How appropriate that I'm writing this just as President Bush vetoed S-CHIP, as expected. Vetoing a plan that covers children's health is tantamount to giving a big finger to working women. But our Bush-shock is exhausted, I think, so I will move on.

With all due respect to the struggles of our feminist mothers, being a woman in the workplace today is very frustrating, and the playing field has never seemed to even out, despite 40 plus years of trying. And it’s hard to talk about, because sexism and gender friction is now so nuanced—it’s less a glass ceiling than a “labyrinth,” to borrow the phrase of scholars Eagly and Carli. And who wants to be labeled a whiner? I wanted to get a reality check on the “meta” state of the state of women and power, and luckily I had the opportunity to sit down with Marie Wilson, President and Founder of both the White House Project and Take our Daughters (and now, our sons) to Work Day. The White House Project’s mission is “to advance women’s leadership in all communities and sectors—up to the U.S. presidency—by filling the leadership pipeline with a richly diverse, critical mass of women.”

Wilson spoke in a class I take called Women and Leadership. In the class we talk about the difference that difference makes in the workplace, and we talk frankly about why there are few women in real positions of power in the US. I have included some of the things Marie mentioned in our larger group as well as topics we discussed one on one. This is the first installment of two interviews.

Wilson spoke about an issue that has relevance to the BlogHer community and our mission: The difference women make. Women are different types of leaders than men, different types of thinkers than men, and the nature/nurture argument about the origins of leadership styles is less important than the fact that they exist. Earlier in her career, Wilson worked at the Ms. Foundation to fund women who, in her words, made up a “shadow government.” These were women with influence: working behind the scenes, advocating at the grassroots level, making policy change through hard work and influence. Influence and power are different things, though. When you have power, you make the final call. You get to say: “The buck stops here. “ And that’s where women lag.

Marie finally realized women needed POWER. Positional power, front and center. Women needed to be the deciders, not just the influentials. As Ambassador Swanee Hunt writes in Foreign Affairs, “In recent interviews with hundreds of female leaders in over 30 countries, I have discovered that where women have taken leadership roles, it has been as social reformers and entrepreneurs, not as politicians or government officials. This is unfortunate, because the world needs women's perspectives and particular talents...”

And women are indeed different kinds of leaders, but they bring valuable skills to the kind of leadership that the world demands today. “Women can think about deferred gratification, long term consequences, and that pays off in leadership.” Marie relayed a great story about the US Military in post-conflict Serbia, as told by the journalist Dana Priest in her book The Misson . After the war, some local women came to the army base with an idea. They wanted to start a collective, to work and provide for their destitute community. And no matter how many times they were told the UN was in charge, they only believed the US Army Battalion and its men were the deciders. So the women asked the Battalion’s Lt. Colonel in charge for three sewing machines. As Priest writes, “This was a spontaneous, entrepreneurial request that any development or aid worker would have seized upon." But the Lt. Colonel scoffed, “Sewing machines! We don’t do sewing machines!” And thus, a mission that could have done much good was thwarted, because traditional leaders don’t “do sewing machines.”

Marie thinks women leaders would consider doing sewing machines if that’s what stabilizing a region would demand, and that this is an essential quality of leadership in the new world. But leadership means little without power.

So let’s talk about the reality of women in positional power. Marie Wilson noted it’s hard to mobilize Americans on this topic, because most people think women are leading everywhere- it’s a problem many people think doesn’t exist (is that because of Hillary? Angelina? Why)? And mostly, people say they are comfortable with women in leadership. In poll after poll, people are “comfortable” with a woman president, women CEO’s, women pilots. But we have few of those in real life. What goes on between comfort level and the reality? Because many of us are comfortable with women in power: but do we trust them? Wilson notes that while “it’s a good start to be comfortable… but I am comfortable enough with you, but I don’t trust you. And it goes deeper: Do women trust themselves?’ And, do we trust each other? And of course, the hardest question of all for many women in power: “Does the institution [I’m involved in] trust me?”

The truth is, women in power face too much pressure to succeed. Because the truth is, as my friend Chuck said, “no one has cornered the market on incompetence.” While most white men in power can screw up daily and maintain their power, women don’t share that luxury, except seemingly Britney Spears and Lindsay Lohan. To overcome this, we need a diverse and critical mass of women in society- not just one, because one’s a scapegoat. Numbers matter, as Wilson says: “One woman has to be man enough for the job. Numbers structure behavior. One woman in a group or organization is about gender. Two become a catfight or a comparison. Three or more, then it becomes an agenda.”

Second, Wilson states, we need to “normalize women’s expertise through visibility. Media, culture is so important.” (For women experts, see SheSource.org). Wilson quoted DC Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton: “You can’t be what you can’t see.” If women are everywhere, talking about global security, the economy, taxes, Iraq, well, then, you don’t have to prove your authority if you step outside women’s accepted realm of expertise. And we need repeat appearances, because, as I’m sure you have experienced, women’s authority is undermined quickly. We have to introduce ourselves quickly, prove our credentials…and then prove them again and again.

Third, we must recognize and fight the barriers to opportunity, which is termed women’s double bind. Usually, women must demonstrate they are tough enough without losing any appeal. Nancy Pelosi has referred to “walking a line” as a female leader: you need to be tough, purposeful and aggressive, but do it with a certain grace and sensitivity. I think most of this accept this as a cliched reality. I think of Demi Moore's comment long ago, about being called a bitch in Hollywood when she demanded equal billing and money as male co-stars.

So to sum up, The White House Project’s plan to get women in power is to: build strength in numbers, get women seen, and to acknowledge the double bind women face. And the most striking thing Marie Wilson told me I encourage you all to think about in your writing and your civic life. Wilson noted that if women are not trusted on matters of economy and security, we will not lead. Now, very few of us plan to run for elected office, but I think this notion has merit no matter what you do at your day job. In our daily lives, this means familiarizing ourselves with issues perhaps we are not comfortable with, and writing about things outside our expected comfort zones. For me, this means I am forcing myself to examine Iraq policy, I’m learning more about the financial markets, because I need to be as conversant with this as I am with abortion politics.

Next week: Mommy guilt, the “opt out revolution,” and the “Mommy” and “Daddy” political parties.