Panel event of this years conference. 99 years after the 19th amendment. Thanks to our panelists who will lead through an interesting conversation and thanks to katie mistry and jay sexton who not only put this panel together but also were cochairs of the Conference Program committee and are responsible for the Wonderful Program we will enjoy over the next couple of days. Thank you to the cosponsors of the event, the coordinating council for women in history and the history and American Studies Department at George Washington university. Political scientists tell us that women played a bigger role in the 2018 elections than they have in any other election in history. A Record Number of women are running for office, taking up seats in congress and heading out on the campaign trail. Women have made up the majority. Since 1980, there has been a growing gender gap. Despite these trends, women continue to be underrepresented. Even with the record chattering number of women that joined congress. Women of color make up almost a historic 9 of u. S. Congress. As we grapple with the events of the current moment, because of politics that are unfolding. It is the participation representation. In particular for our purposes, the consequences it has had for u. S. And Foreign Relations and american engagements for the world. How as historians we write about that history. We are trying something that could go or fail. I am not oprah. There are no prizes under your seat. We will introduce the panelists, i will ask them a couple of questions to get them started. Hopefully they will engage with each other and ask each other questions and we hope to have the audience involved in asking questions from early on. Will recall wrestlers or runners, j and caton. Please get one of their attention. They will come to. We will let you have the floor. If you are going to participate, you snow cspan is recording this is a factor in participation. Also want to say, if youre interested in this topic, will be on women in the world. This might be the beginning of a conversation that can continue. They made to continue conversations as well. Them introduced our panelists. We have quiche and blame who is an associate professor of history at the university of pittsburgh and editorinchief of the north star. She currently serves as president of the intellectual history society. Her Research Interests include black internationalism, radical politics and noble feminism. Lane is the author of the book set the world on fire, black nationalist women in the global struggle for freedom which is from the university of pennsylvania. She is also the coauthor of a number of other important works, including , reading sunray cinema and racial violence from the university of georgia. She is working on a book entitled. Black women, japan and that is also under contract with the university of pennsylvania press. Next we have , professor of history at mit and the Foreign Editor for modern american history. Is the author of the prize winning book uncle sam wants you, world one 1 in the making of the modern american citizen. Fiercely forthcoming. Bound by war. How the United States and philippines filled. This year and next year. He is cocurator of the volunteers, americans joined world war i 19141919 which is a multiplatform public history initiative, commemorating the centennial of the first world war. His on a number of public history initiatives, including appearing on the history detectives and who do you think you are . s Research Interests are in the history of citizenship, war and the military in modern u. S. History and we have Joanne Merrill who is the author professor of history and american studies at yale university. She is also president of the organization of american historians also the Research Initiative on the history of sexuality. Her interests are 20th century u. S. History gender sexuality and little poverty. She is the author of winning addressed. Independent wage earners in chicago 19801930 from Chicago Press and House Exchange the history of transsexuality in the United States from harvard university. She is also finishing a manuscript right now on the 1970s and 1980s, tentatively titled a war about global poverty, u. S. Development and politics of gender. Last but not least, we have spencer who is the professor at the university of california, irvine who is the outgoing chair of the asian American Studies Department and the incoming director of the university of california center. I am tired just from reading these. She is the author of the. The life of the wartime celebrity. Also radicals on the road. Internationalism, orientalism and during the vietnam era which was from Cornell University press. She coed series on gender in the world, empire and race, as well as the women and social movements in the United States. The first woman of color, and the cosponsor of title 9. Please welcome the scholars. For our first question, women are 51 of the population , yet in the past and in the present, they are vastly underrepresented in the halls of power. We know, thanks in no small part to the work of the panelists here, women have an active political thinkers and participants in foreign affairs. Would like to ask panels to start by talking about but ideas , voices and contributions women need to be highlighted and stress in the writing the history of Foreign Relations. We will work away from the and. Im nervous that im being taped for television. Of course i get to go first. C i want to underscore, women in formal diplomatic relations. I would like to quote a letter from yes green. She did not but cosponsored the equal pay act and title 9 for someone that is not a. 19751976, there was a delegation on all womens delegation of congresswomen that travel to the peoples republic of china. Was unprecedented to have this number of women go abroad as official representatives of the nation. To lobby for that, we will a fivepage letter to the speaker of the house. She did a thorough analysis of how men dominated congress. It came down to who got to knock the gavel. It came down to pages and who got appointments. The price committees. One thing that she read and put forth i thought was interesting. She was appalled that no president has ever appointed a woman to any meeting on peace negotiations with one exception. After she issued the paper, there was one other who is on a delegation. She said surely the women of the country are much concerned about war and peace as are the men. To answer the question of where do we look and in what ways are ideas about gender and sexuality important, i want to make four points, now that im older i can make four instead of three. First, we need to look at women that are in positions of leadership. Person i am was the first woman of color to go to congress. She was a critic of the vietnam war. This is when johnson was in office. This is her own party. Not something she did but nixon was in office. She is also a critic of nuclear testing. Think she is from hawaii, with ancestral connections to japan, it really shaped the way she thought about the world and military and political issues in the pacific. She also worked under carter in the state department, in charge of the International Environmental affairs and scientific affairs. We need to look on the present and the aunt the secretary of state and look at women and other forms of power. Look at congress and the system secretary of state. It also said we need to look at women beyond the roles of leadership. We need to look at the wise and the assistance. We need to look at people with kinship ties. They can influence and shape the relationships they have internationally and domestically. A third aspect is looking at them in organizations and social movements. If you look at the u. S. Missionary movement abroad, two thirds of those individuals were women. One third were married to men and one third were single. They were in essence, diplomats in the field. Negotiating with people abroad, about and the ways in which their homes, the ways they are raising their children. Various ways they are interacting with people and cultures abroad. Similarly you might think about the womens movement. The way they are advocating for peace or war. There forming social networks and organizations that transcend the domestic understanding of the at home. Then finally, with think about everyday behavior. Whether they think about them as political or not. People are crossing borders collimator engaging International Marriages they are adopting across orders. These are all individual axa have policy implications. Thinks that state governments and militaries have to manage. These are ways we might find women in International Affairs and diplomacy. I will and by thinking about ways where the understanding of diplomacy again, for different ways that we might think about this can shape the way we study the field. We might think about representation of power. The way in which japan was gendered and orientalist. Or the phrase little brown brothers. There are various ways in which understanding the power shaping the way diplomats and actors understand the world around them. To make a second aspect is about the management of gender roles. Helping them think about the ways in which States Government empires a military unit are thinking about the ways in which people are crossing borders through intimacy and sexuality. These are foreign problems that need to be solved by people in positions of power. A third aspect i been thinking about, i love this phrase. This is a phrase joanne nagel coined. Think about the ways in which the military factors forms of sexual behaviors or institutions that is inherent the way militaries are stationed abroad. You might think about sexuality. You can think about the political economy. Wake village tourism, sexuality or surrounding institutions. By mail and by thinking about the motivation for war and peace. That motivates white men and women to intervene abroad. How humanitarian rescue becomes a basis for military rule. Also the location of womanhood, childhood, paternalism. Either justification for war or peace. I love seeing these representations. These images of women and children. In some cases, they are suffering. That is the reason why there has to be American Intervention abroad. Whether it is military or peace. Images of these women is hasnt. They are fighters. There seeking to protect their nations and families through struggle. By looking at these, you can understand the way in which gender and sexuality and women to penetrate. Thank you. In afternoon, as the absence or more the marginalization of women in the history of Foreign Relations or International Relations is not a reflection of the history but more so a reflection of the work that we do as historians. Might point, i dont want to , what i think is a matter of the work we have done, the topics we have chosen to pursue and the way we have chosen to pursue those topics. With the actual reality on the ground. Women were at the forefront of the movements even talking about today. Even when i say forefront, not necessarily even visible. At the forefront, to emphasize the point, they were fully involved. Fully active. Critical thinkers and organizers. They were shapers and movers of this history yet for a range of reasons that reflects the Patriarchal Society in which we live, historians collectively, i think have really focused so much on the work of men that in so doing we take ownership collectively as historians. We have produced the kinds of books that sent the message to students and far and wide that in fact, these movements are maledominated movements, even when the reality is quite different. That needs to be made because part of answering the question what we do, we have to actually be intentional. I am simply going to the same archives that are already bias, because of how they are constructed. Relying on the archives, then telling a narrative, based on the same sources that are already misconstrued, repeating a narrative and not pushing that. Even pushing back again the archives. Part of what needs to happen is we have to be intentional. We have to be willing to push beyond, even the sources we hold dear. I value as all of you do, the archives. We have to come to the archive with a skepticism that pushes us to imagine what are the other kinds of sources we ought to be using, in order to get to a more fuller understanding of the history. In order to get to womens voices and womens political activities. It is a reframing or adjustment in our thinking which i think is fundamental to the work that we do and we are able to really capture the nuance of the history and telling more balanced story. When we push against all of these barriers that i think are indicative in the archives. What should we be doing. Who should we be emphasizing. I would like to see us move and push beyond these frameworks of talking about intellectuals and so we talking about individuals who have formal education and so we talking about individuals who are members of the middle class and elite. To push those boundaries to grapple with what it means to be a critical thinker in any moment of history. Not necessarily even have access to all of these tools. But dozen intellectual look like who simply didnt have an opportunity to release important tax that we hold so dear. What does it mean to be an intellectual with only a third grade education. Only to rely on letters in the community to disperse knowledge. These are the kinds of questions i think are important. Again telling a fuller and nuance story, not just on the National Level but plastic. Thank you. Let me start by saying, thank you to brooke and jay for organizing this panel. Thank you to the people that spoke before me. I could then say ditto and pass it on. Let me underscore, what has been said so far. Also maybe add a couple of points. When we are looking for womens voices and contributions, especially in the history of Foreign Relations, we obviously have to move yawned the records we might find a National Archives or Foreign Relations. Obviously it isnt enough. What they have been doing is mostly looking at transnational organizations. The religious and social movements and finding the women who were quite powerful within them. We have missionaries and womens rights activists and antiwar activists. Anticolonial activists, and african and pan american s. We have women that would be quite active in transnational Global Networks connecting the global north and south. I think of the roles of women on the suffrage movement. I think of the work that she is doing now on the International Labor movement. The International Labor organization. We have work that is being done on the united nations. Catherine marinos new book that looks at a popular front, latin american and u. S. Interconnections on womens rights. We have a lot of work that is being done. And more radical kinds of networks. I think of the work that judy or keisha has done. And looking at those more radical movements. That is someplace to find the voices of women. It is something we can continue to do. I want us not to be celebratory but to also acknowledge that there are transnational conservative movement in which women have an active. Antiun, these are movements in which women have been active as well as men. Fascist organizations, and that should be recognized as well. Some historians are doing that. Jennifer mittelstadt at rutgers right now is looking at some of the women that were active in very conservative politics in the 70s and 80s and other people have done this as well. We need to do that. The most obvious example is. We know her both prominently because of her antifeminist activism in the 1970s. She one her fame. By being anticommunist. That is another place where we find women speaking to Foreign Relations and putting money into Foreign Relations influencing Foreign Relations. I want to come back to what judy said because that is another place where we have looked at as historians, mostly in terms of domestic issues. It is also very important to think about in terms of womens activism and Foreign Relations. Paternalism is a term that historians use to talk about women activists. Theyre using their position as mothers to engage in politics. That has so Many Political valences. Could be pacifist, antiwar activists saying that others were willing to sacrifice their sons. They could be engaged in global campaigns to fight infant mortality as mothers. We have to applaud that. Who wants infant mortality. Those are ways in which a political balance of that that we might have thought. And also inscribed racial hierarchy, civilizational hierarchies and took on imperialism. White mothers of dark races in the title of one book. Listeds formulation that judy mentioned. Saving brown women from brown man. It also involves these hierarchies and fantasies that is part of what we need to listen for as well when we are looking for womens voices. Emily rosenberg told us this years ago in an article on afghanistan. There is a fuzzy line here between solidarity with women overseas and fantasies of rescue. Also two more points. Back to judys point about leadership. I think we can look for women leaders, especially if we are looking out to the 1970s. We can find some leaders earlier but if we are looking into the halls of power, after 1970, we are finding more of them. After