Work and need to work all the time, and the way we work, role work occupies in our life for most men and women is complicated right now in our culture. The Nightingale School about 15 years ago, an allgirl school, had a career day. They invited a corporate lawyer partner, the mother of a child in the school, to come and speak, and she came, and she spoke, and she talked about all the wonderful things she did as partner, and then there was a question period. These were girls between 14 and 18. First question was, what time do you get home for dinner . Second question was, what happens if your child is sick . The third question was, how often do you spend the whole weekend with your child . Not one of these girls asked this woman a thing about the law or law firm or her political beliefs or corporate belief, so that the pressure on women who are corporate lawyers is enormous because underneath them, the generation that theyre raising are complaining, and with justification, perhaps, and what are we going to do . Something needs to be done, but its not so simple. We cant say just make everybody, you know, let them have a root to success in the law firm equal because its not going to work. Uhhuh. I just want to point out were talking about working for fulfillment, law firms, betty living in a culture where women couldnt have careers. They write about how in 1960 there was as many women, vast majority married, working, as there were at the height of world war ii when aural the men were away and women had the jobs. What that tells you is its not that women didnt work when she wrote the book, but women didnt work for fulfillment. Plenty of women had to work. Yeah. And did. Yeah. Question . Im in grad school for history, the privilege of teaching the book and talking to the students about it, and i guess my first question is whether you think that today theres been sort of this is true of my friends, my peers, theres a backlash, the idea that staying at home or being a stay at home mom, thats a bierty word too, and its not something that anyone should entertain as a goal or an aspiration, and then on the other side of it, when i talk about the book or about other feminist text, i had students preface what they say, saying, im by no means a feminist, and so i wonder whether you still think theres this, like, stigma with the word feminist, and what we can do to fix that. I would say maybe we shouldnt fix it. Im going to say, i mean, look at most recently, i mean, people say, oh, taylor swift doesnt consider herself a feminist. Marissa mary doesnt consider herself a feminist. The end of men argues that maybe the fact she doesnt consider herself a feminist means the term is no longer useful to us. It doesnt mean shes not a feminist. She, obviously, believes many of the things that we think of, and just what you talk about the students who believe all the feminist things, so should we keep trying to make people wear a sign im a feminist or just view the fact that we may not need the word as a sign of success of the movement. Is it a sign of thetremendous success of betty and the women who went on the marchs, and gayle went on, is it a sign of succeeding that we dont need that word anymore . That these ideas have been so assimilated into our dna that we may not need it anymore. Thats just my idea. I think we could call ourselves womens advocates. You know, its a much more neutral term. I think the, you know, firm nighses became a dirty word among gen x, not millennials, but among your student, and we do have to get away from that in order to but you do need a name. You have to have a brand. Whats our brand . Were women advocates, activists, were, you know, still want to see help women understand how to succeed in their lives, in life. We need we need to do that. We need help. I wish i knew. I wish i knew too. Just to the point of what you were saying, gloria told me, and this is a gloria thing, just she was saying how that this woman was telling was bemoaning how her kids, daughter call herself a feminist, and gloria said, yes, you know who she is, and, i mean, i think that thats like, you know, if youre daughters saying to you, theres been a woman president , she doesnt know gloria, doesnt say im a feminist, you know, its theres more than one way to look at that. Actually change the values of the workplace so men and women could have it all and that hasnt really come up here. I dont know that was in the feminine mystique but it was certainly in future books and what i learned growing up. Women now, if they want to have it all they do it by somehow navigating their work place and designing their own solution and it might be that lateral track and not the direct upward track. She always advocated that we shouldnt have to do that. We should have silo structures that do that for us. That was one thing about the work they send the other thing is that Betty Friedan was not a marxist and that is not a proven fact. And its very upsetting to hear it be given as that but i like most of what you said otherwise. She had a profound sense of social Justice Center profound sense of social justice was informed by many things including her upbringing and where she grew up and many many things. In the 40s she grew up studying intellectual things in college and she certainly played with leftist ideas and everything. Did anybody see the way we were quite anybody who was intelligent at that time she would be what we would say a limousine communist. The word marxist has certain residences to older people and what they mean by that was she had a strongly developed class consciousness and she thought more seriously about class in a more rigorous way then in the book. When you say limousine communist maybe thats a better way to talk about it. Do we have time for one more question . One more question. Make it a good one. This is more of a comment based upon the last thing with identifying as a feminist and i feel like it actually has to do a lot with what gloria writes in her book. There is this sort of hesitation to you now stand up for yourself in a sense because you dont want to be about women. Especially in a class that is reading the feminine mystique and the person says something very feminist a refusal to identify as a feminist in that sense shows there is this extreme backlash in our culture that still exists. Did you see the oscars . To say that we are beyond the word feminism is maybe Wishful Thinking and lovely but i dont think its actually true. Thats all. [applause] thanks everyone. When he became chancellor of the federal public of west germany, his social Democratic Party embarked on a new course. He switched from the framework based on the western alliance with the atlantic alliance, maintaining the western alliance while in improving relationships with the east, particularly with the soviet union and the european states. Through renunciation of force agreements. It was rude into key factors. The first was a lesson that he took away from 1961. He rick crabbs he recounted many of the memoirs he has written, the one i looked at again in preparation for the stock was his autobiography, my life in politics, where he describes his frustration and even in a lack of response by the western and particularly the u. S. Commandants when the border was closed. He also described a mixture of fury and ineffectual protests that his government was forced to deal with on its own. He writes, we should not expect others to find the answers we had to find for ourselves. And so he began working on a framework that would improve and remake the status between the two east german states. The second factor was an indisputable conviction that germans belong together. He believed east and west german leaders must rid themselves of illusions intractable politics, and instead work toward Practical Solutions that could ease tension and human suffering. The salient feature of this politics is really humanitarian dimension. The policy of small steps formulated by his advisor was change, continued confrontation he felt would only deepen the division. He began by dropping language that had aggravated relations with the gdr. In his inaugural address, he opened the words unification and he reversed west german nonrecognition policy, visavis the gdr. He became the first west german chancellor to refer to two german states and initiate the first meeting facetoface of west and east germany headset state since 1945. While the meeting in east germany and later in west germany did not produce immediate results, it did lay the groundwork for the later basic treaty between the two germanys. Ironically, the meeting reprice some of the basic dynamics between khrushchev and kennedy. They were dominion the de facto recognition of the gdr and preventing him with harsh ultimatums. Like a kennedy at his first meeting had opted for a soft approach and hoped to begin with the points of basic agreement. What was the response of the soviet unity party . It was skeptical and fearful. Because they did not want to change the status quo. They fully recognized that the changed relation would be come in fact lesson of the gdrs control over its citizens and that indeed is what happened over time. To my knowledge billy was the only key player from 1961 still alive in 1989 when the berlin wall fell. When interviewed he said with great and understand the emotion what belongs together will now grow together. He lived to see one of his fondest hopes realized. The jury is still out on how much the two halves have grown together in the last 20 years. But his statement serving captured the mood of the moment in those first 80 days of the open border when german did come together to celebrate the unexpected and almost forgotten hope for unity. Thank you. [applause] thank you very much, professor stein. Now well turn to jerry livingston, distinguished for any u. S. Foreign service and in washington is currently a senior visiting fellow with the German Historical Institute where we of shared many times together. Glad to sit next to you after so many years. He had been the founding director of the American Institute for contemporary german studies at johns hopkins, and former president of the german marshall of the United States. During the 60s he was the Foreign Service and the also worked at the base in west germany at that time after the construction of the wall and he is one of the german heads over washington so has a lot to say but the book and about the times. Im very pleased to have you here and looking forward to your comments. Thank you very much. Thank you for the personal remarks but id like to begin with a personal note, as mentioned i was in berlin in the u. S. Mission and i was in the same action as dick. In fact, i can remember some of the editing of my cables, generally an improvement. So even back in those days he was a real stylist. And let me just seems to me as mary beth is also suggested, one of the main strengths of dicks book is its counterpoint between the personal and the summit meeting of khrushchev and kennedy and eisenhower and de gaulle, the meetings in washington, dicks ability show in almost every chapter how a look at the diplomats like himself on the ground. So this counterpoint is one of the great strengths of the book. He has drawn from a wide variety of sources, as best as already mentioned, and i think probably dick was planning to write this book for 48 years. Because some of the endnotes refer to authors notes from august 1961. So clearly here he was planning something 40 years ago, and we have it today right here. I dont want to repeat some the things that the said sum going to skip over certain points i would have otherwise made. The book is tightly focused. In its focus on the period 19611963 and the core of it is focused on big time with lucius clay from august 1961 in ma may 1962. And one last personal word, the book shows digs loyalty to his former bosses, both of them are republicans by the way, henry kissinger. He has a lot of sections on kissingers advice to kennedy, most of which was not taken. And then of course the core of the book is a mentioned is about, the congo as some historians refer to them, the realist lucius clay. Other historians have accused clay of brinksmanship in his readiness to confront the russians, and to show that, not let them hide behind the east germans. And macmillan at one point referred to in horrific terms this childish nonsense, childish nonsense that clay was showing in berlin. But, of course, it will have none of that as we all know, and as he said himself. The other strengths of the book as mary beth has also making is that the book shows in fascinating detail how kennedy actually developed as a learning process of jfk as a Foreign Policy practitioner. And how his willingness at the beginning, unwillingness at the beginning, to confront the russians and eventually develop into his willingness to confront the russians at the time of the cuban missile crisis. The entire pattern of kennedys behavior, Foreign Policy behavior changed to i think we forget and we forget, dick alluded to this, a series of defeats his first year in administration was terrible. The bay of pigs the bay of pigs was in april 1861, then a disaster summit that dick refer to with Nikita Khrushchev in july 61 when he was brutally browbeaten by the soviet leader. And, of course, the building of the berlin wall in august 1961, all of which were a series of defeats for kennedy because i think we should not forget him and it didnt mention it but i think its important, in the end all they got was what he really wanted. But the flow was much more important because that was a real threat to the east German Economy, which after all was the most important economy in the eastern bloc. Now, let me before i finish with a series of positive remarks about the book, other positive remarks, let me sketch out for points that i think dick should have emphasized more. The first is we should not forget that in 1961 khrushchev was at the apex of his power. There was castro coming in in 59, the first time communism in the western hemisphere. Sputnik and soviet man in space, and at the time of the berlin confrontation, a large celebratory much like what has been going on in beijing the last few days, celebratory congress of the Commons Party of the soviet union was taking place. And so, you know, its not too difficult to understand why khrushchev in his meaning at the vienna summit really was convinced that communism would try and. Today, perspective of 2009 or in perspective of 1989, this seems ridiculous. But one can understand why khrushchev believed it, because he was at the apex of his power in 1961. And i think that should have been stressed more. Secondly, dick does not sufficiently stressed the importance in the berlin context of the influence of the springer. Which is on the americans all the time for not acting more strongly. I can remember when the Eastern Affairs section, we were responsible for reporting on the gdr but we didnt have any contact on east german officials. Why . Because if we were spotted by a reporter, talking to east german official, it would be in the papers the next day. Thirdly, it does not stress sufficiently that an Election Campaign was going on in west germany between on our and brought. Kennedys first reaction to the letter he received from the governing mayor recalled a bastard can what is this bastard doing quick cease trying to capitalize on this situation, the closure of the wall for electoral purposes. So one should not forget that there is a contest which played into this whole thing. But i think it doesnt mention that sufficiently. And lastly i think dick should make it all the more strongly that kennedy in 1963 did not just give one big speech, he gave a second speech at the Free University which reiterated, reiterated his readiness to meet and negotiate with the russians, that speech always gets neglected of course because of the confrontation, belligerent speech that he gave. In conclusion, three strings of dicks book, let me recall one point that i think we should not forget when i criticize kennedy for his readiness to compromise negotiate with the russians and, indeed, in the end to accept the division of berlin and accept the division of germany. You should recall that all of american president s, whether democrat or republican, have avoided confronting russia directly on Security Issues which russia has signaled his support to a. And 9053 he did nothing to support the uprising of the east german, gdr workers. 9056 he did not support the uprising of the hungarians and polls. In 1968 he did nothing when the soviets invaded czechoslovakia in 2008 we did not confront with the russians on georgia. So this is, so kennedy practice, his reluctance to confront the russians was in many ways to be expected because it fit in with president ial politics for five decades. And second, aspect of dicks book that is so stimulating is already referred to by himself is description of the bad advice given to him by experts, and maybe mr. Obama might think a little bit about this when he is gathering his experts to think about afghanistan, because the experts not only barely prepared them for the vienna summit as dick mentioned, they gave him bad advice generally, mostly bundy, thompson particularly to my great surprise because he was a highly rated in the past. So what did kennedy do . He came to rely on his instincts and he came to rely on his brother. Obama may be relying on his instincts, but thats something to be learned. Secondly, dick chose a different investing at the differences in ages influence political position. All those kennedy were dealing with were older. But also some were much older and they were influenced. Meg millen had served in the First World War and or shrapnel in his body and had memories of the second world war. Its quite understandable. We are not anxious to get into another war. The call is much older. Oldest of all. So it was not unusual when khrushchev may been the only one who said it but you do with a teenager in short pants but the rest of them i think sometimes felt that. Thirdly, and lastly and maybe most importantly dick shows the success in berlin, both in 1948 kanye, 6163 but they someone very important factor that dick i think mentioned but should stretch stressed more and that is the courage of the berliners themselves. And clay had come to know that in the blockade of 1948. And somewhat ironic because berlin is not both area. Conservative city. Its a leftist city. The western part of the city they vote, and eastern part they vote for the sbd. This was a leftist city but it wa