Seriously--for a Moment

For a brief moment this past winter the women of America raised their
heads and dared.
We dared to dream!
We dared to believe!
We dared to do the impossible!
We dared to think that women would be taken seriously!
For that one brief shining moment, all the slights and discrimination we have faced as women were overcome by visions of our possiblities. All the times we were told: "girls can't do that" were overshadowed by the possiblity that we could now do anything. They called us silly women when we asked for the vote, when we demanded to be doctors, judges, generals and congressman. Whenever we demanded our rights, we were being ridiculous. But for that one glorious moment a woman was being seriously considered for President of the United States.

Elderly women (who have fought for women's equality since women's vote was new--dared to believe that they would live to see a woman become President. Younger women raised our heads in pride as we watched Hillary's grace, pride, strength, and intelligence forge a path toward the Democratic nomination through a gauntlet of sexism. We dared to dream that our world would truly change! Girls saw, for the first time, that all doors were open to them. They dared to do the impossible!

Glorious as the moment was, it was after all--only a moment. An ephemeral glimpse into an alternate reality. Our reality came crashing down upon women and our hopes and dreams.While we mourned in devastation, Obama announced that his selection as nominee had made history and now the whole globe can heal. Women should get over it and support him. His statement that because he was selected America is making history denied the fact that his opportunity had come at the expense of women's opportunity to make history. Apparently he can not grasp the importance of the opportunity women have been denied. Does he truly believe that women can heal from the oppression and discrimination we have faced throughout our lives because he is President instead of Hillary? Does he not respect, recognize, or appreciate the discrimination that women face? It is as if he doesn't take our rights seriously, because they are not important to him. Once again--we are just silly women after all--striving beyond our station in life.

While Kim Gandy continues to state that women are grieving--there is
more to it than that. Many women are angry. They feel that the process was unfair and they were cheated. Some of these women will not be placated. They will not support Obama. They will withhold their vote in protest.

Some are still struggling to bring themselves around to
support him. They are waiting for something more from him. Something
more than the salt he has poured into our wounds. They are waiting for
him to demonstrate some real appreciation and support for women's
struggle. Women are waiting for the man (who claims to be the great unifier) to recognise and legitimize our loss as valid. They are waiting for him to value our rights and take our struggle seriously.

For one brief shining moment women dared to believe that we were equal. It was the hope and dream of our lives. How can we believe that
Obama cares about women and women's rights, when clearly he cannot appreciate the significance of our loss.

Well Boys--Shame, Shame On You!

Everytime women struggle to advance their rights and achieve equality, they are met with an age old response from men. Derision and ridicule! They belittle us, they poke fun at us, they insult us and outright abuse us.

Susan B Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton faced it as they sought suffrage for women. In the 60's and 70's we saw men poking fun at women who sought to be police officers, doctors, or numerous other professions that were then reserved for men only. We saw it recently as the media and male pundits responded to Hillary Clinton's bid for the Presidency. Sadly nothing has changed. These men (many who identify themselves as liberal) don't seem able to appreciate that women have a right to stand up and demand equality. Our struggle for equality seems to be an opportunity for them to get a chuckle. Well boys-- Shame, shame on you!

Throughout Hillary's campaign women suffered with her as the media and other candidates leveled sexist attacks against her. We all felt them personally. In the end many women feel cheated by a process that was far from fair. We feel cheated of a once in our lifetime opportunity for a woman President.

Men's response to this is OK, you lost, get over it. Men aren't from Mars--they are from another galaxy, if they think that response will appease us. In fact their total and absolute insensitivity to our feelings, concerns, and rights reflects upon the real problem here. Most men do not take women's rights seriously.

Recently Marcia Pappas, President of NOW-NYS issued a press release "He Must Come Bearing Gifts". Some male blogs have already responded with the typical male derision.
To Scott Leffler , who seems to think that asking for gender parity on the Supreme court and a woman chair of the DNC (she would be the first) is a female dominant position. Shame, Shame on you!
To Jackie Tam, who actually rewrites Marcia's release to create silly conditions-- Triple shame on you!

Women lost an opportunity to take a major step forward in women's rights and many women want a major step in return. We also want the primary system (that we feel cheated us) fixed. How do men respond? By poking fun at us in order to shut us up.Well boys! Shame, Shame on you for trying, but you won't shut up this woman. Better women than I have faced down this gauntlet of derision--so I proudly face it down too--knowing that I follow in great footsteps as I refuse to be silenced.
Lori

He must Come Bearing gifts

Obama must do more to gain women's vote than simply tell us that he is the least of two evils. He must come court us! He must come bearing gifts! I am not talking about candy and flowers here. He has to make up for our loss of a woman president in our lifetimes.

I am proposing the list of gifts he must come with:
1) Based on population 4 or 5 Supreme Court Justices should be women. So--Obama must promise that all his appointments to the Supreme Court will be pro-choice women.
2) Howard Dean (the mute DNC Chair) must be replaced with a woman chair, who will not sit back quietly, while sexist attacks are levied against women candidates in primaries.
3) Super delegates must reflect gender equality. Closely contested elections should not be decided by a predominantly male body of super delegates (Keep in mind that super delegates are composed mostly of elected officials--that are overwhelmingly male).
4) We must correct the inequities in the Democratic Primary system.

• a) Caucuses are not Democratic. Attendance is low because many voters cannot devote two evening hours voting. As it stands, anyone who does not show up at the start of the caucus and stay to the end does not get a vote. And who is most likely to have a conflict with these evening times? Women of course! They are more likely to be caring for their children. When caucuses were set up. Politics was a predominantly male game. Men didn't have to worry because their wives were putting the children to bed. Come on, Democrats and move into the 20Th century. We should be making voting easier and more accessible, not continuing with arcane, restrictive and sexist traditions.
  
• b) Caucuses have open (i.e. public) voting where the women are often intimidated by the men. In a secret ballot women can vote their consciences. We still live in a sexist society; and people should not be intimidated by public votes.
  

5) Many misogynist Republicans and other conservatives crossed over to vote in our primaries. In fact Obama counted on these. He didn't want a re vote in Florida or Michigan, because the Republicans had already voted. If we ever get another woman candidate who can make a serious bid for the Presidency, misogynists from other parties should not determine the Democratic candidate. The Democratic Party is over two thirds women and our effect should not be diluted by the primary/caucus process. When there is work to be done, when there are close votes, women are the backbone of the Democratic Party. When there are close races, it is women that make the difference for Democrats. When it comes to choosing the Democratic nominee, women's votes must be represented proportionally.

Before women have another opportunity for the Presidency, there should be a level playing field.
In case we get another chance, we need assurances that this misogynist sleight-of-hand won't happen again.
Obama must bear these gifts- then we can talk.

Let me know what other gifts you think we should demand.

Women Must Put Women's Rights First

I think that NOW needs to be more focused on sexism and actual women's issues.

personally I am a staunch environmentalist. I belong to several environmental organizations. I hang my wash out on the line, I recycle, reuse, and compost to the extent that I bring my used egg cartons back to farmers for reuse. I save the whales, seals, wolves, polar bears, (and numerous more mammalian and non mammalian species.)

But I strongly believe that we should not be diverting NOW's focus. NOW should be saving women!

Sexism is the last truly acceptable ism.

Did you hear the boys at Sierra Club speaking up against the sexism in the primary?

Did you hear the boys at PETA speaking up against the sexism in the primary?

Did you hear the boys at the National Wildlife Federation speaking up against the sexism in the primary?

NO-- they stick to their message.

While the Democratic Party should encompass all these issues and women's rights;

Did you hear the Democratic Party speaking up against the sexism in the primary?

Did you hear the its presumptive male nominee speaking up against the sexism in the primary?

Did you hear the its Chair speaking up against the sexism in the primary (I mean before women stopped sending in money and the woman candidate had suspended her campaign)?

The final straw though is when the national Organization for Women (the one organization who has this mission) can't discuss the sexism in the primary and how we should respond to it, because we need more time to discuss global warming and animal rights.

If women don't learn to put themselves first-we will forever be last!

It is OK for us to say that everyone and everything doesn't always come before women. Women need to focus and make our rights a priority for us-no one else will.

If we can't focus we'll have a male polar bear in the White House before we have a woman.

Statement made at the Sunday afternoon plenary of the 2008 National NOW Convention

Can We Really Be Surprised?

Can we really be surprised that a media that is overwhelmingly dominated by men has examined complaints of its own sexism and found themselves innocent?

Even when one of their own, Katie Couric, joined the ranks of those women who are complaining about sexist attitudes and remarks; they respond by attacking her. Keith Olbermann named her the worst person in the world for "her promulgation of the nonsense that Senator Clinton was a victim of pronounced sexism." I would have named her the worst person in the world for her interview on 60 minutes with Hillary where she asked the Presidential Candidate why she was called Frigidaire in college, while Obama was asked substantive questions.

Even after Hillary had suspended her campaign Leno continued his sexist attacks in the guise of a Jeopardy skit with Clinton and Obama. Can we really be surprised that a media that is overwhelmingly dominated by men has examined compliants of its own sexism and found themselves innocent?
Even when one of their own, Katie Couric, has joined the ranks of those women who are complianing about sexist attitudes and remarks; they respond by attacking her. Keith Olbermann named her the worst person in the world for "her promulgation of the nonsense that Senator Clinton was a victim of pronounced sexism." I would have named her the worst perosn in the world for her interview on 60 minutes with Hillary where she asked the Presidential Candidate why she was called frigidare in college, while Obama was asked substantive questions.
Even after Hillary had suspended her campaign Leno continued his sexist attacks in the guise of a Jeopardy skit with Clinton and obama.In response to the word lapdance-Hillary begins gyrating against Obama and answers "what I would do to be Vice-President."http://www.nbc.com/The_Tonight_Show_with_Jay_Leno/video/episodes.shtml. (This skit is around 17:30 in the video).

Can they really be so blind that they can't see the sexism there? Obviously there is a problem here. We need gender parity in the media and a whole lot of sensitivity training. Apparently the men can't even see it.

The sexism has relentless in this campaign. I haven't even scratched the surface. Please share the events of media sexism that you have observed with us by commenting to this email.

One Good Idea in a Generation

After the Civil War there was an opportunity to pass an amendment to give suffrage to African-American men. Women who had been working for decades for suffrage asked that their fellow abolitionists not settle for suffrage only for men, but push for universal suffrage. Women were rebuffed with the claim that there was one good idea in a generation and this was not our turn.

To men who had the vote, to men who had all the rights in our society: it was a merely good idea. Would they have been so cavalier if men were the disenfranchised class? It wouldn't have been a good idea, it would have been an urgent necessity. Left unaddressed, it would have been a critical threat to our democracy. It would have been cause for Civil War.

Less than a year ago, women were poised to make history. It was almost certain that Hillary would be the Democratic nominee and easily beat any potential Republican challenger. Finally after 200 years, we would have a woman President. While many women were rejoicing at the realization of our hopes and dreams (yes--women have hopes and dreams too), many male leaders in the Party were working to sabotage her.
To them it was a good idea easily supplanted by another good idea.

They bring out Obama. He is young and inexperienced, but a good idea to supplant our good idea. Obama could have and should have waited. He should have rejoiced at this opportunity for women to make history. Instead he stole from us the greatest opportunity of our generation.

Now they expect us to rejoice with Obama that he is making history. I will rejoice with Obama and his supporters as much as he rejoiced with me when women were poised to make history and were once again told: Sorry one good idea in a generation.

Would women Support Obama as Democratic Nominee

Obama has said that his supporters will not support Hillary, while her supporters would support him if he were the nominee. The facts are probably completely the reverse.

Many older women, who have spent their lives working to make the lives of today's young women brighter were excited by the likelihood of having a woman President in their lifetime. We have watched a sexist media, pundits and many male Democrats pummel Hillary and promote a green unknown,Obama, over an experienced woman.

Many women, who have been loyal Democrats, are furious. We are furious at the blatant sexism. We are also furious that male Democrats (including Obama) could not rejoice with us at the opportunity to fulfill our hopes and dreams. We feel that the green and inexperienced Obama could have and should have waited.

A woman's blog discusses the Obama phenomena in an article called "Icarus Redux". Women are even more furious because our perception is that an empty suit is being pushed forward over an excellent candidate (who happens to be a woman). the New York state NOW President recently issued a press release concerning the large number of calls NOW is receiving from women who will not vote for Obama. They will not vote at all, write-in hillary, or vote for McCain.

This should create concern among Democrats regarding the viability of Obama. New York State is not a given. Republicans do win State-wide here. With Obama's weakness among these furious women, upstate NY, and Latino's; New York could go red in 2008.

Will Democrats take what should have been a runaway elction and turn it into a major loss- simply becasue they could not rejoice with us?

Has the media presented a fair and balanced version of the primary or have they taken an active role to preserve sexism?

In 1984,Gerry Ferraro burst onto the convention floor to accept the vice presidential nomination, it was a glorious moment for women across the country. Watching the convention reruns today still brings tears to my eyes. Since Mondale’s defeat, no Democratic presidential candidate has been willing to pick a female running mate. Twenty years later, Democratic “wisdom” still considers it political suicide to choose a woman vice presidential candidate. Most feminists had all but given up hope of ever seeing a woman president in our lifetime.



Then came Hillary, a brilliant, experienced, politically-savvy, strong, credible woman candidate with excellent feminist credentials. She is a feminist's dream, and a woman to make all women proud. Yes we're proud of the brilliance, strength,grace she reflects on all women who aspire to be more than men would have us be.



We expected sexism from men, and even from some of those women who aren't ready for women to leave traditional roles. And we expected despicable send-ups like the Hillary nutcracker, a "toy" whereby Hillary’s thighs crack your nuts. We expected such things from those Democratic party men who, for over twenty years, had refused to entertain the idea of a woman VP. But did we expect it from the media, from the hallowed presses who are supposed to be neutral? Did we expect that their sexism and misogyny would take an active role in choosing the Democratic nominee, rather than in simply reporting the race?



That a woman would dare to aspire to this last sacred male bastion seems to inspire virulent animosity within the mostly-male media, as evidenced by the stream of vicious attacks leveled at Hillary, this while her opponents goes unscathed. The recent remark about Hillary's "pimping" Chelsea on the campaign trail, is not even the first blatantly sexist slur. No, it's just one more in a long string of insults. In fact, the sexism and misogyny has sunk to a new low with this latest. Yet the Country seems to accept this in a way that they would certainly not accept racist remarks. In the US, blatant sexism is OK. It is OK for male “news reporters” to describe women as “hot. And it's OK for commentators like Joe Scarborough to refer to Hillary as “shrill” and to ask about her housekeeping skills.



When Sixty Minutes did co-interviews of Clinton and Obama; they asked Obama substantive questions while they cut off the top of Hillary’s head and asked her questions about her energy level and about why in school some had nicknamed her “frigidare.” It's bad enough that frustrated, (and mostly adolescent) males find fault with any woman who doesn't find them attractive. But does the media need to buy into this and give it substance? Once again, 60 Minutes' totally biased coverage passes public muster.



Furthermore, MSNB's Chris Matthews interviewed retired Gen McCaffrey about whether or not the troops would take orders from Hillary as Commander and Chief. McCaffrey responded: “Why wouldn't they listen to a female commander and chief ?” Matthews replies: “You're chuckling a little bit aren't you?” He continued to harangue McCaffrey as if he couldn't really be serious. This and many more incidents like it are all very OK. Women who aspire beyond their traditional roles are to be laughed at, ridiculed, degraded, and patronized and it is all OK!



Beyond the blatant sexism, one has to ask: why does the supposedly unbiased media attack one candidate with a vengeance and praise her opponent? Why do they analyze every breath she takes (for a possible negative spin) and avoid any scrutiny of Obama?

Why do they allow him the hypocrisy of declaring himself free from the financial influence of large PAC/lobbyists, while he in fact accepts bundled funds directly from corporations and special interests seeking favors?



According to Dan Morgan of the Los Angeles Times “Obama raised more than 1 million in the first three months from Law Firms and companies that have major lobbying operations in the nations capitol.” Morgan continues: “While refusing money directly from lobbyists, who get their income from clients, Obama takes money from those clients. In the first quarter of 2007 he accepted a combined $170,000 from Goldman Sachs and Citigroup, to financial services giants that have numerous issues pending in Washington...“



The media says nothing about Obama's hypocritical claim to “clean money” while in fact he takes money from the same sources upon which politicians have always drawn. Why does the media continue to portray him as he would like to be portrayed, despite the facts. Why do they find ways to twist every fact or event into a negative for Hillary? Why do they have a double standard for Hillary and Barack? And even those media outlets who aren't blatantly sexist, often consign Clinton to relative invisibility whiles heaping volumes upon Obama.



So sexism is alive and well in the US media, while almost all criticism of Obama is dismissed as "racist." We've come a long way but still have far to go, even among our supposed friends

End of an Era

Betty Friedan, one of the founders of NOW and instigators of the modern women's movement, died this past week. Her life was spent fighting for the slow but steady progress made by the women's rights movement. She died as Alito was taking his seat on the Supreme Court. With his appointment women's representation on the Supreme Court drops back down to 11% from 22%. Women comprise over 50% of America, yet we are not entitled to anything more than token representation on the Supreme Court. There should be 4 or 5 women on the Court, if it were to reflect America.
It seem to me as if Ms Friedan's passing herald's the passing of the rights she fought for.
The Republicans are striving to undo Title IX and Alito would support them.
The Right-wing Republicans have been scheming to undo Roe v Wade and Alito would support them.
The Right-wing Republicans are not only opposed to abortion, but to sex education and birth control. Alito would support the decisions of pharmacists, stores, and physicians to refuse women birth control, because they have a religious objection to it. He has demonstrated a sympathy for those who would impose their religious beliefs on others.
Alito would not support any measures to fight discrimination.
What I don't understand is why any Senator who claims to be pro-choice could allow Alito to be seated on the Supreme Court. The so-called moderate Republicans are complicit in the radical actions of their party. Except for Sen. Chaffee, who did vote against Alito, they are afraid to stand up to their party. They allow it to run rampantly over women's rights.
I am disappointed in those Republicans who have become part of this right-wing juggernaut, by not resisting it. If the moderate Republicans do not resist and do not take back their party, they are as bad as the right-wingers. They empower them!!
The 4 Democrats who voted for Alito (Byrd, Johnson, Nelson, and Conrad) should be ashamed of themselves. Democrats should primary them and replace them with real Democrats. They should replace them with Democrats who will support the Democratic platform. Democrats need to elect those Democrats who support the Democratic platform, not just someone who seems to be the most electable. A majority is useless without a majority of votes.
It is abhorent that Republicans have been allowed to redefine the role of the Senate in the confirmation of judges. Historically the Senate has rejected a multitude of judges and Justices. They rejected a Justice nominted by Washington, because they did not agree with his postion on the Jay Treaty.How is it that the founders could reject a Justice for his position, but we can't reject a Justice because of his position on Choice? Suddenly this is not what was intended by "advise and consent". The founders of our Country never intended for one person to have absolute control over the courts and nominations to them. When the Republicans are in control of the Presidency, they adamently maintain that "advise and consent" only means that the Senate must decide if the candidate is qualified. According to current rules, the Senate wouldn't even have a right to require an answer about the jay treaty. Our Founders intended that the people (via the Senate) have control over judicial appontments. This is not only a historical precedent, but it is the just and democratic process.
Why is it everyone accepts the Republican redefination as if it were undisputed fact?
The Republicans used the filibuster routinely when the Democrats were in control of the Senate. Now that they are in control they call it unfair and they threaten to change the rule. Why is it no one ever questions this turnabout from the Republicans? Why is it suddenly accepted that use of the filibuster is obstructing the government?
Jesse Helms would not let most of Clinton's Judicial nominees out of Committee, but they call Democrats obstructionists, if they don't allow an up or down vote. Why is it that Republicans can obstruct Democratic nominees, but when Democrats object to the appointment of Right-wing nuts by Republicans we forget the Republican obstruction?
Bob Dole stood up boldly to Clinton and warned him that they would not approve of a liberal Justice nominee, like Mario Cuomo or Lawrence Tribe. Suddenly the rules have changed agin and Democrats who are demanding a moderate appointee have no right. It is the Presidents decision. Why does no one remember this?
Why are the rules different for Democrats and Republicans?
Why does the press never notice that the rules are changed?
Why do they simply repeat what the Republicans say as if it were fact?
Are they lazy, ignorant, or complicit? I suspect a little of all three.
More and more broadcasting "journalists" are really actors. They are hired for their presence and entertaining abilities, rather than their journalistic training and expertise. Media is also being taken over by conservative sources, who control the message.
We must keep fighting. We must resurrect a media that will question and insist on fair and equal standards. We must give our all to ensure that Ms. Friedan's legacy is not removed. Her legacy and that of all the women who have battled for women's rights are at risk. We, who are their heirs, must keep their torch held high and flaming brightly.

Impeachment Polls

The mainstream media has stopped discussing the spying issue and decided that the public doesn't care. According to a Zogby poll Americans by a margin of 52%-43% said that "If President Bush wire tapped American citizens without the approval of a judge, they agree that Congress should consider holding him accountable through impeachment." The judge's order won't delay legitimate taps to protect against terrorism. It does ensure they are legitimate and not part of a program of political spying.
Lori