Recently in Politics Category

...Because, as much as I hate to say it, sometimes, we get it right a little faster than the "grown-ups"

This past weekend, I went to my first Youth in Government conference. Basically, a YIG conference entails high schoolers picking a government branch, preparing for their positions and spending a weekend in their state's capital building pretending they are working in the government.

I decided to be in the House of Representatives and so I needed to write a bill. Being a frequent lobbyist for my local Planned Parenthood chapter and working as a "political liason" to the Planned Parenthood youth program I am involved with gave me no shortage of legislation to choose ideas from. Eventually, I decided on a part of a larger bill my state's affiliate has been trying to pass for years: The Compassionate Assistance for Rape Emergencies Act, which basically ensures that female victims of sexual assault receive information about (provided by hospital) and correct dosages of emergency contraception (if they request it). Not too controversial? Hmm. Not according to the adults. This past year, we weren't even able to get the bill a hearing...

After slapping a different title on it (Comprehensive Assistance for Rape Emergencies - creative right? really thought hard for that one), revising the fine provisions and rewording the entire bill (the entire point of writing a bill is to use existing format or slightly change a statute - I promise, I am no plagiarist) I was ready to go.

This past Thursday, I argued my bill through committee. The first point I made every time was that EC is not the same as abortion. Much to my surprise, no one objected and there were hardly any disagreements.

On Friday, my bill was called on the House docket, and aside from one bump (someone asked what my bill would do for men who are victims of rape. wow. really? male rape victims are real, and should not be ignored, but do they have uteruses? my response: "this is a bill about emergency contraception... seeing as most men cannot become pregnant, it would be unnecessary to provide them with emergency contraception") my bill passed easily with a 60 something to 30 something margin. By no means was that victory not hard won, it just didn't take as much fighting as I expected.

I found myself a sponsor in the Senate and on Saturday I watched her argue my bill to a 21 for, 1 against and 1 abstention victory.

Later that day, after a little straightening out, my bill was signed into law, unamended, by the youth governor.

What does all of this say to me? What am I getting out of this experience?

That sometimes, it takes a group of students to get something done. My bill was argued against on grounds of merit, economics, anti-choice platforms and importance. But in the end, it was passed. Interesting how a group of students can get it right, while the real House of Reps in my state has gotten in wrong so many times in a row...

Just putting it out there. (be nice, I'm new at posting:)

Women everywhere are shocked and appalled by the passage late last Saturday night of the “Stupak Amendment” to the House health insurance reform bill, which further strips us of our right to abortion, and thus, our right to make the most fundamental decisions that affect our lives. The way that the Democratic majority in Congress bent to the will of anti-women religious forces shocked many, and only underscores the need for a strong and truly independent resistance movement of people acting on principle. World Can’t Wait’s national meeting in two weeks couldn’t be more timely.
 
Many progressive activists had argued for the past 10 months that while it would take time for President Obama to fix the problems of the ongoing war and torture, focusing our efforts on supporting his domestic agenda of providing expanded health insurance coverage was in our best interests. “Wait on the war; give him time.” Given that this agenda was supposedly progressive enough to ignore bloodshed, women and those who care about women are reeling by the way we were just thrown under the bus.
 
Can we step back for a moment and examine the situation that we’re in now? We’re living in the most powerful country on earth, which is unleashing the most violent military in the world on impoverished people in 3 different countries as we speak, and torturing people (still) in expanding prisons in Afghanistan as well as in Guantanamo Bay. The country is ruled by the first African-American president who also just won the Nobel Peace Prize, after a campaign that enormously mobilized women, people of color, gays, people against the war, and progressive people in general. One war is now escalating, partly in the name of defending women’s rights; while the pro-US president (Afghan President Karzai) oversees massive electoral fraud and new laws that legalize marital rape. 
 
The U.S. is wracked with division over the crimes initiated by the previous regime, the continuing strain on its military and economy, and the culture wars that are now boiling over after simmering for so long: the social position of women, people of color, immigrants, LGBT people, and the role of traditional marriage in cementing a stable imperialist society. The organized forces that enthusiastically embraced the Bush presidency and everything it represented now howl and rage against the current president, who they label everything from “fascist-socialist” (sic) to “the anti-Christ” while the party in power, led by Obama, preaches to their followers “we must seek common ground.” The most prominent abortion doctor is shot while in church, and in response, violence and threats against clinics around the country increase. Armed racists gather outside of Democrat-organized public meetings without police repression, while students in Pittsburgh are gassed and beaten during the G20 meetings for the world’s elites.
 
The “progressive president” announces he’s against gay marriage on the basis of his religion, and denies that the health insurance reform he’s working to bring into being will become an “abortion bill” (or that it would provide coverage to undocumented immigrants). He appoints an anti-abortion, anti-birth control Catholic activist to direct the Department of Health and Human Services' Center for Faith-Based and Community Initiatives. And yet… and yet… we are told to have faith that this system will work. That we must be willing to compromise. That we must have the stamina to suck it up and work on the next congressional race in our area, and “push” the Democrats to fulfill one of the basic planks of their own party platform: abortion and birth control rights for women. 
 

I've been saying to people that idiocy in the House health care bill (read: abortion amendment, among other things) does not guarantee idiocy in the final bill.  However, that requires said idiocy to not be present in the Senate version.

Ben Nelson wants the abortion amendment in the Senate bill; If you're going to make yourself heard about this, do it now- all the screaming in the world won't influence the final committee version if this gets in.

Today is the dreaded day in every prochoice high school and college students calandar. That's right. Its the day when the crazy anti choice students put duck tape over their mouthes with the word life written on it and run around handing out fliers to anyone near them with all of their antichoice propoganda printed on it.

Now while I am so grateful for the fact that they are on our campus protesting peacefully instead of standing outside of the local planned parenthood abusing and harrassing the women who are mostly going in for pap smears and bc pills, not abortions, I still get annoyed at this. Every year on october the twentieth I get to know exactly how many people hate women and our existence.

Something that I would lie to point out however, is how few women participate in this. I have seen three women with duck tape over their mouthes. Three. I have seen over 50 men with the duck tape over their mouthes. I think that speaks to something. First, why is it any business of men what we do with our own bodies? Its not. We are the ones who have to carry these children inside of us for nine months if we do not have an abortion. We are the ones who have to go through child birth. We are the ones who are more than likely going to be the main care givers for these children.

Why is it that men get to make those decisions for us? Its not their bodies. Its not their lives that are changed forever by the birth of a child. Its ours, and its not fair that men should even think about passing judgement on a woman for the choice that she makes. So, I want an answer for why men get involved in this and what they think gives them the right to lord over someone elses body

Since moving to New York City, I've caught quite a few TV ads for both Jon Corzine and Chris Christie's campaigns in the NJ gubernatorial race. Jon Corzine began a steep uphill battle, due to NJ's poor economic situation, as well as the July 2009 corruption scandal involving 40-something NJ officials, rabbis, and possible organ trafficking. But what struck me was the direction and focus of his current campaign ads. At least half of what I've seen targets women's issues and GOP candidate Christie's reluctance to protect women's health.

I stumbled upon this article from The Nation, which posits that Corzine's campaign has become revitalized due to his decision to market to the left-- not paint himself as a moderate:

What did Corzine do? Instead of steering to the center, or the Blue Dog right, he turned left. Looking to rally Democratic voters, he patched up shaky relations with the state's unions and linked his campaign so closely to the president that his billboards now feature images of Obama and Corzine...and as Congressional Democrats wavered on the issue, Corzine made healthcare reform a focus of his campaign.

It's noticeable that Corzine's campaign has decided to go where few Democrats these days are bold enough to go -- the left. But I think what stands out even more to me is his clear decision to make women's issues at the center of the election. He has powerful TV spots about Christie's apathy for women's health screenings, as Christie sides with the insurance companies to not mandate that they cover mammograms or pap smears:

Christie is now on the defensive about the issue, arguing that a mammogram saved his mother's life.  But his rebuttal seems a little unclear and still reflects a sort of elitism. It sort of gives you the feeling that Christie believes somewomen should get mammograms-- but doesn't care enough about extending access to all women of all socio-economic statuses.

Additionally, Corzine doesn't shy away from discussing abortion, with an ad that accuses Christie of not supporting a woman's right to choose. With an ominous music note in the background, Corzine's ad zeros in on the subject, highlighting that Christie even supports a constitutional amendment to ban abortion. It's meant to scare you, and itshould-- but it's surprising because few Democrats go that far in their fear mongering on the issue. It's generally been the tactic of Dems to soften their definition of "pro-choice" -- to mitigate their pro-choice voting records with caveats and apologies about how, no, really, abortion is evil, but we should protect it in some circumstances. That sort of back-peddling and side-stepping around the issue always bothers me, and it's refreshing to see how Corzine doesn't use that approach:

He has one other ad that ties up a lot of his pro-woman policies-- paid family leave, protected health coverage, hospital stays for giving birth, and the right to choose. He's actually speaking directly at women, not just about them:

Politics is politics, and I don't know enough about either Corzine or Christie to know for sure which are facts and which are stretches-- but the important takeaway is that this election is a rare example of women's health and rights being at the heart of the fight. It can be a pretty powerful thing.

It's getting embarrassing to be an old white person. One of my Facebook friends recently wrote:

Witnessed two 70-something white people, who did not previously know each other, celebrating the fact that Chicago was not selected to host the Olympics in a Wawa in South Jersey today. Their glee was directly related to Obama "failing" and and... one of them even threw in a very thinly veiled racist comment for good measure. What is currently happening in this country is disturbing and alarming.

When I went to a local mall this week end, there were all these white people in their sixties and seventies holding up signs with "Say no to Socialism!" And "Keep your hands off my Health care." The closest thing we have to socialism in this country is Medicare, which these seniors want to save. And yet some of them carry signs saying that government should keep its hands off their Medicare. Huh?

Now of course there are many seniors--such as all my friends--who support extending the benefits they enjoy to the rest of the population. (See my September 5 post, "There are a lot of seniors out there who support health care reform")

But the reality is that much of the opposition comes from my demographic. Of course it's not just old people who march around brandishing pictures of Obama with a Hitler mustache or portrayed as a witch doctor, but old people are clearly over-represented.

The selfishness of some of these seniors is probably going to increase ageism among the young. How could it not?

I've tried to understand their fears and maybe muster some sympathy. These are people who see the world changing in ways they could never have imagined. And it's not just having an African-American president. It's seeing states (maybe their own state) legalizing gay marriage. And it's seeing their children and grand children embracing a multi-cultural America and voting for Barack Obama.

I've tried to understand the fears underlying all this, but the ugliness and mean spiritedness makes it really hard.
Karen
http://www.the-next-stage.com/

The disasta' from Alaska is at it again! Oh golly gee! Did you really believe Sarah Palin was stepping out of the limelight for good when she gave up on fulfilling her term as Governor to the Land of the Midnight Sun? Get out! No, no. In fact, her soon-to-be released memoir is topping the charts! Can you say book tour in Wasillan? Palin's publisher, Harper is printing 1.5 million copies of the autobiography, titled "Going Rogue: An American Life". And kudos to you Sarah Barracuda! Word on the street is that you were "unbelievably conscientious and hands-on at every stage" when you went to write your memoir, which is pretty cool - considering it is in fact, your memoir. Just sayin.

Kat Skiles
http://threestarsandtwobars.blogspot.com

John Derbyshire thinks that women shouldn't be allowed to vote...

Yup...you didn't misunderstand...Derbyshire of the National Review recently argued against women's suffrage in his new tome We are Doomed: Reclaiming Conservative Pessimism.  

Here's what he said about his "scholarly work" on the radio...

"[Women] want someone to nurture, they want someone to help raise their kids, and if men aren't inclined to do it -- and in the present days, they're not -- then they'd like the state to do it for them."

He then continued to spew his vile with...

"Among the hopes that I do not realistically nurse is the hope that female suffrage will be repealed. But I'll say this - if it were to be, I wouldn't lose a minute's sleep."

GROSS. And people say there isn't a need for feminism..tsk tsk. 

Read more.

British Labour politician, Harriet Harman, has appealed to Arnold Schwarzenegger to 'terminate' the use of a California-based website called 'PunterNet' which allows men to rate prostitutes and give comments for other men describing the womens' bedroom activities and offering recommendations (or not as the case may be). Harman said:

It is 'PunterNet' and fuels the demand for prostitutes. This is the ultimate commodification of women. It is truly degrading and puts women at risk.

PunterNet has pages and pages of women for sale in London. But PunterNet is based in California so I've raised it with the US Ambassador to London and I've called on California's governor Arnie Schwarzenegger to close it down.

Surely it can't be too difficult for the Terminator to terminate PunterNet and that's what I am demanding that he does.

Dear Gordon Brown,

I just read your speech from the British Labour Party Conference which took place over the past few days. I'm sure there's a multitude of bloggers who will dissect it line by line, in far greater detail and in a far more entertaining fashion than I ever could, but I did have to mention one particular bit that stuck out for me;

And I do think it's time to address a problem that for too long has gone unspoken, the number of children having children. For it cannot be right, for a girl of sixteen, to get pregnant, be given the keys to a council flat and be left on her own.

From now on all 16 and 17 year old parents who get support from the taxpayer will be placed in a network of supervised homes. These shared homes will offer not just a roof over their heads, but a new start in life where they learn responsibility and how to raise their children properly. That's better for them, better for their babies and better for us all in the long run.

We won't ever shy away from taking difficult decisions on tough social questions.

I cannot describe how offensive this is. This smacks of Magdalene Laundries. In case you have forgotten, they were also institutions for young women who became pregnant and they were forced to go there against their will.

Today I received a blast email from NJ PIRG Student Chapter with the subject line reading "Git er done!"- apparently their new campaign slogan is supposed to promote rape culture and misogyny, oops! I mean, to encourage congress to pass healthcare reform.

This campaign slogan simply disgusts me because of its sexism and misogyny. There is no way that nobody put two and two together that this is sexist who was a part of deciding this campaign slogan- or approving it! I don't know what is worse, an activist group using rape culture language or an activism group using rape culture language purposefully.

I know I will see misogyny when I turn on my t.v. but usually I hope to see some progressive language and creative slogans when it comes to activist groups. Using "Git er Done" is not only sexist, it is uncreative and lazy! How original, selling sexism and rape culture!

BARF!

By a bizarre coincidence the night before Sept. 11 2001, my husband and I were talking about what safe, secure lives we led compared to our parents who experienced the depression, World War II and the horror of the holocaust.

The very next day that sense of security was shattered. As we drove home soon after the attack (the College where we both taught was immediately closed), my husband said, "The worst thing about this is what our government is going to do in response." Minutes after the attack he was already focused on the erosion of civil liberties he saw coming in the aftermath.

I was focused on my fears of further attacks. It took me a while to get over that sense of foreboding that another attack was in the works.

But my husband was focused on the real problem. It turned out to be just as bad as he predicted--the war in Iraq, Guantanamo, torture etc. etc.

The tragic loss of life on 9/11 became justification for a far greater loss of life in Iraq.

With the Obama administration, we are slowly (much too slowly) beginning to undo the damage we inflicted on ourselves in response to September 11.

Karen Bojar
http://www.the-next-stage.com/

by Chris Lombardi It's been a summer of shouting about health care, and health insurance. Now, with President Obama about to address the issue to a joint session of Congress, some new studies — one by a nonprofit think tank, one from the federal Department of Health and Human Services — suggest that for older women, the outcome of all this debate matters more than most. Researchers from the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, in an article from the Journal of Women, Politics & Policy entitled "Coverage and Expenses: Impact on Older Women’s Economic Well-Being," used a nationally representative sample of Medicare beneficiaries aged 65 and older to explore the financial burden of health and long-term care — and concluded what many of us guessed was true:

Women’s health care expenses were higher than men’s; older women paid for a greater share of their total spending out of pocket and they faced a greater financial burden by shouldering these out-of-pocket costs with less income at their disposal. Low-income women, those with Medigap or no supplemental coverage, and white women, who are less likely to qualify for Medicaid which covers long term care, faced the greatest financial burdens associated with health and long-term care costs.

Continue reading at Women's Voices For Change

NARAL Pro-Choice Virginia will be phone banking every Thursday evening throughout September for pro-choice candidates in the upcoming Virginia elections!

We'd love to have your help!

We'll be working every Thursday from 6-9 pm, and we'll provide dinner, a training, and lots of support. We could just use your help.

If you're available, please email or call Emily at emily@naralva.org or (703) 868 0066.

Thanks for helping protect choice in Virginia!

Watching the film clips about the Kennedys was like re-living my life. I came of age in the 60's when the world was changing in all kinds of wonderful ways--racial barriers breaking down, patriarchy challenged, opportunities opening for women. The Kennedys were sometimes given credit for the incredible sense of possibility of those days, but the Kennedy brothers were responding to something bubbling up from the ground.

Life was not kind to us 60's activists. As we entered our middle years with all the inevitable personal disappointments (marriages failing, career goals unrealized), we also had to deal with all those dreams from the 60's crashing down. The long backlash against the 60's which began with Nixon turned into a full scale assault with the election of Ronald Reagan, followed by all the disappointments and missed opportunities of the Clinton years and then the eight year horror of George W Bush .

But Ted Kennedy kept fighting the good fight through it all. As the years passed, I grew to respect and value him more and more. His last gift to us was his early support for Barack Obama, who may not have win the primary without it.

I never thought I would live long enough to see the election of an African- American president. I was an early Obama. supporter, although I didn't come out of the closet until after Iowa. (As a NOW chapter president it was little dicey.) Ted Kennedy and Carolyn Kennedy's early support gave me (and no doubt many others) hope that Obama could make it.

With Obama's election, I experienced for the first time in many long years that sense of social possibility I had not felt since the 60's. (Granted that optimism is tempered by the enormity of the problems Obama inherited.)

And that sense of social possibility includes gender equality as well as racial equality. Watching all those film clips of Jacqueline Kennedy, I could not help but think of the dramatic contrast with Michelle Obama. Jacqueline Kennedy was beautiful in an almost unreal fashion model sense, but a deferential wife with her wispy little girl voice, silently enduring her husband's serial philandering. Michelle Obama is beautiful in a strong, athletic real woman sense, a Harvard trained lawyer with a confident voice, in a marriage which is clearly a loving partnership.

We have come a really long way. The long backlash against the 60's appears to be finally over. Sure we have the crazy birthers and the tea-baggers. There are enough of them to create a lot of noise, but not enough to muster an electoral majority.

There is so much work to be done. It's tragic that that Kennedy did not live long enough to see national health care passed. Let's hope that his memory inspires others.

Karen Bojar
http://www.the-next-stage.com/

The state of Virginia will be having a gubernatorial election this November there is only one Pro-Choice candidate- Creigh Deeds.

I work at an abortion clinic that has decide to publicly endorse Creigh Deeds with signage on our property.  A conservative blog caught wind of this and has encouraged calls to the clinic, and campaign HQ in protest, as well as drive by honking, etc.  They are insinuating our endorsement is a tactic to "increase buisness" and displaying graphics on the blog claiming, "Abortionists for Deeds Volume Discounts!"  Atrocious, I know.

We have been receiving calls in protest, and our signs have been stolen.   Apparently our endorsement is "offensive" and "disgusting".  I wonder if this would be said about any other buisness?

The sad thing is at this point the Deeds campaign has REQUESTED THAT WE REMOVE THE SIGNS. Don Marks from the Richmond campaign office told our clinic director that, "we didn't want to give the bloggers any more fuel."  Are you kidding me?  You've just given them a victory.

What kind of message does this send from the "Pro-Choice" candidate?

You can contact the campaign here:

Northern Virginia Headquarters
2001 N. Beauregard St., Suite 420
Alexandria, VA 22311
Phone: (571) 303-2260
http://www.deedsforvirginia.com/contact

Those Ottawa residents will be familiar with the recent trial of Ottawa mayor Larry O`Brien (who was acquitted). What they may not be familiar with was a ruling regarding the testimony of Conservative MPP Nepean-Centre Lisa MacLeod.

It has come to light that Justice Douglas Cunningham dismissed the testimony of MacLeod, citing "the defence was able to demonstrate that there were a number of rather significant things going on in her life when she gave her statement to the police. She was commuting regularly to Toronto for her work, leaving her husband and child in Ottawa." He then concluded that her testimony did not corroborate with the Crown's main witness.

This kind of attitude is what continues to keep the woman of Canada from seriously pursuing politcs as a career. Women make up just 22% of the MPs in parliament, and according to the Globe and Mail, only 21% of elected officials at the Municipal and Provincial levels.

If the judge believed that MacLeod's testimony was not sufficient on the grounds that it did not support that of the Crown's main witness, then that was ALL that needed to be said. Mentioning her job, which requires her to commute to Toronto to sit and govern, was entirely unneccesary. Of course had this been a man, the subject of travel and leaving a family behind would never have even been mentioned.

This statement was entirely inappropriate, and it upsets me to think that this man is making decisions on behalf of the country. I encourage everyone to contact the Ottawa Superior Court and let them know that this will not tolerated by Canadian citizens.

The Honourable J. Douglas Cunningham
c/o the Ottawa Courthouse
161 Elgin St. 2nd Fl.
Ottawa, ON
K2P 2K1

Last week, Ottawa mayor Larry O'Brien was found not guilty of influence peddling.  The trial was well-covered by all major Canadian newspapers and national television networks.  As Mr. O'Brien had been cleared of all charges, most considered the story over and done.

However, the due diligence of a few reporters have put the story back on the front page of The Globe and Mail .  In an article entitled, "Can a busy female politician give reliable evidence?  A judge says no," veteran political reporter Jane Taber sheds a disturbing light on the judge's verdict.

One of the Crown's key witnesses was Lisa MacLeod, a 34-year-old politician who also happens to be a wife and mother.  The fact that she commutes from her home in Ottawa to work in Toronto and leaves her husband and daughter at home apparently makes her an unreliable witness.

In his ruling, Judge Cunningham said that “the defence was able to demonstrate that there were a number of rather significant things going on in her life when she gave her statement to the police. … ”

“She was commuting regularly to Toronto for her work, leaving her husband and child in Ottawa,” he read in his ruling. He concluded that her evidence was not corroborative of the Crown's main witness and said, “I must assign it little weight.”

Huh? As Ms. MacLeod stated, "I didn't know truth had a gender." 

Neither did I.

Besides continuing to entrench false and unhealthy gender stereotypes, this ruling is alarming because it perpetuates the idea that women cannot be both politicians and mothers. 

In Canada, women hold 22.1% of the seats in Parliament.  In the 2008 federal election, 27.8% of all candidates were women.  In a country that considers itself to be quite progressive because of its legalization of gay marriage, multiculturalism and extensive social programs, it seems rather odd that women are still insufficiently represented at federal, provincial and municipal levels of politics.

It is difficult to find good women to run for politics, as the odds are often stacked against them.  Judge Cunningham's ruling isn't likely to make recruitment any easier.

I recently launched a campaign against sexist roadside construction signs such as Men Working Ahead in Los Angeles, including ways to take action (there were a lot of mixed reviews on this topic).

I have to say, the bureaucratic process worked wonders this time around; I was contacted by the Women's Advocate of the City of Los Angeles Human Services Department, who looked into my concern.

The findings? The federal government went gender-neutral with signs in 1988 and the State of California in 1996. In short, "Men Working Ahead" signs are illegal and can be reported.

If you live in Los Angeles and see these signs on city construction sites, please report them to Seffy Wiles of the LA Bureau of Public Works at (213) 487-2408.

Judge Samuel B. Kent was nominated to a seat on the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas in 1990 by then-President George H.W. Bush.  Eighteen years later, after numerous problems with discipline, he became the first federal judge to be charged with federal sex crimes.  Between 2003 and 2007, "often intoxicated ," he initiated nonconsensual sex with two female employees.  Today, the impeachment charges against him were dropped in the Senate.

As the only justice in a one-judge district, Kent shared authority with no one.  After his conviction and sentencing to 33 months in prison, he preferred to retire, rather than resign, but was denied the disability status required to receive retirement benefits at 59.  He finally submitted his resignation (effective July 1, 2010) to deter the Senate from hearing the testimonies of his accusers, but the two brave women, Cathy McBroom and Donna Wilkerson, testified against him anyway.  He will continue to receive a yearly salary from the government of $169,300 while behind bars, until his resignation takes effect July 1, 2010.

An excerpt from his heartfelt letter to the Senate:

“Influenced by misguided emotions that probably stemmed from[..]alcohol abuse and[…]my first wife, Mary Ann’s slow, excruciating death from brain cancer, I began relating to Mrs. McBroom and Mrs. Wilkerson in inappropriate ways. {…}

Nevertheless, I remain proud of other aspects of my 18-year record of service on the federal bench.”

Sadly, he is not alone in the gaggle of men in authority positions who:

-Exact their power to initiate sexual contact with coworkers or employees

-Get caught

-Lie about it

-Go to rehab for “alcohol-related” problems

-Refuse to resign or retire

-Return to their families

Now that the hearings are complete, the the saga concluded earlier today in the Senate on CSPAN-2, with a live quorum in the U.S. Senate. The Senate discussed whether to dismiss all articles of impeachment brought against Kent upon request of the House. There is a transcript of the proceedings here, and a transcript of Mrs. McBroom's testimony is here.

As discussed, the trend of men dominating the ranks of senior White House staff spans administrations. The Obama administration's July 1st report, titled the "Annual Report to Congress on White House Staff," was the first such report available (and searchable!) on the White House website. The Bush administration released the same reports from 2001-2008, which were posted on The Washington Post's website by none other than recently-fired Dan Froomkin. It would make sense that each administration would employ at least as much disclosure as the Bush administration did, but as the White House reminds us,
"Since 1995, the White House has been required to deliver a report to Congress listing the title and salary of every White House Office employee."
The Clinton administration invited this yearly report by refusing to disclose their White House staff salaries. In 1993, the Washington Post procured a printed list of White House staff and their salaries which was not even available, at the time, to the staff themselves. After publishing the full list on November 1, 1993, a kerfuffle ensued: White House staff learned that they really weren't getting paid so much, after all. This was great journalism on the part of the Washington Post. As a result, from 1995-on, the White House was incrementally more accountable to the public through the Annual Reports to Congress. It does make the 1993 data look skewed.

Driving down the hills of Lake Encino in the San Fernando Valley a few days ago, I was in shock to see a city roadside construction sign that said "Men Working Ahead" and another that said "Men Working." 

These signs were among three others which included "Utility Work Ahead" and two other signs portraying gender-neutral figures.  If alternative and all-inclusive signs exist, the need for sex/gender-specific signs and discriminatory language in the city of Los Angeles can stop being used right now.

Come to find out, I'm not the only person angered by sexist roadside signage. In Atlanta , these signs were covered or replaced after a woman was nearly arrested for spray painting "wo " in front of "men," starting a grassroots campaign.

I know there are some anti-equality mongers who violently hiss that "man" somewhere, somehow includes "woman." This same logic was in heavy circulation prior to 1920; women do not need to vote or hold office because men vote and hold office--and these men represent the interests of women.

No thank you. I would like to represent myself.

According to the Los Angeles Department of Transportation, there are no city or state laws regarding this issue.  If you live in the Los Angeles area and would like to voice your opinion, here are some things you can do:

1) Call your LA City Council Member to report the problem. You can also call the office of Councilmember Paul Koretz (310-289-0353) , who represents my area, including where the signs were posted on White Oak Ave. for three days.

2) You can also call the only 2 female councilmembers : Jan Perry's office (213-473-7009) and Janice Hahn's office (213-473-7015)

3) Call the Los Angeles Department of Transportation (213-580-1177) . You can press "0" to speak with an operator and have the opportunity to leave a voice mail.

4) Send an email to the Bureau of Street Services within the Los Angeles Department of Public Works. The email address is bss.boss@lacity.org

You can check in for more updates at my blog, The Colonic

In response to National Hot Dog & Sausage Council's declaration that July is National Hot Dog Month, PETA declared today to be National Veggie Dog Day . Their promotion is a free veggie dog giveaway on Capitol Hill in DC. 

Intended surely to woo potential vegetarians with brains rather than breasts, the event features Playboy Playmate of the year Jayde Nicole wearing a bikini made out of lettuce and handling phallic food. 

According to The Nation , former president Bill Clinton was asked about gay marriage and said he now supports it. In 1996 while seeking reelection, Bill Clinton promoted and signed the Defense of Marriage Act. Although Clinton's no longer in a position to make policy, he does have a long record of blowing with the prevailing wind, so if he thinks marriage equality is worth supporting it's good news for the movement.

It had to be done—I broke down the White House’s July 1 report on staff salaries and compiled a data table to look at the status of women in the administration we voted for.

Key Findings

NUMBERS OF FEMALE AND MALE STAFF ARE EQUAL: Out of a total of 487 employees, women comprise 49.7% of the White House staff!

That is very close to the nationwide population average; 50.9% of Americans are women, according to US Census numbers from 2000. But should we be judging by a population benchmark? Of the Class of 2009, women were awarded close to 60% of all degrees, including Associate’s, Bachelor’s, Master’s, Professional, and Doctoral. The perceived gap between female WH employees and female graduates entering the workforce is larger: 49.7% vs 60%.

WOMEN EARN LESS: On average, a White House woman earns $9,462 less than a White House man.

The average salary for a male employee is $82,020, while the average for a female employee is $72,558. Women are earning $0.88 for every $1.00 men make. Heck, that's better than the national average of $0.77. But alone, these averages DO NOT confirm that White House women are paid less than men in comparable positions. Here, averages only imply differences in seniority and pay level. A woman’s median WH salary is $57,129, while a man’s median WH salary is $67,059. Where is this disparity occurring?

WOMEN ARE IN LOWER PAID POSITIONS: in the lowest earning brackets , $30,000-$59,999, the number of female employees outstrips the number of men .

From the data table , the position titles for these lower-paying jobs stand out as traditional women’s (lower-level) positions: Staff Assistant, Correspondence Analyst, Executive Assistant, Greetings Coordinator, Scheduler, and Receptionist . A trend emerges, especially from the $90,000-129,999 and $140,000-179,999 brackets: women are employed in the White House for traditionally lower level positions, but are outnumbered at the levels of senior staff. Rudimentary statistics tells us correlation does not imply causation. Because it is impossible to compare the seniority of every employee granted the title "Staff Assistant," these figures say nothing of hiring practices or of attitudes toward women in the administration. But it is disappointing to see just as government functions as a large corporation, people at the highest levels are increasingly male. Is this like the Women's Campaign Forum's findings that women must be encouraged to run for office? Are women reluctant to step up to positions of higher seniority? Do women receive preference in traditionally lower-ranking administrative jobs? Or, as Sen. Amy Klobuchar commented today during Judge Sotomayor's confirmation hearing...

In this White House, we can't know for sure. Notes about my process:

Besides making “assumptions” about the 487 names, there were about 50 gender-ambiguous names (Ashley, Jamia, Tracy, etc) that I researched to confirm the person’s pronouns. I do realize this process is not trans-inclusive. Patricia McGinnis and Michael Warren were counted into the total number of employees, but not into the salary averages and medians, as both earned $0.00. The total percentage of staff was includes detailees, but the average salary does not. Detailees are essentially employees on loan from other federal agencies, whose salaries are determined and paid for by the other agencies.

by Marcia D. Greenberger, Co-President, 
National Women's Law Center 

Cross-posted from Huffington Post.

Sitting in the Senate hearing room this morning, I couldn't disagree more with those who dismiss the Sotomayor hearing as a show, with little meaning or purpose.

These hearings convey the sense of history being made in our country that is palpable, moving and very personal. The packed room, the massive presence of the press and TV cameras and each of the 19 Senators giving their prepared statements have become a ritual of sorts, underscoring the power and authority every Supreme Court Justice has over the lives of all of us for decades to come.

But as one who has attended such hearings for well over 20 years, this one has special poignancy for me. As Senator Graham told Judge Sotomayor, to laughter in the audience, "Unless you have a complete meltdown, you're going to get confirmed."

It's impossible to be complacent about the prospect of a woman being confirmed to the Court -- let alone this woman. After all, when Justice Sandra Day O'Connor stepped down, two male nominees followed, and we've been down to only one woman on the Court ever since.

And this woman shines. Judge Sotomayor's extraordinary intelligence, personal fortitude and integrity, all of which have brought her to this day, underscore what a terrible loss the nation suffers when it fails to take advantage of the talents and skills of women and people of color. As my colleague Neena Chaudhry noted last week, "Given the mix of people in our country and the range of problems that we bring before our courts, it seems only logical and fair to have a variety of judges to decide cases."

And what a soaring pride I share with so many others to contemplate that Judge Sotomayor will likely be invested with the power and authority that a Supreme Court Justice wields. For to get to a wise result, we need wise old (and not-so-old) women and men working and reasoning together. And that, after all, is the best hope for the future.

For more from the National Women's Law Center on the Sotomayor hearings, visit NWLC's blog.

By JULIE HIRSCHFELD DAVIS – 1 hour ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — Women's groups, euphoric when President Barack Obama chose Sonia Sotomayor for the Supreme Court, have been remarkably quiet in the weeks since on the judge who would be the court's third woman ever.

Sotomayor's few rulings on reproductive issues have made abortion rights activists unwilling to crusade on her behalf, and other liberal women's organizations say they're waiting to voice full-throated support until they know more about her record.

Their relative silence may be helping Sotomayor — who's been accused of letting her personal experiences interfere with her judging — more than it hurts her.

Read the rest of the article here.

I just watched the News Hour with Jim Lehrer. Susan Dentzer, editor-in-chief of Health Affairs, came on to explain Obama's policy on stem cell research. This policy allows for federal funding to be used for embryonic stem cell research, but only if said embryos were "responsibly created".

What, you might ask, makes discarded embryos responsibly created? That they were discarded by baby-fevered members of the upper middle class or better, of course! Only embryos created for the purpose of in vitro fertilization (IVF) past muster. Because going in for an extraction costs thousands whereas getting one additional egg when you're already in costs very little, and because an unfertilized egg will only remain viable outside the body for a limited time, usually more eggs are extracted and fertilized (~12) than are ultimately implanted (2 to 4 per round). People want extras in case none in a given round take. These extras are usually cyrogenically frozen and stored in fertility clinics. And so now this country has ~400,000 such embryos that can be used for federally funded stem cell research.

The notion that embryos that are available because a woman wanted children were necessarily more responsibly created than ones that are available because she didn't is a really sexist one. It reminds me of that old saying, "being a mother is a woman's highest calling". Of course, almost no one says it seriously anymore. But the attitude is still alive and kicking (no pun intended).

Crossposted at Choice Words .

The version of the FY2010 Appropriations Bill currently in the House of Representatives would lift a number of reproductive justice-related funding bans in Washington, DC . Congress has supreme authority over the District and conservative Republicans in Congress have used this power to enact a number of bans on funding related to so-called social issues.

In a statement Congressman José E. Serrano, Chairman of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government, said the bill takes steps to reduce "undue congressional interference in local affairs and [eliminate] restrictions on the District that do not apply to other parts of the nation." The statement lists a number of funding bans that could be lifted:

"The bill eliminates the special prohibition on use on locally raised funds for abortion--thereby placing the District in the same position as each of the 50 states in that regard. The measure also discontinues the ban on use of funds for domestic partnership registration and benefits and the ban on use of funds for needle exchange programs, and allows the District to conduct and implement a referendum on use of marijuana for medical purposes as has been done in various states."

Access to abortion in DC has been severely limited by anti-choice Congresspeople playing politics with the District. The AIDS epidemic has had a devastating impact in DC, where the rate of new cases is 12 times the national average . DC has a large queer population and leans to the left politically, but federal funds for domestic partners are still restricted.

The Appropriations process could continue in Congress until October, so the fight to lift these funding bans is jut beginning. But after years of a conservative Congress and President putting the health and lives of DC residents in danger this is an important first step towards protecting reproductive and sexual health in the U.S. capital.

RAR RAR RAR RARR! This is fun.

Seems my beloved representitive is at it again, I am sure you all remember her deplorable remarks about homosexuals and "the gay agenda" not too long ago?

I can't take it anymore! How did this woman even get voted in again?!?

What kills me the most is that this state wasn't ever predominately Christian! We were founded as a dumping ground for Native Americans, not to mention there were tribes already here long before Europeans even settled this far!

In recent years this state has tried it's best to reflect respect for the Native Americans, by the Gods this state's name is Algonquin! (I think, IDK it means red people in some native american langauge, maybe Muskogian?)

And don't even get me started on the "We are a Christian Nation" crap, Thomas Jefferson said it better in the Treaty of Tripoli Article 11: "As the Government of the United States of America, is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion....."

So yeah, I just had to get that off my chest, thanks.

And for all you other Oklahomians.. tell her what you think: sallykern@okhouse.gov

From the website thinkprogress :

On Saturday, Pat Buchanan hosted a conference to discuss how Republicans can regain a majority in America. During one discussion, panelists suggested supporting English-only initiatives as a prime way of attracting "working class white Democrats." The discussion ridiculed Judge Sotomayor for the fact that she studied children's classics to improve her grammar while attending college. The panelists also suggested that, without English as the official language, President Obama would force Americans to speak Spanish.

One salient feature of the event was the banner hanging over the English-only advocates. The word conference was spelled "Conferenece."

 Ah, white nationalists. You just go ahead with your credible selves.

The past couple of months I have been hearing all about the budget cuts that Illinois is going to be making in their Human Service programs.  What really got to me at first was the budget cuts that were going to affect Mutual Ground in Aurora.  Aurora is the second largest city in the state and Mutual Ground is the only Sexual Assault and Domestic Service provider (that I am aware of) for not only that county, but smaller counties nearby too (such as my hometown).  Because of the cuts, the hotlines for Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault victims and survivors will only be in operation during normal business hours.  The clients staying at the DV shelter were told they needed to find someplace else by the end of the month. 

This really upset me, not only because this was the area I grew up in, but also because I am currently working at a DV shelter in the central part of the state.  I know first hand that Sexual Assault and Domestic Violence does not just occur between 9 and 5.  I know first hand that sometimes a victim just needs to talk to someone at 3 in the morning.  I found out today that the shelter I work at might be closing in October, and we are one of the lucky ones.  The Substance Abuse detox program will be shut down in one week.  All the employees at one foster care program recieved pink slips this week.  The residential program for people with mental disabilities is cutting programs.  I have a neighbor who has a son with severe Down's Syndrom.  His residential home is closing in October as well, and his single mom has to try and find someplace else he can go.  Other programs are turning people away because they have no funds to help.

What really bothers me about all this is how much these programs affect women.  A lot of Human Service programs help women so much.  Programs like Domestic Violence Shelters, or Sexual Assault Crisis lines.  TANF and WIC.  Not only are these cuts limiting the resources available to women, but to whole families as well.  It saddens me that our legislature is too busy putting the blame on the democrats or on the republicans, they are really not looking at the men, women, and children all over our state that are loosing important programs and resources that are vital to their well-being.

As a senior social work student, this concerns me as well.  Not only am I going to be out of a job in three months, but it makes my prospectives for finding a job after graduation bleak. With the economy as bleak as it is right now, cutting social programs is adding more hardship and complications for people already suffering from economic hardships

I guess this is really more of a rant about my disappointment in my government, and an expression of concern for EVERYONE in the state, but I wanted to bring it up and see if anyone had any thoughts on it.

I'd intended for this week's post to be an analysis of professional sports, hyper-masculine culture and misogyny. Given the recent National Organization for Women elections, the Sarah Palin controversies and the implication that a new feminist movement - one that includes all women and men, including those who are pro-life, is now starting to sprout, I feel the need to address this instead.

In additional, since there is new leadership within NOW, I'd also like to get your feedback on the issues the organization needs to work on. It's fair to say that NOW leaders probably visit Feministing now and then.

I was not at this year's meeting - but from blog posts and conversations with friends, I am of the understanding that this past weekend's conference had "a lot of drama," and that one conversation that unofficially was talked about among attendees was whether to include "pro-life feminists" within NOW. I'd like to address this first.

As you may have heard, Senator Boxer recently asked a general testifying in Congress for referring to her as "ma'am," rather than her title. 

This should not be a story.  Sadly, it is .

Specifically, RedState has jumped on it.  RedState is, essentially, DailyKos for the right-- it's well-trafficed, openly partisan, and focuses on community building.  It is frequently highly disturbing. This speaks for itself:

"Goodness. It reminds me of a female colleague on my local city council who always gets on a high horse about wasting time on frivolous matters, then getting upset at a city employee referring to a “gentlemen’s agreement.”

Senator Boxer, you see, did not like being called “Ma’am” by a General.

So the men have no problem with “Sir,” but Miss Boxer does not like “Ma’am.”

We now must all start calling her “Ma’am,” and here are some delightful Dora the Explorer big girl panties (my 3 year old endorses them) you might want to send Senator Boxer.

The best address is 1700 Montgomery Street, Suite 240, San Francisco, CA 94111. If nothing else, it’s San Francisco. If she can’t use them, I’m sure some guy in San Francisco can."

Ladies and gentlemen, the loyal opposition.  Incredible. Note that this is a front page 'story' on their site.

Supremacism is not only a term that is wholely embraced by the U.S. government; it is a term that the U.S. government and other institutions created to perpetuate their own privilege and systemic oppression under patriarchy.

On May 31, 2009, Dr. George Tiller, one of only three nationwide self-identified as providing late-term abortions and largely considered to be the nation's most celebrated and terrorized abortionist, was shot and killed as he served as an usher during church. Anti-choice activist, Scott Roeder, has been charged with first-degree murder and two counts of aggravated assault. An anti-choice extremist group is rumored to be attempting to purchase Tiller's Witchita clinic, Women's Health Care Services.

Nevermind the fact that Tiller was (and is, even in death) under constant threat of violence, political and social regulation, and disrepute. Nevermind that he was shot in both arms in 1993 and has seemingly had several brushes with death solely due to his ideologies and legal professional practice. Nevermind that the nation and its women have lost a health care icon and leader in the continuous movement for choice and reproductive justice. Let's acknowledge first that this murder was an act of Domestic Terrorism. Let's also acknowledge that this terrorism occured primarily on the basis of sexism.

Since I blogged earlier about Iranian elections I thought it's good to give you an update in case you were wondering what has been happening. Well, it has been a nightmare . Unfortunately it seems like there has been a large fraud happening in favor of Ahmadinejad. People who have been disenfranchised are protesting in Tehran and other cities. You can see some photos on flickr.

Text messaging services were cut off on the day of election and ahmadinejad was declared as the victor only a few hours after the election was over. Election statistics were being announce in a very fishy manner with no detail about which cities and provinces were being counted (completely different from how things were done in all other elections in Iran). Campaign headquarters of other candidates were raided and military was present across Tehran. Friends from Iran reported that thugs along with military dominated Tehran's streets yesterday. Some mentioned similar scenes as the 1953 coup. 

Today Facebook, Twitter, Youtube, and most websites of other candidates have been blocked, cellphone connections were shut down in Tehran, political figures have been arrested and people have been beaten and bloodied in the streets. Meanwhile foreign reporters have been asked to leave.

Mousavi is vowing to stand up to the "magic trick" behind the election and speak up about officials responsible for this "massive scheme" and has said that the decision to announce Ahmadinejad winner was a "treason to the votes of the people."

US and Canada have made statements this morning.

(several links go to the photo-blog of Arash Ashoorinia for his great photography of Iranian events)

June 12th is the Day of Solidarity for Iranian women's rights activists. On this day 4 years ago, there was a public gathering of a large and diverse group of Iranian women's rights activists in front of Tehran university. They demanded equality in the Iranian legal system. On June 12th of the next year, a similar gathering which was planned to take place in Tehran's 7-Tir square was met with police violence before it even really started and several women's rights activists were arrested. The One Million Signatures Campaign to Change Discriminatory Laws was born out of this day. For the past years, Iranian women's rights activists celebrate this day every year, sometimes not being able to congregate due to security pressures and simply resorting to smaller gestures of reminder across Tehran.

This year, June 12th coincides with Iranian presidential elections ; campaign rallies for this election have brought Iranians to the streets in record numbers in support of their candidates. As you might have heard, and as I have blogged here and here previously, the activism of feminists during the past 4 years (and their collective push for shedding light on women's demands before the election) has started to bear fruit  and one can see this in the platforms and discourse of presidential candidates. Two reformist candidates, Mousavi and Karroubi, and one of the conservative candidates, Rezaie, have expressed clearly what they are planning to do to improve the status of women in the country. Some of these plans are better than others, but the point is the fact that they exist, and that they are detailed and specific. The only candidate who is not really talking about women's rights is Ahmadinejad, Iran's current president. But even he has been appearing with his wife next to him on the campaign trail, very much like other candidates' spouses. In fact it is the first time in Iran's elections (at least since I was born) that the spouses of candidates are visibly campaigning with them. Here is an excerpt of NPR's short report on the positions of each candidate on women's rights:

As part of its mission to highlight and promote the stories and perspectives of Afghan women, CODEPINK has launched an ongoing series of print, audio and video interviews "Afghan Women Speak Out," conversations with leading international women activists and policymakers.

For the third interview in the series (view our first and second interview here), CODEPINK co-founder Jodie Evans interviews Mariam Nawabi, an Afghan-American attorney, social entrepreneur, and activist about Afghan women and Congress' rush to pass another $94 billion for war this week. Nawabi is a founding member of the Afghanistan Advocacy Group, a national network of Americans who wish to engage in dialogue with policymakers regarding development and security in Afghanistan. She served as senior adviser to the Afghan-American Chamber of Commerce and Afghanistan International Chamber of Commerce from February 2006 until April of 2007. From January 2004 to January 2006, she worked at the Embassy of Afghanistan, serving as Commercial & Trade Counsel.

Direct more money into economic development and the creation of jobs. To end the violence, the money needs to reach villages -- if the money doesn't get to the village itself, there is no change and the young men are left without support and become fodder for the Taliban.

Whether we call it democracy or not, there is no difference in (Afghan) way of life (under the Taliban or US troops), they still living in the crossfire between Taliban and U.S. forces. If the U.S. wants the Taliban out they are going about it backwards.

JE: Should we negotiate with the Taliban?

This whole notion of trying to negotiate with different members of Taliban might be too late. In the beginning, we went against groups we could and should have talked to; we should have talked to them then. When we labeled Taliban as the enemy and sided with warlords, we created categories and ended up creating enemies.

Once you create economic stability, you can have peacekeeping. That is part of the equation and it has to be sequenced in the right order. There may be different areas of the country that require different strategies because of where and who they are.

JE: But the U.S. has invested some money in development?

What the U.S. does now for economic development is mostly wasted. Capacity building is needed and good models of the public/private working together. When we leverage money with private sector we begin to get more efficacy. When you have advice and trainings without tools, nothing happens.

There is a plan to send 4,000 outside-civilian advisers, but these advisers go in for a year and are barely acclimated and then it's time to go. Instead they should send expats back in, they won't have as many language issues, and can be more effective at delivering real support. Afghanistan has had a huge brain drain -- so much of countries brain power left or killed. They need to come back.

Money now spent on military would be much better spent on infrastructure, jobs, and international partnerships. The people don't have the tools the need to move toward a peaceful reality.

I recently posted a piece about the role of women's rights and the women's movement in the upcoming Iranian elections. I think this is a good area to explore for feminisitng readers because it's an example of a lively women's movement and also because it's in the middle east, an area where America is currently engaged in two wars. It's also relevent to Obama's efforts in reconciling issues with the muslim world.

Ann Curry of MSNBC just had a GREAT special on Iran (and I rarely ever say this about any report of Iran in US media)  and I really would like to share this video (part 3 of a 6-part report ) with feminsting readers. There is an interview with Nasrin Sotoudeh (a lawyer who defends and represents Iranian feminist activists pro-bono and who also campaigns for the rights of children and women) and an interview with filmmaker Tahmineh Milani.

ps. Jessica's book, Purity Myth, is very relevant to the ideas of modesty in Islam.

There was an LA times article about the upcoming presidential elections (June 12) in Iran. Mousavi and Karroubi are the two reformist candidates who are running against Ahmadinejad... This is a short article on a debate between Mousavi and Ahmadinejad.

Here is an NPR interview with an Iranian women's rights activist (and a friend of mine), Sussan Tahmasebi, who talks a little about Iranian women's influence in this presidential election. On NPR blog you can read a short summary of each candidate's platform and position on women's rights.

The women's movement is one of the most vocal sections of the population in this election and others are following in their footsteps. The candidates are all having to express very clearly what they will do in this area if they win.

Here are some sample photos of their activism in the streets (posters read: "Women's Demands Get Our Votes"), and here is a video of a voting drive by Iranians around the world (signs read: "I will vote")

And finally the links below are for a documentary (directed by filmmaker Rakhshan Banietemad ) showing the activism of a wide range of Iranian women to voice their demands to candidates. The candidates watch videos of women expressing these demands and in the end each candidate is asked to respond to the film. (sorry this is in Persian but it might be interesting to see the images):Part 1 ,Part 2 ,Part 3 ,Part 4 ,Part 5

President Obama is nominating Republican representative John McHugh to be Secretary of the Army. According to Advocate.com, McHugh shares Obama's intention to eliminate President Clinton's Don't Ask Don't Tell policy that forces service members to conceal their homosexuality, and has led to a mass expulsion of gays from the military over the past 16 years.

This is good news not only for gay servicemembers, but for national security as key personnel will no longer be eliminated if discovered to be gay.

http://www.advocate.com/news_detail_ektid87814.asp

Date:

Saturday, June 6, 2009

Time:

7:00pm - 9:00pm

Location:

Miss Pixie's Furnishings & Whatnots

Street:

1626 14th Street, NW

City/Town:

Washington, DC

Phone:

3012756945

Email:

wholedc@gmail.com

Come join us as we talk about the state of sexual freedom, what sex radicals have to contribute to all of society and what we can all do to embrace more choices for all.

Featuring Carol Queen and Nina Hartley

Tickets are $30

All proceeds benefit the Woodhull Freedom Foundation.

TICKETS NOW FOR SALE AT:
http://www.brownpapertickets.com/event/69418

(get yours in advance, we're hoping to sell this out!!!)

Alright, this is pretty priceless. According to the CNN Ticker, Newt Gingrich and Rush Limbaugh (although who takes that guy seriously anymore?) believe that Obama's recent nominee to the Supreme Court is racist.

Apparently in one of her speeches, Sotomayor said "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life." Gingrich interpreted this as being in the same vein as someone who would say something like "my experience as a white man makes me better than a latina woman."

He clearly is not seeing his privilege in making these kind of comments. Nor is he understanding at all what Sotomayor was saying in her speech. Her speech was about how lived experience can inform judicial opinions. And, I'm sorry, but when you grow up as a white male your lived experience is one of privilege. Which is, I think, what Sotomayor was trying to get at in her speech. It's one of the reasons we need more than just while middle class males on the bench!

Now that Obama's first 100 days have come to a close, I've found myself reminiscing about the spirit of excitement that lingered in the air last November. On election night, I celebrated with several hundred of my closest friends in Times Square, and later on, in Harlem. This excitement persisted through January, as Americans speculated about what would change on "day one" and afterwards.

In reality, however, the Obama presidency is less about dancing in the streets and more about compromising on controversial issues. Many gay and lesbian activists have been disappointed with this administration's lack of active support amidst victories in Iowa, Maine, and Vermont; other feminist activists have been less than thrilled over some of Obama's cabinet appointees. Given such high expectations for the new Democratic president, it is not surprising that his actual presidency would be a bit of a letdown - after all, this is no easy job and Obama has only been doing it for a few short months. But what if he continues to disappoint, particularly on feminist issues and civil rights? Can we support our new president while simultaneously holding him accountable for our issues?

Legendary activist and scholar Angela Davis sheds a little light on these questions in a video recently posted by the Barnard Center for Research on Women.

Urge your Illinois state representative to vote 'yes' on the House Bill 2234. It's a civil unions bill that ensures all couples "basic, critical, and legal protections." Decision day is May 31st.

This entry was originally a comment in another entry on Obama appointing Larry Summers to his National Economic Council and making a joke about Summers being on his Council on Women an Girls.

I am struggling on whether to post this, because honestly I have no idea how it will be received.

However, I truly believe that Obama's attempt to "compromise" on social issues will fail just as the Democratic party's misguided attempts to "compromise" on economic issues through the DLC failed in the 1990s.

I'm not going to hold it against him if he succeeds, I did support him, as the lesser of two evils across many issues and not just womens' issues. I don't think the Green Party is a real alternative, I'm sorry.

However, even though I supported Obama, I do loathe some of the things he has done. I loathe that he had Bernie Mac speak at a fundraising event and made light of Mac's misogynistic jokes. I loathe that he did not speak out about the media's sexism during the primary campaign against Clinton. I loathe that he even though making a joke about "lipstick on a pig" would be acceptable at the time that he did. I loathe that he is even considering keeping a "conscience rule" in place. I loathe that his Council on Women and Girls is made up mainly of male cabinet heads and he has not responded to the call for a Presidential Commission on Women.

I was browsing through a used bookstore the other day and I came across Andrea Dworkin’s “Right Wing Women .” I have read some radical feminist theory and while I have admiration for radicals of many stripes I’m too practical and optimistic to call myself one. I much prefer liberalism in most senses of the word. Still, I picked it up and thumbed through it, wondering what Dworkin had to say on the subject. Hell, there might be some useful commentary to understand a Sarah Palin run for the presidency 2012. It was pretty cheap so I bought it. I haven’t read it yet, but it’s at the top of my to be read pile.

The book came to mind again when on The Colbert Report  Megan McCain said of the Republican Party “It can be a party for a 24 year-old pro-sex woman .” When I heard her say that I thought it was her own wishful thinking, and I still do. I’ve heard it before from women who are Republicans. Christie Todd Whitman – who quit the Bush Administration over their gutting of air quality rules , authored a book called “It’s My Party Too ” expressing a similar sentiment as McCain. There are a number of women in the Republican party who seem to insist that pro science, pro woman people can fit under the “big tent.” Unfortunately for those women and the men who support them, the departure from the Republican party of folks like Arlen Specter, and (dubiously) Mike Bloomberg makes it harder for the public to believe.  

The Democrats aren’t perfect either, of course, just generally better on feminist issues. Which is why I felt sorry for McCain when she said what she did. It’s not impossible, of course for the Republicans to see the light, but there are no indications that they will anytime soon.

I grew up on Long Island, where Nina Petraro Bastardi is from. I lived in the Nassau county legislative district where she is currently running for office from the time I was 12 until I was 26. I went to high school with her husband. So I might be a little biased in favor of her but I want to share her campaign announcement video with the feministing community readers so they can decide for themselves the accuracy of what I’m going to say next.

In efforts to avoid thread hi-jacking, I thought I'd just create a post about this.  Recently, a comment I made about how I wouldn't count on Obama to defend women's rights led to an argument.  As I stated there, I did not vote for Obama.  I'm a registered independent in my state, so can't vote in party primaries for President.  As a Socialist, I also have no more use for the Democratic Party than I do for the Republican Party.  I voted for Cynthia McKinney in the general election because I felt she was the only candidate to really commit to all of the world's oppressed people.

So, what does this specifically have to do with Obama and feminism?  One of Obama's first acts after being elected was to appoint Larry Summers to his transition team.  He later gave Summers a position in his administration that, conveniently, allowed Summers to avoid Senate confirmation hearings.  Those hearings would (hopefully) have been used as a forum to out Summers on his sexist views on women in science, engineering and math.

As I stated in my comment, Summers has made comments about the genetic inferiority of women when it comes to math, science and engineering.  Some tried to jump to his defense, claiming he never said any such thing.  Sadly, he did, as discussed in the following quotes. 

Summers exact words (bolding mine) are as follows:  "In the special case of science and engineering, there are issues of intrinsic aptitude , and particularly of the variability of aptitude, and that those considerations are reinforced by what are, in fact, lesser factors involving socialization and continuing discrimination ." (See:  Mob rule in academia by Debra J. Saunders and note that this article is in defense of Summers . )

When Summers name first came up, the president of NOW was sceptical about him.  In an interview, she noted (again, bolding mine):  "'But on the topic of the old Harvard controversy, Gandy added: "I'm torn on the subject. Part of me thinks his opinions on women's capacities for math and science don't have relevancy to financial markets. On the other hand, economics is a very math-heavy field. Does that mean he'd be less likely to include women in his own circle of advisers? I don't know the answer to that question; I don't know him. But I do wonder whether if his comments about women's lack of aptitude for math and science had instead been a comment or an opinion about African Americans having less capacity for math and science, would he be on anybody's short-list. That's a fair question to ask .'" (See:  Now President Questions Summers as Treasury Secretary .  Note that I do not agree that his appointment would not "have [had] any relevancy to financial markets."  In fact, the appointment of anyone who makes that kind of statement is troubling, especially when made by a president who is supposedly all about inclusion, a man who supposedly embodies the "anyone can do it" premise. )

Since 1994, at least 12,000 US servicemen, and more specifically 60 Arabic translators working for the military, have been dismissed from the as a result of "don't ask, don't tell" policy.

The case of study of West Point grad Dan Choi, five-year Army veteran who received his discharge letter reading "you admitted publicly that you are a homosexual which constitutes homosexual conduct," has drawn a lot of attention from the mainstream press in the past week, but another telling tale from a few years back is Stephen Davis, former petty officer second class in the navy.

Like Choi, Davis was an Arabic translator; President Bush invested $100,000 in what he called the Strategic Language Initiative specifically to address the national security issue of the shortage of translators.

In October of 2006, inspectors at Fort Gordon where Davis was based, identified 70 service members whose use of the government computer chat system violated policy, Davis among them. The violations included a number of what could be considered "gender issues," including specifically derogatory comments about women, outright discussions of explicit (heterosexual) sexual activity, and in the case of Davis and one another, mere references to their identification as gay.

The 68 heterosexual servicemen remained on active duty. Davis and the other did not.

Now, let's examine the primary rationalization for "don't ask, don't tell:" that some straight people might be uncomfortable serving alongside gay people. It could, in theory, be possible that the net overall productivity of the Armed Forces is increased, therefore, by "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" (which, clearly, would not inherently make the policy justified).

That having been said, women make up a full 20% of the US Military, and it is completely logical that a women would feel uncomfortable in an environment where misogy and sexual harrassment is tolerate, whereas I think most of us would agree that people of different sexual orientations ought to be able to coexist.

This is a long one, so I'll try to be as charming as possible to make it easier on you.

I get a zillion action alerts in my inbox every week. So every Monday, I post a bunch of links to online petitions on my blog. A couple of weeks ago, one of the petitions I linked to was from NOW urging President Obama to appoint a woman to the Supreme Court. And the shit storm begins.

Some guy: I'm curious. If you're all about "equality", why should I "urge" Obama to appoint a woman? I would urge him to appoint the most qualified person for the position, regardless of gender. Appointing a woman for the sake of having a woman on the SC is ridiculous. Appointments based on gender are not equality, they are sexism.

I was surprised that someone would think that encouraging the President to appoint a woman to the Supreme Court meant that the new justice wouldn't be qualified. So, I said that and added,

The purpose of appointing a woman is to have a more representative Supreme Court. There's only one woman on the Supreme Court. To represent the 51% of Americans who are female, the Supreme Court needs closer to five female justices. Given that bit of information, there's no need to get your thong in a knot over suggesting to bring the grand total of women justices to two.

Seriously, don't be afraid, some guy. People who look like you still have the majority of the Court and the rest of government, despite the fact that women make up most of America. But this guy's fears went way beyond challenging his privilege and escalated to serious paranoia.

Some guy: Yes, but you're saying "appoint a qualified woman and ignore qualified men." [don't know where the quotes came from, since I didn't say that]. Equality, again, would mean appointments based on skill, not gender. It shouldn't matter what the sex of the person is. Sadly, most feminists (apparently like yourself) wish to elevate women over men, regardless of any other factors. You just want a woman there because you're a woman. She could be less qualified than a likely male candidate, and you'd still be satisfied, because someone with your genitalia would be in a place of power. And that's sad. I want qualified individuals in my government, not a selection of vaginas and penises.

I honestly hadn't given Elizabeth Edwards much thought.  I see her as a strong woman, who's life has taken some very public unexpected turns.
Then I start seeing the media surrounding her new book.

A motivational, don't-give-up thumbs-up, that is. As anyone who's read my other posts surely knows by now, I am Canadian. And I've noticed something recently.

It started with Iowa I think, I forget which was first, but in a couple short months suddenly a few more states have followed suit: Vermont, New Hampshire, DC and now Maine. You know what I'm talking about: legalizing, or on the way to legalizing, or even at least recognizing, same-sex marriage.

All of a sudden it's happening: some states (admittedly, in most cases, some of the more progressive states) are ready to take a stand for what's right. And it reminds me of my own country, in 2003. The same thing happened here; it all began with Ontario, BC, Québec, our more liberal/progressive provinces. And the legalization of same-sex marriage spread like wildfire from province to province (to territory), within a 2-year span, and then 2005 comes, and it's federal law. The Civil Marriage Act has happened, been lightly contested, and proven victorious. Even our most notably conservative province, Alberta, had to accept the law, and yes it was challenged (especially when a conservative government took power), but surprisingly, the religious right conceded rather quickly and the debate is now, it seems, finished. We've won. Human rights have beaten intolerance and discrimination.

So maybe, just maybe, the States are following suit. Now, I won't delude myself that this will be simple, because the situations are of course different, for three main reasons. One, we have a total of 13 provinces and territories, most of whom needed little or no coersion in accepting the federal law; the US has 50 states it has to convince. Two, Canadian conservatism is of course a world apart from American conservatism, and while we are generally considered a pretty liberal country with the exception of really just one province, the US is a more fiercely divided country along political lines. Let's face it, the same-sex marriage issue (while admittedly still quite controversial in Canada) is immensely controversial south of the border, and certain states will be hard-pressed to accept it, that much can be sure. Finally, as was seen with Prop 8 and other electoral votes, Americans are more prone to hitting the polls for this kind of decision than Canadians, and human rights issues don't always fare well at the polls, as recent history has shown us.

So anyway, yes, I understand all these differences that make the American situation unique from the Canadian. But regardless of this, I'd like to congratulate those states that are catching on, and hope against hope that the movement will be as contagious in America as it has been in the Great White North. Yeah, it's a long shot to try and believe that the movement will spread as quickly through the US.

But here's to hoping.

Hello Everyone!

This past Tuesday, April 28th was the Missouri Pro-Choice Lobby day in Jefferson City MO. Faith Aloud had a great time along with Planned Parenthood, Naral Pro-Choice MO, Promo and many others. We had two bills to focus on while at Lobby Day. One was SB 264 (aka The Abortion Restriction Bill of 2009) and the Other was The Prevention First Act which is in the House as HB999 and in the Senate as SB329.

Here's little info on both:

The Abortion Restriction Bill of 2009 contains a lot of extreme measures that hurt women and providers while doing nothing to reduce the number of unintended pregnancies. It places unnecessary requirements on women who want to terminate their pregnancies by adding extra steps prior to their procedures that may take days to complete. It also add extra work for doctors and their staff for no reason. THIS IS A BAD BILL FOR ALL WOMEN AND DOCTORS!

The Prevention First Act is all about preventing unintended pregnancies, and improving access to preventive health care measures. This bill would repeal the restrictions around medically accurate comprehensive Sexual Education for all sexualities. It would ensure vicitms of sexual assault were given access and information about Plan B. Finally it would ensure that women of all backgrounds were able to access affordable birth control and yearly well woman exams.

To conclude Lobby Day Faith Aloud put together a Interfaith Service. The Speakers included: Rev. Krista Taves, Minister at Emerson Unitarian Universalist Chapel, Kate Lovelady, Leader of The Ethical Society St. Louis, Lucy Smith, Member of PPSLR's TASH and My Faith Aloud, Rev. Rebecca Turner, Disciple of Christ minister and Executive Director of Faith Aloud, Kelli Whitman, Eden Seminary Student and Outreach Coordinator of Faith Aloud, and Rev. Teresa Mithen, Priest at St. John's Episcopal Church.

Family Planning is embraced by religions across the spectrum as a moral good, a responsible choice, and a basic human right. The world’s religions recognize that family planning helps build strong families, protect the health of women and children, reduce child and spousal abuse, and prevent unwanted pregnancies

Ok so I posted a little bit about this on my blog - i go off on a tangent mostly about Silvio's wife, which is more about my need to rant than anything else, so just ignore that. :)

The meaning of this post is just what the title suggests, is the Prime Minister of Italy helping society's perception of women in a political forum by lobbying or vetting women to have parliamentary positions simply because they are pretty? It has to be noted that these women aren't especially educated and have gained their fame through television or modeling.

When this subject came up in the lunchroom here at work, we were divided. 1/2 of us feel that Silvio is blatantly objectifying women and essentially mocking hard working, intelligent and very qualified candidates , men and women alike , to further his political/social agenda and spreading the message that beauty comes before brains (concerning women of course). The other 1/2 feel that women in parliament is good, regardless of how they get there.

What do you think , is this good or bad?

-Sophia

Hello. First off, I would just like to say I am extremely new the feministing community. So, hi to everyone. I am very excited to be here and be able to voice my opinions.

Okay, so if anyone hasn't really noticed... Facebook has become a political battle ground, especially since the 2008 elections. I think it was great during the elections that the candidates had facebook pages, for in my opinion, it got much of the youth involved and excited... especially about our current president, President Obama.

However, it came to my attention from a note by my friend that some of the youth who dislike Obama, are now turning into infantiles. To me, I am very ashamed that my generation has reduced its knowledge and vocabulary to make this statement about their dislike for Obama:

"O.B.A.M.A = One Big Ass Mistake America! These words where twittered but Glenn Beck, my hero."

Yes, thanks Glenn for simplistic and quite idiotic statement. No, but seriously... I am tired of the name-calling when it comes to Obama's presidency. (Also, if you are going to try to insult our president, at least the proper form of "were"... please). This is what especially angers me about my generation involving some of their dislike for our president. I find it quite funny that when many of the youth didn't agree with Bush's "War on Terrorism" there were many protests and educated vocalization about WHY they didn't agree with Bush's stance on war. This is obviously not the same story for the ignorant individuals who will just sit on their asses and call our current president names. Come on. How fucking old are you?

If someone, especially a younger adult, has a problem with some of Obama's viewpoints and/or laws he has put out there, at least formulate an opinion of why you disagree with him. Do not just simply call him an "asshole" and leave it at that. I think it is important for my generation to start assembling knowledge and facts with their opinion to BE educated on their viewpoints and to show older generations that our vote is not simply a waste.

Another thing that gets me on Facebook are some of the groups that call Obama a "fascist" or, my favorite, "the anti-christ." I honestly have no comment on the anti-christ name-game... it's just rediculous. However, the fascist comment particularly gets me. Simply because many Republicans are sore losers does NOT make Obama a fucking fascist. Get over it. You lost. In fact, Obama's presidency is exactly what makes this country democractic: the system of checks and balances.

So, to all you Obama haters of Facebook... back your opinions up with facts, not ignorance.

No, no, they are not really going to have it? In this day in age? Isn’t that like illegal or something? Holy cow,  the Nazis? They are still around?

Not only are the Nazis still around, but they held a rally on Saturday under the Gateway

Arch in St. Louis. Being a tour guide at the Arch has brought interesting experiences from the Obama rally of 500,000, to people from all over the globe, and rednecks from all over the state, to a Nazi rally. How many people get to go to work and watch the Nazis? Of course we were not allowed to call them the “Nazis” they were the “National Socialist Movement” and the Arch being a federal site we were very strictly informed that we cannot give our opinion to any guests or anyone while in uniform.

Via The Daily Beast --- More shocking news from Alaska. To quote the Beast's blurb from Palin's New Disaster, "The governor is reeling after nominating for attorney general a man who allegedly defended the right of men to rape their wives. Now, Max Blumenthal reports, she may dump him to save herself."

Back during the campaign cycle, I was continually amazed by what I began to refer to as Palin's "Pro-Rape Agenda." This is right up there with charging victims for rape kits.

The Beast reports that, "According to Burton, who detailed the allegations for me, Ross allegedly declared during a speech before a 1991 gathering of the "father's rights" group Dads Against Discrimination, "If a guy can't rape his wife, who's he gonna rape?"

The Globe and Mail is reporting that the Liberal Party in Canada wants women's votes in the next election. Historically, the gender gap has  worked in favour of the Liberals but in the last election, more women voted Conservative.

Not to worry though, the Liberals have a plan!

Liberals on best behaviour in bid to woo women

Liberal MPs are, among other things, trying to be more polite during Question Period in the Commons. Women respond better to politicians who are not hurling insults, Liberals say.

Winnipeg Liberal MP Anita Neville, the party's status of women critic, said she was shocked to hear a Tory MP recently speak derisively about one group "shacking up" with another.

"You're not hearing [offensive language] from the Liberals, quite deliberately. And that is a real effort to tone down ... and be respectful," said Ms. Neville, who has regular meetings with women in her riding and says they are critical of the behaviour in Question Period.

Yes. Manners.

While acting like responsible adults might make it easier to encourage anyone to vote for any party, it's probably not the best election strategy. The Liberals lost women's votes for the same reason they lost everyone's votes. They had no direction and had really uninspiring leadership.

To be fair, the end of the article points out that other "women's issues" like childcare and pay equity will also be addressed. Which is awesome. But it takes a pollster to point out that women's issues are the same as men's issues: job security and a failing economy.

Maybe a little less focus on politeness and a little more focus on what matters is the order of the day.

As everyone has probably heard by now, Levi Johnston, Bristol Palin’s ex-fiancee and father of her child, went on the Tyra Banks show to talk about his relationship with Bristol. Almost needless to say, based on what Levi has said during these interviews, Sarah Palin is unhappy with his ” flat-out lies, gross exaggerations, and even distortions of their relationship”. Apparently, unbeknownst to the American people, Bristol can no longer speak for herself, and so my post tonight focuses on the  response put out by the Alaskan governor’s office, specifically these two choice items:

“Bristol’s focus will remain on raising Tripp, completing her education, and advocating abstinence,” the statement says.

The statement ends, saying, “Bristol realizes now that she made a mistake in her relationship and is the one taking responsibility for their actions.”

Wait, what? I was pretty sure Bristol went on a CNN interview stating that a goal of abstinence was pretty unrealistic. And I was also pretty sure that it takes two to tango, and two to “take responsibility for their actions”, as the statement says. Perhaps what we’re actually seeing is delayed anger from Ms. Palin at her daughter for not following more closely the tenets Palin preached in both word and Alaskan policy- funding abstinence-only education.

Bristol Palin was entirely correct when she says abstinence is not reasonable. We need better, comprehensive sex-ed for students, and poll after poll after poll shows that this is what the majority of American parents want taught to their kids, even across political ideologies. (The only evidence refuting these polls can be found on websites promoting abstinence-only education, which of course is completely unbiased.)

But this isn’t even the point- what really gets me angry is that this is coming out in a statement from Palin’s office, in direct contradiction to what Bristol actually said, and in fact goes so far as to intimate both punishment and blame by stating that “she is accepting responsibility”, which is language repeatedly used by both abstinence-only educators and stringent pro-life advocates. I would argue that the main tenet of abstinence-only education is punishment: punishment for having sex and enjoying sex, and most of all, being forced to “realize and accept the consequences” of having sex, even though AO educators focus on lying or distorting the facts surrounding sex, STIs, abortion, and contraception.

Seriously, if that girl is old enough to make the choice to have that baby, raise that baby, and speak out in direct opposition to her mother in the public eye, she’s old enough to speak for herself. And more than old enough to have her own opinion.

Cross-posted to my own blog .

My university was planning to show Pirates II: Stagnetti's Revenge in the student theater with a presentation beforehand on safe sex from Planned Parenthood. "The film was provided to the university for free, so no student fees or state money was used to bring it to campus."

However, that's when the state senate got involved.
"Sen. Andrew P. Harris, a Republican from Baltimore and Harford counties, suggested amending the state's annual budget to deny any funding to a higher education institution that allows a public screening of a film marketed as a XXX-rated adult film, unless it is part of an official academic course. Senate President Thomas V. Mike Miller indicated he would vote for the budget amendment, giving substantial backing to the threat of denying the university tens of millions of dollars in state funding."

"Said the state Senator, Andrew Harris [M.D.], 'Occasional viewing of porn is more dangerous than occasionally lighting up a cigarette.'"

What do you think?

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/education/college/bal-movie0402,0,3273550.story

I've been thinking a lot about this since Courtney first mentioned it on Feministing.

Okay, I personally hate the idea of bikini waxes for a number of reasons, among them that men are not compelled to rip their pubic hair out in the numbers that women are.

However, the recent consideration in NJ to ban bikini waxes really bothers me. Do I think women should be encouraged to take out a significant portion of their hair? No. However, I feel that outright banning it is just restricting our freedom to do whatever the hell we want to with our bodies. Do we really want a state government to tell us what we are and are not allowed to do for the sake of beauty? We should be allowed to make our own choices in regard to our nether regions.

I understand that NJ was worried about possible health risks. However, to my knowledge they have not banned cigarettes, cosmetic surgery, or sun tan beds all of which are much more dangerous then a little waxing.

Thoughts?

Just read this story on Politico, where Jonathan Martin and Ben Smith come up with ten questions they'd like to ask President Obama at one of his primetime TV press conferences. I realise the economy is on everyone's minds, and the AIG bonus thing is big news, but I was wondering what questions everyone else might think of asking him, should they, would they, could they have the opportunity. Thoughts?

Yesterday, testimony was taken on Sen. Dan Patrick’s SB 182 which would require a woman to receive and view an ultrasound along with additional “information” before consenting to an ultrasound.

While the testimony I gave was much shorter, here’s the long version of what’s on my mind:

Good afternoon – be sure to let me know if you have trouble hearing me. (a local joke in response to a committee member complaining "he couldn't hear women's voices")

My name is Laurie Felker Jones, I was here last year testifying on the inaugural version of this bill -- we really should stop meeting like this.

I am here representing myself and the legions of Texas women who are working hard everyday to provide for their families and don’t have the time nor the desire to come here to justify their life choices to you -- a few, extreme legislators who would rather play politics than craft sound policies.

As we all know, there is no medical reason why a woman must see an ultrasound or hear a heartbeat -- whether in a wanted or unwanted pregnancy. So, why are we here? Politics, plain and simple. But aren’t there better ways to win a primary election especially in this economy – After all, I don’t see a lot of headlines stating “if I only had an ultrasound I wouldn’t have been laid off or lost my house to foreclosure”.

Because this bill is about politics, I won’t repeat to you what you have already been told by healthcare providers about why this bill just doesn’t make good policy.

Instead, I want to focus on why I – and others opposed to this bill – are opposed to its very principle which insinuates that women haven’t thought about what a serious choice this is – and that we’re so weak as a people that we can be easily persuaded or emotionally manipulated by an ultrasound and other political propaganda– even against our will. The fact is women who are pregnant and women who are not make tough choices every day and we get along just fine.

So, because you’re seeking to have your 3 minutes even against our will, I think it’s only fair that you allow me 3 now – even if you don’t care to hear it.

So, here’s the Top Five reasons why this bill is a bad idea:

As I'm sure many of you know, Meghan McCain has recently been criticized for her weight, specifically by Laura Ingraham. How sad is it that Meghan's weight is attacked when she has so much to offer? And what's worse is that it was by another woman. I was glad to see that Meghan went on The View to defend herself and speak out about these ridiculous attacks.

Meghan also wrote about this on The Daily Beast.

Meghan mentions that this kind of situation sets an awful example for young girls, and she's absolutely right! This shows young girls that no matter how smart or successful they are, their weight will always be the defining factor. Unfortunately this leads to mixed up priorities for too many young girls.

I know it's been a few months under this new leadership, but I still get pretty bowled over when politicians publicly champion women's rights and not in a we-should-respect-women-by-not-letting-them-have-abortions-or-birth control kind of way. First our amazing new Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announces that the rights of women will "always be central to our foreign policy."

Then our new President Obama creates a first ever Council on Women and Girls led by Obama's senior aid, Valerie Jarrett. Signed into law on International Women's Day March 8th, the council will, according to Jarrett , "examine all the programs at the federal level that touch on women and girls and we're going to work to coordinate and make sure that each of those programs is doing everything that it could do to help support women and girls." So awesome that it's tear inducing.

Now today, Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass) chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee has an excellent piece published in the Washington Times discussing the state of women and girls around the world and highlights the importance of investing in our futures. Here are his main talking points:

It's up to all of us to ensure that this economic crisis does not become a global women's crisis, too. At moments like these in developing countries, women are asked to bear the brunt of the hardship. When food is scarce, economists have found that women and girls are pressured to forgo their share altogether so that men and boys have enough to eat. In the same way, we must now make sure that women workers aren't pushed aside as businesses downsize and that daughters aren't taken out of school as families search for extra income

I find it so refreshing to hear the political discourse shift from how we should cut the rights of women globally to how to champion them instead. I am always sensitive, however, to how we discuss global women's issues as to not sound like the great western world sweeping down to save the poor eastern women from their backwards society. I do think that this is a good piece, though, and even if a few of his examples do come off a little 'gasp! women outside of America are doooomed!' I'm at least glad that he's creating a global dialouge instead keeping the country totally ignorant like the last administration tried to. What are your thoughts? Read the entire commentary here.

Thanks to Colin for the link!

I know, more Sarah Palin?

But this article blames her appearance for John McCain's loss in the election.

Oh yes.

"It wasn't her appearance per se" that soured people on Palin, Heflick said in an interview. "It was the effect her appearance had on their perception of her competence and humanity. Those variables made people less likely to vote for her."...

Here's the rest of the article.

I find this interesting...and a little ridiculous. What are your thoughts?

Many health-care advocates have been worried about who would end up as President Obama's Secretary of Health and Human Services, ever since the withdrawal of powerful former Senator Thomas Daschle. Now, we at WVFC couldn't help smirking a bit at today's news of the appointment of Sebelius, appeared in our Newsmix last summer as a potential vice president . The Washington Post notes that the 60-year-old governor of Kansas will now be the one in charge of driving the biggest health-care expansion in decade:

Steering the costly changes through Congress, which would be a big part of Sebelius's portfolio, promises to be a complicated and politically charged task. The withdrawal of Daschle, a former Senate majority leader steeped in the byzantine ways of Congress as well as the intricacies of the nation's $2.3 trillion health-care system, delivered a significant blow to the administration as it prepared to launch its ambitious agenda on the topic.

Sebelius, 60, would inherit a sprawling department of 65,000 employees responsible for public health, food safety, scientific research, and the administration of the Medicare and Medicaid programs, which serve 90 million Americans. The solvency of the programs is yet another worry confronting the administration, which has vowed to take on entitlement reform.

All this may seem daunting for a Washington newcomer. But as the Huffington Post's Sam Stein noted last summer, Sebelius has already shown that she has a lot of the qualities needed to make it happen. Her record shows a tough administrator, deeply bipartisan and yet determined to get it right even when it's not popular:

To read more, please go to Women's Voices For Change.

Some good news today:

I'm sure many people are aware of W's Conscience rule , passed during his final hours in office, which essentially gave providers a free pass to REFUSE WOMEN CARE OR SERVICES if the doctor's personal belief conflicted with the woman's wishes.

Well, according to NPR, Pres. Obama is planning to overturn that disasterous piece of legislation.  Read about it here.

Because it is so important for girls (and boys) to see women in political power and because it's also important for girls (and boys) to know the history of women running for president in America, I created this educational YouTube:

I'd love to see this in the hands of social studies teachers, Girl Scout/Girls' Club leaders, church/synagogue youth group leaders, parents, and anyone else who can reach our future leaders and voters. Hopefully, leaders could show it as an observation of Women's History Month (March). If y'all could forward this around, I'd appreciate it. Thanks.

Is it just me, or are the GOP crazies getting crazier every day? I mean, I always knew there were some nucking futs out there, but it is a story like this that really hammers it home.

Democrats were outraged Wednesday morning when Republican state Sen. Dave Schultheis said he planned to vote against a bill to require HIV tests for pregnant women because the disease “stems from sexual promiscuity” and he didn’t think the Legislature should “remove the negative consequences that take place from poor behavior and unacceptable behavior.” The Colorado Springs lawmaker then proceeded to cast the lone vote against SB 179, which passed 32-1 and moves on to the House.

In my state, Rep. Rob Schaaf (R) recently introduced House Bill 810 :

334.350. When treating infertility, physicians within the state of Missouri shall not implant more embryos into a human than the current recommendations set forth by the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, or its successor.

Now I personally poo-poo Nadya's decision, but that was just it- her decision . I'm not familar with Rep. Schaaf but I do know that the Missouri legislature has a fierce anti-choice streak. Seems like it extends to the other extreme as well.

Link c/o the Turner Report

When Hillary Clinton left the U.S. Senate to become Secretary of State on the 21st, the Senate was briefly one woman short. However, with this weekend's appointment of Albany-area Representative Kirsten Gillibrand to replace her, there is once again a female Senator from New York, restoring us to a total of 17 women in the current Senate - the highest total yet.

Let's meet the women of the upper chamber in the 111th Congress.

Kirsten Gillibrand (42, D-NY) will be sworn in Tuesday to become the 99th Senator of the 2009-2010 term. (The lawsuits to determine whether incumbent Norm Coleman (R) or challenger Al Franken (D) mean Minnesota's second Senate seat will remain upu in the air until at least mid-February.) She is the only woman among the four Senators appointed as replacements for members of President Obama's administration.

A couple of months ago, I read a really interesting article : it said that women (and for the sake of this post I took the liberty to extend that to all other groups at the wrong end of the power balance) do get top jobs, but most often when the firm is on the verge of collapse. This means that when the ship sinks, you can blame the woman at the wheel.

Or is it a coincidence that Obama has the top job now that the country is - well, let's say - seriously challenged. It got even more clear when I read the news about Iceland's new prime minister ad interim, Johanna Sigurdardottir , who is not only a woman but also gay. Talking about the wrong side of the power balance. Of course I'm thrilled to see that some parts of the world are gaining some sense, but does it really have to be on the brink of disaster? I don't want to see my heroes fail!

Feministe posted this.

I feel compelled to write this post based on my strong feelings as to why Rod Blagojevich should not be impeached and remain the Governor of Illinois.

I do think that he should not have allowed himself to make "pay for play" comments while being tape recorded or make these statements to begin with.  I also think he is not handling this whole scandal as he should be, his recent media blitz to NY while the impeachment proceedings have started in IL was not a wise choice. Not to mention his impromptu press conferences outside his home on the sidewalk during the morning news creates an even bigger media circus.

However, he has passed some excellent legislation in Illinois and for me this is reason enough to not support the impeachment and support him as a politician.

During his term beginning in 2002, Blagojevich has helped support and pass landmark legislation that made gender identity and sexual orientation part of the Illinois' non-discrimination laws, putting the state at the forefront in the fight for equal rights. Using the power of executive order, the governor has also provided benefits for same-sex partners working under his office and forced pharmacists to fill prescriptions for female contraceptives.

Blagojevich has supported civil unions, boosted AIDS/HIV funding and urged Congress to support the reauthorization of the Ryan White CARE Act.

He also stated in his 2006 "State of the State" speech to veto any pro-life legislation that comes to his desk. Our governor is ignoring his religious faith (Eastern Orthodox, which condemns abortion as a "form of murder")... etc.  He also opposes minor girls' parents from being notified if they choose to have an abortion.

Because of these reasons, I am not convinced another Governor would have such strong policy opinions on these matters.  Perhaps Lisa Madigan would, but I am content to let him continue to govern at least for the remainder of his term. 

Several years ago, I was watching a history channel special on JFK. The show asserted that the reason JFK had won the election was because of two things: women and TV. Women voted for JFK because they saw him on TV, and he was cute.

At the time, I was living with my grandmother, who was in her eighties, and I remember asking her, "Grandma, did you vote for President Kennedy because he was handsome?"

"No, I did not," my grandma snapped back, startling me with the vehemence of her response. "I voted for him because he said that he would raise the minimum wage, and I had five babies to feed."

"Oh, okay," I answered, but Grandma was just getting started. I'd obviously touched a nerve.

"I voted for him because he said that he would pay women the same amount as a man," she continued. "Girls today don't know what it was like in my time...there was no 'sexual harassment' until we created it. No legal protection. You could get fired just for being a woman, so you made sure that you worked three times as hard as the men, didn't complain when the boss man grabbed your behind, and didn't bitch about getting half of what the menfolk got, even when you was working harder than they ever would. Good lord, child, I used to tie the strings of three tampons together and put them all inside, layer my panties with two pads, because if I took a break I would've lost my job. It didn't matter if I was doubled up pain that would have sent any of the men home, I worked. There wasn't a choice. I worked right up through my first labor pains with your daddy, and had to beg for my job back two weeks later. Wasn't no such thing as maternity leave 'till we created it for you."

Full disclosure - A former professor and friend is one of Kirsten Gillibrand's pals and he's someone who had a huge effect on my politics.

That being said, I am super psyched that Kirsten Gillibrand is the next senator from New York. I don't agree with her 100% on everything - specifically her efforts to repeal the gun ban in DC - but I am very much looking forward to seeing her in the Senate and a lot of the criticisms I have read about her are simply uninformed. Here are a few reasons why:

- She's smart: Kirsten graduated from Dartmouth magna cum laude, is fluent in Mandarin Chinese, and earned her JD from UCLA. Before working as a corporate lawyer, Gillibrand served as special counsel for Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Andrew Cuomo and clerked for a U.S. Court of Appeals judge after law school. According to a Time magazine profile , she also interned with the United Nations Crime Prevention branch in Austria. Comparisons between Gillibrand and Sarah Palin are completely baseless.

- She is committed to transparency. From The New York Times : "She has insisted, to the point of annoying Congressional colleagues, on openness in government, posting a 'Sunlight Report' on her Congressional Web site listing her meetings with lobbyists as well as the names of individuals seeking government grants known as earmarks."

Ok. So there are 3 characters in this Rep. Mumpower (Male), Rep. Williams (Male), and Rep. Lynn (Female).

In March and April 2007 Rep. Lynn was sexually harassed by Rep. Williams on two occasions, one of which he told her in front of other representatives that he would give a weeks pay to see her naked. Lynn reported it to Mumpower but wanted it to be dealt with internally but on the record in case there are future issues. The memo states "She expressed much fear that public exposure of this event might unduly malign her name or have an embarrassing result on her husband and children."

Rep Williams recently became Speaker of the Tennessee house, a position Mumpower was after. Mumpower releases the memo on Tuesday (two days ago) in compliance with a request for information placed on Monday (MLK Jr Day, so a Holiday). Rep. Lynn was called Monday evening by journalists regarding this issue.

Rep. Williams is charged with sexual harassment.

This entire issue just reeks with the concept that someone knew exactly what they were requesting from Mumpower, possibly because he unofficially released this information.

If Mumpower in anyway insisted that this information be requested, he also sexually disempowered Lynn.

Thoughts?

Here is the link to the Memo in PDF form

I don't know about all of you, but I was so excited to see the headline this afternoon about how President Obama ordered Guantanamo Bay closed.

The order will begin tomorrow and is expected to be completed within a year.

I, for one, am impressed with the expediency that Obama has shown in dedication to human rights. I know that he's been held up as a savior for America, the golden boy and the new Camelot. There's been a lot of debate on how this will affect his presidency. He's been credited with ending racism, not only because of the color of his skin, but because of the people he's put in office. While racism certainly hasn't magically disppeared, I think that this is a huge step in the right direction, for human rights and human dignity. It sets a precedent and an example.

I am impressed that he has listened to the voters. Perhaps he always felt this way about Gitmo. No one can really know. But I know he's received thousands of names written on petitions urging him to close the detention center and to address its abuses.

There is no perfect leader. Obama will certainly make mistakes, but will also have successes. I, for one, am celebrating this great choice to close a corrupt and abusive institution. I think it sends a very powerful message to us and to the rest of the world: that America is making better choices and taking responsibility for its actions.

I look forward to the next few months, to see what will take first priority. Hopefully, things will continue in a positive way.

Yesterday’s political euphoria surrounding President Obama’s inauguration for this super busy mama was met by a falling down from my high energy six day super mama marathon. Five days of ongoing back to back activity peaked Monday night at the L.A. Feministing happy hour engaging with rad Jessica Hoffmann, Hilary, Marielle, Samhita and Irma around the Maddoff scandal, U.S centrism, blogging voice and readership, self-promotion, woman of color and feminism, and group dynamics.   The synchronicity didn’t jive, coming down a high on Inauguration Day, exhaustion instead of political euphoria. The intention was to take my little one to celebrate the Inauguration with colleagues, friends and other children at Mercado la Paloma. Instead I stumbled through my day witnessing other people’s excitement and at times reveling from a distance.

The weekend prior reading through feeds it was eye-candy to see President Obama wearing a “this is what a feminist looks like ” t-shirt (as complex relationship I have with the feminist label) comforting to hear the news that Michelle Obama’s mother possibly moving in the White House, validating that notion that’s real for many families, especially in communities of color, the practice and tradition of intergenerational familial co-habitation. Got the itch to take the little one to Lego-Land’s mini-Barack Obama mock inauguration . To the brilliance behind retooling Obama’s campaign machine for the long haul known inside as “Barack Obama 2.0” sparking debates with a handful of people surrounding the act of building a network of Organizers to support Barck Obama around the advantages, disadvantages and conflicts that might happening. All of this smoothed my realist/idealist clashes surrounding electoral politics swaying my emotional pendulum to excitement.

CNNPolitics reports that Obama is considering using the Presidential power of executive order to overturn what is commonly known as the "global gag rule," a policy that prohibits the United States from giving money to international family planning groups that offer, promote or refer patients to abortion providers and/or abortion counseling.

Reinstating the gag rule was George W. Bush's first executive order as President in 2001, 2 days after he was sworn in and on the anniversary of Roe V. Wade.

January 22, 2009 will be the 36th anniversary of Roe V. Wade, and what better way to honor women's reproductive rights in the United States than by allowing funding for women's reproductive health and rights throughout the world?

Let's hope President Obama (that feels so GREAT to write!!) follows through with this and lives up to his reputation of being feminist friendly. It would be a fabulous way to begin his presidency.

Sunday's concert on the Mall in Washington was about the most joyous public occasion I have ever witnessed. The tone of the entire event was happy and exciting, but in a peaceful, calm, secure way, not unlike Mr. Obama himself.

It was clear that the speakers and musicians were honored to be there, and even quite  starstruck. President-elect Obama was remarkable: he projected such authenticity and seemed totally relaxed and in the moment. You would have thought he was a man just having a great time with his famiy on a Sunday afternoon, without anything else on his mind. If he can do this two days before he is sworn in as President I think we are dealing with a leader with a truly steady hand (not to mention a reliable capacity for pleasure and relaxation).  Throughout the afternoon, the event was moving. Musical pieces were alternated with readings and vignettes about former presidents and historical events.

Something special was in the air. The performers and the audience, from the Obamas down to the smallest children at the farthest end of the Mall, seemed totally in sync on notes of respect for the past, wonder at the present, and hope for the future.

It’s been written about over and over again-the divide that remains between older and younger feminists. And I think this struggle is being nowhere more clearly pronounced than in the controversy over Ms.’s new cover featuring Barack Obama. Though I can’t speak for all college age feminists, I feel like there is a general consensus that we love Barack Obama. A lot. It’s hard to imagine that after watching his twenty-minute speech given to the Planned Parenthood convention just under a year ago, any feminist could walk away and not be inspired and comforted by the knowledge that soon our country will be led by a pro-choice, pro-woman president. Even typing those words is emotional for someone who, at 18, does not even really remember the Clinton years-only the George Bush ones. And just because we are in awe of and in love with our soon to be president does not mean we have completely lost our feminist lens. Yes, we realize that he has not appointed a proportionately equal number of women to his cabinet. Yes, we realize he won’t just come out and say he supports gay marriage. Yes, he has his faults.

But to hear the criticism given by the women whom young feminists are taught to look up to and admire of the man that is giving women of my generation hope for the first time in a very long time, is kind of hard to swallow. Ms. has been pushing the envelope since it’s inception, because, dare I say, simply publishing a feminist focused publication is pushing the envelope. And Ms., perhaps feeling the same sense of hope that my peers and I feel, felt that it was time to feature a man, a man who IS a self-proclaimed feminist. I was thrilled when I heard about the cover. So many Americans who love Barack Obama and probably feared the word feminism, can now see the two ideas as one. It’s hard to imagine this cover doing anything but strengthening the movement.

Unless you ask the old-schoolers. Yes, we understand you fought a very hard fight that won us many rights that we now take for granted. Yes, we understand that you know men can be feminists, but it’s hard for you to swallow a man being featured on the cover or OUR magazine. But to you, I say this. Relax. Breathe easy. Just for a little while, and feel the hope that we feel. Feel the excitement that we feel. We have a president who calls himself a feminist. Feel the excitement. Feel the hope. 

Many people think that Ms. Magazine "jumped the shark" by picturing Obama as a feminist superhero on its cover. I wanted to use this as an opportunity to challenge Obama to step up and actually be a feminist hero by championing specific women's causes. Here's a youtube.

1. His defense of the timeliness of the government's response to Katrina (!)
2. His assertion that the message of the Republican Party "needs to be broad-based and compassionate." Not the policies or actions of the party, just its message.
3. His claim that he did fine on the economy, because there were 52 months of job growth, and the rich got tax cuts.
4. His assertion that all the current problems with the economy were caused by events that happened prior to his presidency.
5. His claim that the economic stimulus package has freed up the credit markets (from what I've heard, most banks are still not lending at all). And his claim that the first $350 billion has been used wisely.
6. His assessment of his critics as people who are "angry and hostile." As if they have no legitimate complaints.
7. The only thing he could think of that he could have done differently after Katrina was to land Air Force One in New Orleans or Baton Rouge? Seriously?
8. His claim that the fact that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction was a "disappointment."
9. His repeated claim that you can't really acknowledge your mistakes because there's no such thing as "short term history."
10. His complete denial that people from other countries "view America in a dim light."

I have to celebrate when good news comes through CNN.  I believe that what you focus on expands so you can bet your bottom dollar I really stretch good news as far as it will go.  Today it has been reported that the Obama Team has invited Reverend Gene Robinson, openly gay bishop, to deliver a prayer at an inauguration event on Sunday and Reverend Sharon Watkins, general minister and president of the Disciples of Christ to give the invocation at the National Cathedral on Wednesday.  

This is good news.  This is very good news, however, if Rick Warren had not been asked to deliver the central invocation, it would not be news at all; it would just be another illustration, in a long list of illustrations, of inclusion in the Obama choices.  So why is it news?  Why is the Warren thing so BIG?  Actually with these two additions of Watkins and Robinson, its easier to see.  The issue is that Warren trades on exclusion, hate-language, judgment and identifying that there is an unacceptable "other."

Let me use myself as an example of my thinking.  I am a Buddhist and I would never expect a Buddhist to give the invocation as it is a small minority in the US.  I expected a Christian.  The president-elect is Christian.  Most Americans are Christian.  Heck, some of my family and friends are Christian.  But never in a million years would I settle for a Christian speaker to call Buddhists, Nazis.  Never would it be ok for a Christian speaker to call Buddhists pedophiles.  To go even further on this line of thinking, it means they wouldn't even be much of a Christian if they promoted anti-Buddhist talk and would not let Buddhists in their church. 

Why is this so position controversial?  Why is this even indefensible (Ms. Etheridge)?  It is obvious ~ Warren is all about exclusion, trades on hate, hands out name-calling like a Vegas blackjack dealer, made millions telling people that their lives are not enough.  Does he really represent Christianity to Obama?  JEZZZZUS. 

So don't ring me up and ask me if the invitations to Revs Robinson and Watkins make this all ok.  This is not the time ~ anymore than thinking that Palin, being a woman, would make me happy when Hillary Clinton was not the presidential nominee. 

If you run for office talking about inclusion, than choosing an inclusionary person to give the central invocation is really obvious choice.  President-elect Obama, you are so smart - there is no denying it - you get all this.  DO SOMETHING, proportional, as they say.

by Faith Childs

On Friday, the House of Representatives passed two bills of importance to women. The Paycheck Fairness Act requires employers to pay equal wages to men and women who perform the same job unless there is a rational reason for the pay disparity. Also passed was the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which overturns the 2007 Supreme Court decision Lilly Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co . (550 U.S. 618). In the year since that decision, lower courts around the country have been busy deepening its effect , turning away suits charging discrimination based on sex, race and disability.

To continue reading, please go to Women's Voices For Change.

Is Bipartisan Dating Possible?

I am an independent woman in my mid 20's and I have a wonderful boyfriend. I really do. He is supportive of my feminist ideals and many other important values that are central to my identity. He may not call himself a "feminist" but he is in a relationship with me that is based on feminist foundations of equality. We have been dating for six months or so and things are progressing to the next level quite nicely. So what's the problem? He voted for John McCain and Sarah Palin.

He is one of those socially liberal - fiscally conservative types who puts more weight on the fiscal and votes accordingly. As a flaming liberal, this often really bothers me. "How can a man who is so compassionate interpersonally and a champion of equal rights vote for 'those people'?," I ask. "Why can't your respect for the rights of those in the GLBT community not override your value of low taxes and smaller government?" I worry that this political difference between us highlights divergence on key issues and therefore our relationship is doomed.

I go back and forth on the stance I should take on all of this. Sometimes I think that this is not such a big deal. People are different. Everyone is entitled to their own political views and just because they disagree with me does not mean that I should cut them out of my life. The personal is the political, right? So long as he shares my ideals of how a relationship should be between two equal people than I should adjust. God knows I have dated my share of assholes who agree with my presidential politics.

Other times I think this divergence between us is indicative of incompatibility. It might be more honest to start making agreement on certain issues (like party affiliation) deal breakers in my relationships. But even saying that seems unfair.

Is it really realistic and/or healthy to demand someone be a member of the DFL or Greens in order to date me?
Are there any of you out there who have successfully co-existed with a partner of a different political persuasion? Or are there those of you who feel strongly on this subject? I would love to hear some input on this.

From Cruella-blog .

No major paper has reported on this. The BBC didn't seem to think it was important enough for an article... Do however take a look at this .

Mayor of London Boris Johnson made an election promise about rape crisis funding. He said he would increase funding to £744,000 to pay for four new centres as well as funding the one that already exists. Studies suggest that as many as one in four women experience rape, attempted rape or sexual assault in their lifetimes so really who ever thought one rape crisis centre was enough for a city the size of London? So far, so good.

Well Happy Christmas London. Johnson has just made an announcement about that funding promise. To cut a long story short it went "Not really!". He now says he can only spare £233,000, which as I recall is basically the orignal budget which he had pledged to improve.

Now I call that news. Shocking, awful, distressing news. Or is that just me? The news only got out of the GLA because Green Party GLA member Jenny Jones took the time to ask him what was happening with the funding and issue a press release.

Come on media - what is going on? Do your job please!

I'm not so far aware of a protest or sponsored shoe-throwing being organised but readers wishing to do so could certainly write to Johnson at mayor@london.gov.uk. Or better still write to your local or national paper and ask them when they plan to cover the story.

My parents are die-hard NPR addicts and showed me this.  I think it is a great opinion piece on the Rick Warren issue.

Rachel at Feministe passes along Change.org's call for more participation on their Women's Rights page - because "the more traffic and participation they get on that page, the more they can push it with the Obama transition folks."

I sent in my pitch for mandated comprehensive sex education in public schools. Site participants can comment on and vote for proposals, and the top ten in each issue category (women's rights, education, etc.) will be presented to Obama when he takes office.

Submit your own ideas too!

I have a question for my American feminist friends.

I've been noticing lately that not only is Barack Obama gaining attention for being the first black American president, but also his wife Michelle is gaining attention for being the first black First Lady.

Now, I understand why it's a big deal for Barack. But I've never quite understood the American fascination with the First Lady. I am a Canadian woman, and while I know (actually, I don't even know, but I think) that my Prime Minister is married, I know nothing about his wife. I don't know her name or her bio or anything. Sure, a PM's wife might occasionally pop up in an interview here and there to talk about her husband, but she isn't a public figure herself, usually these interviews will revolve around "what the PM is like at home."

President-elect Barack Obama this week was reportedly considering nominating an openly gay person to serve as labor secretary. The Wall Street Journal reported that Obama was considering Mary Beth Maxwell, the founding executive director of American Rights at Work, to head the Labor Department. If nominated, and confirmed by the Senate, she would be the nation’s first openly gay cabinet member.

Source:

Oh Hell Yeah!

For the past few years it seemed from the news and discussions I have and hear in college, that Hilary Clinton will be the first female president. She has experience in the senate, in the white house, and soon to be in the state department. She has name recognition big time, you'd have to have walled yourself in a cave for the past 17 or so years not to know who she is. You would also have to have said wall not to know her husbands name.

Is this an issue?

I could cry. The Governor General is allowing Stephen Harper to suspend Parliament. For those of you who haven't been following Canadian politics recently, after the Conservatives released the most ideologically-driven mini-budget ever, opposition parties banded together and prepared to vote no confidence in Harper's minority government, and form a coalition government themselves. But now they're not going to have the chance to make that vote, because Parliament is suspended until January 26. Harper is sure to use that time, not to come to some kind of workable understanding with the opposition, but to run a public relations blitz against the coalition, and attempt to pry Liberal and New Democrat Members of Parliament away from their parties.

Harper has consistently come out against women's rights. His mini-budget included submitting pay equity claims to mediation in the name of cutting costs and avoiding a deficit. Although he backed down on some of the proposed cuts in the budget, to the best of my knowledge he hasn't reversed his position on pay equity. He has already cut funding to government programs designed to monitor and improve the status of women in Canada. And he has cut altogether the Court Challenges fund, which paid for a portion of the costs of challenging the government under section 15 (equality rights) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. He criticized the decision to award abortion-rights crusader Dr. Morgentaler the Order of Canada. Then of course there's Bill-C484, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, which makes it a crime to “injure of cause the death of an unborn child while committing an offence.” The first thing (or close to the first thing) Harper did when he became Prime Minister a couple of years ago was to move to re-open the issue of same-sex marriage, when the last government had just passed legislation legalizing it. He also scrapped the national child care plan that had been the greatest achievement of the previous government, and replaced it with a $1200 tax credit. The only women he likes are REAL Women – an anti-feminist organization from Alberta.

And he's horrible in every other neo-conservative, anti-democratic way you can think of. The reason why I'm complaining about Harper and not the Conservative Party as a whole is that the Conservative caucus is entirely whipped. Every and any public statement they make has to be approved by the Prime Minister's Office. For Conservatives, the “m” in MP stands for “minion”.

Harper has said that it's his goal to shift Canadian politics to the right. And to kill off the Liberal Party forever. I honestly thought that we were going to be rid of the autocratic son of a bitch. But, no.

The Conservatives have really been demonizing Bloc Quebecois MPs lately, conjuring up some national unity crisis. I hope he creates such a backlash in Quebec that there's a resurgence of separatist sentiment, and they secede from Canada. Because then there will be a country in North America that puts it's money where it's mouth is on women's rights, and I will be able to move there.

Wanted to post these and see what you all thought of them.  I link hopped a few times from the Prop 8 the Musical vid.  Found here.  Gotta love the musical talent in the Princeton vid!

So a friend e-mailed this to me last night as a joke...and I gotta say, I'm still thinking about rinsing my eyes out with bleach.

I just don't know where to start. This is just wrong on so many levels.

Girls, help me rip this one to shreds!

Via The New York Times .

This is a victory.

While I know she is a fantastic senator, and the State of New York will be sad to have anyone else represent it, I think this can only be welcomed as very positive news!

By: Jennifer Donahue

Its been a long road for Senator Hillary Clinton. The road has led to her consideration as Secretary of State in a world full of uncertainties. Article after article, pundit after pundit describe why she is not the right choice (see Politico today, NYT, Huffington Post, the cable nets and many other sources.) In the aftermath of the campaign, people have forgotten that Hillary Clinton is more than who she was as a presidential candidate. I realized I was guilty of this too. The most significant thing I had to remember after all that has happened is who Hillary Clinton is to the rest of the world. To the rest of the world, Hillary Clinton is the truest leader of women's rights on earth.

Christie Vilsak, the former First Lady of Iowa and founder of the Iowa Initiative to Reduce Unwanted Pregnancies, says this of Senator Clinton: "She is the woman everyone is looking to. She is a model for women aross the world. All those women out there are looking to see how she reacts. If she doesn't do this, what does it say about the rest of the U.S.?" Mrs. Vilsak went on to say that in Liberia, a Liberian Cabinet Minister said that Hillary Clinton has changed the world women live in and has created and presented an image to the women of this world.

Senator Clinton has led the cause of women's rights since her early days as first lady, when she travelled to the Summit in Tokyo in July of 1993. As Gwen Ifill reported then, "Hillary Clinton Wins Friends in Japan." Ifill observed that,

"in a country where the courtship and wedding of an independent-minded woman to Crown Prince Naruhito held people in thrall for weeks, Hillary Rodham Clinton is also viewed -- favorably -- as an independent sort. At Waseda University today, the very mention of her name drew murmurs of approval. And when she slipped into a meeting hall, most in the otherwise reserved crowd craned for a look at her blond head bobbing in a sea of shiny black hair, and burst into applause."

In 1995, reporter Patrick Tyler wrote of Hillary Clinton, "

Speaking more forcefully on human rights than any American dignitary has on Chinese soil, Hillary Rodham Clinton catalogued a devastating litany of abuse that has afflicted women around the world today and criticized China for seeking to limit free and open discussion of women's issues here. "'It is time for us to say here in Beijing, and the world to hear, that it is no longer acceptable to discuss women's rights as separate from human rights," Mrs. Clinton told the Fourth World Conference on Women assembled here. "'It is a violation of human rights when babies are denied food, or drowned, or suffocated, or their spines broken, simply because they are born girls,' Mrs. Clinton said, or 'when women and girls are sold into slavery or prostitution for human greed.' "'It is a violation of human rights when women are doused with gasoline, set on fire and burned to death because their marriage dowries are deemed too small,' she continued, or 'when thousands of women are raped in their own communities and when thousands of women are subjected to rape as a tactic or prize of war.'"

At first, it appeared that President-elect Obama was trying to bring in Senator Clinton as a "team of rivals" Secretary of State. But on deeper reflection, perhaps the Obama transition team is showing the discipline the campaign showed. If global women's rights is an issue, which it most certainly is, Senator Clinton is matched by no one in her past words and deeds in advance of this cause. And she has the bona fides to match any other contender on foreign policy issues not related to human rights. To pick her would send a message indeed: that the U.S. is a leader on women's rights across the world.

Got this off Huffington Post.

I agree with Donahue, what do all of you think?

This is pretty funny, or pretty dismal, depending on how you look at it. Somebody called Lyle Rossiter, who some conservatives are calling a 'top psychiatrist' and an 'eminent doctor', that 'Liberals are clinically mad'. If you follow the link you'll see he's written a book about it, subtitled 'The psychological causes of political madness.' Here's a quote from Rossiter:

'A political leader who understands human nature will not ignore individual differences in talent, drive, personal appeal and work ethic, and then try to impose economic and social equality on the population - as liberals do. And a legislator who understands human nature will not create an environment of rules which over-regulates and over-taxes the nation's citizens, corrupts their character and reduces them to wards of the state - as liberals do.'

Riiight... It's LIBERALS who ignore the individual! Silly me. I thought denying women rights over their own bodies and equal pay and arguing that hetero-marriage is the only right choice for everyone was more deindividualising than fighting for those freedoms, but I stand corrected.

Of course, the guys over at Conservapedia are loving it. I would highly recommend looking at it if you want to laugh and cry at the same time at the idiocy of its authors, who've answered to Wikipedia, which they believe is liberal-biased. I can't help thinking they're doing their cause more harm than good. What depresses me most is it isn't even a hoax.

I think it's interesting that a group of people that have been notoriously discriminated against are now spreading hate about another group of people. I don't agree with the Church of Jesus Christ Latter-Day Saints on basically everything but you can't blame one group of people [as a whole] for Proposition 8 passing. There are people who are homophobic and don't believe in equality in marriage (basic civil rights) but it's not one sole group of people ascribing to a certain religion. It is bigoted people. There are mormon people who agree and disagree with gay marriage being legalized and to target all of them and say that they are why this didn't pass is futile and childish. This spreads hate and prejudice. It does no good. Thinking of people in groups you put stereotypes to and not as individuals is how hate thrives.

So I don't know if anyone else remembers reading this Newsweek article that came out in the aftermath of the Summers controversy, but I think it contains a few gems that we really should keep in mind.  If he thought that these quotes would score him any points with women, he really is quite dense.  

“Starting in the fall, Harvard will offer home economics for women who find economics too tricky,” said Summers, who called the move “long overdue.”

Summers said that the new courses would help women at Harvard improve their grade point averages, adding, “When it comes to getting busy in the kitchen, women are second to none.”

In a meeting with the protesters, Summers promised that he would recruit additional women to the Harvard faculty but refused to tell the protesters how many. “I don’t want to fill your heads with a lot of big numbers you won’t understand,” he said.

You would think that if he really was a smart guy that he'd be able to apply some critical thinking to his own views on women and realize how dumb they are.

I've sort of been following the news coverage of Obama's selection of cabinet and staff, and I'm feeling a bit uneasy. Is it just me, or does it seem like women are really underrepresented here? I think I've heard the names of two women so far, in spite of the fact that there are a number of women who would be qualified for cabinet positions that women have never held. I've also heard the argument that Obama doesn't have to concern himself with the diversity of his staff and cabinet since his presidency is already so historic, but this sounds like BS to me. Has anybody heard of other women who might be under consideration? And what do you think about this argument that he doesn't have to worry about diversity?

Tonight I find myself sitting here on what has been a fairly normal Monday, crying. It is unnerving and unexpected, but not entirely surprising.

For almost a week now, I have remained largely numb as a result of the 2008 election cycle. This country did something extraordinary, inspiring and oh-so needed in electing Barack Obama to become the 44th President of the United States . In a country where he would have once been considered property, where his parents’ relationship would once have been illegal, where he and Vice President-Elect Joe Biden would once have not been able to sit next to each other on a bus or take a drink from the same water fountain—where still today people believe he should die because of his name and the color of his skin—he is now the leader. He has shattered what was (arguably) the last ceiling left for African-Americans to break. Now, almost all doubts among the black youth of America as to their worth has vanished. Now, they can see a bit of themselves in the President of the United States of America, and they know that the American ideal that “Anything is possible,” is actually a reality.

The video and images that have surfaced since Tuesday night absolutely amaze me. In Newark, my friends and I ventured from the apartment building where we watched the results to a predominantly black bar right next door. Several of us have gotten to know the general manager there, and we had to go see her. We had to share our joy with the city of Newark.

Being in that bar gave me an incredible feeling. People were crying; people were hugging; people were celebrating. It was as if our hometown sports team had just won the national championship, only it was all of us that had won. Our country won. Since that night, I’ve discovered that the celebrations in Newark were tame compared to the rest of the world . The celebrations flowed on streets in cities all over the country and all over the world. They celebrated in Kenya, in Australia, in Spain and England. They celebrated in Israel and France. It was as if, with three simple words, this country’s reputation and dignity was reinstated worldwide. Those words were President-Elect Barack Obama.

Obviously, inexplicably mixed with my elation over the presidential landslide , is my complete confusion and devastation from the passage anti-gay marriage amendments in California (Proposition 8), Florida (Proposition 2) and Arizona (Proposition 102). Add Arkansas’s new ban on adoption by non-married couples, and I’m left with even more uncertainty regarding my own standing as an American.

Until last week, I don’t think I’ve ever felt marginalized for being gay. Even having spent 22 years in two of the reddest states in the country, I have never really felt discriminated against, and never felt as though I am any less of a person. Looking back, I think I owe the majority of that credit to my family for being the people they are. I have been incredibly fortunate in that my parents, siblings and extended family are all genuine and loving people. They made my coming out experience exactly what it should be—a complete relief, awkward, joyous and most importantly, painless. After being brought up in that environment, I unconsciously (or perhaps, consciously?) surrounded myself with incredibly fair-minded, loving friends who also accept and love me for exactly the person I am. They don’t simply tolerate me; they love me. To them, I am who I am.

I'm a second year law student and I just attended a presentation at school on "What judicial appointments can you except from an Obama administration"

I expected/hoped that it would be a somewhat unbiased account of the kinds of judges we would see Obama appoint. What it ended up being was an hour of hate-mongering like I have never seen before. Essentially, any liberal judge was bad and any conservative judge was good. Some key choice moments:

1) Discussing how the Burger court "invented the right to an abortion"

2) How certain judges on a short list of possible appointees to the Supreme Court would get confirmed because of their race/gender

3) how "politicized" the nomination and confirmation hearings of Clarence Thomas were

4) that with the kinds of justices Obama wanted to appoint (empathetic), he may as well appoint Oprah

5) how it was improper for Justice Ginsburg to cite the Declaration on the Rights of the Child when deciding whether or not TO EXECUTE CHILDREN

6) how granting gay couples the right to marry would likely lead to polygamy and bestiality

This is all from a supposed legal scholar, not a conservative pundit.

It makes me sad that after everything positive and uplifting that came out of last week, people like this can still get to me.

I found this article today while browsing around, and thought it pretty much sums up my sentiments.

How do I thank thee for running, Sarah Palin? Let me count the ways. I thank thee to the depth and breadth and height my Democratic, Obama-loving, unemployed soul can reach, still exhausted mightily from the interminable weeks of horrific suspense, waiting to find out if what we were witnessing was a monumental comedy or a catastrophic, world-ending horror-movie.

Enjoy!

Just thought everyone would be happy to know that New Hampshire, my state, became the first state in the country to have a majority of women in the legislature. I don't know if it's sad that we're the first, and only now, or just a great thing that women are so well represented in this state-- women from both parties (though we do still have a Democratic majority).

I know on my ballot I had 5 democrat women, one democrat man, and one republican woman as choices for my state-level representatives. Women are finally stepping up and running for public office here. Hopefully other states will soon follow our example.

Are there women to choose from as his Cabinet goes?

Is there a list of women or at least pro feminist men we can send to Obama?

I admit I am not so well informed when it comes to who is qualified to fill the positions.  As a matter of fact, when I saw a picture and read the list, the question did arise, "Are there any women suitable for any of those jobs?"

Or is it going to look like it always has, like a bunch of old white men?

Just another victory for equal rights/recognition from this election.

In Silverton, residents have elected a man who's believed to be the first ever openly transvestite mayor in the history of the United States. And he won in a 13-point landslide... He says he has no interest in becoming transgendered and undergoing sexual reassignment surgery. He just enjoys dressing up like a woman, and is relieved that townsfolk in Silverton have accepted him.

<a href="http://www.620kpoj.com/cc-common/news/sections/newsarticle.html?feed=&article=4544697">Full Story Here</a>

It just made me smile hearing this, this morning.

There's an article in the New York Times about former Gov. Spitzer not being charged for his involvement in a prostitution ring.

“We have determined that there is insufficient evidence to bring charges against Mr. Spitzer,” Mr. Garcia said in the statement. “In light of the policy of the Department of Justice with respect to prostitution offenses and the longstanding practice of this office, as well as Mr. Spitzer’s acceptance of responsibility for his conduct, we have concluded that the public interest would not be further advanced by filing criminal charges in this matter.”

This is not a matter of anything other than elitism and the law. Prostitution is illegal. This man was involved in a prostituion ring. He should be charged. Period. Regardless of one's views on prostitution, we all know that if any of us "regular" people were involved, we'd already be in prison.

As the news that Prop 8 was going to pass was coming in Tuesday night, I began scheming about how to fight this further injustice to my lesbian sister and gay brothers. As a straight person who is currently enjoying the privileges of a legal marriage, I feel like this is a huge setback. My partner and I strongly considered having a civil union or staying unmarried, rather than a marriage, because we did not believe in the religious aspect of marriage. But upon further research, discovered civil unions to be inferior and decided it would just be easier to get married. It was a "civil marriage" in the courthouse of the small town we grew up in.

I could not be more thrilled Barack Obama will be my next president, but in the spirit of thank you Thursday, I did want to take a moment to express my gratitude toward Hillary Clinton. She has endured years of being picked apart by the media, from her headbands to her pantsuits, and insulted from her cackle to her cankles. She ran an awe-inspiring primary race, and made Barack Obama a better candidate. She campaigned for him hard, and helped to make him the next president. And most importantly, she has never been afraid to call herself a feminist. I am sure I was not the only one thinking about her as I walked into the voting booth on Tuesday. Even though she did not win the nomination, Tuesday was a victory for all Americans, and all women, including Hillary.

Just like you, I am happy that we've won. It wasn't a surprise, though - and for that, I'd like to say one thing: can we please stop this rhetoric of working together with the conservative Republicans and reaching out to them?

When are we liberals going to stop being so idealistic and naive in thinking that we ought to "reach out" to the other side? Remember being children and playing in the sandbox? There were a lot of kids who didn't want to share their toys - and we were better off playing with each other rather than sharing with them - and guess what? Because we had more toys, we could afford to play by themselves. The same applies here. We have the power - and we shouldn't be thinking about sharing it.

I'm a British lass, and over here there's not much talk of libertarianism. I consider myself a liberal, and hadn't heard of libertarianism till about a year ago, but when I did I gathered it was seen as a pretty bad thing. There seems to be a lot of hostility towards it from all sides, and so I wanted to actually find out what it was.

The dictionary said this:

-noun 1. a person who advocates liberty, esp. with regard to thought or conduct.
2. a person who maintains the doctrine of free will (distinguished from necessitarian ).

Well, I believe that we should make our own choices, and I believe in liberty, hence why I'm a liberal. Does that make me libertarian? Still, from the media I seem to gather that it means 'someone who does not wish to identify as liberal or conservative'. Still, I'm not sure what's wrong with that. Am I missing something here? What is the deal with libertarianism and why do some consider it incompatible with liberalism and feminism?

I am writing this in my response to the hundreds of responses to the elcection that I have seen via Facebook. As many of you may know, Facebook has a feature called "status" where users basically update the world on their lives. They range anywhere from "So-and-so has a headache" to "So-and-so can't wait to see his/her bf/gf" to "So-and-so is [insert random lyrics here]." Seems pretty frivilous and harmless, right?

However, as of last night, I have seen some pretty hateful things posted on Facebook in regards to the election. I myself am very excited about the outcome of the election (hence my status: "Lauren is sooooooooo happy!!!!!!!!!"). The comments I have seen are racist, ignorant, and unpatriotic.

Now I am all for freedom of speech and expression, but where do we draw the line?

Its amazing. We have our first African-American president. I wanted Obama to win, I asked people to go out and vote, I tried to get out his name and his policies to everyone. Last night history was made. I will always remember exactly where I was when I heard them announce it. I was glued to my television all day long, the moment I woke up I tuned into MSNBC and didnt change it all day. I was on the edge of my seat as the votes slowly started to poor in. I jumped for joy when he won PA. I high-fived my father when he took Ohio. I even shed a tear when I heard the man speak. This was a win for the people. The great thing about this is its shared by us all. Not just the blacks, but the entire nation. People of every age and ethnicity can celebrate this victory. I really do have hope and faith in American democracy again. Im proud that the new generation is waking up and having their voices heard. And I think Im actually proud to be American. My six year old brother is going to grow up with less hate and racial prejudice in the world. With that said, last night was also bittersweet. Prop 8 was passed. Last night law abiding, tax paying citizens were stripped of their rights. Their basic human, civil rights. Prop 2 passed, which prohibited the inhumane treatment of animals. So basically what is being said is that animals rights are more important than those of our fellow humans. Prop 4 didnt pass, which also puts a smile on my face. You have to take the good with the bad. But I have hope, I can feel the hope. I know the odds are against him, I know he's got a shit-ton of problems facing him but I believe in him. The nation isnt going to be changed over night, and Ive already encountered my fair shair of "NOBAMA'S!" and "Fuck this Im moving to Canada!" but this isnt gunna rain on my parade, in fact it makes me just a little bit happier than in 10, 20, 50, hell even 100 years this is going to help to make the world a more peaceful place. Its a sign that all of that ignorance isnt going to be tolerated anymore. We've finally began to move on.

At least according to a floor-mate in my college dorm.

This girl on my floor had a lot of comics and signs up letting everyone know she was Republican weeks before the election. I saw on her white board on her door today someone had written "How do you like the turnout of the election?" (I have a "victory!!" sign on my door with a picture of Obama, and it's right across the hall from the bathroom, so I'm guessing she noticed.) She drew an arrow to the message on her whiteboard saying, and I quote:

"This is why I'm republican. We are classy and don't rub it in people's faces."

Ha. I laughed. Sure, she didn't rub her victory in anyone's face (because she didn't have a victory to rub in anyone's face, which doesn't mean she would have had McCain won,) but republicans? Classy? Forget for a minute that republicans around the country used the 'classy' methods of fear, racism, sexism, lies, and smears to get people to not vote democrat for a second.  Let me explain the cartoons on her door.

One was a man with Obama across a table from him. The man said he hated America, wanted to bomb it, loved terrorists, etc. He asked Obama what he thought, and Obama said "Will you baptize my children?"  The second one was a picture of Obama's head on Steve Carrell's body in the 40 Year Old Virgin poster. It talked about how he wasn't ready to lead yadda yadda. The third was a man giving halloween candy to children, but he said "I'm going to take your candy and give it to children who are too lazy to go trick-or-treating themselves!" with the children replying "Oh no, a democrat." Yeah. Real classy.

I live in New Orleans. As you probably know, Louisiana is a Republican stronghold and has been for years. I myself belong to no party but I passionately believed in Obama. Even though my vote "didn't count" in the way of giving Obama electoral college votes, I voted for much different reasons.

I voted today to remind LA that change is possible. Here in Nola, we sometimes forget that as so little seems to change in the world around us.

I voted because it was a way to say to LA that I respect myself and every other woman on the planet enough to let the female population make their own choices in regards to bodily autonomy.

I voted so that I could tell my nieces and nephews that this country really can represent everyone.

I voted because I believe that Obama can bring a new viewpoint to the government, a viewpoint and an experience that we desperatly need.

I want to remember this day as the day that the American Dream came true. Not the dream of owning a home or a business, but the dream of possibility and promise that made my ancestors come here in the first place.

I want to remember this day as the day that the United States began to redeem itself, both in the eyes of the world and in the eyes of our own people.

This is the day that we've waited for. Let's remember this day.

Last night after they called it for Obama, I immediately logged onto Facebook to see what the multitudes of Conservatives were saying abotu the outcome. I knew people would be upset, but some of the things I read were downright shocking and scary. There are people out there (people I know!) that are so racist and...well, redneck...that they can't get past the fact that an African-American was elected President. The following list is a compilation of Facebook status updates that popped up after the election was called. Prepare yourself, because this is scary to think that conservatives in Arkansas are actually thinking this kind of garbage. With this response to Obama, and with the passing of Act 1, I am completely embarrassed and ashamed to be from Arkansas. At least Pulaski County and Little Rock (where I vote) voted FOR Obama and AGAINST Act 1.Here's the status updates my friends and I found:

In the interest of full disclosure, I used to write. I used to write a lot.

Now I read, and wish I could still write, but too often for reasons I won't get into here I find myself paralyzed by the fear that what I write is simply not worth reading. Paralyzed as in, the words are in my head, but my fingers will not move to type them.

But my writers' block is not what this post is about, at least not directly.

Today is different though. As I scour the internet for something else to feed my hungry brain on the morning after a night that can best be described as indescribable, I find myself coming up short. I can't find a blog post,  video or news story that captures what's going on inside of me, that captures the pure joyful and energy coursing through my veins.

• South Dakota abortion ban. Failed.
• Colorado Personhood amendment. Failed.
• California Proposition 8 (gay marriage ban). Results not yet in, but it looks like it's passing with 92 percent of precincts reporting. Florida amendment 2 (gay marriage ban). Passed.
• Check out NARAL's round-up of winning pro-choice candidates.

I regret to inform everyone that Act 1 in Arkansas passed tonight. That means that only married couples can adopt children in Arkansas, or become foster parents. This really makes me sick to my stomach, and I am ashamed of all of the people in Arkansas who voted for this. 

There are a lot of people and organizations to thank today.

Obviously we need to thank George W. Bush and Dick Cheney for being so abysmal these last terms, that an African American could get elected. Of course this African American man is so extraordinary, we like to believe, he would have won against any republican but the reality is his mother, grandparents, education and spectacular community organizing set him apart from women and men of any color. I hope people will see that true community organizing imparts to the community members that they themselves are valuable. If someone bad-mouths community organizers, it means they do not value communities or their individuals.

ABC news reports that the New Yorked-based ad agency, Grey Group, created the ad and has been posting it around NYC since yesterday.

I'm still processing my feelings towards the ad, but my knee-jerk reaction is that it rubbed me the wrong way. For me, race is an important issue. It's not the reason I would support a candidate, but I don't think the answer is to ignore it completely. The issue of race is a big deal in the United States and though we would all like to live in a world where race does not divide or descriminiate, ads like this only trivialize the complexities of the issue. You can't ask Americans to ignore race during an election when they are confroted by it in every other aspect of their lives. Why couldn't the ad ask for equality for all or demand that racism end? Racism and issues of race are not exclusive to presidential elections.

When you hear about broken voting machines, long lines, douchebags leaving flyers on car windows saying voters will be arrested for unpaid parking tickets, robocalls about people's religions, hatred, racism, and fear watch this video. Remember America is made up of people who will stand in line all day and all night to vote, who will check ballads by hand, and recheck them, by watchdog bipartisan groups, and it is made up of people like you and me who want with all of our hearts to wake up to America we can be proud of tomorrow morning.

Yes We Can.

By any measure, today's election is unlike any in a generation. It's a very emotional moment for all of us who remember strings of events, over years, that led up to today. We've collected thoughts from some of the women who camw together, three years ago, to form Women's Voices for Change. We hope that you'll let us know, in comments, what you're thinking and feeling,  and what you hope the next stage will look like.

Faith Childs: It is said that the victor names the age.  We are standing on the edge of an era that will be named.  What that name is, none of us knows at this moment, but we will know it in our lifetimes.  Unlike other periods in American history where historians look backward to interpret and to designate, each of us will know the name of this age.   Certainly what happens tomorrow will represent a new beginning, one more representative of the values we espouse but rarely embody.

Don't forget to vote.

With Respect,

Naomi

Let's rewind a little.

Think back eight years ago. How old were you? I realized that, eight years ago, that I had my birthday. That's right. My birthday happened when Bush got elected in 2000.

This seems like a pretty simple fact -- duh Bush has been in office for eight years - but think about it. There is an entire generation that is casting their votes for the first time that have grown up under the policies of the Bush administration. We have seen No Child Left Behind fail first hand in our high schools. We have seen our siblings, our friends, and finally ourselves take out ridiculous loans that will put us in debt, maybe literally, for the rest of our lives to go to college. We have seen the Bush administration attack the rights of women, minorities, and pretty much everyone's rights but those who are rich, male, and white.

But, let's not forgot 9/11. Yes, it was the rallying cry for the Bush administration to start two wars, but ignoring that so many people died that day is what is really unpatriotic. I'm not asking for sanctification, but I am going to say that I was thirteen when it happened. That memory will always be in the minds of my generation because everything changed for us that day. Our friends and family went to Afghanistan and Iraq because the Bush administration was able to use the fear from 9/11 and do whatever they pleased. And what they did was start two wars that killed our friends and family members abroad and burdened those left at home as the economy began to degrade. Let's not forget how, when my friends started to turn eighteen, I began to fear that Bush would reinstate the draft because it wasn't already enough that my friends in the army, navy, and the marines were risking their lives needlessly in a pointless war.

And we won't forget Katrina. The rug was pulled out from under the feet of the Bush administration the day that Katrina hit. Whatever card house they had left standing toppled. Now, they couldn't deal with a national disaster along with the fact that they couldn't deal with a national crisis. Many of us wanted to skip school and help the people along the Gulf Coast region, and some of us left with parents or organizations to help clean up New Orleans. The Asian tsunami had felt so far away, but Katrina hit home. The images, the stories, and the humbling disaster made us see again the incompetency of our government.

And now, is there any wonder that the youth have come out in such large numbers to vote? I'm surprised that this has surprised the national news media. Obama acted as the pied piper and played us the song that we already wanted to hear, and the young people in this country obviously weren't alone in their opinions. My generation has watched eight years of incompetency, and we realize, more than ever, that this is our future. We don't want another eight years of wars, terror, fear, and disaster.

In the end, this is why it scares me when I hear about voter purges. It's going to probably be difficult to vote on many college campuses, especially in battle ground or red states, but please go and vote. Age is irrelevant in that respect. There are plenty of good posts hanging around about where to go in case of voter fraud. Go read them and get the phone numbers of who to call if you witness any illegal practices.

And voting is very much a feminist issue. This election has shown us how sexism, racism, and all the other -isms are alive and well in America. However you personally chose to vote, do not ignore those that have used these tools to undermine their opponents.

And all I have to say is that I hope I wake up, on my twentieth birthday, with Obama as my new president.

Is anyone else bothered by this constant use of "Joe" as the default voter in the McCain/Palin campaign? I watch CNBC at work and I just overheard a pundit refer to "Joe the Investor" add this to "Joe the plumber" and "Joe sixpack". What about Jane? The dependence on male as the default gender by the campaign is blatant and makes me want to vomit a little. It is painful to see an obviously bright female playing by the same old patriarchal male rules in order to get ahead. Does anyone know if Ariel Levy has written anything about Sarah Palin's presence on the ticket?

The Single Issue: Shutting Up the Fundamentalists

We are getting ready to vote in what will hopefully be the first un successfully manipulated presidential election this century, and it’s important to do so without illusions.

We hear that Obama is a socialist. If only! He’s not, and he in fact agrees with McCain on most issues. Let’s not deceive ourselves about what’s at stake here.

There is one issue – and one alone – that makes it worthwhile, perhaps even vital, to ensure that John McCain and his witchcraft-vaccinated sidekick do not make it into the White House: It is high time that we finally kicked these fundamentalist clerics out of the White House.

Domestically, the last eight years have been an all-out war on women, gays, lesbians, transpeople, non-fundamentalists, and anyone who fits in more than one of these categories. We have seen a rapist put in charge of reproductive health at the FDA, seen a judge appointed to the Supreme Court who believes that a man should have the same power over his wife that the law gives him over his minor children, seen the beginning of an offensive against birth control, and we have heard the words “homosexual agenda” so often that we GLBT folks have to wonder whether it isn’t time to actually create one. We have seen the forces of ignorance, superstition, and bigotry attack every facet of our national life, while trying to convince us that it’s the Muslims (the Jews of our time) we should be afraid of.

Want to know what this election means to a real person? A person with a $70,000 student loan debt, a car loan, rent, an "average" income, raising a 17 year old son alone, an hour commute, oil heat and two chronic illnesses? Let me tell you...I live it.

I was hired at $25,000/year as a public education coordinator after receiving my master's degree. I took the job because I'm a single mom who loves her son and is willing to trade off a little higher income for the flexibility of a job that allows me to be at his sporting events, his school events, to be there when he needs me, to spend time with him when he's home on break, and to be able to work and be a mom. Not that a higher paying job is easily available in my field in central coal region PA. In fact, finding a job that utilizes my education and my skills that pays much more than what I make now in this area is pretty tough in this economy. I work a lot of overtime, mostly at night and when my son doesn't have football or hockey games. For instance, I worked this schedule the last three days...Thursday Noon-8, 10 pm to 12midnight, 12 midnight to 4pm (actually 5pm, but I was off the clock at 4) baked muffins for his game from 4-5:30, talked to some clients from 5:30 to 6, drove to the game, watched the game (a fabulous win but that's another blog) waited for him to come out of the locker room at 10 pm, drove back to work, worked from 11:30 pm to 1 pm Saturday afternoon, cleaned my office until 3 and the smart grey mouse made himself known (I'm coming for you mousie), updated my boss on some stuff until 3:40, did a little grocery shopping, came home by 6, and looked around my disastrous house, and fell asleep on the couch before 9 pm. It's 8:30 am Sunday, I said I would volunteer for the Obama campaign at 1, but I might need to cancel, as I start a soul couching class tonight at 6, which was a generous donation by a friend of DVI for me and for me to help others, I can't get to the gym like I need to which was huge stress reliever for me, and something that cost very little to help my mood.

I don't think this has been posted here, but it's great. My friends think Biden shouldn't even have responded seriously to the question, and should have just kept laughing.
Embedded video from CNN Video

Hello everyone

I wanted to mention this story that is on my blog as it relates to making a decision on Prop 8.

Go door-to-door this weekend to make sure Rochester elects pro-choice candidate, Rick Dollinger to the State Senate. We are only a week away!  Please check out the dates below and RSVP to Lalena at lhoward@prochoiceny.org

Sat. 11/1 - 5-8pm
Sun. 11/2 - 5-8pm
Mon. 11/3 - 5-8pm
Tue. 11/4 - 3 hour shifts all day

We will meet at 1150 University Ave. (near Blockbuster) Go all the way to the back of the building. RSVP to Lalena at lhoward@prochoiceny.org or call Kim at 585-360-2624.

Palin Sexism Watch:

I know there's not a lot of love for Palin's policies around here, and with good reason. But policies aside, this woman's trajectory intrigues me.

And this really annoys me on all women's behalf.

Women who are assertive, who know what they want and make known their needs, and who express ideas that don't mesh perfectly with their supervisors' or colleagues'...women who want their own way...we're "divas." (Add to that all Black and selected Latina women, who are Divas apparently by virtue of their ethnic ancestry).

A man who was concerned that his running mate's campaign was portraying him a negative light--and who took actions to correct this--would NOT be called a diva. He'd be called independent-minded and an individual, a leader-not-a-follower.

And quite frankly, Sarah Palin has a whole lot to be pissed about with the McCain campaign.

Normally when someone sends me a completely ridiculous bullshit, faux-political email, I usually just groan and delete.  I received one of these from my mother (if you want the exact "quote" check it out here.).  I was tempted to delete but decided that I wanted to respond.  I forwarded her the Snopes link about the misquote, the context in which the sentence was written and ended it with whole misconception that Muslim=terrorist.

She's always been the one in my life to tell me to be welcoming to all people of all races, ethnicities, sexual orientations, etc. and to get this kind of bullshit chain email just sent me over the edge. 

Does anyone have any better suggestions for how I can repond to emails like these that I receive, or is it better to ignore and delete?

This is not terribly new, but it's very well-put. My favorites:

White privilege is when you can attend four different colleges in six years like Sarah Palin did (one of which you basically failed out of, then returned to after making up some coursework at a community college), and no one questions your intelligence or commitment to achievement, whereas a person of color who did this would be viewed as unfit for college, and probably someone who only got in in the first place because of affirmative action.

White privilege is being able to be a gun enthusiast and not make people immediately scared of you.?

White privilege is being able to make fun of community organizers and the work they do--like, among other things, fight for the right of women to vote, or for civil rights, or the 8-hour workday, or an end to child labor--and people think you're being pithy and tough, but if you merely question the experience of a small town mayor and 18-month governor with no foreign policy expertise beyond a class she took in college and the fact that she lives near Russia, you're somehow being mean, or even sexist.

All I have to say is WHAT THE FUCK! Excuse the overuse my foul language, but I am all the sudden pissed as hell.

Now, to be sure, the National Organization for Women did not endorse Palin - but speaking at a rally, its president, announcing that she is the president of LA NOW, said she personally endorses Palin.

This woman then goes on to say that she worked to get the ERA passed and believes in equal pay for equal work - and that she stands by Palin.

A slave is defined as a person who is seen as a commodity to obtain unfree labor.  Slaves build, produce and serve those in power.  They can be any gender and are found in every history on every continent.  Let there be no mistake, each society progresses and evolves to an epiphany that slavery is no longer moral in their advancing consciousness.

My particular interest is the "slavery" that spans centuries, across cultures, deeply embedded and in many occasions honored as proper; women in slavery to men.  I am NOT stating that this is more or less important than any other.  I am simply stating that this one is my lifelong interest.  In fact, I am refining it even further to be North Americans though I find Gutierrez and Freire of Latin America particularly inspiring in their influence. 

The bottom line, the most fundamental precept in the elimination of slavery is total physical autonomy.  A female who can be held in place by her biology is not in charge of her own destiny.  No one said it better than Simone de Beauvoir.   CEDAW and the UN understand this fully in working to eliminate what is hideously trivialized in its name; ethnic cleansing.  Biology as destiny is unacceptable by any advanced society.

Knowing this unwavering truth has led me to join, with pride, NOW and NWPC.  I have contributed to Planned Parenthood, worked as an Assistant Director of The Orange County Free Clinic and supported only candidates who are pro-choice.  This is not about abortion though abortion is a component.  This is about women owning their bodies, interpreting their consciences, defining their faith, knowing their mind.  This is about equality under the law, within the health system, in the workplace and in all forms of finance and opportunity. 

This current election has been a brilliant moment in the history of the American Women's Movement.  The women, who have been educated in the last 25 years, seem to really grasp the difference between patriarchal power structures which flow from the top ~ down, power to powerless, privilege to poor; and organic, bottom ~ up, center ~ out, natural leadership.  bell hooks teaches us, Paulo Freire writes for us, Margaret Wheatley tells us about this form of leadership in which the leader and the led are all advancing the community at no individuated loss - only communal gain.

Senator Obama speaks to the people who understand this.  Some women's prized loyalty was given to Senator Clinton despite their understanding of the new science of leadership and, when Senator Clinton lost the nomination, made the switch in varying levels of ease.  (I am one of these who went with great reluctance.)  But it is absolute ~ if you believe in choice, in women owning their destiny ~ and you are voting in the national presidential election ~ you will be voting for Obama/Biden; just on the concern for the Supreme Court alone. 

Something very odd is happening in the women's movement.  I first saw it in The Eagle Forum working tirelessly to defeat the ERA.  I drove in crazy again when some anti-choice women bought Susan B. Anthony's house and are attempting to write history to suit their position - proposing that Anthony was anti-choice (which is preposterous).   And yesterday five women who have been public champions of the American Women's Movement, stood on a stage behind an anti-choice politician and gave their endorsement invoking the idea of feminism. 

I spent a lot of time this AM researching their organization The New Agenda.    There is nothing NEW.  You could just as easily be reading the site for The Eagle's Forum extolling the ideas of Phyllis Schlafly.  Women oppressing women.  Women standing on the work of other women.  Women denying women their civil rights, their freedom of choice, their biological autonomy.  These women would not be on that stage were it not for Simone de Beauvoir, Betty Friedan, Gloria Steinem, NOW, NWPC and every man or woman working for freedom, for liberation, for equality. 

They are the old agenda.  They represent the old science of power and money and oppression. 

I blogged at City of Ladies about this pro-America meme that's been circulating around the Republican party.

(I've fixed comments so you don't have to be a member. Check out the blog, we update every other day or so.)

Idaho, just like any state, is a state with no lack of uninformed voters with discriminatory ideas about women, but it is shocking to see such an informed individual being given serious media attention.

Mr. Prolife, as he is known,  legally changed his name from Marvin "Prolife" Richarson in the last year. He was recently featured on a statewide senatorial debate on a major local network. To do this he had to either prove the support of 10% of the population, or receipts worth 10,000 dollars to prove he could adequately fund a campaign.

Just to give you girls a little peak of his ideology:

[originally posted on my blog, but I thought it might be of broader interest here ...]

In one of her letters to the editor of the London Times, militant suffragist Emily Davison makes a critique and a plea that continue to resonate very much for me today ("Women's Work," 22 April 1911, 6G). When a student in one of my writing courses was researching Davison, she came across this piece; I was fascinated. The letter is interesting enough that I've transcribed it in full (with my musings after the text):

Sir--Will you allow me to add a contribution to the correspondence going on in your columns headed "Women's Work"? The mistake which is being made by your correspondent who adopts the nom de plume of "A Woman" is that of arbitrarily labelling certain kinds of work as "women's work," and others as "men's work." She also throws a saddening sidelight on the poor opinion women anti-suffragists entertain of their own sex when she says the phrase "women's work" confers a stigma of inferiority. The real meaning of the women's movement of to-day is that such artificial delimitations are to be swept away. "Woman," for example, asserts that "woman's work means the nurture of the race, the domestic arts, and those other offices which naturally fall to women." But most of us are acquainted with men who take up these so-called feminine pursuits and carry them out as well as, often better than, most women. We know of extremely efficient and highly-paid men cook and chefs; men excel highly in the sartorial art, from the tailor down to the "handy man," who is often a beautiful sewer and knitter; some of the gentlest and best nurses are men, especially in hot climes [?].

First time poster, hopefully it works!

I am in love with this Olbermann interview. The guy was dead on with the whole "Joe the Plumber" thing, which I quite frankly was sick of the first 2 times I heard the name.

Take note how he mentions white guys are supposed to represent Americans : )

I just watched the video of Colin Powell endorsing Obama, and one of the things that struck me was his emphasis on Obama's intellectual curiosity and vigor.  I've been inwardly seething these past few weeks every time Palin and her buddies engaged in more "elite bashing."  Why doesn't anyone confront her (and the rest of the Republicans who tacitly approve) on this?  I want to hear her explain exactly what's wrong with being intelligent and well-informed.  I want somebody to point out to her that not everyone who is well-educated is "elite," if that means "born into privilege and out of touch with the real world."  Many of us went to those "elite" colleges on scholarships and fellowships.  Many of us make less money than she does.  In fact, some of us think that it's important for every citizen in a democracy to be well-informed, regardless of whether they got to go to college or not.

Then there’s the disturbing theme of taking pride in your ignorance, even as you attempt to become the next vice president.   But it’s one thing to take pride in your ignorance and another thing to make it into a protected status, like race or gender.  She can trash-talk those of us who are well-informed all day, but if I make a comment suggesting that she’s provincial and narrow-minded or redneckish then I’ll be shamed for being "classist" or "coastist" (even though Alaska is on the coast last time I looked…).

Look, I’m not much for name-calling.  I just wish it worked both ways.   

What makes me sick about John McCain's and Sarah Palin's invocations of Joe the Plumber and Joe Six Pack is not the ad nauseum repetitions of these caricatures on the stump and at the third presidential debate, however much of a headache they give me. Rather, it is the use of the same gendered, and racialized stereotype to symbolize the typical middle-class American: both Joe the Plumber and Joe Six Pack are white men, who are presumably middle aged, are the heads their traditional, nuclear families, and enjoy the occasional bottle of beer and Sunday football game.

Move over Tom Brokaw and Bob Schieffer. I vote David Letterman for the next presidential election debate moderator. The late night talk show host asked the Republican presidential hopeful last night the kinds of pointed questions that the media seems hesitant to even allude to. Shakesville has a good discussion on the Ayers-Keating probes, but I want to focus just on his examination of Sarah Palin.

DL: Certainly created a lot of attention that the campaigns had not had before. And the question is, if she had been a man, would you also have selected him as a man?

JM: Yes, because I believe that Sarah Palin is a reformer. She's the most popular governor in the United States of America. She gave her taxpayers back money. She negotiated a $40 billion natural gas pipeline deal and confronted the big oil companies when she did it. She's been a member of the PTA, the city council, the mayor and a governor. And I am very honored to know her and her family. She has - by the way, her husband, Todd, is a four-time champion of a race of 2000 miles across Alaska in the dead of winter. Amazing person. His grandmother is a native Alaskan. In one of his races, he broke his arm and continued the race for 250 more miles. It's just a wonderful family. And they have a very special child and I'm very proud of them. So I'm very proud to have Sarah with me and I think she has energized our ticket and energized a lot of Americans.

If you've been following the US presidential election you would have noticed this campaign's typical voter. The Democrats have Joe the Plumber, the Republicans Joe Six-Pack. The idea of Joe is to connect the candidates with the voters. It is a way for the candidates to say, "Yes, I really do care about the average American." That average American is the blue collar worker who is presented as the backbone of society.

Joe Six-Pack is an obvious creation by the Republicans, not a real person. But Joe the Plumber is purported to be a real person, someone named Joe that Barack Obama met on the campaign trail, and who also happens to be a plumber. I doubt Joe the Plumber is a real person, and that he is really an amalgam of people that Obama has met on the trail. But if he is real, I wonder how he feels about being a proxy for 'all Americans'. Does he care that he is no longer an individual, with real concerns. Or does he not mind that he has become an idea, relegated to the position of proxy.

Sorry I'm stating the obvious, but something was missing from that debate.

All the fuss about "Joe the Plumber," but no one seems concerned with "JoAnne, the Plumber's Receptionist." (Let's just fictionalize "Joe" for argument's sake, as I do not wish to assume what he, personally, would do if he were able to buy the business he wants.)

The candidates fussed over details of just how much money "Joe" would have to make before his taxes would increase. (I believe under Obama's plan, it was around 250k per year.) If "Joe's" business is booming, he may have to hire a receptionist to handle the phones, set up appointments. Forgive the gender stereotyping, but most receptionists I know are women -- of course, they are women with real bills to pay, just like "Joe."
The minimum wage in Ohio is $7 per hour. A quick Google indicates a receptionist in Ohio might earn more like $9 or $10 per hour.

If working full-time, $10 per hour will gross you $20,000 per year.

How will "JoAnne the Receptionist" save for a down payment on a house? Pay off student loans? Support her children? How will she pay her medical bills if she gets sick? McCain's 5,000 bucks he wants to provide for health care will be gone after one or two tests.

McCain's answer on abortion really pissed me off. First of all, there's the mendacity of saying "I'd never impose a litmus test on my nominees; I only care if they're qualified." and then following it up with "I don't think anyone who thinks Roe v. Wade was decided properly is qualified to be on the Supreme Court" is stunning.

But, really, is there any gesture more telling than McCain's snide air quotes around the phrase "health of the mother"?

Yesterday, I got four members of the leadership at Women's Voices for Change to  do something they'd never done before. I'd had high hopes, but they exceeded my expectations. They were smart, funny and to the point -- with less of the horse race and more about the passionate need for clarity.

Check it out, starting maybe with this on health care . You won't regret it. 

Have all you Californians seen these and passed them on to all of your friends and family?

No? Well, here you go!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7tEKK6La6pk

and

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mUlQPnUUGU0

Funny and smart!

The Republican War Against Women by Tanya Melich is not new, but I'm just now reading it and it's surprisingly interesting and relevant to the current presidential campaign. I had always been vaguely aware that there was some big historical shift in the ideology of the parties, but didn't know exactly when and how it happened. Like I knew that the Republican party was the one that supported women's suffrage and that back in Lincoln's day the Republican party was quite different than it is in my lifetime. So this book takes you through the changes in the party from the 60s through the 90s in a really clear and easy to read narrative style. History is really not my thing, but I'd read more of it if it was written like this.

Melich was both a feminist and an activist and delegate in the Republican party until sometime in the 90s. She explains how the party deliberately and openly chose to become more and more extreme, less tolerant, less inclusive, etc as a political strategy with no regard for the implications of the new policies and the consequences they would have in real women's lives. I'm only about 3 chapters in, but I'd definitely recommend this book. Incidentally, it's given me a whole new view of Pat Buchanan, who shows up on the fabulous Rachel Maddow Show quite often. It's not that surprising, but he's quite a bit worse than I thought he was.

I heard something so infuriating this morning on my way to work that when I screamed my frustration I almost lost my voice.

On NPR's Morning Edition, reporters were interviewing residents of a county in Indiana, where they have accurately predicted all but two presidential winners since the mid-1800's.  One woman interviewed said that she's a Republican who voted for W. the last two elections but is now voting for Obama.  Yea!

Now for the frustrating part.  She wasn't sure about voting for him because of his stance on abortion.  Because she's a good Christian woman...blah blah.  At this point she lost me and I shut off the radio.

Here is a man who can get us out of the hellhole that the previous administration got us in: economy, war, sustainability, etc.  And this woman is really saying that she thought about not voting for him because of his stance on abortion.  Seriously? 

Is she saying that if a scientist developed a cure for all cancer but that he believed in abortion that she wouldn't want the government to fund him? 

*hitting my head against a wall*

On October 1st, a group of independent filmmakers decided to really investigate Sarah Palin. They call their work the Wasilla Project and the first short video was released today. It addresses the heinous policy of making rape victims pay for their own rape kits. (potential triggering content in the video) I think it's great that people that actually worked with Palin are talking about her inadequacies as well as her anti-woman policies. An article on AlterNet says that there this is the first of a four part series so get excited!

P.S. In the video, it says that she redecorated her office more than once?! Wtf!

I know this is a little late, but this has been weighing heavily on my mind. Sarah Palin makes me cringe every time I hear her speak. It is not just because she's a republican and I don't agree with many (ok none) of her political views. She makes me sick because she doesn't have any of her own ideas. Sarah Palin is simply John McCain's puppet. She's a robot. It became quite clear during her appearances with Katie Couric and Charles Gibson that she really doesn't understand what she should say or believe, because she doesn't understand republican ideology. That ignorance is seriously demeaning to women because she makes it seem like women aren't as competent as men in the political arena. In the hip hop community, she is what we would call a "hype man" like Flava Flav.

This article at Miller-McCune is kind of interesting. An excerpt:

"A former Clinton strategist and Democratic pollster predicted to Politico that women would be "the absolute swing vote in this campaign, and it's not clear which direction they are going to go in."

But history and research tell us two things about women voters -- there is really no such thing as "the woman's vote," as a monolithic bloc, and women voters in America have wielded less collective influence than the media have ascribed to them. If there really are such creatures as Soccer Moms, Hockey Moms, Wal-Mart Moms or Security Moms, they may be elbow-deep in politics at the school-board level, but they have rarely been responsible for choosing our president."

What do you think?

Ron Elving in “Palin Proves Worthy of Her (Current) Role” posted at NPR. evaluates Palin’s debate performance and declares her worthy of her current role as the Republican Vice Presidential candidate.  He describes Biden as “a man in his mid-60s” and Palin as “clearly two decades younger and, it must be said, strikingly attractive for a governor of any state.”

If you equate age with experience, I suppose a comparison of the candidates’ age is a fair criteria to consider.  This can be achieved by simply noting that Palin is in her mid 40s or that Palin is two decades younger than Biden.  However, Elving’s sexist comment, doesn’t merely state the age difference between the candidates, he goes on to offer his irrelevant appraisal of her physical appearance. 

The adverb “clearly” immediately raises my feminist hackles, as it suggests that Palin appears more youthful than Biden.  Why does Elvin feel it must be said that Palin is strikingly attractive?  And why must his assessment of her looks then be qualified by “for a governor of any state.”? 

Sexist commentary on the physical appearance of female politicians have no place in journalism.  Can Elving support his appraisal of Palin?  Has he rated the attractiveness of all 50 United States governors?  Or was he only comparing the appearance of female governors? 

Reporting that includes inappropriate observations about the attractiveness of candidates, threatens to turn political campaigns involving female candidates into beauty contests.  We must remain vigilant to sexist language in political reporting, and we must protest every infraction.

Contact NPR here.

Today is the last day to register to vote in numerous states, including: Ohio, Kentucky, Washington D.C. Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Indiana, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia.  Whew!  And deadlines are fast approaching for many other states.

If you haven't registered to vote already, you can do so online at Rock the Vote.  Really -- how easy is that!  This is, quite possibly, one of the most important and historic elections in American history.  Make sure your voice is heard and your vote counted. 

Sarah Palin has hit a new low in bastardizing feminism. At a campaign stop Saturday, Palin urged women to vote Republican, invoking a quote by Madeleine Albright - "There's a place in hell reserved for women who don't help other women." She reported reading the quote on the back of a Starbucks cup.

To be sure, Palin MISquoted Albright, substituting the word "support" for Albright's "help."
The original quote and Palin's distortion mean two very different things in a political context. In Palin's, any woman who does not vote for the McCain/Palin ticket is going to hell. In Albright's, women like Palin are going to hell.

A woman's not providing rape kits for rape victims, if it was in her power to do so, could be construed as failing to help said victims. A woman's not supporting other women's reproductive freedom could be construed as a failing to help women. A woman's opposition to equal pay could be construed as a failure to help women.

Suggesting that female voters who don't vote for the Republican ticket in the presidential election will face eternal damnation? Well that's A-OK in Palin's book. The woman's disdain for other women is mind-blowing.

And in typical Palin style, her implication makes no sense, as had Albright's quote meant what she claims it does, all women (including Palin) should have supported Hillary Clinton's candidacy, and should support Green Party candidate Cynthia McKinney in November. Apparently, Palin wants to be the only female politician to benefit from "sisterhood," as she sees it.

Palin needs to keep Madeleine Albright's name out of her mouth. And stop getting her news from the back of Starbucks cups. Starbucks is for latte-sipping liberal elitists anyway.

As if I needed another reason to roll my eyes at this woman.

Addressing a crowd at a rally in California yesterday, Gov. Sarah Palin served us lady-folk a "providential" ultimatum. From the article :

"I'm reading on my Starbucks mocha cup, ok? The quote of the day... It was Madeleine Albright, former Secretary of State [crowd boos] and UN ambassador. ... Now she said it, I didn't. She said, 'There's a place in Hell reserved for women who don't support other women.'"

Nevermind that Albright never said that, or that the real quote is "There's a place in hell for women who don't help other women", or that a vote in support of Mrs. Palin would probably hurt other women... but what is this folksy hockey mom doing drinking Starbucks? Doesn't she know that's elitest?!

Anyway, here's the video:

Please, fellow feminists. Discuss. Oh, and don't even get me STARTED on that glass ceiling bulls**t.

The last eight