In my opinion I have doen this. The women (and men) from my feminist groups, (Code Pink, Code Pink book club, Somerville Feminist meet-up, and the CNW believe that I am a feminist man including all of those who have ever been on my web page. So, I am crossing this goal off my list and saving room for another great goal to add. Peace.

((huggs))

Love,

George ;) 6 years ago

They were five of us to discuss, “The Beauty Myth” by Naiomi Wolf. It was an interesting discussion on how the author perceives that all women have fallen into this trap of having to purchase colorful clothing, makeup and hair products to look and fel beautiful. Magazine ad’s have brainwashed women to feel that what they say in their magazines is gospel, fashion wise and emotionally enlightening. Why do women follow pictures of “fashion models” in a paper advertisement as “role models” and have to look a certein way as she does when men do not value “male models” as role models at all? Beauty magazines get advertising dollars as their major funding and have to follow what their large advertisiers want and do not want in thier magazines or lose these clients. Men react more visually to things and less emotionally to other things; while women react more to emotionally things and less visually to other things. Then why do women have more a more colorful wardrobe and have a better sense of style and fashion sense then men do? Women worry about their looks and men don’t, according to Naiomi.

((huggs))

Love,

George :) 6 years ago

This evening I was invited to attend another feminist meetup event at the Chicago UNO Grill, Copley Square in support of Speak Out of Boston. Speak Out is another feminist organization that is commited to creat a world free of social prejudice, (gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender phobio) by develping educational programs. We all had a great time, conversing to one another about feminist topics, being friends, learning more about oursleves and having fun. The food was great as well as the conversation. A large amount of the food and drink bill went to benefit Speak Out. 6 years ago

I was invited to a meeting from my Somerville Meetup group. One of the members of NOW invited us all to attend. Well, I decided to go and see if I could help out in some way. Unfornately, I arrived late because I miscalculated the arrival time of the “T” from Alewife to Park to Packard’s Corner. Anyway, I arrived while the women were discussing a new intern postion. After introductions, they discussed the problems with their web site, and a new fund raising initiative for Jeans for Justice and Love you Body Day. I wonder if I should apply for the new intern position and being the only man at the meeting?

Today, I picked up the next book for my Code Pink bookclub, “The Beauty Myth” by Naomi Wolf and a copy of BITCH They have some great feminist articles including one about how 14 year old girls are taught to fight back against a rape attack. 6 years ago

I really love the members of this new feminist meetup group. We bought food and oursleves, I ended up bringing my novelty “money tree” floral design to the pot luck party. Eveyone seemed to really enjoy the floral work. Everyone, women and men, were incredibly open, honest and had so much passion about the feminist movement. I also connected her to my Code Pink group and maybe we can really expand this cause.

We made a circle and discussed wht it is about feminism that really excites you or what are your issues on feminism, this was powerful. It was also the facilitor’s husband birthday so they had carrot cake and we finished off watching Project Runway, as Holly one of the club members said, “it is a guilty pleasure.” I really had a good time being around all these women and men who believe and support the feminist movement, and I really believe I made a lasting impression on being a man and also a strong feminist! 6 years ago

Yay… I read an entry off Zelgist and tried to find out which group it was. Even tried to contact the poster but, the program would not allow me to contact her because of spam (and she would have to want to meet me.) Anyway, after a goggle search I found the group and joined. The facilator seems very nice, she sent me a very warm email introduction and asked for my input. Their website for the meetup feminist group is if anyone else is interested in joining around the Boston/Somerville area:

http://www.meetup.com/members/2919082/

I told her of my many beliefs and passion for supporting the cause for equality for all women, my memberships of Acton NOW, Codepink Bookclub (where I learn about feminist history), Avon Walk & the Susan Komen Walk for Breast Cancer, Rape Crisis Prevention, Darfur, etc. She seemed thrlled and excited as I am. Yes, I am very excited, I have never done anything like this before even though I am the only male in the feminist group (which should not be a problem for me), I hope. Wish me luck. ((huggs))

Love,

George :) 6 years ago

written by The Gateway columnist Nina Varsava

%{color:orchid}Last semester, a student in one of my English classes was called upon to give a feminist interpretation of the novel we were studying. She did, and then immediately assured the class that she wasn’t a feminist or anything.
In fact, she repeated it about five times, as if to identify as a feminist was on par with admitting that you’re a Nazi. I was left wondering what this woman thought about feminism and where she got her ideas.%

The popular conception of feminism is oversimplified and full of mistaken assumptions. Before even studying the subject or talking to feminists, many people tend to shun feminism as a radical and outdated waste of time. Feminists are lumped together as a bunch of irrational, man-hating extremists by people who have never actually studied feminism or had a real discussion with a feminist.

%{color:orchid}Ironically, the people who are taking women’s studies, feminist philosophy and gender studies classes often already identify themselves as feminists, and already have a considerable understanding of feminism in its many forms.
Unfortunately, most people never take one of these classes, nor do they research the subject independently. Instead, they form their ideas about feminism based on mainstream societal conceptions—conceptions that are founded on a gross lack of valid information.%

%{color:hotpink}It’s easy to see why a woman might be hesitant to call herself a feminist. Because the label has so many negative connotations, and elicits many (often false) assumptions, many people shy away from it.
When I call myself a feminist, I frequently have to defend myself, and then proceed to explain why I’m wearing makeup, or a short skirt, or why I have a boyfriend; after all, those aren’t very feminist things to do. Sadly, it’s often easier not to assert my feminism than to explain it to someone who thinks they already have it all figured out.%

But it’s crucial for feminists to bring their opinions outside of the classroom, even though it’s often difficult and disheartening. If we show people how reasonable and diverse feminists can be, then perhaps its negative and undeserved subtext will begin to dissolve, and society will begin to attain a truer understanding of the movement as one that calls for gender equality.

Admittedly, the prospect of this change is terrifying to many. Some people even fear a reversal of power wherein feminism will get out of control and the oppression of men will be the next great injustice. But these people are simply ridiculous—just a bunch of irrational, women-hating extremists.

%{color:orchid}Feminism is and has always been about gender equality. Of course, it comes in various forms, and as a result feminists often have different and conflicting ideas about how gender equality can best be achieved. There’s even a minority of radical, militant feminists who want women to take over the world—but it’s ridiculous and unjust to dismiss feminism altogether based on the beliefs and actions of this minority.
Some claim that it’s time for feminists to rest, that women are now equal to men, and have nothing left to fight for. Although these people might just be ridiculously misinformed, I think that they’re actually anxious about women’s growing power and influence in the world. The longer feminism lasts, and the more strength it gains, the more likely it is that women will gain worldwide equality.%6 years ago

Public discussion of religious and Christian topics after the release of “The Da Vinci Code” has generated more heat than light. Commentator Helen LaKelly Hunt says the we should take this opportunity to respectfully discuss issues churned up by the movie.

COMMENTARY

‘Da Vinci’ Offers Chance to Discuss Gender Battles
By Helen LaKelly Hunt
WeNews commentator

Editor’s Note: The following is a commentary. The opinions expressed are those of the author and not necessarily the views of Women’s Enews.

(WOMENSENEWS)-Perhaps the most powerful result of the recent release of “The Da Vinci Code” was not the film itself-given lukewarm critical response—but the heated debate that swirled as the movie opened in theaters around the world.

Much heat was generated in the public discourse. Was Jesus truly divine? Was he married to Mary Magdalene? Is the Catholic Church at times fallible? And at times abusive? What is the true nature of Opus Dei? As one observer noted, the film “set off a loud pealing of the electric chimes at the front door of the culture.”

As a Christian feminist, I took note of those loud pealing chimes.

Unfortunately, much of the public discourse has generated more heat than light.

For example, the Vatican called for a boycott of the film. In a speech at the Pontifical Holy Cross University, Monsignor Angelo Amato claimed the film was full of “slander, offenses and errors that if they were directed toward the Quran or the Shoah (Holocaust) would have justifiably provoked a worldwide
revolt . . . Yet because they were directed toward the Catholic Church, they remain ‘unpunished.’”

In the United States, the author of “The Da Vinci Deception,” Rev. Erwin Lutzer, claimed the film “represents the most serious attack on Christianity I’ve ever known in 30 years of ministry.”

Before the release of the film, in anticipation of the culture wars it might set off, I launched a Web site, HerCode.org, where people can respond to the nerve the story has touched with stories of their own.

Chance to Probe Women’s Suppression
I saw “The Da Vinci Code” as an opportunity to engage in a thoughtful conversation about what I believe has touched off that loud pealing of the bells: the book’s probing of the suppression of women by the church.

And so the conversation has begun on HerCode.org, including women from different Christian denominations—Jewish, Muslim, Wiccan and agnostic
women—and some men.

Sometimes a visitor writes very specifically about women and biblical interpretation. One recently asked about Paul’s injunction, in Corinthians, that women remain silent in the church. In response, another visitor subsequently placed that citation into the context of the time and culture in which it was written.

A subsequent posting responded: “Whenever you read scripture, it is important to know some history and culture of that time. During this particular time, churches often had women sit on one side and men sit on the other (as was the custom of their Jewish roots). When a wife had a question, she would often call to her husband and ask for an explanation. Paul was addressing this problem when he said that women should be silent in the church and wait to get home to ask their husbands.”

Dissenters Welcome
Dissenting voices are welcome, and heard, including this comment: “I am very disappointed in this site. It makes me feel guilty for wanting to follow Jesus’ guidelines for women to be submissive to their husbands. I am very upset that liberal views, rather than traditional, are taking over the world.”

Another visitor writes: “Why can’t all you who aspire to earthly temporal greatness be satisfied with who you are and be grateful for that wonderful gift of femininity?”

Other visitors-in fact, many-have written entries with a touching confessional quality.

A woman from Chicago, who co-pastors a church with her husband, wrote of the cultural resistance she encounters in following her calling. “I am an ordained minister of Christ. I also know that along with my husband’s blessings, I have a calling in my life by God. I will not allow the opinion of man or woman to suppress the call of God on my life. As the arguing continues about whether a woman can minister or not I continue to go forward in doing what God has called me to do.”

Another minister, a woman, commented: “Anything that shakes up the religious status quo is good; Jesus did some of that, and we are living at a time when the history of women and religion is being shaken up and rewritten based upon Gospels that tell a vastly different story from the one we are used to. It is such a powerful story I plan to devote a good portion of my ministry helping to tell it.”

Confessions by Men
It turns out that among the most confessional of the entries are those of men. One writes: “For years, I have been frightened by feminism. It is hard being told that I hate women. On the other hand, I can empathize with how women
feel . . . This is such an age old problem. I am glad to see women taking up the challenge. I just hope it doesn’t deepen the rift and that we can transform our need to blame into understanding for a change.”

That transformation from blame to understanding is precisely what is called for and HerCode.org provides the space for understanding and sharing to begin.

The way toward that understanding is dialogue, and the online conversation is but one example of what must happen to heal the world.

My hope is that women and men-both people of faith and secular people who envision a just and peaceful world-will engage in dialogue to transform blame into understanding and empathy, and that the understanding and empathy will grow in to action. And that the action will advance what I and other Christians invoke when we pray: “Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven.”

Helen LaKelly Hunt is author of “Faith and Feminism: A Holy Alliance” and the founder of FaithandFeminism.org, of which “HerCode.org” is part.

Women’s eNews welcomes your comments. E-mail us at editors@womensenews.org.

For more information:
HerCode.org:
http://hercode.org/

”’Da Vinci Code’ Lifts Lid on Goddess Scholarship”:
http://www.womensenews.org/article.cfm/dyn/aid/2748/

For any comments about this and any other story, please send a letter to the editors at http://www.womensenews.org/letters/discus.pl 6 years ago

Just signed it and forwarded it on! 6 years ago

Please sign the petition by clicking on the link below:

http://www.womensprerogative.org/petition2006/petition.cfm

This petition will help to close the wage gap in men’s and women’s earnings by making sure that their is salary, hiring, recruitment and promotion policies are fair and legal. Women who work full time only earn 77 cents for every dollar earned by men. In fact, the Government Accountablility Office recently found the Wage Gap has not changed significantly in the past 20 years!

Womens’ Perorgative is sending a petition to the Fortune 100 companies urging them to conduct the Department of Labor’s “10 Step Equal Pay Self Audit” and to address any problems that they identify in order to help close the wage gap. That way, they can make a very real difference on women’s lives and really honor their employees on Labor Day. 6 years ago

Current legislation

The National Committee on Pay Equity supports two bills in Congress aimed at curbing wage discrimination. The bills work on different aspects of wage discrimination, and both are needed to fully close the wage gap.

The Fair Pay Act (S.840/H.R.1697) was introduced by Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) and Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC) on Equal Pay Day 2005. It seeks to end wage discrimination against those who work in female-dominated or minority-dominated jobs by establishing equal pay for equivalent work. For example, within individual companies, employers could not pay jobs that are held predominately by women less than jobs held predominately by men if those jobs are equivalent in value to the employer. The bill also protects workers on the basis of race or national origin. The Fair Pay Act makes exceptions for different wage rates based on seniority, merit, or quantity or quality of work. It also contains a small business exemption.

The Paycheck Fairness Act (S.841/H.R.1687), introduced on Equal Pay Day 2005 by Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) and Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro (D-CT), seeks to strengthen the Equal Pay Act of 1963. The bill expands damages under the Equal Pay Act and amends its very broad fourth affirmative defense. In addition, the Paycheck Fairness Act calls for a study of data collected by the EEOC and proposes voluntary guidelines to show employers how to evaluate jobs with the goal of eliminating unfair disparities.

For more information on either of the bills at left, go to:

http://www.thomas.loc.gov

http://www.house.gov
bq. http://www.senate.gov.

Thank you. 6 years ago

Correction: In our commentary yesterday, we incorrectly referred to the disappearance of Natalie Holloway in Barbados last year. However, she disappeared in Aruba.

Women’s eNews(www.womensenews.org) encourages your comments about our stories and women’s issues. Please post to our Letters to the Editors section at http://www.womensenews.org/letters/discus.pl. or e-mail editors@womensenews.org

Does someone send you Women’s eNews? Please help us grow and get your own free subscription today at www.womensenews.org/join.cfm.

Here’s today’s update:

BUSINESS & ECONOMY
Women Pick Up Small Change on Wall Street
By Nan Mooney
WeNews correspondent

NEW YORK (WOMENSENEWS)—At the two-year anniversary of banking giant Morgan Stanley’s $54 million settlement of a sex-discrimination case, some women’s advocates express disappointment about the aftermath of what the presiding judge, Richard M. Berman, called at the time a watershed settlement “in safeguarding and promoting the rights of women on Wall Street.”

“Walk through the trading floor and you won’t see Penthouse centerfolds pasted on computer screens anymore, but in terms of women achieving greater parity of positions and salary, the gap is just as big as ever,” said Susan Antilla, Bloomberg News financial columnist and author of “Tales from the Boom-Boom Room: Women vs. Wall Street,” published by HarperCollins Publishers in 2002.

Today on Wall Street, women make up 87 percent of assistants but only 19 percent of brokers and 29 percent of senior-level management, according to a 2005 report issued by the Securities Industry Association and the women’s business research organization Catalyst, both based in New York.

Lee Spelman-a female managing director at JPMorgan Chase (a separate entity from Morgan Stanley) and co-head of the company’s Diversity Council responsible for seeing that women and minorities get proper representation across the company’s various divisions-says getting ahead on Wall Street is hard for many women due to the nature of the business.

“I’ve seen enormous changes in the 30 years I’ve been on Wall Street. But this is still a competitive business. No matter how many family-friendly policies we put in place, you can’t get around the fact that you have to do your job well. That means a huge commitment of time and energy that many women, especially once they have children, aren’t necessarily willing to make.”

But others feel a discriminatory culture still plays a significant role. The lead plaintiff in the Morgan Stanley suit, former bond saleswoman Allison Schieffelin, initially filed a complaint with the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in 1998, claiming she was denied a promotion to managing director for gender reasons.

She was fired from Morgan Stanley in 2000-Schieffelin said this was in retaliation for her initial complaint; Morgan Stanley said it was due to insubordination-and the EEOC filed a case against the firm in federal court in 2001, alleging the bank denied equal pay and promotion to Schieffelin and other women in its institutional equities division.

340 Women Eligible for Settlement
Under the terms of the July 2004 settlement-negotiated 10 minutes before the opening of the trial-Schieffelin, as lead plaintiff, received $12 million. Another $40 million was earmarked for current and former employees if they chose to make claims. Up to 340 women employed in the firm’s institutional equities division between 1995 and 2004 were eligible. The remaining $2 million went toward new diversity programs to improve the lives of all Morgan Stanley women.

The suit joined a number of high-profile lawsuits filed against major Wall Street firms in the past decade. Leading New York investment banks Smith Barney and Merrill Lynch have paid over $200 million to settle sex discrimination suits since the late 1990s. In January, six female employees of the German investment bank Dresdner Kleinwort Wasserstein filed a still pending $1.4 billion suit against the firm, citing unfair and abusive treatment.

At Morgan Stanley, changes engendered by the 2004 settlement have included enhanced diversity training, an in-house ombudsperson responsible to the EEOC and an independent outside monitor who works with the firm to review and implement diversity programs. These join existing options such as flextime and 12 weeks paid maternity leave, all of which helps the company consistently land on Working Mother magazine’s “100 Best Companies” list. In January, Morgan Stanley also fired four senior employees after the company learned they had visited a strip club with clients after hours, a move lauded by the EEOC.

But a culture of silence still seems to surround questions of gender discrimination within the company. Women remain rare enough and the business cutthroat enough that it can feel dangerous to rock the boat.

“Nothing changed that I could see,” says one former Morgan Stanley employee who left the firm in early 2006 but still wished to remain anonymous. “The topic is quite taboo, There is a huge stigma attached to bringing it to light, even more so given all the lawsuits.”

She ventures that subtlety has risen-men are less likely to exhibit inappropriate sexual behavior-but the inequities haven’t disappeared. Nor are women more likely to raise discrimination issues beyond the confines of internal gossip.

“Once you’ve spoken, you’ve identified yourself as a whistle-blower,” she says. “From a social standpoint, you become a lone person who just doesn’t want to play by the unofficial rules of the game, and no one wants to be around that person.”

Women Make Small Gains
According to the Securities Industry Association, the percentage of white women and women of color rose nominally between 2001 and 2005 (from 32 percent to 33 percent and 9 percent to 11 percent respectively), but women still remain underrepresented in positions of power on Wall Street.

Though high-profile settlements like Morgan Stanley’s are a public embarrassment, they are still settlements, which means the particulars-including statistics about what women are paid and how they’re promoted-remain concealed under confidentiality agreements.

Such opacity helps explain why a proliferation of lawsuits hasn’t done more to change gender statistics in the industry, says Antilla.

“A firm is going to have to be embarrassed publicly before they’ll be motivated to change, and that will require women with the financial and emotional resources to pursue a big, open trial,” Antilla told Women’s eNews. “The world has to hear how bad things really are.”

Antilla does see a benefit to the attentions generated by the discrimination dialogue, especially when grouped with recent sex discrimination settlements from the Chicago-based Boeing Company and Atlanta-based Home Depot, major firms headquartered far from the insular confines of Wall Street.

“Women don’t feel as alone anymore,” she offers. “They hear other women’s stories and they feel emboldened to speak up. Though that may not be enough to change the culture, it’s certainly the first step. I hope that trend continues for a very long time.”

Nan Mooney is a journalist based in New York City and the author of “I Can’t Believe She Did That: Why Women Betray Other Women at Work.”

Morgan Stanley: Diversity:
http://www.morganstanley.com/about/diversity/index.html?page=div

EEOC: Sex-Based Discrimination Information:
http://www.eeoc.gov/types/sex.html

Securities Industry Association:
http://www.sia.com/

Note: Women’s eNews is not responsible for the content of external Internet sites and the contents of Web pages we link to may change without notice.

reprint or repost Women’s eNews content are available here: http://www.womensenews.org/reprint_faq.cfm

Foundation; the Open Society Institute; the Rockefeller Family Fund; The Helena Rubinstein Foundation; the Sister Fund and the Starry Night Fund of Tides Foundation. The donations from readers are critical to our success. They are an important measure that we are serving our audience—the yardstick that our foundation supporters will measure us by. Donate now by going to http://www.womensenews.org/support.cfm
—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—- 6 years ago

Here’s today’s update:

COMMENTARY

Core Issue Missing in Birth-Control War Reports
By Gloria Feldt
WeNews commentator

Editor’s Note: The following is a commentary. The opinions expressed are those of the author and not necessarily the views of Women’s Enews.

(WOMENSENEWS)—The world was riveted when Natalie Holloway went missing in Barbados last year. Dan Brown’s best-selling novel, “The Da Vinci Code,” mesmerizes readers and movie-goers by spinning the tale around how Mary Magdalene went missing from Christian theology except as a reformed harlot.

In an equally riveting mystery, women have disappeared from the story of attacks on contraception.

When the New York Times Magazine published a watershed story in early May, “The War on Contraception,” the Times Web site noted it was their most e-mailed story of the day.

Of course it was snapped up. What rational person can believe that any but crackpots could oppose using birth control to prevent pregnancy?

I tore into the article hoping it would unearth and expose the true reproductive rights battle lines. This is a struggle often masquerading as a moral controversy. At its roots, however, it’s about sex and power; whether women will be allowed to keep striving for an equal place in society or confined, as much as possible, to the nursery.

The author, Russell Shorto, did a fine job detailing the dueling philosophies of abstinence-only sex education versus comprehensive sex education. Comprehensive programs teach decision-making skills and provide medically accurate information, including facts about abstinence, sex, relationships and childbearing. Abstinence-only programs exhort unmarried people to “just say no.”

Primal Motive Missed
My high hopes for Shorto’s article plummeted when he failed to discuss the underlying, almost primal, opposition to women’s equality inherent in both the abstinence-only movement and the attacks on birth-control access.

Shorto also failed to discuss the female casualties of this contraception battle. A clue to their whereabouts can be found in a Guttmacher Institute study, “A Tale of Two Americas for Women,” published the same week as the Shorto piece.

Guttmacher finds a 29 percent rise in unintended pregnancies and abortions since 1994 among low-income women whose access to low-cost contraception has declined dramatically as a result of the attacks on contraception. For example, funding for Title X of the Public Health Services Act-the backbone of subsidized family planning health services for low-income uninsured women-is less than half what it was in 1980 when adjusted for inflation. The program faces a pitched battle in Congress every year just to maintain level funding. Meanwhile, funding for abstinence-only programs that provide no health services has catapulted from near-zero to almost equal Title X. It’s no surprise then that low-income women feel the heel of this particular anti-woman boot.

Among higher-income women, in contrast, unintended pregnancies and abortions have declined by a significant 20 percent. They can afford the rising costs of birth control including very effective newer methods such as injectable contraceptives. They have greater access to uncensored information on the Web and the wherewithal to drive across town to get their prescription filled when their neighborhood pharmacist refuses.

Politically Invisible
Restrictions on access fall most heavily on young and low-income women who are the most vulnerable, have the fewest resources with which to advocate for themselves and are thus politically speaking invisible.

Birth control frees women to forge their own paths by separating sex from procreation. This strikes fear into those who, underneath it all, oppose the increased social power women attain from expanded equality and justice. Proof of this?

Birth control frees women to forge their own paths by separating sex from procreation. This strikes fear into those who, underneath it all, oppose the increased social power women attain from expanded equality and justice. James Leon Holmes, nominated by President Bush and confirmed by the Senate to the U.S. District Court in the Eastern District of Arkansas, says it straight out in an article: “It is not coincidental that the feminist movement brought with it artificial contraception . . . To the extent we adopt the feminist principle that the distinction between the sexes is of no consequence and should be disregarded in the organization of society and the Church, we are contributing to the culture of death.” His stated solution is that ” . . . the wife is to subordinate herself to her husband.”

The Times article suggests that organized opposition to birth control was motivated by Supreme Court decisions legalizing birth control (Griswold v. Connecticut, 41 years ago this month) and abortion (Roe v. Wade in 1973) as though it was only women’s recent and brazen push for this form of reproductive control that ignited this conflict. In truth, contraception has been a political football in the United States for a long time.

In 1913, Margaret Sanger, founder of the American birth control movement, wrote a sex education column for The Call newspaper, entitled “What Every Girl Should Know.” That is, she wrote it until a warrant was issued for her arrest for violating the Comstock Laws, which made it a crime to circulate “obscenity” through the mail.

In place of the column, The Call’s editors ran an empty box reading: “What Every Girl Should Know—nothing, by order of the U.S. Post Office!”

Anti-Vice Crusader
The laws were named for Anthony Comstock, whose Society for the Prevention of Vice rammed through state and federal laws against contraception and even information about contraception beginning in 1873. Some of these laws remained on the books well into the 1970s. Comstock boasted that he had destroyed hundreds of tons of “lewd and lascivious material,” including 60,000 “obscene rubber articles.” You might call them condoms.

Comstock is still around today in the form of people who can’t tell the difference between medical information and pornography, between healthy sexuality and promiscuity.

He’s also around in the form of people who don’t trust women to handle authority.

Just last week, for instance, when the Episcopal Church elected Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori its first female presiding bishop, a fellow priest who opposes the ordination of women altogether, voiced this fundamental prejudice.

“Just like we can’t use grape juice and saltines for communion because it isn’t the right matter, we do not believe the right matter is being offered here,” he said.
What makes this offended reverend “the right matter” and Schori the “wrong matter?” Is this weird his-and-hers code for genitalia?

Roe gave those who are basically opposed to women’s equality a new political whipping girl. Many leading pundits and commentators assumed the opposition was based on religious beliefs and was limited to abortion. But lately they have begun clambering out from under their anti-contraception rock and the battle lines are becoming clearer than ever.

A woman’s bodily integrity, her moral autonomy, her health, her very life depend on whether she has access not just to the right to reproductive freedom but also to the health care and education services that make rights meaningful. Circumstances do not change that principle. Nor is the human right to reproductive self-determination divisible. You either have it or you don’t. There’s nothing mysterious about that.

Gloria Feldt is the author of “The War on Choice” and “Behind Every Choice Is a Story.” She is currently at work on a book with the actress Kathleen Turner, entitled “Take the Lead, Lady!”

Women’s eNews welcomes your comments. E-mail us at editors@womensenews.org.

For more information:
Gloria Feldt’s blog:
http://gloriafeldt.com/

Guttmacher Institute—
“A Tale of Two Americas for Women”:
http://www.guttmacher.org/media/nr/2006/05/05/index.html

“Bang Those Pots and Keep This Movement Moving”:
http://www.womensenews.org/article.cfm/dyn/aid/2663/

Note: Women’s eNews is not responsible for the content of external Internet sites and the contents of Web pages we link to may change without notice. 6 years ago

Join the Power Circle and see if you can find my name in the rotating circle website.

http://www.care.org/getinvolved/iampowerful/default.asp?source=170642620000

Thank you,

Geo :) 6 years ago

Yes, I went to Border’s Book store and met with four young very attractive intelligent young ladies and we discussed the feminist book, “Fresh Lipstick: Redressing Fashion and Feminism” by Linda Scott.

The discussion was very lively and warm. The other women in the group offered some very insight comments about the book and feminism in general.

I gave then the petition website that ws provided by another 43 Things member, (big thank you YouDontKnowMe for that information, some of the book members did not know about this.)

We finished the discussion about the book and wanted more depth from Ms. Scott however, we all agreed even though the book was a text book format, it still was very informative and produced some good theories on feminism in general. I was disspaointed that the whole group didn’t believe that anyone else would read the book and adopt the principles. In my opinion, I really liked the book and recomend it to anyone who wants to learn about the history of how feminism developed from the early to the present stages.

Our next book, “Stop the Next War NOW: Effective Responses to Violence and Terrorism” by CodePink Cofounders Medea Benjamin and Jodie Evans. I also picked up a copy of Bitch magazine to see what it was all about.

Geo :) 6 years ago

Have you heard?—Extremists in South Dakota have passed a law which calls for a near-complete ban on abortion in the state. So far, over 30,000 citizens of South Dakota stood up to voice their outrage by petitioning to challenge the law on the November ballot. Now, they need our help.

I’ve signed a pledge to support the fight in South Dakota and urge you to join me—right now. Please sign the pledge at the link below and spread the word to everyone you know that will join you to protect the constitutional rights of women and families in South Dakota and everywhere.

Thank you.

Geo :(

http://www.standupsd.com/petition 6 years ago

The real meaning of feminism

by Zachery Koppelmann
Guest Opinion
June 14, 2006

I am a white, middle-class, married, Christian, US Army veteran man. I was raised in a conservative Christian home with conservative Republican parents. I have never done drugs, never been arrested, and lead a “normal” American life. I am also, however, a feminist.

The term feminist is, I have found, one of the most misunderstood and misused terms. I am comfortable with that title because I know exactly what it means and entails.

It means that I believe everyone – male or female; gay, bisexual, lesbian, transgender, or straight; rich or poor; Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, Catholic, or any other religion – is equal and has the right to decide how her or his life should be lived.

Feminists, especially the feminists at Boise State and at the Women’s Center, are focused on freedom of choice, freedom of religion, freedom to control their own destiny, and, above all, freedom from pain and suffering in any form.

The women and men at the Women’s Center have shown me one important fact during the year I have had the pleasure and honor to work with them: freedom and equality are the ultimate goals for everyone at the Women’s Center. The women and men may not agree on specific issues and concerns, but they are all open and honest about their beliefs and are truly interested in other, thoughtful points of view. They understand that many issues faced by society today are complex and emotionally charged, but they never told me that I was wrong or that they were right; they only expressed their views and explained their reasons.

There are those who assume the title feminist means “lesbian,” “man-hater,” or any number of other names, but I can assure you that the people at the Women’s Center are secure enough in their sexuality that they can openly and honestly discuss their orientation without malice or prejudice; they are by no means “man-haters” since a few of them are mothers or expectant mothers; and they have no interest in replacing the patriarchy with a matriarchy. They want to spread equality and freedom, educating the community about how local communities can improve the lives of everyone in Idaho by viewing each other as equals.

If you are truly interested in understanding what it means to be a feminist, contact the Women’s Center or take a Gender Studies course; don’t listen to one-sided rants. I can proudly and honestly say that the Women’s Center is the one place on campus where I know I will never be berated, insulted, cursed at, or harassed in anyway; I think it is the safest and most comfortable place on campus.

Zachery Koppelmann is a student at Boise State6 years ago

Newsweek has issued a grand correction: Contrary to a cover story 20 years ago, single women over 40 actually do marry. Commentator Caryl Rivers says the article was clearly wrong at the time and fed media gospel about the woes of ambitious women.

Essay follows promos.

Summertime Special! Women’s eNews now offers its members discounts on three fantastic books, two novels and one non-fiction, ideal for summer reading. Check it out at http://womensenews.org/Feminist_press.html.

UNCOVERING GENDER

Newsweek’s Apology Comes 20 Years Too Late
By Caryl Rivers
WeNews commentator

(WOMENSENEWS)—”We were wrong!”

You almost never see these words on the cover of a major magazine, but on June 5, Newsweek said just that.

The magazine headlined, in boxcar type, “20 years ago, Newsweek predicted that a single, 40-year-old woman had a better chance of being killed by a terrorist than getting married.”

Over a photograph of a bride and groom, the magazine admitted its 1986 story had been incorrect and titled its new cover piece “Rethinking the Marriage Crunch.”

Newsweek deserves a bouquet for its story. Half the flowers should be roses, for admitting in such a public way that the terrorist story turned out to be utterly bogus. The other half should be stinkweed, because a lot of people knew full well at the time that the notion was laughable. Why did the correction take so long?

The “killed by a terrorist” story proved irresistible to the U.S. media, and it’s a classic case of how flawed information gets repeated so often it turns into popular gospel. How did this all come about?

In 1985, three Harvard-Yale researchers (Neil Bennett, David Bloom and Patricia Craig) published a “Marriage Patterns in the United States” study. Not, on its face, a real headline grabber. But embedded in the study was what appeared to be very bad news about women, a commodity that always sells like hot cakes.

“Are These Women Old Maids?” screeched People magazine, in a headline over pictures of Diane Sawyer, Sharon Gless, Donna Mills and Linda Ronstadt. People warned “Most single women over 35 can forget about marriage.” (While Newsweek used 40 as the age of doom, most other publications set it at 35.)

Dire Predictions Go to Hollywood
Before long, there was hardly a female in the nation who hadn’t heard the dire predictions about women who delay marriage. One of Nora Ephron’s single women in her 1993 “Sleepless in Seattle” cited the terrorist “fact.”

But even at the time the researchers said their work was being wildly misinterpreted.

Most women, they noted, tended to marry guys two or three years older. But during the baby boom years, each year brought an increasing number of babies; so the baby crop born in 1955 was larger than that of l953, for example. So a woman born in ‘55 looking for a ‘53 husband was fishing in waters that contained fewer men.

But the man shortage, as Katha Pollitt pointed out in The Nation in September of 1986, was “really an older man shortage, and a temporary one at that.”

The dire scenario for single women was exactly this: The 35-year-old woman who insisted that she would marry only a man two years her senior could have faced a shortage.

Viewed in this limited statistical prism, the white, college-educated woman’s likelihood of marrying was only 1 in 20.

But of course, that number was meaningless. Why should it have been assumed that such a woman would have scorned a man her own age? Or a 34-year-old man. Or a 28-year-old man?

As it turned out, there were no dire consequences for women who chose to marry when they were in their 30s or 40s. There was no basis at all for the massive coverage the national media gave to the story.

Another ‘Crack of Backlash’
The study on which Newsweek based its cover article bore little relation to how men and women behave in real life and was hyped into a phony “trend.” Pollitt hit the nail on the head when she said that the “media coverage of the study, if not the study itself, is just another crack of the backlash. Women can’t have it all, women must choose. A career or a husband.”

One reason an obscure demographic study acquired such long “legs” as a news story, Newsweek admits, is that the magazine came up with the catchy “killed by a terrorist” line, which was not in the academic study.

The line was first written as a joke in a memo from correspondent Pamela Abramson.

“It’s true; I am responsible for the single most irresponsible line in the history of journalism, all meant in jest,” Abramson told Newsweek last week.

Newsweek writer Eloise Salholz inserted the clever line into the story, which passed muster by editors, who thought readers would take it as hyperbole. They didn’t. As Newsweek admits, “Most readers missed the joke.”

All those mid-’80s gloom-and-doom pieces (New York magazine headlined one such story “Single Forever?”) became building blocks of a monumental cultural commitment to the idea that ambition makes women miserable.

Over the past two decades, we have seen a gush of books, magazine cover articles, television shows and newspaper stories running with the same idea.

Warnings Against Ambition
Best-selling author Michael Gurian, in the 2002 book “The Wonder of Girls: Understanding the Hidden Nature of Our Daughters,” cautioned parents not to encourage their daughters to be too ambitious, lest they wind up unhappy.

The message was pounded continually, despite a mountain of evidence from many studies that being engaged in challenging jobs was very good for women’s mental health.

In the 1986 bestseller “Women’s Ways of Knowing: The Development of Self, Voice, and Mind,” Mary Belenky and her co-authors called women “spiritual, relational, inclusive and credulous.” They wrote “Striving for leadership violates a woman’s essential feminine nature.”

But women in the business world-where research consistently finds female managers as motivated as male managers-are debunking all this. One study of nearly 2,000 managers found that the women exhibited a “higher-achieving motivational profile” than their male counterparts.

The ambition-equals-misery doctrine, however, has dug a deep foothold in the media and the culture.

Last year-nearly 20 years after the original Newsweek piece-the media was busy churning out the same old story, as Dr. Rosalind Barnett of Brandeis University and I noted on this site last year. Headlines then announced that men would not marry smart women. The stories, however, were based on studies conducted on women born in 1921, who are now all in their 80s. The research had little relevance to today’s women.

What really did happen to those baby boom women who let the magic age of 40 pass without wedded bliss? Instead of being forever single, most in fact got married. Or will do so. A 2004 study by Princeton sociologists Joshua Goldstein and Catherine Kenny predicts that 90 percent of baby boomer women will eventually wind up married.

Sociologist Valerie Oppenheimer of the University of California, Berkeley, reports that today, men are choosing as mates women who have completed their education. The more education a woman has, the more likely she is to marry. Increasingly, women are marrying younger men, so old trends are crumbling.

So, has the myth of the miserable 30-plus working woman become a thing of the past? Don’t count on it. Wait a while, and a new batch of headlines will appear, with the old doom-and-gloom mantra front and center.

The media, including its female members, just can’t seem to let it go.

Caryl Rivers is a professor of journalism at Boston University and co-author, with Rosalind C. Barnett of Brandeis University, of “Same Difference; How Gender Myths Are Hurting Our Relationships, Our Children and Our Jobs.”

For more information:
“Women Happier as Homemakers? Time to Recheck the Data”:
http://womensenews.org/article.cfm/dyn/aid/2678/

“Two-Income Couples Deserve Sweetest Valentine”:
http://womensenews.org/article.cfm/dyn/aid/2622/

“Why Dowd Doesn’t Know What Men Really Want”:
http://womensenews.org/article.cfm/dyn/aid/2512/ 6 years ago

See the top 100 Really Hot and Intelligent Women nominees in response to Maxim’s 100 Hot Women’s issue.

http://therealhot100.org/thenominees.html

These women are very beauitful in mind and spirit.

Geo :) 7 years ago

http://therealhot100.org/thenominees.html

These women are really hot!!!

Geo :) 7 years ago

Maybe Women can find an end to this war in Iraq.

http://www.womensaynotowar.org/article.php?id=727 7 years ago

http://womensissues.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?zi=1/XJ&sdn=womensissues&zu=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.equalrightsamendment.org%2F 7 years ago

Hi: I believe that women should earn the same pay for doing the same job in the workplace. No women should be discriminated on the basis of sex. I am against rape, abuse, or slander of any kind and a woman should have free choice when it comes to her own body. Yes, men can be pro-feminists, too. ;)
Geo 7 years ago