A woman's place is in the house...

...and the senate, and the white house. But in Australia, apparently only if she isn't "willfully barren." Or so says Australian senator Bill Heffernen of Julia Gillard, Labor Party deputy leader. It's so nice that in this day and age women can still be judged not by the content of their character but by the content of their wombs. I can just imagine if she did have a small litter of kids that she'd still be judged unfit to lead because clearly no good mother would spend so much time outside the home. But it's not as if we in the US are immune from such perceptions (see Nancy Pelosi surrounded by a dozen children, or imagine what pummeling Hillary would be getting right now if not for the presence of Chelsea).

France's presidential debates yesterday are garnering a fair share of media attention this morning. Royal was accused by Sarkosky of "losing her cool" in the debate once or twice--oh, those emotional women--but there is a real chance that France could have a woman president after Sunday's election. The BBC has a piece on the "family affair" of the current French presidential campaigns and, thankfully, does not focus only on the fact that yes, Royal has children. At least we know she'd be qualified to lead in Australia ;)

Finally, the NYT has a piece today featuring CARE's rebranding and restructuring of its programs to focus more on helping women. CARE, which spawned the original 'care package' many moons ago, is actually quite blunt about why they changed their approach: "(The old brand) didn’t cause CARE to appeal to any defined audience in the United States, like great brands do,” said Adam Hicks, director of marketing. “We went back and studied our work, and it became pretty clear to us that our most effective investment was in programs like education, micro-enterprise and small-business development aimed at empowering women.”

Their "I am Powerful" campaign targets wealthy women age 35+ to donate to CARE programs helping less fortunate women around the world. This is a notable campaign for a few reasons: 1) it demonstrates to a certain extent how organizations are increasingly tailoring their missions to meet funding needs (and, at times, to meet the needs of funders); 2) it is seeking to engage a relatively young cadre of donors (35+); and 3) they are explicit that they are seeking private money to offset the 45% of their budget that comes from the US government and is therefore unable to be used to, say, provide condoms to prostitutes in Thailand or birth control to a young mother in Bangladesh.