odds are not fantastic. that is going to be a touchstone

for partners in a conversation heading into the midterm elections. democrats focusing on the minimum wage and the economic issues. host: how significant is it that this a, is up for reelection next year? guest: incredibly significant. everyone has been having this conversation about how that plays into the dynamic with mcconnell. you have seen them become very close to aids of rand paul. this unlikely rapport, or unlikely collaboration. maybe it is a relationship born of necessity. that is clearly something that mcconnell feels as though he needs heading into and it looks like it will not be an easy election. host: how would you define the

republican agenda for next year? guest: it is very much focused on gaining ground, for both parties. focused on gaining ground. there is a limited window where we will see legislating going on. this congress -- if you think this congress was unproductive, just stay tuned. the spot will be on the politics of this. polls.rs head to the host: what about tax reform? guest: there is a possibility of progress. there has been some discussion of that. it seemed as though that issue dropped off the agenda. look for progress in the early part of the year. host: michael in alabama on the independent line. caller: good afternoon.

my heart goes out to the caller from mississippi. he may have made a blanket generalization about obamacare without meaning to. republicans have gotten -- have focused on the family and radio and tried to equate ands christ with hamilton laissez-faire capitalism. i hated just as much as he does. here is my concern. mentioned, nobody has -- photo card laws. i believe that they can be a good deterrent against voter fraud. i am worried about white, able-bodied mischief.

sweet deal between the republican party leaders and seven white dixiecrat's -- and southern white dixiecratx. tell local polling workers that elderly people, college students and minorities and handicapped people -- host: i think we got the point. guest: that is something we saw the obama administration make a concerted push on. all these laws and restrictions on voter access that have popped and 2012.010 eric holder said they will be pushing back fairly aggressively. we saw that in texas and north carolina. we do not expect that to be the final action. interesting to see as the process works its way to the court. it is a top party for the white

house. host: do you foresee any big cases for the supreme court? we have not discussed the courts. guest: there are a number of issues making their way to the high court. issues related to the affordable care act and when it comes to religious objections by employers providing coverage. nsaome point, some of these challenges to make their way, data-gathering and surveillance, to make their way to the high court. we heard from judge leon. he said the information that the obama administration has been collecting is likely to be found unconstitutional on fourth amendment grounds. it will be interesting to see as these cases start to make their way to the high court.

host: where did you get your start in this business? guest: i started out with the associated rest here in washington, d.c. i have made my way around. i spent time with cnn, just a couple of blocks from where we're sitting, and now i am with clinical --politico. host: do you think we will make it through 2014 without hearing the words "grand bargain"? arizona, you are the last word. caller: hi. -- the court in washington, d.c., with some more democrats. they are trying to stack the supreme court. rejected -- the press

that in the 1930's. , sincee press support they do not seem to talk about stacking the appellate court the way the president has? shuntnk he will try to courses from other divisions into washington, d.c., since they are so underworked relative to the other courts? guest: there is a distinction between what happened with roosevelt back in the 30's and what is happened now. roosevelt was looking to expand the court and create new positions. the president was looking to fill positions that were already existing and had been vacant for some time. you saw real frustration on the part of democrats. the slow pace of judicial approval they were getting.

the respondent was the filibuster change. there was a huge sea change in the way business was conducted on capitol hill. there hasn't been so far the pushback. passed quietly. people are talking about procedural senate rules, which does not resonate with the general public. judges are still a big topic of conversation. since the filibuster change has been passed, it is not clear where the conversation goes from here. host: >> on the next washington

journal, philip klein, and the current makeup of poverty in america. he is the author of the american way of poverty, how the other half still lives. "washington journal" live at 7 a.m. eastern on c-span. night, watch the discussion on gender, race, and incarceration, hosted by tulane university. author and msnbc host moderates a panel of incarcerated women's rights advocates at 8:35 p.m. eastern. that is followed by a congressional gold medal ceremony honoring the services of native american code talkers. they transmitted secret messages using tribal languages during world war i and world war ii. that is saturday at 10:20 pm eastern, also on c-span.

now a discussion on the role of conservative women in american politics. ronnie with schreiber. she talks about conservative women leaders. 2008 vice presidential candidate sarah palin, and michele bachmann. the former editor and uc berkeley university professor also critiques the work. this is one hour, 15 minutes. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [applause] >> there we go. ok. thank you so much for coming. i want to thank the berkeley center for right-wing studies and the cosponsors, the graduate school of journalism. i also want to thank john mccain. why would i want to thank john

mccain? as most of you know, in 2008, john mccain surprised the united states by nominating alaska governor sarah palin to be his running mate in the presidential election. and i remember that moment. i was at a little science conference and my first book had just come out on conservative women. it was academic press. i'm sure a few people thought it might be interesting. then i saw sarah palin on the screen on national television and i thought john mccain is promoting my research agenda. so i always feel it's important to thank john mccain when i do talk about my research. speaking of research and i want to follow up on something that larry said. what i am presenting today is scholarly work and really intended to create understanding of conservative women. i am a women of politics scholar and i saw a lack of attention to ideological

diversity among women in the scholarship that was being published. so i became very interested myself and exploring questions about conservative women and also wanting to highlight their important contribution to politics. no matter where you stand politically, i think it is really important for us to understand the role that they play in politics. now back to palin -- references to her general maternal status influence the campaign when she was running for president -- influenced the campaign and discussions over whether mothers of young children should seek elected office. of course, she played into these debates by bringing her children on stage for events and referring to herself as a hockey mom. discussions of mothers in politics made their reappearance in 2010 when palin herself was advocating for and campaigning for mostly tea party candidates, women who were running for office and calling them her mama grizzlies.

june 5, 2011, and other mother of five, conservative congresswoman michele bachmann announced her intention to run for president of the united states. as for palin, bachmann's bid generated a lot of debate over gender roles and women in politics from all sides. given that both women were running in high-profile races, these cases divide an excellent lens through which public deliberations about conservative women, motherhood and politics can be examined. so i was very eager after the first book that i wrote, which was about two conservative women's organizations and i wanted to stop and felt compelled to keep going. but i was eager to resources question about how you have conservative ideology, which promotes traditional gender roles, stereotypes, which i will get into, yet these organizations are promoting these mothers of five running

for national office. so the research i am presenting today builds on my work in writing feminism. when i was presenting research and talking about the book afterwards, i got a lot of questions from people basically saying aren't those women hypocritical? they say women should stay home and be with her kids and yet there they are running for office. those of you who remember that that was a question often posed by phyllis shifley -- she has children and she is out there politically engaged and so on. basically people said these women are hypocrites. if you stop at calling a group of people hypocrites and leave

it at that, you lose out on a lot of information and understanding what role they actually play in politics. what i want to argue today is that -- i'm sorry there are valid reasons to say that potentially these women can be considered hypocrites, but there are tensions and contradictions and it is not as clear-cut. so let me explain. so some of the tensions, that conservatives are actually presented with. because they do promote gender role conservativism among but they are also promoting mothers in politics. so let's start with the tensions in the questions and the ideas about why is it that we would think it would be wrong for conservative women to promote people like palin and bachmann running for office. conservatives have promoted

stay-at-home motherhood based on theological beliefs and heterosexual families and about gender values, but the primacy of women as caretakers, social conservatives have long argued that women should prioritize their roles as stay-at-home mothers. that is the first point that i sense that you should think it is odd to promote palin and bachmann. i'm going to give you two comments from women that run organizations or are active in conservative women's groups. they point to why we think conservative groups might actually be hypocritical and promoting palin and bachmann. the first is from a woman who works for concerned women of america. women have to acknowledge that they are blessed with children and it is important to give their needs top priority. another quote is from someone who has said that encouraging wives and mothers to do their

own thing has left children to bear burdens of loneliness, depression and the empty house. latchkey children are crying out for the love of mom who subordinate to their own career ambitions and desire for material things to the well- being of their children. so these do show there is some validity in positing that there may be some hypocrisy here. another tension for conservatives is that come in terms of promoting mothers in elected office, republicans -- if you are looking at studies, they are less likely than democrats in promoting mothers of young children for running for office. in states where there is a higher number of social conservatives, the lower number of women are in the state houses so there is an inverse correlation and political life. conservative women's organizations have chastised feminists for promoting the notion that women can have it all. that is that they can be super moms. you may remember the bring home the bacon and fried up in a pan.

they alleged that feminist earth mothers that participate in the workforce generate feelings of guilt and so on. promoting palin, a mother of five, or bachmann, another mother of five, and standing behind tea party mothers running for office, indeed, the promotion of these women appear to violate ideological and religious norms. ok. on the other hand, there are some reasons to think that this makes perfect sense that conservative women are doing this. despite the prevailing gender norms, women have had a long history of lyrical participation in conservative movement politics.

we know phyllis from stop e.r.a. she ran for congress and worked on barry goldwater's campaign and so on. conservative women's activism has included, for example, organizing against the women's suffrage amendment. they have been actively involved in challenging laws having to do with federally funded day care or family leave. they have been actively involved in the opposition for legal abortion, same-sex marriage. so despite the conservative gender roles, they are actively involved in politics. secondly, when republicans do vote for women, they preferred to vote for mothers than women who do not have children. there are a number of republican women elected to office. the numbers are still pretty low.

about 18% in congress, but only a quarter of them are republican women. but they are wanting to increase their numbers. in addition, conservative women's groups themselves to do this have founded a political action committees and organizations to raise money and train women to run for office. they are working to meet the goal of getting more republican women elected. finally, republicans are well aware there is a gender gap that favors -- generally, women favors democrats in presidential elections. they know they need to target women voters and promote more women in politics. historically, conservatives have grappled between ideology, the role of mothers and women, and political reality when it comes to trying to promote women in the public sphere, including in the realm of professional politics.

given these tensions, i ask the following questions. how do conservative women advocates -- and i actually looked at conservative women's organizations themselves in the first part. how do they negotiate ideological beliefs about conservatism and general roles with an interest in electing republican women, and in particular wanting to promote palin and bachmann when they were running for office? actually having these organizations talk about palin and bachmann during their campaigns. second, how do conservative women leaders -- i interviewed a number of them. not only did i look at organizational document, but i interviewed women leaders, some of whom overlap here. i asked them how they negotiate tensions personally themselves. they are all paid representatives of organizations. how did their organizations talk about these tensions?

and how might that affect public discourse and policy outcomes? finally, i look at what this tells us about gender and politics more broadly, especially in light of the fact that there are an increasing number of women who want to run for office, or are running for office and want to get elected. when conservative women are talking about gender roles and maternalism, it has implications broadly for how we understand motherhood, politics, in a broad sense. i want to make it clear that we need to think broadly and not just try to think someone is hypocritical, but what it actually means when people think this in the public sphere. i will not go into much detail about the legal theories or representation and so on. i'm happy to talk about it in the q and a. i look at social and economic conservatives, and i'm happy to

to deine that later on. the organizations i study are national and represent a range of conservative women's organizations and women political actors. i specifically look at how they talk about palin and bachmann when they were running for office. and i try to tease out how it is they -- what language they used to account for the tension. and i find that basically what they do is they have transformed the meaning of conservatism a little bit to basically take account for the fact that they are promoting mothers in office even though sometimes they say mothers should stay home. i look at their language. and i call that "framing." when i use the term framing, i'm really talking about language and ideas used to communicate values, organizational goals, and perspective. then i go on and i do interviews with women who represent

national organizations. i have also interviewed feminist women. but for the talk today, i'm only talking about conservative interviews. and here, arguing about personal narratives and how they reflect the political actors understand mothers' interests and provide insight into basically, how they themselves have negotiated these tensions. but also how others are talking about them. and how these things should public discourse about motherhood, conservatism, and gender in politics. it's a mouthful, but hopefully i'm making the argument in the long run. i will present the research into parts. first, the organizations on palin and bachmann. second, i will give you highlights of the interviews i did and talk about how they work together and how there are contradictions between the two. here are the organizations i've studied. the concerned women for america. the oldest organization is eagle forum. that was founded in 1972. all of these groups are not only national in scope, but i

consider them to be women's organizations. what i mean is they are exclusively led by women and they make arguments that they are representing women. i think that is very important. you have now saying they represent women's interest and conservative groups saying they represent women's interest. these are the organizations i've studied. network of enlightened women is a college women's group. smart girl politics is more of a web-based organization, but there is a range. these are the groups that i talked to as far as how they talk about palin and bachmann. the interviews are here. i will go back to the slide when i go over the interviews. but as you can see, there is a range here. this is not the universe of conservative women. there are elite women, leaders of or representative of these organizations.

and then i take these to the national coordinator for the tea party patriots, kelly grantor. let me go back to the organizations' rhetoric about palin and bachmann. basically, i found that they use two different frames. the first is called feminine toughness. those are indeed, barbie for president. i have them in my office and they are good conversation starters. i wanted to get a suit that matched, but it was nowhere to be found. the first frame that organizations use is what i'm calling feminine toughness. let's focus on the feminine first. not feminist, but feminine. from this perspective, palin is deemed to be full of grace and someone who exudes femininity. these are the things the organizations have said about her.

she integrates political leadership with family response ability. the president of the claire luce booth policy institute tells us that palin holds her baby on stage because she wants to publicly embrace in a woman on stage in all the facets. she is coupled with her policy goals and proves to the independent women's forum that you don't have to hold the cultural prejudices of the left to be a woman. in an interview with "the washington post," the president of the independent women's forum also summed it up this way. she said this about palin. "she is feminine and she is fashionable, and that is ok now." which i'm happy to hear. in these ways, femininity is how she looks.

that is why barbie is up here, because obviously it is partly about what you wear and your makeup. but it also is that she emphasizes the centrality of her husband and children and so on. bachmann is the feminine reactions from conservative women. a cnn reporter was told, i actually think it is great. i think you can embrace your femininity in a way that you will look and still be a smart and intelligent woman. in addition to their style and persona, palin and bachmann are also consistently praised not just for being feminine, but also for running for office for the right reasons. and that is not to gain power or authority, but to help people. here, conservative women are also now offering what i say is a feminized account of the quest for national office. that is consistent with the traditional notions of mothering and gender roles. as an aside, feminists also have some version of this when they

talk about the need for more women in office and the difference in what they bring to political office. but this is a very particular interpretation of the feminized account of leadership. karen agnes, who founded the network of enlightened women, which i noted is a conservative network for college women, praised palin's life choices and goals. she says, palin chose to marry her high school sweetheart. in an acceptance speech, she said, we met in high school and two decades later, he's still my guy. she focused on raising her children and pursuing public office not to climb the political ladder, but to make her community better for children. bachmann is also touted as a role model in general for this, but also as a role model for younger women, due to her feminine leadership roles. bachmann "stands up for her beliefs." it's not about power or title. people call her crazy for speaking up, but younger

conservative women really look up to her. here you have an accountability in leadership goal. there is also discourse that celebrates him in and bachmann's toughness. on palin, it was argued that she is not the kind of person to give in to bullies. she is the kind of mother who protects her children to my something that those who hate her don't seem to understand. if you recall, palin herself invoked this. if you have never seen her mama grizzly act, go onto youtube and google mama grizzly. it is a fascinating advertisement. it is really well done. palin herself used the mama grizzly image to precisely capture the reconciliation of femininity and toughness. she offers this sentiment. you thought pickles were tough,

but you don't want to mess with mama grizzly. they have invoked a toughness themselves. as for bachmann, harry christophe said about her and also her conservative counterparts, you have to have a very strong backbone and be a conservative woman running for office. bachmann is also described by another organization as having the strength and tenacity to do what is necessary to lead this nation. here you have interesting coupling of traditional conceptualizations of femininity with masculinity, suggesting that palin and bachmann can also be ladies, but also counted on to run the country. i want to say here that these complex descriptions are necessary for most women who run for office, whether conservative or feminist. people prefer -- and if you do studies and surveys, people prefer women to be communal and warm and kind, and they expect

men to be agenda, aggressive, and self-directed. but these latter characteristics are also what people expect of their leaders. what you have is a bit of a double bind for what women running for office. you can watch all kinds of lives about hillary clinton when she ran for president about that being the case. it is summed up nicely this way. trying to satisfy complex set of expectations is impossible. women are criticized for deviating from the norm and for appearing to be masculine. i think this feminine toughness is an interesting way for these organizations, conservative women's groups particularly, to navigate between cultural demands as well as keeping perceptions of these women in

line with the view about gender roles. the femininity part reinforces the conservative view about the way women are supposed to behave mama their values, and so on. the feminine toughness not only makes the candidates more appealing to conservative men and women, but it also paves the way for palin and bachmann to be distinguished. they are distinguished from feminists. given that republican voters shy away from supporting them because they are seen to conservatively, it is a way for them to position themselves to get support. let me give you examples. palin exudes a can-do optimism because it is tough to be a woman leader. and there has been similar antifeminist language -- in my favorite quote of the entire book that i'm working on. it is a little long, but bear with me. it gets good at the end. "sarah palin's feminine

appearance, charm, and leadership suggest the leadership of madeleine albright or janet reno. with her down-home extensions, she makes harsh feminist diatribes seem empty, meaning that come out of touch, and out of date. her savvy complex demeanor reflects herself as a wife, mother, and a compost career woman." get it all in there. "like margaret thatcher, her soft exterior is a contrast to her tough inner strength. palin simply lights up the room when she walks in." here is a way to talk about these organizations -- [laughter] i'm just reading the quote. it is really important for these organizations to do this.

part of the mission is to represent women. basically, there is this battle with feminist organizations to say, no, we represent women. it fosters one of their goals. conservative women also argue that palin and bachmann's bid for office represents what feminists have longed for, which is women's entrance into the higher-level office. but it argues that it feminists had really cared about women in office, they would have supported palin and bachmann. it is an interesting challenge for feminists, actually. i did some research on it. it -- the minutes basically had to say -- feminists a sickly had to say, we did not mean just women, but feminists. we had to say, no, we are not going to endorse sarah palin.

and conservatives picked right up on this. these debates helped further the goals. invoking the feminine toughness frame to describe these woman captures the desire of conservative women's groups to both reinscribe traditional gender roles, while also supporting these liberated women for disrupting them. it also serves to make feminist look out of touch. and reasserts that feminists are not feminine. and these women are seen as super moms, which helps to promote traditional gender role values and also wanting more women to be professional and politically active. i have termed this conservative supermom. as noted in the past, conservative women have chastised feminists for allegedly promoting the notion

that women can have it all by seamlessly balancing child- rearing, holding a job in the the paid workforce, and enjoying intimate relations with their partner. it is not really accurate that feminists have promoted that, but nonetheless, that is the rhetoric that comes from conservative women's groups. despite the critiques of supermom, which i alluded to earlier, conservative groups actually applaud palin and bachmann for finding ways to fit it all in and for framing what i'm calling the conservative supermom. they were praised for providing a model for how some women can manage motherhood and a professional career and appealing to women who want to have it all, including happily married to the love of their youth and bearing his children. and for a woman who believes that it is possible for a woman to hold down a full-time ceo job overseeing a multibillion-dollar budget -- here you see an

embracing of the supermom. you have that, but what you also see is that they praise the alleged supermom talent that palin and bachmann have, but supermom has some caveats. they also have to abide by personal political beliefs that are essential to economic and social conservatism, which is why i call them conservative supermom's. i will talk a little bit about that. first, these organizations say that palin and bachmann yield to their families, especially their husbands. it has been said about palin that she doesn't need feminist approval for her lifestyle. her double career is her husband, and he seems very happy with her. this doesn't mean, by the way, that women have no say or that

couples don't negotiate with each other. but scholars have shown that conservative evangelicals, who are in important base for the republican party, adhere to the idea of male superiority in the family union. they talk here about the adherence to biblical submission, which also helps to solidify her social credentials. the meaning of this has been debated even among women who say they adhere to it. but it essentially comes from a biblical passage that says, wives, submit yourselves unto your husband as unto the lord. bachmann's acknowledgment that she believes in submission generated a lot of public debate and scrutiny. it even got played out in the press pretty significantly. and it forced conservative women's groups to explain how it

is walkman could politically submit and also be -- bachmann could politically -- could biblically submit and also be president. it is important to note that biblical submission is about harmony and well-being within the home and the relationship between a husband and wife. it has nothing to do with leadership responsibilities, except that no one, even the president of the united states, should treat others with disrespect, or accept a subservient spirit from anyone or demand the total submission of another person's will. a woman who submits to her husband does not have a similar relationship with men at work. a christian woman or man and leadership must meet and fulfill

the responsabilities for which they are accountable to god and for which they are serving in leadership capacity. basically, bachmann can fulfill gender theological roles, but this does not translate into her political self. it is explained by the concerned women for america. it is central to the agenda of most social conservative groups. there was concern that mccain was not aggressive enough in antiabortion policies, so palin picked up on that when she was running as his running mate. given that republican voters think republican women are more liberal, they are promoting their pro-life perspective and that helped physicians show that women can be very conservative when they run for office. palin talked about her decision to bear a child with down syndrome as a way to appeal to social conservatives. finally, they hinted that their

values fall in line with republican voters. after decades of being targeted sexist, conservatives in the gop base are understandably proud to have women making their case in support of limited government and free market. these woman obviously do appeal to their fellow audience, particularly conservative women. these organizations employ what i call a conservative supermom frame. the language also speaks to conservatives by highlighting their beliefs about when -- women and the family, but it appeals to a broader base and range of people. let me give you the organizational interviews for a

second. i'm only going to highlight some of the findings from here. some of this is still in the works. i want to connect a few of the comments i made earlier. basically, i interviewed these these women and these -- and how they talked about these values when representing these organizations. i can talk more about who these women actually are. let me go over the interview highlights. in the interest of time, i will do some of the preliminary findings. the first is, the women that i interviewed indicated that the new conservative woman is not constrained by traditional gender roles. when asked if it was contradictory for her and other conservative mothers to be in the workplace, conservative one conservative founder rejected the idea. she said to me, i think the premise is wrong to start with. i don't think conservative women are pro-stay-at-home moms. we run the gamut, just as

liberals do. there are plenty woman who want to have a family and a career as well. there is a misconception that we are stay-at-home moms and that is all we want to do. most of my friends within the organization feel the way i do. i found this very interesting and i asked her why she got people believe this. why is it that there is this kind of public discourse, perhaps mid-from her perspective, that this is true. she said that liberals perpetuated it. there is this myth out there, but some of the conservative women are saying it is not accurate. there is a complaint and the leaders that conservatism has been transformed and more excepting of the mother's professional goals.

conservative ideology and politics has to be understood in this new light of wanting to transform the understanding of women's roles. this has to do with the organizations and the interviewees themselves and the promotion of palin and bachmann. in reference to their professional goals, conservative women counter the responses in the language of choice. it is a personal choice between you and your family and nobody else should be telling you that one makes you a stronger woman than another one. and when i pushed on the policy solutions that might deal with the tensions of mothers in the workplace, mothers and national politics, interviewees responded that solutions should be privatized and not come from government social programs. most conservative when opposed federally funded -- women and opposed federally funded daycare.

philosophically opposed to child care. i said, why is that? and she said to me, honestly, babies are delicious. they are cute and sweet and soft. i think that babies need their mamas and babies need their daddies. that is what i was raised with and that is what i believe in. i don't think i can stand to drop off my kid to the lowest bidder, even if it means saving the world. she had a very visual account of this. most of the conservative women, if you look at activism and is groups that i study and so on, they are all opposed to federally funded childcare. they are all engaged in that activism, like against the family leave act and so on. but in contrast to the supermom image of palin and bachmann, the interviewees -- and i actually push them on it personally as opposed to reading organizational stuff -- they actually used more complex and nuanced language.

to talk about how women manage conflicting goals, to sum it up, tea party leader don wildman said to me, whoever thought you could have it all, it's crap. another leader like and these tensions to playing the harp. she said to me, someone gave me a great analogy. playing a harp to make it work. other times you have to shift to another place and you have to play these courts. a common complaint from conservatives was, you can have it all, but not at the same time. i would like to add that all of the feminists have said the same thing to me. there was one feminist who said to me that is actually true of men as well. that is something we may want to talk about later as well. but there is a more nuanced account of the supermom.

organizational rhetoric has to produce one thing. if you push people on it personally, you'll get something slightly different and more nuanced. finally, in explaining why working mothers may experience difficulties, many of these leaders referenced gender differences. that is, they argued that it is within women's nature to multitask and to juggle. the first thing you've got to realize is that god knows he's what he's doing in sending babies to young woman and you're making a terrible mistake to think you can establish a career and then in your 40s decide to have a husband and kids. life doesn't work that way. you have a biological clock, even though feminists have often denied it. and the trouble with feminist studies and what feminist professors are teaching is that women should plot her career without any thought for husband or children. the main question posed here is how conservative woman in negotiate tensions between traditional gender norms and the desire for mothers in politics.

i would argue it is too simplistic to say conservative when art reinforcing and promoting recently articulated notions of gender roles. but it is also too simplistic to say they are not. as palin and bachmann, for example, reflect on their careers, they are reflecting the ideological norms, but also transforming them. and they want to increase the number of women in the workforce and running for office. what can we make of this? from the perspective of conservative women, mothers can be supermoms if their identities is tantamount to professional goals. running for office when you're the mother of five is acceptable, but best accomplish with your husband's blessing.

and i want to note that in terms of constructing gender roles and maternal identities, the assertion that palin and bob and also need to be feminine and attentive to their families confront something feminists have lamented for some time. which is that for women who want to work outside the home, they have to be presented as exemplary mothers. the second point is that women must work things out personally with privatized solutions. the language of choice dismisses the role of power, institutions, resources, and so on. and within this articulation of choice, there is very little challenge to the role of state and economic policies, or structural factors. and of course, the language of choice and personal decision- making matches well with conservative ideology. it was no surprise for them to articulate this. but i want to argue that the important thing about it is that it translates into public policy goals about how women and mothers, and parents -- but you know, i talk to them mostly

about motherhood. how they advocate for public policy. as said earlier, they oppose the family leave act, among other things. there is no support for government sponsored social programs that address work and family balance. except for tax breaks for businesses that offer flextime and so on. there's also very little discussion about class differences among men and women and equal parenting. conservative women have recognized and they did say to me there is a change in family dynamics and ultimately, gender role ideology. conservative women themselves are actually expanding ideas about what legitimate gender roles are for conservatives, not in ways that are identical to what feminist do. conservative women's groups -- conservative mothers are embraced if they fit within a particular idea of femininity. this presents a new idea about motherhood that i think we need

to pay attention to and it suggest that conservative actors are actually adapting to a changing environment. in the upcoming elections, we may see a subtle shift. and it might help to soften the image of the republican party. it has been shown to be much more masculinized, less friendly to women's interest, and so on. the way they talk about mothers in politics might affect the republican party in that way. conservative politics cannot be fully understood without paying attention to the women active in it. this seems like a no-brainer, but if you look at the amount of research on conservative women,

there is not a lot. with palin running for office, etc. to bloom a little bit. but there has not been a lot of scholarship on that. and there is cultural significance. through an analysis of their activism, we gain a much fuller and nuanced understanding of the conservative movement politics. finally, i want to argue, maybe in a pollyannish way, there is an important message sent about the need to pay attention to women's rights and recognition of women's wide-ranging abilities. and of course, i also want to add that conservative women do not suggest it is a feminist idea. but nonetheless, feminists have clearly affected conservative goals about promoting women in politics. and these conservative woman so heartily promoting a woman's bid for vice president have validated the claim of feminists for a long time, that women belong in the public sphere. thank you.

[applause] >> thank you very much. what we will do now is our respondent, deirdre english, will have a response and a bit of a conversation with ronnie schreiber. and for the last 15 minutes we will open up to the floor for questions. christine processed -- christine trust will have a microphone and will be able to ask questions of the panel. >> thank you very much.

i'm deirdre english. i cannot claim to the same level of neutrality and objectivity that professor schrieber brought to this work. i have debated in the past, and not entirely successfully. she was very good. and i have written critically about conservative women in the past. but i have also gone as a journalist with great interest to alaska, to sarah palin's hometown, with something in the spirit that you brought to your work, to try to understand her religion, her neighbors, and her background. and i really appreciate your scholarship, and i appreciate the effort made to try to understand, to see to understand and then to be understood. i think it is a good principle. i appreciate the respect you brought for your subjects and your own open-mindedness and you're pointing out their importance for social science as

well as politics. i think you have established, if there was any doubt, that they are far from being mere mouthpieces for men. these are women who are speaking for themselves. they are passionately defending their believes, which are important to them. you remained an objective scholar in describing their thinking, and the changes in their thinking that you observed. and that may, indeed, lead to greater sympathy and understanding between the two tribes. but in commenting, i will, however fire at you some of the contradictions that are, perhaps better meant for your subjects than for you, as you are not in the position to question their facts. today, you focus on a great

irony that of all things, in retrospect, sarah palin and michele bachmann have become iconic figures of women who can do it all. in sarah palin's case, having five children, choosing to have a down's syndrome baby while she was governor of alaska, and becoming with her husband and her own parents, active grandparents, sheltering her pregnant unwed daughter, bristol, while running for vice president. palin can actually kill a moose, and she has an amazing ongoing presence as a media star. she may well in all fairness be in the running for superwoman of the past decade. but wait. it's the conservative women's movement, as you pointed out, that has classically blamed feminism for promulgating the idea that women can do it all. who is selling the idea now?

what could phyllis schlafly have to say to sarah palin, since schlafly blames women's studies professors for failing to teach mothers to prioritize staying home over working? let me comment on this notion right away. and let's not just let it escape as a sign of progress. it is a mistaken stereotype of what feminism stands for, or ever has. from the very beginning, feminists saw that women were being swept into the modern workplace by the demands of a modern capitalist economy. but first, women were restricted to the pink collar ghetto -- saleswomen, secretaries, nurses. and it was feminists who insisted that women can do professional work and hold authority. they broke open the law schools, the employment ads, the medical schools, and not to ignore the

journalism schools, and many other institutions. they clearly saw from the beginning that women would not be able to do it all, and they asked society to provide for child care, family leave, flex time, and all services that other a dance capitalist countries do offer. for another thing, they asked men to become more active in raising their children. today, cities show that women are better fathers -- studies show that when men are better fathers, families are much happier. and working families have smaller families today and are putting in more time nurturing and educating each tile than ever before in history, even compared to full-time housewives of only a few decades ago. so the conservative women who say that it is feminists who have tried to get women to do it all without support have got

their facts wrong. feminist asked for social support. they asked for men's support. they did not get everything that they asked for, and that is the status quo today. a second irony, perhaps from a feminist point of view, is that had sarah palin and michele bachmann actually succeeded in achieving positions of power, they would have furthered legislation that denied women the resources to be able to do it all themselves. conservatives are not being terribly logical when they criticize feminists for trying to achieve higher office. it is an easy charge to dismiss. why would we support women who

would further policies that would demand that women who could not do it all themselves would not be given support, women who would oppose government or workplace accommodations for women who are not in such privileged positions with regard to their family resources? when you talk about this -- and i think you did raise this point, professor schreiber -- there is a need for historical and economic perspective. this debate has been with us throughout american history. it is not new. in the case of women's rights, there were liberal women who agitated for the vote at the time of the american revolution, just as there have been conservatives who oppose the

women's vote even into the 20th century. this is a very old debate that we have been conducting. and it has held us stymied in so many ways. i want to talk about this more when we get into the question- and-answer time frame, this gridlock of how long we have to remain in this world without making a lot of progress. -- in this quarell without making a lot of progress. how long have we been divided? the premodern era was governed by systems that were patriarchal. it wasn't feminism, but capitalism that overthrew patriarchy, disrupting father dominated productive households and sweeping man and later women into paid labor. we are still in a transition away from patriarchy and into a world of rapid change that

conservatives cannot halt any more than liberals can. the political question is, how can we find ways of modern life that offer the most benefit to all americans of all classes and races? and in all parts of the country. this is where i'm often puzzled by conservative rhetoric on the concept of privacy and choice. the state does not force the woman to divorce, to use contraception, to be a lesbian, or to have an abortion, but leaves this to her individual conscience where the laws allow. why then do conservatives believe that the state should have a right to force her not to marry a woman, not to use contraception, not to have a legal regulated abortion? i ask conservatives, why not keep government out of our private lives and leave it to a woman's religion, moral beliefs, and conscience? conservatives seek to restrict

the choices of nonconservative women, which is a style that reaches back to patriarchal attitudes rather than to current ideals of personal freedom and self responsibility. this is one place where i perceive a much bigger contradiction in conservative thinking than whether or not a woman should wear lipstick. one might ask -- is this merely a squabble? this american history long argument, is this merely a squabble among women that men can ignore? i don't think so. we are actually talking about how to organize our civilization. who has children and how many, the way the sexes relate, whether or not heterosexuality should be the only norm, who will get an education, who will be a leader, whether talented people can rise in a meritocracy

without being disqualified by gender, who will care for the sick and the elderly, who will be financially supported -- when and how? these are such fundamental issues that we are talking about, that they get to the core of how we live as americans and what the american dream really is. they are not really women's issues, but matters that touch on all of our lives. and men can and do care about these issues. in fact, i would venture to say that this is really not a split between conservative women versus feminist woman, but rather between conservatives than liberals generally. after all, today more than ever, most liberal men agree with liberal women on these issues, and conservative men and women agree with each other. i think it is interesting to note that in the early feminist

movement, many feminists did construct this battle as one of women against men, women generally being oppressed by men generally. but perhaps, feminists have changed, much as you think that conservative women have changed in a way that we have not always noticed. because today, you will find much more that feminists see this not as a battle among women, or as between women and men, but really a battle between liberals, liberal men and women together, versus conservatives, men and women together. and in some sense, it is really a battle about holding onto the past, as conservatives will also put it themselves, versus a new way in the future, which is how liberals will often say they are doing. i think you have raised the

important question of common ground. and you have shown that though defending conservative ideas, the women you have studied have also been actively expanding roles for women. this is a huge paradox. and you have argued that it leads them to some common ground with liberals. indeed, i think we can propose a superwoman of our own to enter that common ground. i cannot think of a better one than nancy pelosi. she is a liberal feminist superwoman, who was a devout catholic, a long-term marriage, has raised a large family. she, like sarah palin, also enjoys showing off her children and grandkids on the public

stage, as if to say woman can have it all, perhaps in different stages. yet ideologically, nancy pelosi does not expect a single working class woman to provide for all of her own needs. she supports a variety of life options for all women and trust them to make individual decisions without big daddy government telling them what they can and cannot do. government in her hands is conceived of as a resource and a support for min -- four women and children, not a disciplinarian. if we expect women who do not have money or perfectly enabling families to be in the workforce, we must do this, provide this for them, or we are sacrificing the welfare of their children. nancy pelosi is, perhaps from the liberal side, an example of

what you have described, feminine toughness. she is feminine. and sure, she is tough. you have to be to be in politics. but not ideologically conservative in her consumption of government. conservatives do not have a lock on those trades. one thing nancy pelosi would never do in contrast to those women you promote it is attacked janet reno, and others. she would never criticize a woman in public office for her looks. if that is what conservatives propose, i will have to say, no thank you. so let's continue, as you have pioneered, to learn about the principles that conservative women stand for and how they are evolving. let's perhaps look more at how liberal or feminist ideas have also evolved and changed.

and perhaps, we are letting some of that slip out of view. and let's expand the arena of conversation, by all means. only if we talk to each other can we correct stereotypes and incorrect ideas we have about each other. misunderstandings only make matters worse. let's continue to eliminate them, and let's try to get to what the real issues are. thank you. [applause] now i'm sure people have many questions. i would like to open the floor to those questions. let me begin by asking you a little bit about how conservative women felt -- you said that they felt they were stereotyped by feminist women.

what did they feel were the worst stereotypes that feminists had about them? >> essentially, that they only focused on being a stay-at-home mothers and that they had no other goals or desires to be actively involved in politics. whereas feminists, basically, i think, ignore their contributions to politics. that was the biggest concern they had with feminists, in terms of how feminist perceive them. they had a lot of concerns about feminists, sort of broadly speaking. as i noted, they articulate that feminists have promoted ideologies that are kind of premised on man hating and are anti-feminine, and so on so forth -- and so on. that feminists have undervalued their contributions to politics. >> would you be able to comment

at all about what you felt their stereotypes of feminists were? >> sure. this is where i thought it was wonderful to do this as a researcher. it is also very frustrating to do this as a researcher. i'm just recording and saying yes and so on, but i really want to engage in a dialogue. and say, well, i have to say that -- i want to push them on it and say, i'm a feminist and i know women who are feminists and they don't fit that stereotype. let's talk about why we have the stereotypes and so on. i will give an example. when i interviewed phyllis schlafly, she said to me, feminists are opposed to marriage and children. i am a married feminist with children. i have heard her say this before. she has written this. i wanted to push her on this. i said, what would you say to a woman who is married, like in gandy, who runs the national organization for women who i also interviewed for my book. she has children. what would you say to her? what she said was, what i meant

to say was that feminist promote policies that are anti-family. but basically, that feminists are anti-children, anti- marriage, and so on. >> the institute for study is for liberal feminist women? >> i did a lot of research. i came to this project because actually, my original spark for this idea was in college. i was in pennsylvania. it was one of the state that was going down. there was a big debate about it. for a women's studies class, i interviewed a woman from stop e.r.a.. and i was fascinated with the men who would oppose equal rights amendment.

then when i was in graduate school, i had a major field of study about women in politics. and it really was about feminists and feminism in politics, generally speaking. there were some exceptions. there was a lot of attention to diversity among women, but not a lot of attention to ideological diversity among women. there is a lot of scholarship on them liberal feminism, but not on conservative women. >> what about conservative woman in -- conservative women in terms of class. did you look at that? >> i did not for this so far. there are surveys. i will eventually incorporate that into my research. but for now, certainly, the woman that i interviewed and the organizations that i'm studying are women from upper income or higher class. i don't like that term. upper income families, generally speaking. there is not a lot of discussion about last diversity among these women.

the lack of support for things like federally funded childcare speak to that as well. >> which might be to them equated with paying more taxes. >> absolutely. they believe that -- it is not like we should ignore the problems. but they do believe that the best approach is to have flex time in the workplace, maybe provide tax incentives to businesses to offer these kinds of things. but it should never be government mandated. [captions cl cable satellite corp. 2013] [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

>> ladies and gentlemen, let me welcome you here tonight. counsel general and the organization we have here at the

31st floor. of this magnificent building. sorry, it's dark outside. i invite you to come back here the daytime. it's a magnificent view of the bay. but that's not the topic of this night. we will speak pabt food waste. sorry to be in front of the panel. the microphone would collapse. a dutch ceo from unilever which is one of the biggest food i ail offices in the world, think. a dutch anglo company. he's been invited by ban general the secretary of the united nations to be part of the sustainability of the

whole world. in a speech he delivered on the this year.thes couple of days ago, he said $750 s no excuse for billion in food waste a year. dollars$18 billion u.s. to feed the hungry. this comes from the businessmen, is. of the biggest there so he's really sincere. convinced he is. nevertheless, 1/3 of our food is wasted. formight have other figures that. kilograms or pounds or whatever measurement ms. let's keep it at 1/3. lost or spliced.

emissions to the nvironment, pesticides, fertilizers. fertilizers. methane. that's 23,000 more than the food, that's food amounts to labor income, water, agriculture water.ads of it's the first user of waters, have lack of in the world as well. fertile soils get lost. in developing countries, of speaking about the early stages of food, which tommic of today. food lost in the harvesting

technique, the transport. we could have other meetings to improve that part. there's an obligation of us all countries to ping that part of their work. but on the developed side of ountries, we're speaking of supply chains. retailer, or of the the supplier, and the consumer, so that's us. for instance, the united states, the united kingdom, they food or with organic waste. it's the second material they landfill. netherlands, it's zero landfill. sometimes you need a lawyer.

i'm a lawyer. well, sorry. not angry. yes.ionate, i am, it's time for action, i would say. global level, global partnerships for development. hose of the developing countries like the scaling up of the nutrition initiative. tonight.s the topic of we need action at the local evel, multi-stake holder partnerships. partnerships. be.'s see what the aim could how close can we get to zero waste cycle. thank you very much.

oh, yeah -- let me give the floor to the local food lamp then. michelle and christia. everyone. thanks for coming tonight. thank you to the consulate general of the netherlands for hosting us in this space. i wanted to thank our moderator, austin who's a partner of mine startups and food labs for providing the treats. i want to echo the thank yous and let you guys nigh that in addition to hosting events like his one, we launched platform dedicated to bridging the gap between the talent and opportunities in the good food movement. so if there's anyone here who's a freelancer or consultant or a startup rk, or an organization or a business looking to hire interns or fulltime employees, invite codes. invite codes for

everyone here. please grab one in the back. thank you for coming. i'm going to turn it over to austin. thank you so much. >> how's that. do you hear me? thank you for all who are coming. the second event. i was lamenting the fact that the sun had gone down here. the view is spectacular. either.bad i wanted to start with baseline facts. they're staggering and it's easy to gloss over what they really represent. inwaste 40% of our food here the united states. consumers throw away 25% of what they bring home or eat at restaurants. 64 billion pounds of surplus

food is dumped into land fills each year. that's 2.6 million garbage truckloads to put that in your mind. that's $165 billion and costs $750 million to service and dispose sof. an american family of four throws away $1600 of food at home each year. and i think you alluded to it nicely, but think about the waste that esource represents, agriculture takes up 80% of ng on therder of the fresh water we use here in california. this is a big problem, one of the biggest out there. we have a great panel to address it tonight. i'm excited that the breadth and nting of what's represe here. begin by introducing everyone. trying to think of how to orient the conversation. about the supply chain of food and where the waste is occurring. it's important to know in the u.s., in the western world,

consumer losses are a vast throwingof what you're away. this is what you're eating in estaurants or taking home and disposing of. there's a sizable amount of production loss. less loss.le, it's it still represents a vast amount of food. but food companies have an economic incentive to steward and shepherd that food officially, they're doing so. so we'll talk about everything along the supply chain. turn thise, how do we off? great, i'll start by having themselves.troduce i'll introduce myself to start. y most recent affiliation, the stanford graduate school of business. a lot of time and energy issues and food. michelle on edible startups for addresses entrepreneurial innovation and the food space. we do not put it in boxes. we don't publish all that often. do more. to

i'm working on two of my own startup jects, one is a in the food product space. let's give the focus where it belongs. introduce yourself. tell us about what your organization does. i'll kick it off. correctly? she is in public relations for the zero waste initial. >> having me and the company presented here tonight. the zero waste energy is based on lafayette, california. it will be handling waste emphasis on th the organic waste. hat we focus on is our digestion technology which speeds up the composting process. and to a 21-day batch cycle. begins to hours it produce methane gas and all of days,igases, then after 21 all you have left is an

agricultural quality compost. all of that gas that's been ollected is -- is transformed to either electricity or cng fuel. >> that is eligible for inclusion. that's a goal set out by the government of california. utilities have to produce a third of their energy for 2020.able sources by

this is an important component eeting the goal set by the state. >> it's a lead platinum certified facility. >> they're nailing it. all right. >> that's just one. i'll move on. >> co-founder of food cowboy. >> thank you for having us here. >> my brother and i started food cowboy along with barbara coen a year and a half ago. barbara wrote the usd a's hunger assessment tool kit. and we pull this together because for about 20 years, when load ofhard had a quick produce, something -- carrots that are too short, he called me. pulled over, a desk job. i try to find a food bank or ynagogue or some place to take the food. mash.kpom yelp like technology could be used to help

food banks and composters. they get rid of it quick. to get a sense of what the supply chain does, all of the food donated to all of the food feeding america the largest food bank network in the ountry, equals all year -- equals the supply chain in 19 days. o we could do a lot bert than that. the government spends $ 0 million a year, $80 billion on food stamps. we spend $160 billion on food we throw away as consumers. recapture that o waste post consumer because of safety issues. chain, it's in transit and professionally handled. the missing element is information. without knowing where to take quickly, food is perishable. it's expensive to move. you can't do anything with it.

the next step is to develop a -- to crowd source a food waste map of the entire united states. a all of the notes where the system.ks out of the someone who can use the food. you.hank >> from foot stuffs. >> valley girl. >> valley girl. a chef turned insurance mentoring at hef risk teens. think that's the best way to give my history quickly. i started valley broke a year and a half ago after volunteering for five years with t in sonoma. and a lot of food was coming in the was being donated from

local grocery stores and a lot of kids who liked to be in gangs were at the teen center and so i started a program there, a cooking program to teach some of the kids how to not get pregnant and not kill people by cooking. he grocery stores in sonoma were desperate for some place they could offload the food they away.throwing and so we started picking up seven days a week through the quickly er and i realized that basically what was happening was all of the food was going to the teen center and promptly gone into the dumpster o they could not deal with the sheer mass of food that is tossed away at grocery stores. not even talking about all of of that.ction ahead so we're only talking about the 8%. my notes said 10% of food and retail is what's tossed out. that's all i'm dealing with is that 10%.

in california, 50% of produce that is grown. i know there are people who grow food. there are people here who grow meat and people here who cook. so 52% of food that you see in our produce shelves is thrown away every year. so that is basically what i'm dealing with is that 52%. was teaching kids at the teen center how to can and bake and and do all dehydrate of these old school skills that do anymore.how to there is a renaissance. i have seen it. however, when you work with a nonprofit, it is a nonprofit, which means there's no profit, which means nobody gets paid. these kids were doing a lot of work with no pay. they were showing up every single week to go to the farmer's market with me. i have four girls that