October 2004 Archives
Do you ever wonder what hate-monger evangelicals do on Halloween? Apparently, they have turned it into a tool for proselytizing…
This year, for the 33rd year, students at Jerry Falwell’s “Liberty” University (it is an accredited institution…but I think the quotation marks are appropriate) put on a show called “Scaremare”, an elaborate performance described by the Washington Post as part haunted house, part sermon. Visitors are led into an abandoned orphanage with graphic demonstrations of what hell is like and who "deserves" to be there. These interactive scenes include women who have had abortions and gay men who have died of AIDS. No, I'm not kidding. (I wonder if they've made room for the feminists yet).
Apparently this is but one of a growing number of staged performances in this vein throughout the country. This year, more than 20,000 visitors from around the country have come to Falwell-U for the event. Even scarier is the fact that “Scaremare” falls within the more “moderate” end of the evangelical haunted house spectrum. Two companies that sell "how-to" kits for these fucked up haunted houses include scripts, detailed suggestions on music, costumes and props -- including how to select the best cut of meat to depict an aborted fetus.
A professor at Falwell’s Liberty University explains the "philosophy" behind Scaremare: "There's no question that people need to fear what is their eternal destiny… So here's the objective truth about hell..." Oh yeah, this sounds *real* objective.
According to organizers, these events have been very effective in converting people. One estimated that he had converted over 13,000 people since 1996! While this is shocking on a certain level, it seems appropriate in some ways: fear is, after all, the preferred means of the Right.
For the record, not everyone is so enthusiastic about this fire and brimstone approach. Rev. Eileen Lindner of the National Council of Churches USA argues that: "Education doesn't take its best root through fear and intimidation… That's not only not the best way to teach the Gospel's lesson of love; it's incompatible with the Gospel's lesson of love."
Hmmmm...maybe I'll go out treak-or-treating as Jerry Fallwell tonight. Now THAT would be really scary.
--Contributed by Brendan Sweeney
In Ruth Rosen's latest piece for The Nation, she discusses Women Really On Their Own--i.e. single women voters. While it has effectively been drilled into our heads that 22 million single women didn't vote in the last election, Rosen explores the impact that "single" status is having on the vote. Her conclusion--"Memo to politicians and the political parties: The difference between married and unmarried women's political views is greater and more decisive than the gender gap." (sigh). It turns out that there is a *huge* difference in how the single gal and married gal votes.
Recent polling data from Democracy Corps, found that single women favor Kerry over Bush by almost 26%, while married women prefer Bush over Kerry by 2%. Ugh. And a National Annenberg Election Survey taken in July found that out of 1,641 adults polled, 55% of married women supported Bush's job in the White House, while only 43% of single women approved. The poll found a similar "marriage gap" among women on questions of Bush’s handling of the economy, the war on terrorism and the war in Iraq. When respondents were asked about abortion, 28% of married women said they strongly favor banning all abortion compared with 19% of single women. While both of those numbers scare me, that's a *big* gap.
Adam Clymer, political director of the survey, hypothesized that single respondents were more negative towards Bush because they tend to have lower incomes and be younger. Rosen also chalks up the gap to greater economic security among married women. Is it really that simple, though? If I slip on a wedding ring and become privy to an economic bump up, will I suddenly fall *that* out of touch? I'm sorry, but I don't understand how a walk down the aisle would suddenly land me in bed with the Bush regime. (sigh).
Rosen also notes that for all of the discussion of the Sex and the City voter at the start of the election season, neither candidate has really done much to reach out to single women. "Instead of addressing the everyday security needs of "women on their own," both candidates pandered to (largely married) "security moms" who were supposedly obsessed by the prospect of terrorist attacks...True, John Kerry and John Edwards went on talk shows popular with women, but they talked about how they would fight terrorism. And yes, Bush's website has a section called "W Stands for Women," but it does not address concerns these women view as critical to their lives. It was only during the last few weeks of the campaign that Kerry rolled out a new stump speech that directly addressed women's economic security."
Chris Desser, co-director of Women's Voices. Women Vote, notes that, "[N]early one-third of unmarried women polled said their main reason for not voting is that they believe their lives will not improve, no matter who is elected." While there are undoubtedly many *very* strong economic & reproductive rights arguments for how Kerry will substantially impact the lives of women if elected, it's a shame that we're nearing the eve of the election and finding that Kerry hasn't made a strong enough pitch to inspire the potential mass of young, single women voters.
Come on, I'm looking for your thoughts. Like, why do *you* think there is such a big "marriage gap" among the ladies? And how inspired do you feel about stepping into the voter's box on Tuesday? Other thoughts?
So in the spirit of the holiday, Feministing wants to see your best efforts at feminist and/or political costumes. Send your pics to me, and we’ll feature the best ones on the site on Monday.
Usually I go with a birthday-themed costume (I’ll be officially in my late 20s the day after Halloween…now that’s scary!), but this year I really had go with something election-inspired.
After some serious consideration, I’ve decided to go as a “swinger state” for a Saturday night soiree…So be prepared to see some trashy-ass pictures of me dressed as a 70s-style swinger (think The Ice Storm) with a Hello-My-Name-is-Pennsylvania sticker on. Can’t wait…
So what does everyone have planned?
Freaky shit. This past Tuesday, an 18 year-old Marine recruit in Florida threatened to stab his girlfriend because she was voting for John Kerry. Sounds like a reasonable guy.
Apparently Steven Scott Soper (maybe it was all the alliteration that put him over the edge…) went nutty when his girlfriend told him that not only was she breaking up with him, but she was –gasp!—voting for Kerry for president.
Soper, a strong Bush supporter, told his soon to be ex-girlfriend Stacey Silheira that she would “never live to see the election,” and held her captive with a screwdriver to her neck until police could subdue him.
I see a future with the RNC for this guy. Bringing voter intimidation to a new level…what a go-getter!
Was anyone in Pittsburgh on the 27th? Turns out Gloria Steinem introduced Le Tigre's show at Mr. Small's Theatre. Steinem discussed the political process, especially the importance of voting in the upcoming election. It's amazing that Steinem, second-wave extraordinaire, recognizes the influence music (Le Tigre, Ani Difranco, etc.) has on third wave women. "The ability of music groups of all kinds to go directly to the public without passing through the media is crucial," she recently told Billboard. "People know and trust musicians based on their records and their lyrics. In this age of pretty skewed media, that's precious." Right on.
Yesterday the UN Security Council heard from more than fifty speakers on the perpetuation of gender-based violence in war. Thoraya Obaid, head of the UN Population Fund, chastised the counsel for not implementing programs that would provide protection to women in conflict areas.
"From Afghanistan to Liberia, from Colombia to the Democratic Republic of the Congo, from Burundi to Darfur -- the list goes on and on -- women and girls, and even men and boys, are being subject to sexual violence, torture and slavery that defy the imagination and bring into sharp focus the cruelty that human beings can inflict on each other. It is truly sad, and terribly angering, to see the tremendous needs. But it is even more shocking to witness the response so far, which remains completely inadequate."
What actions could the UN take to provide a more adequate response? Well, I think Undersecretary-General for Peacekeeping Jean-Marie Guehenno was on the right track when he disparagingly noted that, "women constitute only 1 percent of military personnel in U.N. peacekeeping operations, and peace processes and negotiations remain overwhelmingly male-dominated arenas.'' In fact, out of the 27 U.N. special representatives in charge of U.N. peace operations, only two are women. While I don't believe that placing women in these positions of power would necessarily change the landscape of the problem, it *is* a step in the right direction.
Intensely disturbing is Guehenno's observation that *this year alone* in the Congolese city of Bunia, 70 allegations of sexual exploitation and abuse were made against U.N. peacekeeping personnel. Until the UN deals with the issue of sexual assault among its "peacekeepers", I'm hard-pressed to understand how it can "protect" women from more systemic forms sexual violence. (sigh). Thoughts?
Check out Jessica's piece on What's (not) being done in the Sudan for more discussion on violence against women as a war crime.
We may not all be big fans of Eminem, but I do think this is a pretty incredible video and would love to know what y’all think of it.
The question is: Clearly Eminem has been continually and unabashadly misogynist, and has promoted violence against women. Should feminists embrace this video, that I’m sure will be extremely popular in the days to come before the election because of its potential political power? Should we push aside our opinions about Eminem?
Before you get going, make sure to read Echidne's excellent take on the issue.
I’m open for comments...
Now was that so hard? I think not.
But the folks at the Chicago Tribune disagree. Because of a last-minute freak out over the contentious c-word, editors were running around like maniacs pulling out the Women’s News section from their Wednesday papers.
The Tribune had originally planned to run an article, “You c-nt say that (or can you?),” which discussed “cunt” and whether the word was becoming more acceptable.
Instead of the intended article, which was written by freelancer Lisa Bertagnoli, the Tribune ran a piece about military widows. This only reached readers in the city however; those in suburban areas didn’t get the Women’s News section at all.
The weirdest thing about this story (at least to me), is that Bertagnoli never even uses the word cunt! But apparently because she hints at it by “providing words it rhymes with and making its anatomical reference clear,” it was offending enough.
So it’s not just the word that the Tribune folks find offensive…even the idea of cunt is too much!
I know that people have pretty divergent thoughts on this, but how does removing an article that is simply attempting to open some dialogue serve anyone?
It looks like we have some voters for Bush outside of the U.S., and they seem to have the right idea. Readers of a British magazine have rated President Bush as thus year’s top screen villain for his appearance in Michael Moore’s documentary, “Fahrenheit 9/11.” So while Laura's winning votes for her cookies, her hubby's winning his own votes for being evil. I love it.
Bush beat a handful of other nominees, including Doctor Octopus in “Spiderman 2,” Leatherface in the “Texas Chainsaw Massacre,” Gollum from “Lord of the Rings” and Darryl Hannah’s character, Elle Driver, in “Kill Bill 2.”
Almost 10,000 people voted in the poll conducted by Total Film magazine. For this win, I would have to give Bush a standing ovation.
In an article in the Post-Standard yesterday titled, “Chocolate Chunks Sway Voters," you can only guess what that means. That’s right, it’s a Candidates' Wives Cookie Bake-Off! You have got to be shitting me.
No, unfortunately not. Apparently the newspaper took a poll of Central New Yorkers on their preference between Teresa Heinz Kerry’s pumpkin spice cookies and Laura Bush’s oatmeal chocolate chunk cookies.
“The cookies were educational projects for schools, classes and social agencies. The idea was to have fun and focus on the events of the presidential election. The cookie votes were cast strictly on taste. More than 400 people took the time to let us know what their taste buds selected.”
Wow. I’m all for getting involved in fun ways to “focus on the events of the presidential election," but then why, please, tell me why cookies?? Ugh. I can't think of a worse way to trivialize the two women. Yet I wouldn’t be surprised if Laura was thrilled, especially when she found out that her cookie won the poll. Should we be surprised she won in a bake-off anyway?
As we’ve reported before, there’s only one choice next Tuesday when it comes to equal pay for women.
Women’s Enews took a look at the candidates recently, showing how each one could potentially hurt—or help—their pocketbooks.
The article notes that working women represent almost 65 million votes, yet these women still earn less than men in every state.
The wage gap for women (contested by a freaky few) is still at the very sad 76 cents for every dollar earned by a man.
Women’s Enews author Robin Hindery makes the very good point that despite his W Stands for Women nonsense, Bush “makes no mention of the wage gap in his official platform.” Huh. Imagine that.
Hindery also notes that a raise in the minimum wage—which Kerry has vowed to bring up to $7 per hour—would disproportionately benefit single working mothers. That’s an advantage I could get behind…
What about Bush?
Bush opted not to address the minimum wage issue in the debate, and shifted the conversation instead to the importance of education. He also does not discuss the issue on his campaign Web site.
During his 2000 campaign, Bush told The Associated Press that he supported a $1 increase in the minimum wage, but only if states could opt out. However, he has rejected all wage-increase proposals since being elected.
So ladies, even if you’re not thinking about all the other reasons to vote for Kerry next week, don’t forget about your pocketbooks. Cause I know I can’t afford Bush for another four years.
Because this shit wouldn't even surprise me:
Republicans Urge Minorities To Get Out And Vote On Nov. 3
UPDATE: Check out GOP scared shitless of minority vote at Daily Kos to see why this headline isn't so far off from the truth...
New York mothers who are victims of intimate partner violence can rest a little easier—the state’s highest court ruled yesterday that women should not lose custody of their children because of their partner’s violence.
The Administration for Children’s Services (ACS) in New York City has had a policy of removing children from a home where domestic violence is occurring, even if the children aren’t being physically abused. Domestic Violence groups contend that this policy unfairly punishes the mother for a crime that her partner is committing.
But the Court of Appeals ruled unanimously yesterday that the policy violates state laws, after three abused women who had their children taken away from them under the accusation of neglect filed suit.
But this ruling does not mean that children will simply be left in a home that is potentially dangerous. From the NY Times:
The court formalized specific standards for removing children from homes where domestic abuse occurs, requiring that authorities exhaust alternatives and insisting that the possible threat to the child's health or welfare be imminent…
… the authorities would have to show that the mother was indifferent to the psychological harm that repeated exposure to beatings caused the child in order to justify asking the courts to consider a removal.
I know this is controversial, and that many will feel that children's safety needs to be put first in violent situations. Naturally I agree, but in my experience as an emergency room counselor for victims of domestic violence, I have to say that this is an extremely important ruling. Many women will not report violence for fear that their children will be taken from them. At least now, if a woman knows that her kids can't be automatically removed from the home, she's more likely to seek help—which will benefit her and her children.
From the Sun Sentinel in south Fla.—most disturbing opening paragraph of an article, ever:
First daughters Jenna and Barbara Bush came to Miami on Monday with a new twist on a familiar plea: vote for my dad because he has been good to women.
Yeah, Bush has been great for women. He takes those pesky reproductive rights off your hands, and makes sure that you’re not bothered by the annoyance of things like equal pay and affordable child care. Cause who needs those bothers?!
Jenna went on to say that her dad “is open-minded...He also listens to us and gives us room to develop our own ideas and opinions.” But not your own choices, Jenna. Those are for the men-folk to decide, silly!
Are we really supposed to buy this crap?
In an article in the Post-Standard yesterday titled, “Chocolate Chunks Sway Voters”, you can only guess what that means. That’s right, it’s a Candidate’s Wives Cookie Bake-Off! You have got to be shitting me.
No, unfortunately not. Apparently the newspaper took a poll of Central New Yorkers on their preference between Teresa Heinz Kerry’s pumpkin spice cookies and Laura Bush’s oatmeal chocolate chunk cookies.
“The cookies were educational projects for schools, classes and social agencies. The idea was to have fun and focus on the events of the presidential election. The cookie votes were cast strictly on taste. More than 400 people took the time to let us know what their taste buds selected.”
Wow. I’m all for getting involved in fun ways to “focus on the events of the presidential election”, but then why, please, tell me why cookies?? Ugh. I can't think of a worse way to trivialize the two women. Yet I wouldn’t be surprised if Laura was thrilled, especially when she found out that her cookie won the poll. Should we be surprised she won in a bake-off anyway?
And they just keep coming…
A Japanese-designed condom soon to be on the market has a little added pleasure factor—it vibrates.
Apparently this pulsing prophylactic has a vibrating ring at the base, and is currently being tested before its release. I wonder how one goes about being in that focus group…I want in.
Make sure to check out the NY Times’ piece today on the horror that women in Darfur are going through right now, we well as the argument over whether violence against women is a war crime. Um…Yes. Discussion over.
Seriously though, it never ceases to amaze me how people cannot make the connection between the incredible increase of violence against women and war. How is systematic rape not a war crime?
Violence against women—which is most often, but not limited to, sexual assault—is par for the course when it comes to armed conflict:
Sexual violence has been a tried-and-true way for armed men to sow terror among civilians in wartime, from the Balkans to Colombia and Congo to the genocide in Rwanda. The latter offers a particularly trenchant lesson for Sudan: Ten years later only a handful of allegations of rape have been investigated and prosecuted, according to a recent report by the advocacy group Human Rights Watch.
So what’s being done right now?
UN secretary general Kofi Annan, has appointed a panel to determine “whether the violence in Darfur meets the international legal definition of genocide.” Huh. I’m sure that will be a speedy process.
Click here for a previous Feministing post on women in the Sudan and the semantic argument over “genocide.”
For a comprehensive look at genocide and the United States’ history of involvement (or lack thereof I should say), check out Samantha Power’s book, "A Problem from Hell" : America and the Age of Genocide.
Also, if you haven’t already read Against Our Will : Men, Women, and Rape by Susan Brownmiller, get to it. It’s a little outdated, but her chapters on war and rape are still relevant.
Talk amongst yourselves.
I'll give you a topic.
Is the following offensive, hysterical, effective, dangerous?
http://www.liegirls.com/quicktime.html
Discuss.
In a speech Kerry gave in Nevada this past Friday, he vowed to fight for equal pay for women:
"Today, for far too many women, the American dream seems a million miles away…[women are] working two jobs, three jobs, just to get by - and that's only counting the jobs they're paid for." Nice!
It’s great to see that Kerry is recognizing all of the unpaid labor that women do at home and elsewhere.
Kerry also said that he would raise the minimum wage (from $5.15 to $7 an hour), which would help nine million American women.
And please don’t forget how Kerry got shit about mentioning the wage gap in the last presidential debate. Apparently some people just don’t want to hear the truth…
Not exactly shocking, I know, but ridiculous just the same.
Beliefnet reported recently that the RNC has been employing a “Texas-based activist who believes the United States is a ‘Christian nation’ and the separation of church and state is ‘a myth.’”
Yikes! (Though it does sound right up Bush’s alley…)
David Barton, who founded Wallbuilders, an organization “dedicated to the restoration of the constitutional, moral, and religious foundation on which America was built,” has been speaking at RNC sponsored events for evangelical pastors across the country for about a year. At these events, Barton discusses “America’s Christian heritage,” and tells the pastors that they are allowed to endorse particular candidates from the pulpit. So far, Barton has pulled in $12,000 as a political consultant for the RNC.
Outside of Barton’s scary argument that the separation of church and state needs to go bye-bye, he also gets a little freaky with some education hypotheses:
Barton has said that God influenced his sense of mission. In America: To Pray Or Not To Pray? Barton writes: "In July 1987, God impressed me to do two things. First, I was to search the library and find the date that prayer had been prohibited in public schools. Second, I was to obtain a record of national SAT scores (the academic test given to prospective college-bound high school students) spanning several decades. I didn't know why, but I somehow knew that these two pieces of information would be very important."
As a result, Barton writes that he learned America has declined because of the 1962 and '63 Supreme Court rulings banning school-sponsored prayer. He believes God is angry at the country and has retaliated.
Huh. And to think all this time I thought that bad SAT scores were due to lack of education and resources. Turns out, all I had to do was pray for a high score. Silly me.
This just goes to show you how far the Bush campaign will go, and how they really feel about the separation of church and state. And if you need a friendly reminder of how Bush puts faith above reality, make sure to check out the NY Times Magazine article, Without a Doubt.
According to the Agence France Presse, more than a third of Turkish women think that they deserve to be “beaten if they argue with their husbands, deny them sex or burn the meal.” Holy fucking shit. That is a seriously scary statistic (assuming it’s correct.)
The survey, done by Ankara's Hacettepe University, also said that in rural areas, 57 percent of women said that their husbands had the right to commit violence against them.
At least the study was done because of the concern over domestic violence. The EU—which Turkey wants to join—funded the study along with the Turkish government to address women’s rights.
If you haven’t heard about the amazing movie Vera Drake yet, it’s about time you did. Coming from filmmaker Mike Leigh (who also did Secrets and Lies), Vera Drake is a seriously heart-wrenching movie about abortion in 1950s England. And I mean seriously—bring the tissue box.
I was lucky enough to catch a screening of the movie in New York a couple of weeks ago, where I met Mike Leigh and Imelda Staunton, who plays the title character.
Staunton plays Vera Drake as a kind, selfless, lower-middle-class mother who works as a domestic and in her spare time (for no money), “helps young girls.”
What I found most striking about this movie was its lack of in-your-face politics. It simply told the story of one woman, and through that story made the issue of choice profoundly clear.
Another incredible fact is that much of the movie was improvised:
On a Leigh set, no one knows what his or her character wouldn't know until absolutely necessary. Staunton called one seven-hour improvisation terrifying. She didn't know the police were coming for the character she had become until they arrived at the family's tiny, crowded apartment, where an engagement party for her daughter was underway.
Staunton, speaking about the movie’s political implications said, "I would hope it makes people go out and think about the moral dilemma we all face…There's no religion in the film. There's no politics in the film, per se. It just manages to look at this complex and personal and extremely difficult topic with compassion. . . . [But] the film is saying if it goes back to being illegal, this is what you'll be left with."
The inspiring article in Women's eNews about Florida's Betty Castor and the fight of her political career.
While struggling to win the seat in the U.S. Senate as the first female Democrat and second women ever to be elected by Florida, she challenges her opponent as a supporter of choice and stem-cell research. This article is a must-read!
The BBC reported that British pharmacy Boots is teaming up with condom maker Durex to introduce a line of sex toys to the pharmacy. Women are the drug store's main customerbase, and analysts believe that providing sex toys will provide an additional incentive for women to choose Boots over another pharmacy.
Responding to criticism about the decision, Garry Watts, chief executive of Durex's parent company SSL, notes that: "People are becoming...more open-minded. Products to help people have a healthy and happy love life are much more normal. It is right and proper we should be bringing them to the market via those channels." Whoo-hoo!
While I'm not sure that I'd be willing to give up my selection at Toys in Babeland, it's awesome that the British ladies will get another option.
Boots hopes to have its sex toy line out in time for the winter holidays! Happy holidays ladies!
The Observer has a great story detailing how Bush's hard-line abortion stance is finally beginning to alienate women within his own party. And moderate Republicans are stepping up to discuss what we've known all along--if Bush is re-elected there is a very good chance we may lose our right to choose.
Arizona Republican State Senator, Linda Binder, claims that while she voted for Bush in 2000, she won't be casting a vote for him this time around. Why? "We don't want to go back to coathanger abortions... As legislators, my fellow moderates are feeling the push for more faith-based programs on sex education and contraception coming from the Bush administration." Amen, sister.
Exploring the explosion of government spending on abstinence-until-marriage education, Newsday documents that under the Clinton administration these programs received less than $60 million dollars. Under Bush the regime, abstinence spending has more than doubled to $138 million. Even scarier? He's trying to double *that* number. He recently put in a request for $272 million for abstinence initiatives in the new fiscal year.
The international community isn't immune from his sex education rollbacks either. In 2001, on the anniversary of Roe v Wade, President Bush signed the global gag rule, effectively prohibiting any U.S. money from going to organizations that perform abortions or provide post-abortion counseling. And, if Bush stays in office, "at least one-third of U.S. global AIDS prevention funds must be used for abstinence-until-marriage efforts beginning in 2006." Scary, huh?
I keep praying for more signs of resistance on the right. So far we have the Republicans for Choice and the Republicans for Kerry. How all these votes will add up on election day I'm not sure, but I'm definitely keeping my fingers crossed that this Republican rebellion will gain momentum...Any thoughts?
A new study by the NYC Health Department documents that women are more likely to be killed by an intimate partner than by a stranger. This is particularly true for immigrant women and women of color.
The study focused on the 1030 women killed in NYC between 1995 and 2002. Of those, only 12 were classified as homicides (i.e. committed by a stranger), while "339 were committed by intimate partners, 369 by others, and 322 were unknown." More than 60% were killed in their homes. Women in their 20's and 30's were likely to be killed by intimate partner, while women in their 50's were more likely to be killed by a stranger.
Particularly disturbing were the statistics on immigrant women and women of color in the study.
* 49% of the women killed were black, and they made up 46 percent of those killed by an intimate partner.
* More than a third of the women killed by an intimate partner were Hispanic.
* 50% of the women killed by intimate partners were immigrants.
What does it all mean? Well, the study's conclusion was simply that, "Intimate partner femicide remains a major public health issue in New York City." Yeah, I would say so. While all the post-Giuliania officials like to rattle on about how safe NYC is, this study is a reminder of how "crime-fighting" isn't addressing the needs of a large group of women--particularly women of color and immigrant women.
The Times also interviewed, Carolyn A. Kubitschek, an attorney specializing in domestic violence cases. Discussing a lack of shelter space for DV victims in the Manhattan area, Kubitschek notes that: "One of the big dilemmas is where can these women go. There are still battered women who need a place to go tonight and can't find it."
If you are victim of domestic violence in the NYC area in need of shelter, contact Safe Horizon at 1.800.621.HOPE. For more resources contact the New York State Coalition Against Domestic Violence and check out the Feministing Violence Against Women Resource Page.
Reuters reported yesterday on Kerry's attempts rile up women voters in Wisconsin. He promised to promote equal pay policies and increase the minimum wage ($7 from $5.15) and lashed out at the "false assurances'' of the Bush regime. My favorite quote:
"Before the president complains about his job, he ought to come here and spend the day with you. He might learn something about how, day after day, the women of this country juggle so much with such grace and strength."
While I don't think that Kerry can cure [all of] our economic ails, he will be a *big* improvement. Under the Bush administration the gender wage ratio fall from 76.6 cents to 75.5 cents (relative to a man's dollar earnings), poverty ratios steadily grew and the unemployment rate for women grew 37%. (sigh).
Not to mention that Bush doesn't even promote equal pay among his own staff. As Feministing reported back in July, leaked White House salary figures showed the rampant sex pay discrimination within the Bush administration. Bush women with similar titles and positions earn about 78 percent of what Bush men earn. Wow. Talk about a miserable job...
Kerry summed it up pretty well yesterday: "The women of America can write the future of America if they go to the polls and make their voices heard.'' Considering that more than a million women have lost their jobs under the Bush administration, I would say it's *definitely* in your economic interest to get busy at the poll.
Gloria Steinem, writer and feminist organizer, announced today that she will travel over 1,500 miles in an RV through Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin from October 25th through Election Day. Woohoo!
"I'm taking this action because I've lived through the election of every US President since Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and the fundamental differences in world view between Bush and Kerry make this the most crucial election in my lifetime." says Steinem.
What a kick-ass lady.
For up to the minute information on Gloria's whereabouts, call 1-877-GLO-TOUR (456-8687) or visit www.pfaw-votersalliance.org.
As part of an effort to lower intimate partner violence in the UK, doctors and midwives now must ask pregnant women if they are being abused by their partners during check-ups.
Understanding that violence increases (or begins) during pregnancy, the Department of Health is hoping to implement the policy by next year.
Public Health Minister Melanie Johnson said, “The fact that domestic violence often starts or escalates during pregnancy and is associated with increases in rates of miscarriage, low birth weight, premature birth, fetal injury and fetal death makes for stark reading.”
What Johnson doesn’t say, however, is that there is also a significant increase of risk for the pregnant woman, not just the fetus.
In the United States, pregnant women are more likely to be victims of homicide than to die of any other cause.
Perhaps we should take a policy cue from our British friends…
The Army is considering eliminating the women-in-combat ban as soon as January, The Washington Times reported today.
The Army is in negotiations with Rumsfeld’s staff to see if they can lift the ban—which has been in place for 10 years now. The ban won’t allow women in units that “collocate” with ground combatants.
Using Iraq as an example, Lt. Col. Chris Rodney says in the article that everyone faces similar threats in that all soldiers face attack "by rockets, mortars, roadside bombs and ambushes," and that “there is no front-line threat right now.”
For previous Feministing posts on women in the military, click here, here, and here.
The Associated Press reported yesterday that the same study that showed health risks for women on Hormone Replacement Therapy (HRT) now indicates that the birth control pill is not only safe, but actually cuts women’s risk for heart disease.
The study said that women on the Pill also showed lower risk of stroke, and no increased risk of breast cancer. Nice!
This is great news for the 16 million American women who take birth control pills! The lead researcher of the study, Dr. Rahi Victory, said that for women who have ever taken birth control pills, "there's an 8 percent risk reduction of ever having cardiovascular disease,” and that “if you use oral contraceptives early on, you're probably going to be protected later in life.” Women taking the Pill also had a 7 percent lower risk of getting any form of cancer.
This good news comes from the Women’s Health Initiative, the largest women’s health study ever conducted.
Gotta say, I was mighty pleased to read this. As someone who has been on the Pill for almost 10 years—and was always a little wary about long-term risks—these results put my mind at ease a bit. What is it about Fridays that seem to bring good news?
THE LOVE WIFE
by Gish Jen
(Knopf, September 2004)
If you are like me, one look at this title at your local Barnes & Noble store, and you will walk right by it. Who wants to read a novel titled "THE LOVE WIFE" anyway, as it sounds a little sappy, and not at all very feminist? But alas, this is simply not true. THE LOVE WIFE by Gish Jen is a beautifully written, uniquely told, touching, and oftentimes very funny portrait of a family of mixed American, European, and Chinese heritage. It is in the same vein as Ruth Ozeki's MY YEAR OF MEATS (and for those who haven't read this, I highly recommend it, too.)
The novel is told from the perspective of each of it's uniquely-minded characters. While other books change voices in chapters, THE LOVE WIFE changes voices on each page, so readers feel like they are reading a play and not a book at times. The only difference is that instead of dialogue, readers are getting the true emotions of each character, in addition to dialogue. This set-up is effective in understanding the many colorful characters that line Gish Jen's book. There is Carnegie, the man of the household, who is Chinese, and his predictably stern religious mother Mama Wong. Carnegie is married to the sharply-witted Janie, who everyone calls Blondie (a nickname that Mama Wong created, but this also stuck lovingly for the whole family). Carnegie and Blondie adopt two Asian girls of mixed Chinese ancestry, Wendy and Lizzy (Mama Wong annoyingly calls them 'mutts'), and then later in their life they have Bailey, who is their biological child.
The novel begins with the arrival of Lan, a distant Chinese relative whom Mama Wong has sent to live with the family as their nanny and housekeeper. From the moment Blondie meets her, she doesn't trust her. Lan herself is not sure why she is there, and misses her home and her Chinese culture. Sometimes, she tries to lecture Wendy and Lizzy on the importance of waiting to have sex before marriage, and other ideas about femininity that Blondie often challenges. The clash of cultures, dialogue, and situations feel very authentic, and the plot thickens when Carnegie begins to feel attracted to Lan. Blondie begins to feel that Lan has overstepped her boundaries, not only with her husband, but also with her children. She yearns for her family back, and begins to realize that it might have Mama Wong's intent to bring Lan here to give her grandchildren the Chinese upbringing she felt they needed. But did she also bring Lan there to be her son's other wife? And if that is so, who is the real LOVE WIFE?
Gish Jen is a novelist and short story writer. Her most recent publication is WHO'S IRISH?: And OTHER STORIES (1999, Knopf), which Kirkus Reviews describes as a "sharp-eyed debut collection of eight stories examining American life from a foreigner's perspective." Her first novel TYPICAL AMERICAN (1991, Houghton Mifflin), follows a trio of young Chinese immigrants who slowly transform into everything they once criticized in the "typical American," was a New York Times notable book of the year, and a finalist for the National Book Critics' Circle award.
Contributed by Allison
Or should this “good news” should have happened decades ago? Since women officially entered the U.S. Navy services in 1908, it is now optional for women to wear skirts and not required. Until this “21st century makeover” -- as ABCnews.com calls it -- was in put into effect this month, women were required to wear skirts in certain change-of-command and retirement ceremonies.
It’s obvious that wearing a skirt in the Navy is not really practical. For example, one of the skirts had a narrow cut with no kick pleat, which gave women no room to run. Yet the article seemed to focus more on the concern of fashion than anything. “They also noted that the skirts didn’t compliment many women’s shapes.”, like giving the women 'pouches' by their stomach "'even if you didn’t have one.'" They also are able to get rid of their miltary purses and get "more stylish replacements from department stores." Don’t get me wrong, I love purse-shopping myself, but I don’t really understand why there was more focus on the fashion change than the very late decision to allow women to wear pants! Argh.
Young women have been particularly active in mobilizing voters this election, from working with women’s organizations to creating political panties. But what about organizing for the election using just what women have traditionally been objectified for—our sexuality?
Several groups have cropped up recently that focus on getting out the vote by, well, putting out.
Votergasm.org, tells "young people everywhere to have sex with voters on Election Night, and to withhold sex from non-voters until the next presidential election," and hopes to "send 100,000 first-time 18 to 25 year old voters to polls for the 2004 elections, and to catalyze 250,000 orgasms by the morning of November 3." Way to aim high!
The group’s publicist, Michelle Collins, says in a Salon.com article today that young Americans aren’t voting enough, and aren’t fucking enough. “If there's anything that's really going to speak to America's youth, it's saying that voting is as important as sex, as fun, as American.”
Sounds sketchy as hell, but their strategy seems to be working pretty well. Since the site’s launch, they have received more than half million unique visitors, and more than 25,000 people have pledged to vote (and have sex) on election day.
Another site that is using sex as a means to political participation is FTheVote.com, a project of the Carbon Defense League (CDL), which Lauryn wrote about back in July. FTheVote’s theory is that liberals are simply hotter, and we should be using that to influence the election. Essentially, we should be having sex with conservatives in exchange for their vote:
Believe it or not, even the most seemingly deeply rooted right-wing ideologue can be manipulated by sex. As we all know, the sex drive is a powerful beast that has the potential to change people. People lie for sex, they cheat for sex, they even kill for sex - and you can be sure that they will change the way they think (and therefore vote) for sex. All you need to be armed with are your sexy progressive values, a razor-sharp wit, your genitalia, and a mindset that doesn't mind taking one for the team.
Unlike Votergasm—which actually is planning an election night party and looking for bar where people can easily have sex—FTheVote is just a joke:
The goal of the CDL is to present information and content normally filtered from a general audience's view through satire, humor, and trickery.
Another joke site that I found last month is little more vulgar (if you can imagine that), called Porn for Progress, which put out a Porn for Kerry DVD. I won’t even go into the actors’ fake names…
I’m at the point where I’ll take what I can get in terms of folks organizing against the current administration. And I’m all for fun, funny, types of activism. But I know that these actions also have the potential to piss people off and make a good majority of folks not take our voices seriously.
So do websites like these—jokes or not—reinforce the idea that the only thing women have to offer in politics (or in general) is their sexuality? Or is this just a fun, harmless way to get people involved in a process that they might not otherwise engage in?
Let’s hear it…
U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan said yesterday that despite some advancement, women are still largely underrepresented at the United Nations.
Women make up less than 40 percent of all "professional and higher level positions" at the UN, Annan's office said.
The good news? The UN does have a goal to achieve a 50-50 gender balance at all levels, and the percentage of women in the Secretariat has increased by almost 2% this year--which sounds paltry, but infact is the largest gain since 1998.
Check out Annan's full report: The Improvement of the Status of Women in the U.N. System.
On November 2nd, voters in 11 states will go to the polls and decide whether they approve of banning gay marriage. According to the Human Rights Campaign, the following states are up for decision making: Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, and Utah. Lousisiana and Missouri have already decided this year that a marriage is defined as between a man and woman. Sigh.
Supporters of the state amendments say that they are responding to the decision in Massachusetts last November that legalized gay marriage, as well as Oregon, Cali and New Jersey who issued marriage licenses to some couples this year. Yet people are saying that the amendments are more of a motivator to get conservatives to the polls in four presidential battleground states, reports the Feminist Majority.
Although it is unknown exactly how these amendments will affect the gay and lesbian population, it is suspected that some states could abolish private contracts like power or attorney or property-sharing agreements between gay couples. Domestic violence protection and hospital visitation rights could also be taken away.
There's your compassionate conservatism...
Yes, okay—everyone knows Bill O’Reilly is a big old perv. But what the recent sex harassment scandal has also brought to light is just how common this kind of behavior is in TV news.
The New York Observer—in an unfortunately titled article, Revolt of Fox’s Hens—covered just how unfriendly the TV news biz is to women.
Here are some snippets from The Observer’s interviews—and these are just from a few women. Apparently most young women weren’t willing to speak on the record about their experiences.
Lisa Bloom, Court TV anchor: “The television industry in general is rampant with sexual harassment, and it’s very difficult for women at a low level to complain or do anything about it…if you offend the top brass at one TV network, they’re very tight with top brass at other networks. Word will spread, and you’ll have a hard time getting a job."
A former Fox News staffer: “They love their women dolled up…It’s not saying they don’t like women who aren’t smart. But women at Fox were in trouble if they were on air and they weren’t dressed like a hooker. Everybody at Fox is painfully aware of that.”
A current female producer at CNN: “In the last 10 years or so, it seems there are more and more young, pretty women who are just dying to be on television… and they’ll do anything to get there—among those things, being treated poorly.”
And perhaps one of the more disturbing admissions from a “prominent and current male on-air host”:
At the producing level, it’s all young women, 99 percent of whom have no chance of being on TV. They like being in TV and they like powerful men. Each host has around him lots of good-looking, unmarried women. Women are excited by power, let’s be totally clear. The temptation to fuck your staff is overwhelming—literally, almost overwhelming. You just can’t imagine how sexually out of control it is. A quarter of the women are bisexual. They’re good-looking, they’re totally without restraint…
…You’ve got all the money—in every way, you’re the sheik, they’re the harem. You can’t overstate how true that is. That’s a natural dynamic….
…All they do all day long, they’re job is to serve you…That’s explicitly their job. How you look, how you sound—everything is focused on you.
Ewwwww!
As the article points out, the TV news business sets up this kind of dynamic in a seriously freaky way. A bunch of old guys run the show on all levels, while having a bevy of young (underpaid) women to do their shit work and feed their egos. Sounds like a dream job. Ugh.
Clearly this kind of power imbalance sets the stage for harassment, but that doesn’t mean that we should simply dismiss it as an inevitable part of the business, which—from this article—it seems that many women do.
Are you going to be in the NYC area the week of election day? Or do you feel like taking a celebratory trip to da big apple after Kerry is elected to be our next president? If so, you definitely want to check out the BUST Magazine Film Festival.
From November 4-7, BUST will be featuring documentaries, animations, full-length features and shorts in four nights o' fun.
Highlights include:
"YEAR OF THE WOMAN, the infamous 'lost' documentary about the women’s movement filmed during the 1972 Democratic National Convention; MARY JANE’S NOT A VIRGIN ANYMORE, a coming-of-age masterpiece by the late filmmaker Sarah Jacobson; a night of shorts about girlhood featuring the emotional sports documentary GIRL WRESTLER; the controversial strip club expose STRIPPED followed by a Q&A with filmmaker Jill Morley."
You can buy tickets for individual shows for only nine bucks each or get a festival pass that will give you access to all shows, including an invitation of the opening-night partay with the filmmakers, a one-year subscription to BUST magazine, and a VIP gift bag with lots o' goodies.
Click here for more info and to buy tickets!
It’s about time that the polls and the media caught up with um…oh yeah, the truth.
The NY Times reported today that as of Sunday, the NYT/CBS News poll puts Kerry ahead with women at 50 percent to Bush’s 40 percent. The article points out that the Kerry’s lead is smaller in other polls, but is ahead nonetheless.
This news comes after a whole bunch of bullshit about Bush doing well with women because of security moms—a demographic recently shown to be fictitious.
After an unsuccessful appeal, an anti-choice group was ordered to pay Planned Parenthood’s legal fees after suing the pro-choice organization to “require it to declare a link between abortion and breast cancer.” Ha! It’s good to know that cases without merit will at least have some consequences.
According to the San Francisco Chronicle, a CA judge dismissed the case in 2002 because of no scientific evidence linking abortion and breast cancer. The plaintiffs were ordered to pay Planned Parenthood $130,000 to cover the org’s legal fees. (This can happen under a CA law that gives lawyer’s fees to those who are targeted by “merit-less suits that seek to thwart free expression.”)
Obviously this is great news, but it’s also a reminder of the larger agenda that the anti-choice movement puts forth through any means they can—even through bad science.
Through preying on the fears of women (cause breast cancer is pretty frigging scary!), these groups are sinking to new lows by distorting scientific data to push an unproven link that is potentially dangerous for women’s health.
For accurate information (hard to come by these days...), check out NARAL Pro-Choice America’s fact sheet, Abortion, Breast Cancer and the Misuse of Science.
There was an interesting article yesterday by the Associated Press on the emergency contraception debate. Now that it is up to the FDA to decide whether EC should be available over-the-counter, many have been arguing over the decision of whether teens should be included or not.
Some who believe teens should not be allowed access to EC over-the-counter predict that it would cause more “risky sexual behavior” in teens (pulease), or skip regular visits to the gynecologist if they didn’t need to see a doctor to get it, which is ridiculous. These young women aren’t going to be popping the pills on a regular basis, that’s why it’s called “emergency contraception”. Why would they stop going to the gynecologist?
As far as the “risky behavior” EC would be encouraging, we can look at the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine in a study they conducted on the effects of EC. Published in the Journal of Pediatric and Adolescent Gynecology, the study concluded that teens who had emergency contraception available to them were NOT more likely to have unprotected sex. They were also more likely that they would use EC correctly and sooner after sex, which is when it’s most effective.
There are nonprofit, Washington, D.C.-based Advocates For Youth programs that support EC over-the-counter who bring light to the research of James Trussell, the director of Princeton University's Office of Population Research. Trussell has found that easier accessibility to emergency contraception could cut unintended pregnancies and abortions by half the number among U.S. women between the ages of 15 and 44.
According to the federal Centers for Disease Control, there are about 3 million unintended pregnancies annually. About 800,000 of those cases the parents are teenagers.
The thing that pisses me off is that these people are arguing over whether a teenage girl is old enough to have access to this contraception -- yet they are old enough to have sex and get pregnant! Opponents think that these girls are responsible enough to take care of a baby but not responsible enough to take a pill?? Ugh.
Bitch Magazine (via Alternet) has a really interesting—though upsetting—article on new trends in pornography and how it relates to reality versus fantasy.
Triple-X Offender, by Shauna Swartz, takes on what Swartz calls reality porn and “humilitainment,” which generally consists of young women “having sex with a complete stranger in a public setting – only to be kicked to the curb afterward with no pay and plenty of insult.” Yeah, that sounds real hot. Ugh.
Reality porn features some of the most violent and demeaning porno scenes to hit the mainstream, what some call "humilitainment." Tagging these disturbing spectacles of deception and abuse with the "reality" label enhances their allure, as it claims to offer consumers unstaged and authentic action. Where reality TV usually panders to the collective schadenfreude – that sordid side of human nature that finds us taking delight in others' misfortune – pornographic content sends already sleaze-bound reality entertainment into new and disquieting territory.
Here’s a snippet of the kind of porn (mostly internet, by the way) Swartz is talking about:
BangBus, which features two men roaming the streets, trolling for young women they can lure into their van to have sex with them on camera in exchange for a little cash. The bang squad searches out "every girl's inner slut," testing how far she'll go to sexually satisfy a stranger. BangBus's popularity led to other reality sites popping up overnight like silicone implants. The throng of high-profile sexploitation offerings now includes web sites like BangBoat, BaitBus, BackroomFacials, XratedGangBang, and Trunked ("It's simple. Throw the bitch in the trunk. If she doesn't like it, she can get out. Oh yeah. We're goin' 55 mph...").
Swartz notes that the common ending for this “porno verité” is “a facial (and not the spa treatment kind), and many topped off by the guy spitting on her face.”
That’s just lovely.
While, as the article points out, degradation as part of porn is certainly not new, the idea of it as reality rather than fantasy is. My question is—does it fucking matter whether it’s presented as reality or not? It’s degrading and humiliating in either case!
But Swartz makes a good case for why women should be paying attention to this recent trend:
The producers of these sites position their works as erotic documentaries that capture real encounters with eager women who are dumb or desperate enough to fall for their trickery. The people who have engineered these scenarios thereby downplay their own hand in the abuse in order to make viewers feel better about getting off on it…
And perhaps her most important point:
…The realest thing about humilitainment porn is the way it buttresses long-held assumptions of women's inherent inferiority, even if that's not foremost on the minds of those who get off on it. The question of authenticity overshadows the sexual politics of why a woman might be willing to play the dupe, and any law-enforcement fixation on its social demerit misses the point that pop culture reflects the popular imagination at least as much as it creates it.
I think articles like this are extremely important for women to talk about. So often the issue of porn in feminism is posited and examined as just pro- or anti-, rather than taking a comprehensive look at the issue which takes into account the different genres (though I cringe to call them that) of pornography and what they reveal.
Any thoughts?
Oh, how I love good news! According to a new report by the Institute for Women’s Policy Research (IWPR), women are more likely to vote than men in 9 out of 10 key swing states.
The report also says that the four key Midwest battleground states—Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, and Michigan—are among the top states in getting out the women’s vote.
The bad news? IWPR President Heidi Hartmann says that “women in Florida, Nevada, and Pennsylvania (are) ranked in the bottom third of the country for women’s voter turnout in 1998 and 2000. The eyes of the nation are now on them. They should get out to the polls on Election Day, just like women in top states like Minnesota and Wisconsin.”
The Status of Women in the States report—to be officially released after the election—ranks all of the states in women’s political activism.
So get to it, ladies! If you have any friends in the battleground states, send them a link to the report...
Reuters reported today that Guatemalan sex workers formed a soccer team--and played against a team of women police officers--to bring attention to poor working conditions. That's what I call some original organizing!
The women say that they are paid as little as $2.50 for sex and are often harassed by police, even though prostitution is legal in Guatemala.
"It's good to feel the power of being united," said one woman.
The bad news: the team lost 3-1. Well, maybe next time...
For more information, check out the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence and the Family Violence Prevention Fund.
Unless you’ve been living under a rock the last couple of days, I’m sure you’ve already heard a shit-load about the NY Times mag must-read, Without a Doubt.
But in case you haven’t, get to it…it’s pretty terrifying, but a great piece to pass on to those who are still undecided.
After this ludicrous “conscience clause” bill that has been passed to go to a House-Senate conference committee, we find that we are already currently facing this threat to reproductive rights. Last Monday a pharmacist in Madison, WI went to trial. What for, do you ask? He refused to fill a prescription for birth control to a young woman because he believed it was a sin. Sigh.
It was in July 2002 when Amanda Phiede went to the Kmart pharmacy to refill her prescription and Noesen was so conveniently filling in as an independent pharmacist. He refused to refill and when asked, transfer the prescription as well. His attorney states that as a devout Roman Catholic, Noesen was merely using his constitutional right to religious expression.
“I could have trouble sleeping at night. I could be suffering the worst kind of pain. Spiritual pain.” Noesen told a judge. Ouch, that spiritual pain can be a killer! Much worse by far than the consequences Amanda would have had to face if she became pregnant, I’m sure.
And as Jessica reported on BushvChoice last week, the most insane part of this was that "Phiede returned to the pharmacy the next day with police to get her pills. Nice work on her part, though you have to be pretty freaked out when the day comes along that you need a police escort just to get your birth control." Word.
The conclusion of the hearing is yet to be decided. Hopefully we won’t be seeing him at the local pharmacy no mo’.
According to the Women’s Law Center, three states -- Arkansas, Mississippi, and South Dakota -- have already passed laws allowing pharmacists to refuse drugs to customers if they have a religious or moral objection. Can someone please tell me when people’s personal beliefs began to control others’ basic rights?? Argh.
On Friday the AP reported on the frightening state of female inmates' access to reproductive rights. In particular, a case in Phoenix, Arizona has been drawing national attention.
Turns out that the anti-choice Sherriff of Maricopa County, Joe Arpaio, is refusing to transport pregnant inmates to abortion clinics unless they obtain a court order. He claims that he doesn't "run a taxi service from jail to an abortion clinic and back," and feels that he should have the right to stop these women from accessing abortions. (Did I also that this is the same asshole who gained notoriety a couple of years back "for putting inmates on chain gangs and issuing them striped uniforms and pink underwear." Ugggggh.)
Luckily, the ACLU of Arizona is fighting back, arguing simply that "abortion is a constitutional right that does not disappear when a woman is sent to jail." ACLU Attorney Angie Polizzi explains that they are challenging Arpaio's court order mandate, because, "This is a very unreasonable policy, and it's a burden." No shit.
The original case that sparked the ACLU's involvement was brought by an inmate who tried twice to get a court order for a ride to an abortion clinic. The inmate had prepaid for the service at a local clinic and only required transportation. Eight weeks of legal battle ensued before she was able to gain the right to transportation, placing her in her 14th week of pregnancy. After she finally obtained her abortion she filed this lawsuit.
To learn more about female inmates disturbing lack of reproductive rights in prison, click here.
Oh yeah, and check out Anyone BUT Joe Apairo to learn more about evil Sherriff Arpaio.
For those of you struggling to make sense out of Bush's abortion evasion during the presidential debate on Wednesday, check out Katha Pollitt's latest article, Roe=Dred.
"Many viewers were puzzled when, toward the end of the second debate, George W. Bush answered a question about Supreme Court nominees by referring to the Dred Scott case. Why bring up the infamous 1857 decision, which declared that blacks could not be citizens and, in the notorious words of Chief Justice Roger Taney, had "no rights a white man is bound to respect," and which barred Congress from outlawing slavery in the territories?"
"Anti-choicers, who often compare themselves to abolitionists, have referenced Dred Scott virtually since Roe was decided. A Google search of "Dred Scott abortion [minus] paperwight" turned up 3,960 hits. Both decisions, they argue, denied citizenship, human rights and legal protection to a class of human beings wrongly characterized as property; both forbade legislators from correcting this injustice; both show the need to overturn immoral precedents, stare decisis be damned. That he was thinking about Roe explains Bush's odd characterization of Dred Scott as "personal opinion," which got him tangled up when he belatedly realized that--whoops--the Constitution didn't grant "equality to all"; it permitted slavery. "Personal opinion" is what anti-choicers think Roe is. "Strict construction" means overturning it."
It's depressing, scary & informative--check it out!
NOW with Bill Moyers will cover single women and voting tonight:
As Election Day nears, Republicans and Democrats are in a heated battle for a group of voters that could swing the election - single women. In 2000, 22 million single women didn't show up at the polls, making them a prized target for both parties in the incredibly tight Presidential race. But when President Bush and Senator Kerry court women on daytime television, are they just paying lip service to their concerns without offering real solutions?
On Friday, October 15, 2004 at 9 PM on PBS (check local listings), NOW with Bill Moyers finds out what these women think about the candidates and what the Democrats and Republicans are doing to win them over. NOW's Michele Mitchell looks at the single-women vote through the eyes of a Nevada mom struggling to make ends meet.
Our favorite anti-feminists, the Independent Women’s Forum, issued a press release yesterday on Kerry’s “use of the misleading statistics about the wage gap” in the last presidential debate. Oh…I can’t wait to hear this one.
The “misleading” statistic the IWF release is referring to is the well established fact that women work for 76 cents to a man’s dollar.
Carrie Lukas, the Director of Policy at IWF says that this statistic—which in the release they don’t specify (fear of speaking any truth at all, maybe?)—doesn’t take into account the fact that “women are sometimes willing to trade dollars for flexibility and time off,” and says that Kerry is “trying to convince women they are victims in order to win votes.”
Obviously. Because women just go crazy over a man who makes them feel like a victim.
The IWF, who was recently awarded part of a $10 million grant to “train Iraqi women in the skills of democratic public life,” is the most backwards organization ever, as Hannah pointed out earlier