The midterm elections of 2010 brought back a familiar rage and sick, queasy feeling as I watched women on both sides of the aisle being devalued with sexist diatribes. The hateful rhetoric that defined much of the 2008 presidential campaign was not an anomaly. When debating the merits of Hillary Clinton’s candidacy detractors could no longer say, “I don’t mind electing a woman – just not that woman.” Such a phrase was nonsense after all. Plenty of women seem somehow to be that woman. Though not seeking political office, even Michelle Obama did not escape. Once called angry and emasculating, she now tills a victory garden in designer jeans and Lanvin sneakers. Sarah Palin, derided as reactionary and “disabled,” seems a terrifying prospect to the left and even some on the right.

But none can compete with the twenty years of skewering Hillary Clinton has endured. In 2008, the breathtaking atmosphere surrounding Hillary and Obama’s first solo debate captured the imagination and hopes of millions, but my joy in watching a qualified woman vie for the presidency was marred by newsmen and pundits calling Hillary Clinton a hellish housewife, Nurse Ratched, she-devil and bitch.

Not content to take the word of the pundit class on Hillary’s character, I sought the reality under the damaging “divisive and polarizing” label that had long haunted her. Hillary Clinton’s accomplishments and tireless work ethic proved that she was not the harridan of pundits’ fantasies. I ignored my scattershot but steady career as an actor to work on Hillary’s campaign. That career was nothing fancy but I’d made a living in the business for many years. The only calling I have ever had or loved became an inconvenient distraction.

Did I want Hillary to win because she was a woman? No. Did I want her to win because I thought she had the best chops for the job? Yes. She was my candidate. But the long knives were out for Hillary, the media bias appalling. Her party turned a deaf ear and stood by as her policies were misrepresented, her character maligned, her womanhood degraded. The net result was to make me work harder.

Through my passion for Hillary’s candidacy, I evolved from actor and fearful news junkie to determined campaign grunt and citizen pundit. If you told me I would immerse myself in this effort, become a blog writer for the first time in my life, build a following on various political websites under the name “Ani” and write a book on the subject that I am currently working to get published, I would have said you were potzo.

In 2008, my reluctant odyssey into the world of politics forced me to examine the way women are treated in a post-feminist world. Especially women with high aims and hard heads. I questioned the bias against women in authority, the limitations women placed on themselves, my own preconceptions about party, my choice of career, and even some of my friendships.

The fever of that campaign is still with me for one reason only — as a society, we have learned nothing. We still practice the same behavior.

Speaking out on the internet, I raised my volume well past my comfort level. At the time, hiding my real name felt like a necessity. While I didn’t want my politics to interfere with my work as an actor, far more worrisome were the threats leveled at some of Hillary’s supporters. One friend received internet death threats. Another had someone vandalize her garage door painting “Hillary hag” on it for having a Hillary lawn sign in her yard. I read that a woman with a small Hillary sign in her car window was followed by a man in another car for blocks. When the man caught up with her, he screamed, “You can put up all the signs you want. That bitch will never be president.”

In a hostile atmosphere, so many of us whispered our support, as if it was somehow something to be ashamed of. Female columnists, even those touting Hillary’s qualifications often couched their commentary in cynicism, almost as a protective mechanism lest they be accused of being too soft for believing in her. Yet indulgent coverage of her opponent was not only common, but encouraged.

Woman have long been shamed for their sexuality, for being outspoken, for asserting themselves. Shirley Chisholm, who ran for president in 1972 said, “Tremendous amounts of talent are being lost to our society just because that talent wears a skirt” and “My greatest political asset, which professional politicians fear, is my mouth, out of which come all kinds of things one shouldn’t always discuss for reasons of political expediency.”

I no longer wish to hide. I want my name back.

As a blogger keeping my identity confidential, some readers on the internet who stood in firm support of my commentary trashed the profession they had no idea I had been part of for many years. Some of their statements repeated the bad rap Hollywood has long held: actors are vacuous, phony, amoral, and don’t know what they are talking about. To say that someone who lives in Hollywood is a brainless, lefty loony who hates America is just as unfair and baseless as saying those who live in red states are backward, uninformed hillbillies. These labels stop us from having a meaningful debate about much of anything. The behavior profits no one but politicians and special interests that pit us against one another, using our fears to fill their coffers, trotting out the same hot button issues every couple of years, never really intending to advance any cause beyond Election Day.

The stereotyping I witnessed, not only toward actors, but toward any and all defined groups, made clear how easy it was and is to practice contempt prior to examination. I felt a growing need to expand beyond my own circle, pushing back against those who would use demagoguery to keep otherwise likeminded people divided. I no longer trust labels or those doing the labeling.

Women are pitted against one another constantly in this same divide and conquer scenario. Yet Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin refused to have the catfight the media was aching to cover. Instead, both women took care to discuss each other in respectful terms. If women on the left and right could ever reach a truce on reproductive rights, the guys would never win another election until they stopped condescending to 52% of the population as one-issue voters.

The elections of 2008 and 2010 also instilled in me a deep need to understand where all the pent up hatred was coming from and why it was so easy to curse women for, well, being women.

Victoria Woodhull was a successful entrepreneur and activist who ran for President in 1872, almost 50 years before woman had the right to vote. The type of press coverage she received was not dissimilar to the tiresome focus on Hillary’s ankles, “cackle,” pantsuits and vocal quality. Kneecapping a woman with poisonous derision was an age-old practice simply refreshed with new verbiage in 2008.

In the early days of the presidential campaign, the Washington Post offered a story about “Hillary’s dip into new neckline territory”: “There wasn’t an unseemly amount of cleavage showing, but there it was. Undeniable.” This tidbit was picked up by news outlets and pundits from here to Australia. Senator Clinton was discovered in her incriminating ensemble as she stood on the floor of the Senate discussing the burdensome cost of higher education. Her wardrobe had once again trumped her issue.

In February of 2009, the stock market had just lost half its value, two wars continued abroad, we had inaugurated a new president, and Congress was about to pass the $787 billion stimulus bill. CBS, along with other news networks, were wondering…”Will Jessica Simpson’s Curves Hurt Her Career.” On CNN, “Jessica Simpson spoke out in her first interview since getting slammed for putting on a few pounds.” A preposterous amount of attention was focused on this woman’s waistline. In the midst of numerous crises, we were offered bread and circuses.

In 2010, New York Senator Kirsten Gillibrand was referred to as “the Senate’s hottest member” by Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. Was that better or worse than Massachusetts Senate candidate Martha Coakley being referred to as an “ice queen?”

If the objectification of women was not endemic to our culture, it would find no quarter with the American people and those practicing it would have to find something else to talk about. We, too, are part of the problem. We are daily reminded what the feminine ideal should be via airbrushed and otherwise “enhanced” images of beautiful women who grace magazine covers. It is also clear how easily any woman can be the target for humiliating treatment if for whatever reason, she does not match up to that ideal, physically, socially or politically.

A woman’s appearance can be used against her via demeaning images in novelty stores, airports, greeting cards, television ads and magazines. There is no escape: Hillary nutcrackers, Hillary’s head sticking out of a toilet. Hillary as dominatrix dolls. Hillary toilet paper. MSNBC’s Chris Matthews displayed a photo of Hillary with horns coming out of her head on his show. Imagine the backlash had he made President Obama the target of such treatment.

To complement David Letterman’s references to Sarah Palin’s “slutty flight attendant look,” there were Sarah Palin orifice-accessible blow up dolls and ‘naughty Sarah’ action figures. Photographs were manipulated on the internet. The naked Sarah Palin and the naked VP Dick Cheney having sex, her legs up over his shoulders, was the nadir.

Ridicule. A woman’s sexuality is abused as a weapon to demean and humiliate. It would appear the thinking is, “If I can screw it, I can own it.”

One of the worst weapons is laughter. We are encouraged to listen to an endless litany of put downs with good humor and complain about none of it. Yet over time, it must have an effect on the way society sees women and the way women see themselves.

“They fined CBS a million dollars for Janet Jackson’s nipple. Just think what they could get for Hillary Clinton’s c_nt.”

–Bill Maher, HBO, “Real Time with Bill Maher”

Today, female candidates on average receive 40% less coverage on the issues and 350% more coverage about their appearance than their male counterparts. Calling a woman a whore is an old tactic and still an effective one. That more women candidates are facing these attacks head on doesn’t render them any more acceptable.

Nikki Haley, just elected the first female Governor of South Carolina overcame a phony sex scandal to win office. Current research indicates women do much better when they fight back rather than bear such accusations in silence. When women run, they tend to win almost as much as men do – but many don’t want to throw their hats into the ring if focus on appearance or character assassination will trump issues and qualifications.

Now that the midterm “shellacking” is done, media speculation has once again turned to both Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin – will either or both of them run? If so, when? And does another vicious, sexist hazing await?

The majority of the pundit class and newscasters have exhibited a disturbing unwillingness to discuss an issue that shows little sign of dissipating. While looking away now may be the more comfortable choice, sweeping this issue under the rug ensures an encore of the same behavior the next time a woman dares step to the plate.

Born into a family where abuse to women was the norm, I am more sensitive to the warning signs. My beautiful and tireless mother was devalued and shamed to devastating effect so that my father could maintain superiority in our home. There is a personal, profound cost to each of us as similar types of assaults continue to unfold on a national level. Until that personal cost and innate bias is acknowledged, examined and debated, little will change.

Will we arrive at the point where misogyny’s tool kit loses its power to manipulate? For all our sakes, qualifications and policy positions had best trump branding, stagecraft or a focus on ankle size. I look forward to the day when considerations of race, gender or age will neither advantage nor disadvantage someone who has the courage to stand for our country and represent our interests.

But there is one other “change” that has reared its ugly head since the Obama campaign began, and that is the war on women. You know, the “Bros Before Hoes” (a slogan and t-shirt), “Sarah Palin Is a C…” t-shirts, the Hillary Clinton “nutcrackers,” the “Life’s A Bitch, Don’t Vote For One” (in regard to Hillary Clinton) t-shirt, and on and on. We saw them all too often during 2008, with men (and some women) wearing them with glee.

Add to those displays the “comedienne” Sandra Bernhard threatening Sarah Palin with being gang-raped by black men (racist much, Sandra??) should she dare come to New York. Or Randi Rhodes, at a fundraiser for the Great Uniter, Obama, calling Hillary Clinton a whore. Oh, wait – I mean, “a big fucking whore.” N.O.W., Naral, Planned Parenthood, all supporting the man in the race (and as recently mentioned, the California chapter of N.O.W. endorsing the man in the governor’s race over the pro-choice woman, and supporting one of his aides calling her a whore).

And we cannot forget the blatant misogyny of many in the media since 2008. Three names sum it up: Keith Olbermann, Chris Matthews, and David Shuster. Need I say more? Not only did many in the media routinely make sexist, even misogynistic statements, but they routinely failed to cover the news, like the young men yelling at Hillary Clinton, “Iron My Shirt!” You and I both know damn well had anyone yelled out at Barack Obama, “Shine My Shoes!” we would be hearing about blatant racism in the campaign to this day.

All of which is to say, the misogyny is not limited to displays by men, unfortunately. Too many women are all too ready to throw their lot in with them. I suppose their “logic” is that they should join in lest they be treated the same way by these same men. Perhaps they think if they side against women, too, they will be spared the horrific treatment that is becoming all too acceptable. It is just a bit disturbing when it comes from groups whose sole purpose is to support women.

Taken together, it makes the story below not so surprising, sadly. Not that it isn’t emetic, mind you, but it is not surprising. Not after all we have seen since 2008, the t-shirts, the slogans, the flipping off by Candidate Obama of Hillary Clinton, the “sweetie” remarks toward a reporter, also by Candidate Obama, as well as the hint of PMS when he claimed Clinton might “get down periodically,” or Obama’s claiming that his challenge to the status quo “brings the claws out,” along with the general rage against powerful women, both Democratic and Republican for having the audacity to run against men. The nerve of these women, those who dared to run for president, or governor, or senator, or representative – how freaking dare they?

Those attitudes, both subtle and overt, have an effect. They are, as Obama likes to say, “Teachable moments.” But what these messages are teaching our young people is sickening. And that brings us to this from the Chronicle of Higher Learning, “Yale Fraternity Apologizes For Pledge Chants About Rape” (h/t to Pat Racimora):

The Delta Kappa Epsilon fraternity at Yale University apologized on Thursday for offensive chants against women that were shouted by new recruits on Wednesday evening. The young men, blindfolded, were marched through a part of the campus where female freshmen live while shouting, “No means yes, yes means anal!,” among other inflammatory chants. The pledging ritual sparked an outcry from Yale feminists and the Yale Women’s Center and a commentary in Salon.

Yep. Yale. The Salon article states:

[snip] Now, DKE President Jordan Forney has been forced to apologize for this blatant sexual intimidation by calling it “a serious lapse in judgment by the fraternity and in very poor taste.” But this sort of hateful crap isn’t a “lapse in judgment.” It doesn’t innocently happen that you’re guiding male pledges by young women’s dorms in the dark of night chanting about anal rape. It isn’t a forehead-slapping slip-up, it’s a sign that you need major reprogramming as a human being. [snip]

I’ll say. But not just at Yale. Young men, and women for that matter, need reprogramming in general that treating women like this, whether they are young or old, is simply unacceptable. It is not okay to threaten young women with rape, just as it is not okay to threaten a political figure with gang rape or to attack a candidate based on gender and not on their political stance. The entire country could use some “re-programming,” including Obama. Now THAT is some change I can support, and the sooner, the better.

Women in this country deserve at least that much, don’t we?

As she begins her general election race for South Carolina’s top statehouse job, Republican Nikki Haley is part of a group of candidates this year who are simultaneously pursuing another goal: to be their state’s first female governor.

Women are running to break the political glass ceiling in eight states that have never had a female governor, including California, New Mexico and Minnesota. Currently, six women  three Democrats and three Republicans  serve as governors.

In South Carolina, Haley beat four-term Rep. J. Gresham Barrett in a runoff election for the GOP nomination Tuesday. Haley will face Democratic state lawmaker Vincent Sheheen in November in the race to succeed Republican Gov. Mark Sanford, who is term-limited.

“South Carolina just showed the rest of the country what we’re made of,” Haley said after her victory. “It’s a new day in our state, and I am very blessed to be a part of it.”

The prevalence of female candidates for statewide office has been a defining narrative of the 2010 election season, particularly for Republicans. There are 13 GOP and 10 Democratic women running for Senate, according to the Center for American Women and Politics (CAWP) at Rutgers.

“Part of it is timing and history,” said Meg Whitman, a Republican who is running to be California’s first female governor. “You’ve got a generation of women coming of age (who) are now engaging in the political process.”

Yes, like with so many things, it is all about timing, especially for so many women to be running at the same time:

Thirty-one women have served as governor in 23 states, according to CAWP. If at least three of them win in the November elections, a majority of states would either have a woman in the governor’s mansion or have had one in the past.

Debbie Walsh, the center’s director, cautioned against putting too much stock in such benchmarks, though. New female governors may be elected this year, but three are retiring or face term limits, including Jodi Rell, R-Conn.; Linda Lingle, R-Hawaii; and Jennifer Granholm, D-Mich.

The percentage of women holding statewide executive offices has declined from 28.5% in 2000 to 22.9% in 2009, according to the center’s statistics.

Conservative Women Have Success

“Having so few at any one time is part of the challenge,” Walsh said, noting that statewide elected positions can serve as launching pads for presidential campaigns. Case in point: Hillary Rodham Clinton ran for president in 2008 as a Democratic senator from New York.

What’s significant about 2010, Walsh said, is that “we are seeing more Republican women stepping up and taking the risk.” In the past, she said, female GOP candidates have been more moderate than their male counterparts. This year, a fresh brand of female conservatives is having more success in primaries.

Several of those candidates, including Haley, have been endorsed by former Alaska governor Sarah Palin.

“Most of these women are not just Republicans, they are conservative Republicans,” said Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the Susan B. Anthony List, which supports female politicians who oppose abortion rights. “This is the moment to seize because the environment is right,” she said.

Plenty of Democratic women also are taking a stab at being their state’s first female governor, including Florida’s chief financial officer, Alex Sink, and state lawmaker Elizabeth “Libby” Mitchell, who is running in Maine.

Diane Denish, who was elected New Mexico’s first female lieutenant governor in 2002, is now seeking the state’s top job. She said the number of women running nationwide “sends a great message to women and girls that anything is possible.”

Because her Republican opponent, Susana Martinez, is also a woman, the state is guaranteed to make history. In a statement, Martinez said she appreciates the “historic significance of this election, as well as the elections taking place in other states.”

That’s pretty cool, actually – no matter who wins, it will be historic. Huh – where have I heard that before? I know, before people started acting like only an Obama win would be historic. Ahem. Yes, history will be made with wins by a number of these women, but that’s not all there is to it:

Many of the female candidates, including Whitman and Martinez, have downplayed the gender issue in their own campaigns  arguing that it doesn’t matter whether a man or woman is victorious, as long as whoever takes the job gets results.

“That, to me, doesn’t matter as much,” said Sarah Franks, a 34-year-old teacher who voted for Haley, but not because she’s a woman. “I mean I think it’s neat, but that doesn’t matter as much as just getting some new blood in the system.”

True that. New blood cannot hurt considering where we are now. Still, I admit I am happy that women are rising to this level, and so many qualified women at that. But of course, we cannot deny that sexism is alive and well in this country as we all well know from the debacle of 2008. And I think most of us can agree that women still have to work harder than men to get to the same levels, and even then, as we know from the Obama v. Clinton debacle, that far more qualified and experienced women still do not beat out the younger, less-qualified men. So, yes, I am glad to see that so many qualified women are running, and in some cases, will definitely be making history. That’s just cool.

As noted above, many of the women running are politically and socially conservative. But, that does not necessarily mean they are not feminists, as I have said for some time, and as Kathleen Parker points out in this piece, True (or false) Feminism:

Proving one’s feminist bona fides has become the latest challenge for women aspiring to public office.

Is she a “real” feminist who walks in lockstep with traditional feminist orthodoxy? Or is she a faux feminist, i.e., a woman who has benefited from traditional feminism, become all that she could be, but, alas, thinks independently on certain sacred tenets of the sisterhood?

The latest debate emerged recently when pundits on both sides of the widening chasm weighed in on the number of pro-life (and pro-life-ish) Republican women running for public office. The back-and-forth seems to have begun when feminist Jessica Valenti criticized Sarah Palin in The Washington Post for declaring herself a feminist.

The implication: A pro-life woman can’t really be a feminist.

Soon thereafter, Ramesh Ponnuru, National Review senior editor and author of “The Party of Death,” declared in The New York Times that 2010 is the year of the pro-life woman, listing all those on today’s ballot who happen to be pro-life.

Among them: Sharron Angle in Nevada, who will oppose Harry Reid for the U.S. Senate; South Carolina gubernatorial candidate Nikki Haley; former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina, who won the Republican nomination in California for the U.S. Senate seat currently held by Barbara Boxer; Susana Martinez, who became her party’s nominee for governor of New Mexico.

Seeing so many accomplished women reach the top of the political heap, not to mention their professions in some cases, should be cause for feminist celebration — except for that one thing. Thus, left-leaning feminists in the blogosphere have responded breathlessly, which I mention only to suggest passion rather than to imply debutante tendencies, though who can be sure?

Frankly, the absolute vitriol heaped on conservative women by so-called liberal women was startling (including the vitriol directed at Hillary Clinton, for that matter). As I have noted previously, when I was marching for Equal Rights For Women, I thought it meant ALL women, not just women who held the same liberal beliefs I did. I thought it was for all women to be self-actualized, not just ones like me. Parker continues:

This all would be tedious if it weren’t so entertaining. In fact, this is the crux of the crux in the arena of so-called women’s issues. Can one be a pro-life feminist, or is the question an oxymoron?

As a matter of orthodoxy, yes, but as a matter of reality, not really.

We’ve come a long way, baby, and there’s more than one type of woman roaming the vales and plains. But then, it was always so. There just weren’t many varieties of women in the public sphere, as Ponnuru points out.

Earlier feminists were almost universally pro-choice and have dominated political debate until now. Having access to abortion was viewed as the only way women could have full equality with men, who, until recently, couldn’t get pregnant.

OK, they still can’t, but we’ve now witnessed a bearded transgendering woman having babies — and fake wombs are inevitable — so anything’s possible, apparently. Good luck with all that.

Back to the point, we now see women who have managed to gain equality with men while also raising children, none more explicitly than Sarah Palin. At the risk of terminal heresy, I would suggest that behind almost every successful mother/politician/CEO is … a very good man.

Palin’s full house and career haven’t happened without the manly support of one Todd Palin. Real men don’t hold their wives back.

The reason Palin so upsets the pro-choice brigade is because she seems so content with her lot and her brood. One can find other reasons to think Palin shouldn’t be president, but being a pro-life woman shouldn’t be one of them.

Though this is ancient history for me and my generation, some of whom are now welcoming grandchildren into the world, some of the lessons we’ve learned bear repeating. Chief among them is that many women who have had babies find it harder, if not impossible, to see abortion as nothing more than a “choice” to eliminate an inconvenience.

I fall into this camp, though I’ve never been able to support reversing Roe v. Wade, which makes me unpopular with nearly everyone. Apart from legal arguments as to whether the Supreme Court ruling was constitutionally appropriate, I’m libertarian-leaning enough to insist that government should have no role in determining what anyone does with his or her body — as long as no one else is hurt.

Save your “ah-ha’s!” until the end, please. Obviously, the forming human life is destroyed, and thus I also can make a human-rights argument against abortion. I think we should.

That other women, such as Palin, want to reframe the abortion debate in new feminist terms, arguing that abortion hurts women and is, therefore, anti-woman, doesn’t bother me a bit. And it shouldn’t bother older-school feminists.

Equality, after all, means that every woman has a voice.

And that is the bottom line, is it not? For ALL women to have a voice. And this year, it may very well mean having more women’s voices in positions of power. That, to me, is exciting. How about you?

Holy smokes. Needless to say, there has been a LOT of discussion about this photograph, and why Newsweek would choose to run this particular photo. Taylor Marsh – former Clinton supporter now Obama water carrier – wrote a piece at Huffington Post on this, “What Was Newsweek Thinking?“. Media Matters had a post by Julie Millican, “Newsweek Should Worry More About How To Solve Its Problem With Sexism” (h/t to Bronwyn’s Harbor), though many of the comments would lead one to believe it is find and dandy to be sexist to someone if they are a Republican, and Palin’s an idiot anyway, so what’s the big deal?? (That was SNARK on my part, but sums up the sentiment there.)

Sarah Palin weighed in on the photo, too:

Palin denounced it—and us—to her million-strong Facebook following last night. “The choice of photo for the cover of this week’s Newsweek is unfortunate. When it comes to Sarah Palin, this ‘news’ magazine has relished focusing on the irrelevant rather than the relevant,” she wrote on her fan page, adding, “The out-of-context Newsweek approach is sexist and oh-so-expected by now.” She also told ABC’s Barbara Walters that she found the cover “a wee bit degrading.” Others, like CBN’s David Brody, said our cover was a new low: “biased and sexist at the same time.”

Well, yes. Out of all the photographs available out there, why choose one from RUNNER’S WORLD?? This was the excuse, I mean, reason, given by the editor:

Today, NEWSWEEK’s Editor Jon Meacham has responded to critics. “We chose the most interesting image available to us to illustrate the theme of the cover, which is what we always try to do,” Meacham said. “We apply the same test to photographs of any public figure, male or female: does the image convey what we are saying? That is a gender-neutral standard.”

Well, if what they were trying to say was that they are a bunch of sexist patronizing sanctimonious assholes, they succeeded!

They could have chosen, oh, say, this one:

(September 3, 2008 – Photo by Ethan Miller/Getty Images North America)

Or how about this one:

(October 31, 2008 – Photo by Jeff Swensen/Getty Images North America)

It took me less than a minute to find them. I would think Newsweek could take that long to find another image – if they had wanted to, that is. But they chose that one for a reason, and that reason is SEXISM.

Speaking of the photograph, it seems the photographer who took it, Brian Adams, engaged in a bit of premature, um, opportunism. He had a contract, you see, that did not allow him to sell this image until August of 2010. Oops!! Don’t you just hate when that happens? Anyway, kinda makes you wonder just how Newsweek got it, and it wasn’t from Runner’s World.

And then there’s the HEADLINE: “How Do You Handle a Problem Like Sarah? She’s Bad News For The GOP – And Everyone Else, Too.” Um, well, golly gee – that kind of sets the tone from the get-go, doesn’t it? I don’t even think one needs to read the damned thing to get where they are going with this.

It makes me wonder where they are getting their information. You may know that Governor Palin was on Oprah earlier this week. I don’t know about you, but I was wondering, just out of curiosity, what the ratings were going to be for that show. Care to hazard a guess? If you went by the headline above, you’d guess not very high. And you would be very wrong. Oprah’s show had the highest rating it has had in over TWO YEARS. Dang, that Palin is just TERRIBLE for EVERYBODY!!!! Never mind all of those cheering crowds turning out for her book tour – Palin is just terrible for them! And the GOP! And the WORLD!!!! Ahem.

Again, I disagree with a lot of her policies, but I do appreciate her honest, down to earth bearing – those are characteristics sorely missing among politicians today. Does she possess brilliance on a par with Hillary Clinton? No, I don’t know anyone in politics who is on Clinton’s level. She is heads and shoulders above (which is, no doubt, why they drug her down and stomped all over her). Apparently, though, those of us who consider ourselves to be liberal cannot like Sarah Palin at all in any way for any reason whatsoever without being chastised, criticized, demeaned, and belittled. Because we couldn’t POSSIBLY have been marching for Equal Rights for someone like SARAH PALIN, who, by her own admission on Oprah says her relationship to her husband is one based on EQUALITY. Surely, SHE doesn’t count, which has been the recurring theme about her by so-called liberals and “feminists.” Apparently, only Democrats are worthy of having equal rights according to a lot of these folks – many of whom were not marching, or fighting, or accompanying women to Planned Parenthood for abortions like a number of us did (including myself), but they can, with incredible sexism and elitism, denounce Palin for being an “idiot” and unworthy of respect (“she hasn’t done anything to deserve respect” was one comment I saw at Media Matters), despite all she accomplished for Alaska. Yet, Obama with his paper thin resume, and his throwing women under the bus, backing up, running over them again, and again, and again, somehow does deserve their respect. Wow.

Speaking of Obama, shockingly, in a recent Quinnipiac Poll, though Obama has now dipped below 50% approval, women approve of him by 52 – 37% while men disapprove of Obama by 47 – 44%. Why do women still support him after all of the ways he has dismissed women and our issues?

As for Sarah Palin, I am amazed by the amount of animosity directed at her by men, but women, too. And it amazes me how quickly people are willing to believe whatever rumor or half-truth comes down the pike about her. It is sad, really, but it also undermines their arguments against her, so there’s that.

Taking the two together is a sad, sad commentary on where we are. The bottom line, as we saw so clearly this past election season, is that sexism is most definitely alive and well in the United States, spurred on by our media, and our politicians. There is too little comeuppance for those who engage in sexism on a national level, like the cover of Newsweek above. I am glad that some women are speaking up as noted, but too many people are willing to engage in massive amounts of sexist commentary against Palin simply because she is a Republican and a conservative. Their hypocrisy apparently knows no bounds.

Sexism is sexism. We must be willing to apply the same standard across the board and political spectrum. Until then, we will continue to see national publications like “News”week engage in blatant sexism toward a former governor and former Vice Presidential candidate with too little outcry. And we will continue to see so-called liberals engage in blatant woman-bashing under the guise of “politics.” That is an excuse used by cowards and misogynists, and must not be excused any more by anyone. Call it by name: Sexism.

“News”week, you owe Governor Palin, and all women, an apology. We’re waiting…

When Hillary Rodham Clinton traveled to Africa last month, she visited war-racked eastern Congo to speak out against widespread rape by militias. She choked up after meeting with two rape victims and promised more US help – $17 million for medical treatment and security for victims.

Now she’s taking the issue to the United Nations, where the US is leading an effort to shore up a resolution to end sexual violence against civilians during armed conflict. The Security Council passed Resolution 1820 last year, but follow through is sorely lacking.

Women’s rights are becoming a signature issue for America’s top diplomat. In her official travels, Mrs. Clinton talks with women, meets with female activists, and presses the twin challenges of women’s rights and abuse with political leaders. She wants US development aid to focus more on women, and has appointed the first US ambassador for global women’s issues.

The Bush administration, too, championed women’s rights, especially in Muslim countries such as Afghanistan. But no Secretary of State has sought to make women as high a priority as Clinton is attempting. It’s a potentially powerful shift. If she can pull it off.

As Rev. Amy noted in her terrific piece, Well, Isn’t This a Nice Change, the Washington Post started the very short parade to end the virtual press blackout on Clinton by writing a lovely and informative article focused on the woman’s work, not her pantsuits or cackle:

“Amid all the distractions, what is Clinton actually doing? Only overseeing what may be the most profound changes in U.S. foreign policy in two decades.”

Well, if anyone can pull it off…

A more detailed article on this issue appeared in the Washington Times today, noting:

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, who appeared genuinely moved after her August visit to rape victims in eastern Congo, is expected to chair a special U.N. Security Council session at the end of the month to review U.N. efforts to curb the epidemic.

“Meeting with survivors of rape, which is now used increasingly as a tool of war, was shattering,” Mrs. Clinton told a New York audience Friday. “The atrocities described to me distill evil to its basest form. These are crimes against humanity. They don’t just harm a single individual, or a single family, or village or group. They shred the fabric that weaves us together as human beings. This criminal outrage against women must be stopped.”

In a new approach, two U.N. reports issued last week could lay a basis for war crimes prosecutions against individual soldiers.

…the U.N. Security Council meeting Sept. 30 would review implementation of Resolution 1820, passed last year explicitly to outlaw sexual violence in conflict and afterward. Women’s groups praised the 2008 text for designating rape as a threat to international peace and security.

As Tina Brown, editor of The Daily Beast recently stated in her otherwise sexist piece Obama’s Other Wife, “Hillary Clinton has been fighting for the rights of women since before it was fashionable.” I applaud Secretary Clinton for making this a priority. The CSM article states that:

Obstacles abound, including the unruly thicket of US aid programs. But the greatest challenge is the deeply rooted culture in countries that oppress women and girls – often violently and even to the point of enslavement, sexual and otherwise. Honor killings, child brides, female infanticide – all of these accepted customs need to be realized as unacceptable.

They wisely point out that Secretary Clinton is doing her best not to fall into the trap of being seen to lecture foreign countries on their treatment of women, or to create social upheaval and note that she is “wisely framing the issue in terms of countries’ own interests”:

Her pitch: Healthcare for women, especially maternal care, makes for healthier children and families. Schooling for girls contributes to economic progress. Microloans to women pay handsome dividends as women pay them off and invest further in businesses and their families’ welfare. (The majority of the world’s small-holder farmers are women.)

Some experts also see a link between the oppression of women and the problems of extremism and terrorism.

“It is a very-well-researched fact that women are key to economic progress and social stability,” Clinton said in India this summer. Global aid groups, the World Bank, the US military, and economists agree. “Gender inequality hurts economic growth,” reports Goldman Sachs.

Attitudes in male-dominated countries can change once men see the monetary benefits of female empowerment. Writers Nicholas D. Kristof and Sheryl WuDunn give a convincing example of this in their new book, “Half the Sky: Turning Oppression Into Opportunity for Women Worldwide.”

Mr. Kristof and Ms. WuDunn also deserve kudos for drawing attention to this issue. British PM Gordon Brown recently praised their important book in his article Taking Women’s Rights Seriously:

They tell of Saima Muhammad, a poverty-stricken wife and mother near Lahore, Pakistan, who suffered daily beatings from her jobless husband. For lack of food, she had to send her daughter to live with an aunt. When her second child, a girl, was born, Saima’s husband was urged by his mother to take a second wife so he could father a son.

Then Saima got a loan of $65 through a Pakistani group that lends exclusively to women. She started an embroidery business that now employs 30 families in the neighborhood (including her husband). She paid off her husband’s debt (more than $3,000), kept her girls in school, and upgraded her house, adding running water and TV.

The authors write that Saima’s husband is now more impressed with girls. They are “just as good as boys,” he says.

Yep, we are just as good as boys. And once in a while, we’re even better. Sssh. Keep that under your hat. Would have been nice if people figured that out in 2008. But I digress…

In closing, the Christian Science Monitor states that Secretary Clinton has found the best way to frame this issue in order to get the most mileage, since we know appealing on a humanitarian basis has not gotten us very far in the decent and equal treatment of women and girls – either here or around the world:

Of course, women’s rights are human rights. They don’t need to be justified for any other reason than that. But in many countries, the path to that realization may well begin with economic self-interest, and Clinton is right to recognize this.

It is the understatement of the century that I would prefer her leadership as President, yet I appreciate she is making this cause such an important element of her platform as Secretary of State, a cause she promoted in her famous speech in Beijing in 1995, which she delivered in defiance of the U.S. State Dept. and the Chinese government:

“For too long, the history of women has been a history of silence. Even today, there are those who are trying to silence our words.

“It is a violation of human rights when babies are denied food, or drowned, or suffocated, or their spines broken, simply because they are born girls. It is a violation of human rights when woman and girls are sold into the slavery of prostitution. It is a violation of human rights when women are doused with gasoline, set on fire and burned to death because their marriage dowries are deemed too small. It is a violation of human rights when individual women are raped in their own communities and when thousands of women are subjected to rape as a tactic or prize of war. It is a violation of human rights when a leading cause of death worldwide along women ages 14 to 44 is the violence they are subjected to in their own homes. It is a violation of human rights when women are denied the right to plan their own families, and that includes being forced to have abortions or being sterilized against their will.

“Women’s rights are human rights. Among those rights are the right to speak freely—and the right to be heard.”

I am so proud to have supported Hillary Clinton in 2008 and to see that she is still working for the issues she holds near and dear, no matter how she is treated, no matter how the American press pretends she doesn’t exist, no matter what else is going on around her. This is an adult who sees the bigger picture.

She’ll always have my vote.

Now to the article in Washington Post, “Clinton Puts Spotlight On Women’s Issues.” May I just say, before I share the article with you, that she is doing EXACTLY what she said she would do. I’m just sayin’ – she is remaining true to her principles and what she considers to be important. Unlike SOME people I could name. About time some in the MSM got the memo, but WaPo did:

She talked chickens with female farmers in Kenya. She listened to the excruciating stories of rape victims in war-torn eastern Congo. And in South Africa, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton visited a housing project built by poor women, where she danced with a choir singing “Heel-a-ree! Heel-a-ree!”

Clinton’s just-concluded 11-day trip to Africa has sent the clearest signal yet that she intends to make women’s rights one of her signature issues and a higher priority than ever before in American diplomacy.

She plans to press governments on abuses of women’s rights and make women more central in U.S. aid programs.

But her efforts go beyond the marble halls of government and show how she is redefining the role of secretary of state. Her trips are packed with town hall meetings and visits to micro-credit projects and women’s dinners. Ever the politician, she is using her star power to boost women who could be her allies.

“It’s just a constant effort to elevate people who, in their societies, may not even be known by their own leaders,” Clinton said in an interview. “My coming gives them a platform, which then gives us the chance to try and change the priorities of the governments.”

Wow. That is quite a statement. I am glad she is doing this work abroad, for the marginalized and oppressed. Oh, how I wish she was doing it as the President (and we know she would have kept her word then, too).

But, things don’t always run smoothly, as we know:

Clinton’s agenda faces numerous obstacles. The U.S. aid system is a dysfunctional jumble of programs. Some critics may question why she is focusing on women’s rights instead of terrorism or nuclear proliferation. And improving the lot of women in such places as Congo is complicated by deeply rooted social problems.

“It’s great she’s mentioning the issue,” said Brett Schaefer, an Africa scholar at the Heritage Foundation. “As to whether her bringing it up will substantially improve the situation or treatment of women in Africa, frankly I doubt it.”

Lawrence Wilkerson, who was chief of staff to Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, said that Clinton has to tread carefully in socially conservative regions, particularly those where the U.S. military is at war. “You might be right, in the narrow sense of women in that country or region need to be empowered, but you’re saying something inimical to other U.S. interests,” he said.

Despite Clinton’s efforts to spotlight women’s issues, it was her own angry response to what she perceived as a sexist question at a town hall meeting in Congo that dominated American television coverage of her Africa trip. A student had asked for former president Bill Clinton’s opinion on a local political issue — “through the mouth of Mrs. Clinton.” Snapped Hillary Clinton: “My husband is not the secretary of state. I am.”

Clinton is not the first female secretary of state, but neither of her predecessors had her impact abroad as a pop feminist icon. On nearly every foreign trip, she has met with women — South Korean students, Israeli entrepreneurs, Iraqi war widows, Chinese civic activists. Clinton mentioned “women” or “woman” at least 450 times in public comments in her first five months in the position, twice as often as her predecessor, Condoleezza Rice.

And that is why it still shocks me that women who consider themselves feminists, and womens organizations, did not wholeheartedly throw their support behind Hillary Clinton, rather going for the young, inexperienced man. Clinton is not new to this issue, and doesn’t just pay lip service to it, either:

Clinton’s interest in global women’s issues is deeply personal, a mission she adopted as first lady after the stinging defeat of her health-care reform effort in 1994. For months, she kept a low profile. Then, in September 1995, she addressed the U.N. women’s conference in Beijing, strongly denouncing abuses of women’s rights. Delegates jumped to their feet in applause.

“It was a transformational moment for her,” said Melanne Verveer, who has worked closely with Clinton since her White House days.

Clinton began traveling the world, highlighting women’s issues. She gradually built a network of female activists, politicians and entrepreneurs, especially through a group she helped found, Vital Voices, that has trained more than 7,000 emerging leaders worldwide. She developed a following among middle-class women in male-dominated countries who devoured her autobiography and eagerly watched her presidential run.

“She might not be having the same restrictions as we have, but she has had restrictions — and she’s moving on. That’s a symbol to us,” said Tara Fela-Durotoye, a businesswoman in Abuja, Nigeria.

Clinton’s legacy is evident in such places as the Victoria Mxenge housing development outside Cape Town, South Africa, a dusty sprawl of small, pastel-colored homes she championed as first lady. When her bus rolled into the female-run project during her trip, a joyful commotion broke out. Women in purple and yellow gowns lined the streets, waving wildly.

Huh. How does this match with the rhetoric spewed by Obama about Hillary Clinton and her work abroad? Does the expression, “Liar, liar, pants on fire” mean anything to you? And yet, people bought his words, hook, line, and sinker. I wonder how they’re feeling now, especially when they read what the effects of her work are, discernible, and quantifiable:

A youth choir swayed outside a community center decorated with photos of Clinton on her previous visits to the project, which has grown to 50,000 houses. Clinton vowed in a major policy address last month to make women the focus of U.S. assistance programs. The idea is applauded by development experts, who have found that investing in girls’ education, maternal health and women’s micro-finance provides a powerful boost to Third World families.

Ritu Sharma, president of the anti-poverty group Women Thrive Worldwide, said she already sees the results of Clinton’s efforts in the bureaucracy. When Sharma’s staff recently attended a meeting about a new agricultural aid program, she said, one State Department official joked, “We have to integrate women — or we’re going to be fired.”

Still, Sharma questioned whether the program would succeed in reaching poor women, especially given the weaknesses in U.S. foreign assistance.

“There’s a lot of healthy skepticism about ‘Will it really happen?’ ” she said.

In a sign of the priority she gives to the issue, Clinton has appointed her close friend Verveer as the State Department’s first global ambassador for women’s affairs.

“She will permeate the State Department, as I want her to, with what we should be doing about empowering and focusing on women across the board,” Clinton said.

This reminds me – do you remember that Obama has a school named after him in Kenya? You know, the one to which he has given not one thin dime? Uh, yeah. Who walks the walk here? Clearly, it’s Hillary:

One issue Verveer has been concerned about is violence against women, particularly the stunningly high number of rapes in eastern Congo. Last week, Clinton, Verveer and the delegation boarded U.N. planes to visit the remote, impoverished region and meet with rape victims. Clinton pressed the Congolese president to prosecute offenders and offered $17 million in new assistance for victims.

“Raising issues like the ones I’ve been raising on this trip to get governments to focus on them, to see they’re not sidelined or subsidiary issues, but that the U.S. government at the highest levels cares about them, is important,” she said. “It changes the dynamic within governments.”

Clinton’s efforts are being reinforced by a White House women’s council and a Congress with a growing number of powerful female members. One sign of that: Aid dedicated to programs for Afghan women and girls increased about threefold this year, to $250 million, because of lawmakers such as Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), who was recently named head of the first Senate subcommittee on global women’s issues, and Rep. Nita M. Lowey (D-N.Y.), chairman of the House Appropriations subcommittee on foreign operations.

It is striking how much time Clinton dedicates to women’s events on her trips, even ones that receive little public attention. In South Africa, a clearly delighted Clinton spent 90 minutes at the housing project, twice as long as she met with South Africa’s president. “It feeds my heart,” she explained. “Which is really critical to me personally since a lot of what I do as secretary of state is very formalistic. It’s meetings with other officials.”

“It is striking how much time Clinton dedicates to women’s events on her trips, even ones that receive little public attention.” Because she doesn’t do it for the publicity, she does it because it is the RIGHT thing to do!! That is another big, huge, difference between Hillary Clinton and other politicians. She does a LOT of things about which people don’t know (as in, not publicized in the media) because she actually, genuinely cares about people.
And that is why she will always be my hero – because she cares, because she SHOWS she cares, and because she brings action to her words. I think we could use a whole lot more of that from our elected officials, don’t you?

If you wish to see where Secretary Clinton went, and what she did, click on this link: Secretary of State Clinton’s Africa Travels – Interactive Map

The results of this article came out the other day, though one might think the results would more likely be from the 19th century:

Newly minted brides should do more than vow to love their hubbies for a lifetime, say the majority of Americans. Some 70 percent of the respondents in a new study feel they should also take their spouse’s surname – and 50 percent say that it should be a legal requirement for a woman to take her spouse’s last name.

The study, presented Tuesday at the American Sociological Association’s annual meeting, was done by the Center for Survey Research at Indiana University, as reported by USA Today.

Some 815 people were asked multiple choice and open-ended questions about a variety of family and gender issues. On the issue of marital name change, the majority of respondents weighed in with a fairly conservative answer, says Laura Hamilton, Indiana University associate professor and lead study author.

“The results were surprisingly conservative,” she says. “Even though there is a general movement toward neutral language, like saying chairperson instead of chairwoman, people seemed to feel it was better for a woman to change her last name to her husband’s.”

You gotta admit. This is pretty surprising. Well, I should say, it would have been MORE surprising back in 2007, if you get my drift. But wait, there’s more:

She said that the fact that half of American thought this should be a legal requirement was also surprising.

“Americans don’t want much government intervention in family life, so for 50 percent of Americans to feel this way was interesting,” she said.

Only 5 to 10 percent of women keep the name they were born with when they marry, Hamilton says. She notes that some studies show that younger women are more likely or as likely to change their name as baby boom brides. “It’s not a straight age trend,” she said, according to USA Today.

When the respondents were asked why they felt women should change their name after the wedding, Hamilton says, “They told us that women should lose their own identity when they marry and become a part of the man and his family. This was a reason given by many.” (Emphasis mine.)

Other respondents said they felt the marital name change was essential for religious reasons or as a practical matter.

“They said the mailman would get confused and that society wouldn’t function as well if women did not change their name,” Hamilton says.

For cryin’ out loud, really? That’s some of the logic going on there? That the “mailMAN” will get confused if people with two last names at the same address get mail?? Well, our mailWOMAN doesn’t get the least bit confused delivering mail to us. Hey, I’m just saying (and no, I am not putting down men – just the sexist implications all the way across the board with that one).

And yes, that so many think it should be a LAW is significant. So much for personal liberty and all that. Who needs to make decisions about something as personal as their name? Certainly not the little lady who just got married.

This is not as surprising, though:

Americans who feel that women should take their husband’s last name also tend to be conservative in other areas, according to Hamilton.

“Asked if they thought of a lesbian couple as a family, those who believe that women should take their husband’s name are less likely to say yes,” she says. “If you’re more liberal about the name change issue, you tend to include a larger population in the definition of family.”

Oh, well. I feel better about that, don’t you? It’s a start, I suppose. Maybe we actually get to KEEP our own identity then?? Woohoo – being a lesbian in this culture is finally paying off! Yippee!!!

Ahem. Yes, according to the survey, “women should lose their identity…” LOSE THEIR IDENTITY. Forget about this sounding like the 19th century. It goes back WAY father than that. This is so disturbing on so many different levels, I can only shake my head in utter disbelief. Seriously – can you BELIEVE this? This “subjugate yourself to the man” thing is freakin’ biblical – and two THOUSAND years later, women are still expected to eradicate themselves?

Wow. You know, it is only a matter of degrees between this survey, and this recent article, Afghanistan Passes ‘Barbaric’ Law Diminishing Women’s Rights, Rehashed legislation allows husbands to deny wives food if they fail to obey sexual demands.

(Photo, Kabul, 2002, Sung Nam Hoon)

It is exactly the mindset above that gives SPACE to this kind of thinking, and allows laws like this to gain approval:

Afghanistan has quietly passed a law permitting Shia men to deny their wives food and sustenance if they refuse to obey their husbands’ sexual demands, despite international outrage over an earlier version of the legislation which President Hamid Karzai had promised to review.

The new final draft of the legislation also grants guardianship of children exclusively to their fathers and grandfathers, and requires women to get permission from their husbands to work.

“It also effectively allows a rapist to avoid prosecution by paying ‘blood money’ to a girl who was injured when he raped her,” the US charity Human Rights Watch said.

Holy freakin’ shit. I feel like I have fallen through a wormhole and traveled way, WAY back in time.

But wait – didn’t The One wave his magic wand, ride in on his Rainbow Unity Unicorn and say this wasn’t such a peachy keen idea because women-folk around the globe might get a tad bit miffed, thus casting a pall on the reflection from his halo? Well, close enough:

In early April, Barack Obama and Gordon Brown joined an international chorus of condemnation when the Guardian revealed that the earlier version of the law legalised rape within marriage, according to the UN.

Although Karzai appeared to back down, activists say the revised version of the law still contains repressive measures and contradicts the Afghan constitution and international treaties signed by the country.

Islamic law experts and human rights activists say that although the language of the original law has been changed, many of the provisions that alarmed women’s rights groups remain, including this one: “Tamkeen is the readiness of the wife to submit to her husband’s reasonable sexual enjoyment, and her prohibition from going out of the house, except in extreme circumstances, without her husband’s permission. If any of the above provisions are not followed by the wife she is considered disobedient.”

Huh, well, I’ll be damned. Evidently, SOME people don’t give a damn what The One has to say. Ahem.

Clearly it didn’t matter what Obama and Brown said, especially when you consider this:

The law has been backed by the hardline Shia cleric Ayatollah Mohseni, who is thought to have influence over the voting intentions of some of the country’s Shias, which make up around 20% of the population. Karzai has assiduously courted such minority leaders in the run up to next Thursday’s election, which is likely to be a close run thing, according to a poll released yesterday.

Human Rights Watch, which has obtained a copy of the final law, called on all candidates to pledge to repeal the law, which it says contradicts Afghanistan’s own constitution.

The group said that Karzai had “made an unthinkable deal to sell Afghan women out in the support of fundamentalists in the August 20 election”.

Brad Adams, the organisation’s Asia director, said: “The rights of Afghan women are being ripped up by powerful men who are using women as pawns in manoeuvres to gain power.

“These kinds of barbaric laws were supposed to have been relegated to the past with the overthrow of the Taliban in 2001, yet Karzai has revived them and given them his official stamp of approval.”

Indeed. Women are pawns, and property of men. Dare I say it, they are forced to give up their identities, and their own bodies, to every wish and whim of the men to whom they are married? And any violation of the woman is really a violation of the man to whom she is linked. That is, to whom she belongs.

As for Karzai:

The latest opinion poll by US democracy group the International Republican Institute showed that although Karzai was up 13 points to 44% since the last survey in May, his closest rival, Abdullah Abdullah, had soared from 7% to 26%.

If those numbers prove accurate, it would mean the contest would have to go to a second round run-off vote in early October. In that scenario, 50% of voters said they would vote for Karzai and 29% for Abdullah.

The survey was conducted in mid to late July, so it is not known whether Abdullah has made further gains on Karzai.

He could further increase his chance of victory by joining forces with Ashraf Ghani, the former finance minister who is also running on a platform fiercely critical of Karzai.

Fifty-eight per cent of the 2,400 people polled by IRI said they would like to see an alliance between Abdullah and Ghani, who is polling in fourth place.

In other words, at least from when this survey was taken, Karzai still seems to be the frontrunner. Gosh, that is SO good for the women in that country, isn’t it? Yeah, right – not even close.

And speaking of women in Afghanistan, this article came out recently, too “Marines Try A Woman’s Touch To Reach Afghan Hearts“:

Put on body armor, check weapons, cover head and shoulders with a scarf.

That was the drill for female American Marines who set out on patrol this week with a mission to make friends with Afghan women in a war zone by showing respect for Muslim standards of modesty.

The all-female unit of 46 Marines is the military’s latest innovation in its rivalry with the Taliban for the populace’s loyalty. Afghan women are viewed as good intelligence sources, and more open to the basics of the military’s hearts-and-minds effort — hygiene, education and an end to the violence.

“It’s part of the effort to show we’re sensitive to local culture,” said Capt. Jennifer Gregoire, of East Strasburg, Pa. She leads the Female Engagement Team in the Now Zad Valley of Helmand province, the heartland of the Taliban insurgency.

“If you show your hair, its kind of like seeing a nude picture here, because women are very covered up,” she said.

Uh, yeah, you can say that again. As another reminder:

(photo by worldwidewandering)

I think that qualifies as “very covered up” (click HERE to read the rest of the Women Marines story). What is more, there is absolutely NOTHING of the actual woman underneath the burqa. You don’t know who she is, you can’t see her eyes, her mouth, HER. You cannot SEE her.

That is the point of women “losing their identity in men,” is it not? Of women being nothing more than the property of their husbands, or their fathers, because who they are doesn’t count. It doesn’t matter. They are NOTHING unless they are connected to a man, and he may do to her as he wishes, whenever he wishes, and she must, simply, take it.

Well, at least according to the majority of those who took the survey here in the US, and according to the lawmakers in Afghanistan. Yep – seems there are people here who seem to have the same high (cough, choke) opinion of women as they do in Afghanistan. “What Women’s Lib,” indeed.

I bet you didn’t see THAT coming…

The seed for the first Woman’s Rights Convention was planted in 1840, when Elizabeth Cady Stanton met Lucretia Mott at the World Anti-Slavery Convention in London, the conference that refused to seat Mott and other women delegates from America because of their sex. Stanton, the young bride of an antislavery agent, and Mott, a Quaker preacher and veteran of reform, talked then of calling a convention to address the condition of women. Eight years later, it came about as a spontaneous event.

In July 1848, Mott was visiting her sister, Martha C. Wright, in Waterloo, New York. Stanton, now the restless mother of three small sons, was living in nearby Seneca Falls. A social visit brought together Mott, Stanton, Wright, Mary Ann McClintock, and Jane Hunt. All except Stanton were Quakers, a sect that afforded women some measure of equality, and all five were well acquainted with antislavery and temperance meetings. Lucretia Mott Fresh in their minds was the April passage of the long-deliberated New York Married Woman’s Property Rights Act, a significant but far from comprehensive piece of legislation. The time had come, Stanton argued, for women’s wrongs to be laid before the public, and women themselves must shoulder the responsibility. Before the afternoon was out, the women decided on a call for a convention “to discuss the social, civil, and religious condition and rights of woman.”

To Stanton fell the task of drawing up the Declaration of Sentiments that would define the meeting. Taking the Declaration of Independence as her guide, Stanton submitted that “all men and women had been created equal” and went on to list eighteen “injuries and usurpations” -the same number of charges leveled against the King of England-”on the part of man toward woman.”

You have to love the symmetry with which Stanton crafted the “Declaration of Sentiments.” And what an interesting choice of words for the Declaration, isn’t it? Stanton didn’t stop there:

Stanton also drafted eleven resolutions, making the argument that women had a natural right to equality in all spheres. The ninth resolution held forth the radical assertion that it was the duty of women to secure for themselves the right to vote. Elizabeth Cady Stanton afterwards recalled that a shocked Lucretia Mott exclaimed, “Why, Lizzie, thee will make us ridiculous.” Stanton stood firm. “But I persisted, for I saw clearly that the power to make the laws was the right through which all other rights could be secured.”

The convention, to take place in five days’ time, on July 19 and 20 at the Wesleyan Methodist Church in Seneca Falls, was publicized only by a small, unsigned notice placed in the Seneca County Courier. “The convention will not be so large as it otherwise might be, owing to the busy time with the farmers,” Mott told Stanton, “but it will be a beginning.”

A crowd of about three hundred people, including forty men, came from five miles round. No woman felt capable of presiding; the task was undertaken by Lucretia’s husband, James Mott. All of the resolutions were passed unanimously except for woman suffrage, a strange idea and scarcely a concept designed to appeal to the predominantly Quaker audience, whose male contingent commonly declined to vote. The eloquent Frederick Douglass, a former slave and now editor of the Rochester North Star, however, swayed the gathering into agreeing to the resolution. At the closing session, Lucretia Mott won approval of a final resolve “for the overthrowing of the monopoly of the pulpit, and for the securing to woman equal participation with men in the various trades, professions and commerce.” One hundred women and men signed the Seneca Falls Declaration-although subsequent criticism caused some of them to remove their names.

How telling is that, that no woman felt “capable of presiding” at their own Rights Convention? Holy smokes. At least there were some supportive men there, including Lucretia Mott’s husband, to step up. But not everyone was supportive:

The proceedings in Seneca Falls, followed a few days later by a meeting in Rochester, brought forth a torrent of sarcasm and ridicule from the press and pulpit. Noted Frederick Douglass in the North Star: “A discussion of the rights of animals would be regarded with far more complacency by many of what are called the wise and the good of our land, than would be a discussion of the rights of woman.”

But Elizabeth Cady Stanton, although somewhat discomforted by the widespread misrepresentation, understood the value of attention in the press. “Just what I wanted,” Stanton exclaimed when she saw that James Gordon Bennett, motivated by derision, printed the entire Declaration of Sentiments in the New York Herald. “Imagine the publicity given to our ideas by thus appearing in a widely circulated sheet like the Herald. It will start women thinking, and men too; and when men and women think about a new question, the first step in progress is taken.”

Stanton, thirty-two years old at the time of the Seneca Falls Convention, grew gray in the cause. In 1851 she met temperance worker Susan B. Anthony, and shortly the two would be joined in the long struggle to secure the vote for women. When national victory came in 1920, seventy-two years after the first organized demand in 1848, only one signer of the Seneca Falls Declaration-Charlotte Woodward, a young worker in a glove manufactory -had lived long enough to cast her ballot.

What a day that must have been for Charlotte Woodward, but how sad it took 72 years for women to get the right to vote after Seneca Falls, and that she was the only remaining one able to cast her vote. Still, what a joy that must have been for her. Can you imagine it?? WOw.

Let’s just see how far we have come in the past 161 years:

We have come nowhere near far enough. I can only imagine what Mott, Stanton, and the others, would have thought of this past primary season. On the one hand, no doubt, they would be thrilled that a woman would win the popular vote, would win almost all of the big states, many by a landslide. On the other, they most likely would have seen the treatment of that woman (and Sarah Palin, too), as more of the same. Forced by the powers-that-be to give up delegates she won fair and square for the inexperienced, younger man, forced to play by a different set of rules at the Convention than anyone else EVER, a different kind of convention from Seneca Falls, that’s for sure. It was one that failed to live by its OWN rules in order to put this woman firmly in her place. No doubt, what happened this past year would feel all too familiar to them. And to too many of us.

My deepest appreciation to these women who began this process. We have come a ways from that Convention 161 years ago, but we have far, far to go to achieve real equality in this country. One thing I do know – no one is going to hand it to us. We must keep fighting, like Hillary Clinton kept fighting in the face of the naysayers. And maybe next time, the best person, who happens to be a woman, will actually win…

Ah, yes, right off the bat, it sets the stage, doesn’t it? Uh, yeah:

“If Sarah Palin is qualified to be a heartbeat away from the presidency, so am I!”

These words spoken by my friend Janet were true. But Janet hasn’t put herself in Palin’s position by running for office. She’s made films and renovated houses, cushioned by inherited money. And since she doesn’t have any kids, it’s hard to say what would have gotten in the way if she’d wanted to be in politics. She didn’t, though, any more than 99% of my women friends and acquaintances; she believes in cultivating one’s own garden.

Most women I’ve talked with about Palin–all certified members of either the media elite or the just plain elite–take her nomination personally. Their animus isn’t explained just by her politics; none of them hate Condoleezza Rice, though they disagree with most everything she’s done. Nor, for that matter, do they even dislike John McCain. Typically they “respect” McCain but find him too old or too erratic or simply adore Obama.

It’s as though Palin were an average girl from their boarding school class–or, frankly, from the public school down the road–who unexpectedly won a big prize. “Why not me?” is the subtext, and it’s one I’ve never heard from men talking about male politicians. Many New Yorkers hate George Bush, for instance, and say similar things about his and Palin’s lack of intellectual capability and curiosity about the wider world. But they don’t view him as a personal rival.

My friends who hate Palin are all more articulate and better educated than she is, better traveled, probably smarter, definitely more fun to talk with. But the reasons they can’t stand Palin are all wrong.

I think it is safe to say that by “elite,” the author means: sanctimonious, classist, arrogant, snobs. And I would have to say, after reading the above about the author’s friends, I guarantee you, I would rather hang out with Sarah Palin ANY DAY of the week, despite our differences on policies. At least SHE is open minded, willing to engage in dialogue, and can appreciate the differences between people without feeling compelled to put them down at every opportunity. So, yeah – despite my own educational background, or how much I have traveled, blah, blah, blah, I’d rather have a cup of coffee with Gov. Palin any day of the week, thank you very much.

Oh, but wait, you know there’s more:

It’s not so much that Palin isn’t one of our own–an Ivy League type, or an Eastern preppie, or a self-made intellectual like Rice. It’s not for the fake feminist reasons that “she’s against freedom of choice” or “she didn’t tell her daughter about birth control.” (Though there is an element of hatred for her fertility, and the fact that it hasn’t impeded her rise.) It’s not because Palin only got a passport a few years ago and doesn’t speak any foreign languages.

No, it’s because Palin makes us look like the slackers we mainly are. We’ve had our bit of success, but we’ve also spent a lot of time smelling the roses. We’ve gone back to school to get another degree, volunteered in poor countries, devoted ourselves to a sport or a hobby. We’ve not had kids, or if we have, we’ve had one or two, and we’ve had nannies paid for by our work or our husbands or our inherited money.

We not only have had passports for decades, we’ve put serious mileage on them. We’ve lived overseas or spent months wandering around Africa or India, we understand foreign people and places in ways Palin never will–and yet it’s she who could become vice president, not one of us.

Wow, even in this explanation, that these women are “slackers,” she STILL manages to put down Palin at every opportunity. It doesn’t seem like HUMILITY was one of the lessons learned “wandering around Africa and India,” or for those who “volunteered in poor countries.” I might add, nor did they seem to get a clue about their over-inflated sense of self, or how they got to where they are on the backs of other people, so yeah, let’s just go with they are “slackers. ” Just sayin’.

Ms. Marlowe continues, again in her “elite” way, to describe why certain people pursue these avenues, like Gov. Palin has:

It’s not hard to see why. The boyfriend of one of my freshman roommates at Harvard is now governor of Massachusetts–a man no less and no more qualified than many of my classmates. Why him and not us? As with Palin, it comes down to wanting it badly enough and being singleminded. It means spending a lot of time in deadly dull meetings talking about school bond issues or where to put a new off-ramp.

It means spending a lot of time in small towns where no one you know has a country place or ever will. And except at the higher reaches, politics doesn’t offer much in the way of glamour or fame. I just got my absentee ballot here in New York City, and I didn’t recognize the names of the people running for Congress. (Jerrold Nadler or Grace Lin, anyone? Nadler has been the congressman from New York’s 8th District since 1992, and Grace Lin is a 24-year-old graduate of the University of Chicago whose previous experience is as a committeewoman for a Chicago ward. While her chances of victory are nil in this district, her Web site is frighteningly sketchy on the issues.)

People who become writers and intellectuals and artists tend not to want power that badly or pursue it that obsessively, which is what makes us interesting and fun–and makes few of us household names. Success at the Palin level in politics or business takes a level of blinkered self-confidence that comes mainly to (a very few) men. A lot of the people with this quality are annoying to be around. Maybe they aren’t very happy with themselves. But it’s not a surprise that a vice presidential nominee should be one of them.

The lesson of Sarah Palin for privileged women is to try harder. And that may be the toughest one to hear. (Ann Marlowe is the author of How to Stop Time: Heroin from A to Z and The Book of Trouble: A Romance.)

Holy cow, what an incredible back-handed “compliment,” if it can even be CALLED that. Ms. Marlowe claims writers, intellectuals, and artists don’t want power? For real? They don’t want to be household names?? That’s bullshit. I’m sorry, but that just is. What writer, intellectual, or artist does NOT want for people to know about their work, to know their names?? If they didn’t care about any of that, they would all write/pain/”think” under pseudonyms or something (okay – that’s a bit of hyperbole, but you get the point, right?). Again, she cannot stand to say anything that is just positive about Governor Palin, and let it stand at that. The essence of what she is saying is that Governor Palin worked hard to get to where she is. She IS college-educated, as was her dad, a teacher, and her mother worked as a school secretary (and go check out who some of her New England ancestors were, since Ms. Marlowe seems to be all about the East Coast). She has stood up to her own party, called them out on ethical reasons, and while she may not have spent her summers in Monaco or Martha’s Vineyard, she has done quite a bit on her own, like running for governor – and WINNING.

And Sarah Palin is a feminist, who cares more about building women up than tearing them down (talking to you, MS. Marlowe), as the following video highlights so well:

THIS is what a feminist looks like, not what the East Coast Liberal “elite” determines are feminists. No, Feminism is meant to include ALL women, whether we all agree with each other or not. One thing about which Ms. Marlowe is correct is that Governor Palin worked HARD to get to where she is, and many other women have worked as hard to get to where they are, or to keep their heads above water. Not everyone wants to be a public figure. Some just want to be able to fed, clothe, and educate their children, and cannot afford a nanny, a maid, or a chauffeur – many of them ARE the nannies, maids, and chauffeurs. I might add, since Marlowe mentioned this too, freedom of choice means just that – the right to CHOOSE. And that means a woman can choose what she wants to do with her own body. Palin CHOSE to have her Downs Syndrome child; other women might not have. But that is each and every women’s INDIVIDUAL choice. Sheesh, already!!

That is to say, when Ms. Marlowe puts down women like Palin, she is putting down a whole bunch of other women who have worked hard to be self-made women. Since Marlowe brought up “fake feminism,” I would suggest she has engaged in a bit of that herself. Feminists need not all be “elites” – the whole point of feminism is for ALL women to be self-actualized, however that looks for THEM, as I have said befoer.

Oh, and one last thing – she and her friends may be “slackers,” but I think many women will look at the videos of Governor Palin talking with with Greta van Susteren while making food for her kids’ lunch as “same-o, same-o.” In other words, the dripping disdain with which Marlowe and her friends, the self-proclaimed “elite,” seem to hold Sarah Palin is probably why many other women like her – because she reminds them of themselves. They sure aren’t slackers, either. Perhaps if Ms. Marlowe and her well-heeled, Ivy-League educated friends opened their eyes, they would see a whole bunch of women, are working their hearts out every day – probably some of their very own employees.

Wow – it seems feminism sure has a ways to go before ALL women are actually included, doesn’t it? I have to say, though, Gov. Palin sure sounded a lot like Hillary Clinton in her desire for women around the world to live lives free of abuse, and full of choices.

Here’s a little thought for Ms. Marlowe and her “slacker” ilk – maybe you should get off your collective high horse, spend more time actually LISTENING to what Sarah Palin says rather than assuming she’s some hillbilly hick because she grew up in Alaska, who somehow fell into the Governor’s Mansion, or all of the unsubstantiated rumors/diatribes about her. You might just learn something about her, and about yourselves, too. Like maybe just because people are Ivy-Leauge educated writers, intellectuals, and artists, they are not above putting people down based on zero or erroneous information to make themselves feel better about what they have/have not done with their lives. And maybe, just maybe, you can start to see women like Sarah Palin, and all women, as potential allies as opposed to potential foes. Just a thought.

It’s not personal, it’s business. Revenues have been decreasing at an escalating rate in all business lines. Major losses in the main subsidiary have been financed through intercompany borrowings. Despite the financial hemorrhage, management has been taking salary increases. A bankruptcy filing could be imminent. Is this Bear Stearns or Lehman Brothers? No, this is the National Organization for Women (NOW).

Some may think that NOW is an organization which has become obsolete, that women’s advocacy can move forward without this remnant of the second-wave of feminism. But that is missing the point. The success of national women’s organizations such as NOW is as important to women’s advocacy as it was for Wall Street to have Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley find their financial footing.

Last weekend, a major coup d’etat occurred at NOW’s election conference in Indianapolis.

One attendee described the conference as “the nastiest election conference I’ve ever attended.” Another added: “People I had worked with for years refused to greet me or even recognize me in the hallways of the hotel.” When all was said and done, after 417 delegate votes had been cast and counted, the underdog slate headed by Terry O’Neill had taken over the reigns of NOW by a mere eight votes. This despite NOW’s established leadership endorsing, actively supporting, and utilizing hardball tactics (including the disqualification of LA Chapter delegates) in support of their hand-picked slate of candidates.

What went down in Indy? Ahead of the election conference itself, a group of long-time feminists who were upset with the direction that NOW had taken decided to organize a resistance. One such feminist, Dr. Lynette Long, pulled NOW’s old tax returns. Dr. Long’s research revealed that NOW’s membership, which reached 500,000 at its zenith, is currently closer to 60,000. Yet, the conference and election itself were mostly a symbolic gesture and the turning of a page. The damage to NOW has been done over decades.

Ask a target audience on the soccer sidelines what they think about NOW. Jenna’s mom says: “Yeah, I joined after college a couple of decades ago, but then totally lost interest.” Katie’s mom says: “Their issues just don’t resonate with me.” Zoe’s dad says: “I’m concerned about my teenage daughter, but there’s no place for me at NOW.” And the polls show the same — just 20% of those surveyed consider themselves “feminists,” and only 17% want their daughters to be.

A whole lot of folks will look back and try to decipher what has caused the downturn at NOW. Yet, the answer is quite simple: the organization stopped representing its constituents. Management became insular and lost touch with the folks, so the folks moved on with their busy lives. Management became like a clique with strict rites of passage including being liberal and pro-choice. As management increasingly focused on issues that divided their members, they didn’t hear the decades-long patter of 440,000 footsteps slowly walking away.

This is not dissimilar to what occurred on Wall Street. There too, management lost track of the basic tenets of customer focus and service. Management instead relied on excessive financial risk through esoteric financial tools which took management further and further away from their customer base. It was only a matter of time.

And just as Wall Street lifts itself from the ashes of ruin, now, so is the women’s movement. While Wall Street rises with the help of TARP, the Next Wave gets underway courtesy of the sexism in the 2008 election. Wall Street got aid from Henry Paulson — the Next Wave got invigoration from David Letterman. The CEO ranks of Wall Street were merged and reshuffled; a new slate of leadership has taken over NOW and a new national women’s group has been formed. Wall Street will be forever changed, as will the women’s movement.

And thank goodness — it’s about time. Because we’ve come a long way, baby, yes, but the 2008 election showed us that sexism is alive and thriving in this country. Women have made great strides, but just beneath the surface, where eyes cannot discern, the roots of sexism and misogyny have been left to grow unabated. The roots flourish in our media, our schools, our workplaces, even our political parties.

And in 2008 we reached a nadir. For Wall Street it was the collapse of Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers. For the women’s movement, it was the sexist treatment of Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin.

As the Next Wave of “feminism” is ushered in, women’s advocacy can learn a thing or two from the lessons of Wall Street. The success of national organizations such as NOW and The New Agenda are just as critical to the way forward for women’s advocacy as it was for the stock market to see Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley shore up their capital base.

That at first may seem counter-intuitive. After all, thankfully, there are thousands of single-issue women’s organizations that have enjoyed tremendous success. Prominent and successful groups champion women’s issues such as fair pay, safety, and representation in business and government. These organizations have enjoyed successes; yet the women of this country have only come so far. Women still make 78 cents on the dollar of what men make; one in four women are still victims of assault at the hands of intimate partners; women’s representation in government has stalled and in business management is moving backwards. It seems that despite the noteworthy work at these issue-specific groups, making progress is still so incredibly hard.

There is a solution — and it’s right here, right now, at this moment. We have, for the first time in decades, the impetus and outline for the Next Wave. And the success of this Next Wave is in everybody’s interest. The underpinnings of the Next Wave is to make our country better, not for ourselves, but for the future. So when we turn to the next generation, we can say: “When you run for political office you will be judged on your merits. When you go to your first and last job you will get a fair shake and a fair wage. When you go to high school, you won’t have to be afraid of bullying and sexual assault. And most importantly, you will have mentors and role models in your life each step of the way.”

This is the message that will start to win back the 440,000 who left us because they felt that their voices were not being heard. Sure, we can look down our noses at the PTA moms and the softball dads who left along the way and insist that we don’t need them — but we do. We need unity. We need messages that will bring back the masses as the Next Wave begins. We need to focus on the issues that unite us, not divide us. We need national organizations that can excite and inspire. We need these national organizations to form alliances and fight for all of us.

And in fact, our collective success depends on it. When mothers and fathers, sisters and brothers, friends and neighbors come back to us, we will finally have the groundswell of support needed to make this country better for the next generation. And we can do this. We simply need unity and alliances. We need to ensure the success of our national organizations in cultivating the Next Wave. We want the 440,000 and then some all to come back. And once they are back, the rest will take care of itself.

Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) would like to amend that little joke he made earlier this week about Sarah Palin when he said he wished it had been the Alaska governor who had gone missing instead of South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford.

“Too bad, if a governor had to go missing, it couldn’t have been the governor of Alaska. You know, Sarah Palin,” Kerry told a group of civic and business leaders on Tuesday, according to the Boston Herald. That, of course, was before he and the rest of us learned Sanford had lost himself in Argentina with his secret mistress.

Conservative women rushed to Palin’s defense after the Kerry joke. Ethel Fenig at American Thinker wrote, “Tee hee! Letterman, Kerry — all afraid of strong, independent women! Kerry should find a job with David Letterman — who would miss him?”

Heaven knows, they DO have a point – who even knew he was speaking to a group? Ahem.

But then, the Kerry people decided to comment further on the “joke”:

Kerry’s spokeswoman now tells The Sleuth the senator really didn’t mean what he said, though his clarification would hardly qualify as an apology.

“We stand corrected, the truth is every Democrat hopes Governor Palin is in the public eye for a long, long time, especially on the 2012 presidential ballot,” Kerry spokeswoman Jodi Seth says. “Lately it’s been Vice President Cheney that everyone hopes would lose the cameras and go for a long leisurely hike on the Appalachian Trail. And good grief, if anyone thinks John Kerry is afraid of strong, smart women, they sure haven’t met his brilliant wife and two independent daughters. It sounds like getting crushed these last two election cycles cost some of these Republicans their sense of humor.”

We’ll see how funny Palin finds this.

I see. So, apparently, they are planning to recycle all of the vicious rumors they trotted out this past time around, like how Sarah Palin banned a whole bunch of books while Mayor of Wasilla – which was quite prescient of her since some of them hadn’t even been WRITTEN yet. Or how about this one – and this was a GOOD one – it got all the anti-feminist feminists (you know the ones – the only liberated women can be liberals) in a tizzy: that she tried to charge rape victims the cost of the rape kits. According to Palin Rumors: Explorations, that us untrue:

No, she didn’t try to charge rape victims personally for rape kits. This is one of those complicated ones with a tiny hint of truth behind it. First, the Chief of Police in Wasilla (not Palin) did apparently have a policy of asking a victim’s health insurance to pay for the rape kit as part of the ER visit. This, it turns out, is policy in a number of states, including Missouri and North Carolina. Second, the way this became an issue was after the then-governor of Alaska signed a bill forbidding it; this law was signed before Palin was Governor and no one tried to reverse it while she was Governor. Third, what the CoP in Wasilla wanted to do was charge the perpetrator as part of restitution.

Or this one, that Palin believes dinosaurs walked the earth with Adam and Eve:

No, Sarah Palin doesn’t think that dinosaurs walked the earth with Adam and Eve 4000 years ago, In fact, this was a purposeful satire that comes from a post actually entitled Fake Governor Palin Quotes. This has, however, kept neither Matt Damon nor Maureen Dowd from propagating them as fact.

There are EIGHTY-FOUR such rumors about Sarah Palin at the Palin Rumors site, some true, but many false. Yet it seems to be the FALSE ones that get all the press, even when the press knows they are a bunch of hooey. Because that’s just how they roll these days.

And that is what makes me think that, hell yes, Sen. John Kerry is afraid of her, whether he has strong women around him or not. Because if he wasn’t, why start on her now? Yeah. He’s scared. And he’s also galvinizing people FOR her with such stupid comments. That just serves him right, if you ask me.

By the way, speaking of REAL comedians, if you ever get a chance to see Kathleen Madigcan’s special, “In Other Words,” she has a bit on John Kerry that is freakin’ hilarious (she, like many of us who voted for him, was a bit put out by the way he conducted himself while running against Bush. Speaking for myself, his blatant lie of counting every vote was a biggie – made me regret the money I sent him, and the vote I gave him since he couldn’t uphold even THAT promise. Sheesh.). Anyway, it is hysterical. She really captures his essence.

Oh, and Senator Kerry? Leave the jokes to the professionals, would ya??

Lynette Long and Paulie Abeles are heading to Indianapolis on June 19 – June 21 to the annual NOW convention. Kim Gandy’s term as President is over and they are going to help elect a new president. If you would like to help them and you are an active member of the National Organization for Women and you are willing to travel to Indianapolis, please contact Lynette at DrLynetteLong@aol.com.

Both Lynette and Paulie have rented suites and they are each willing to house a few people. NOW let Hillary down. Let’s go help create a change in leadership and start a real women’s movement.

Score a victory for women! Within 24 hours of The New Agenda issuing a press release and action alert about the RNC’s below the belt “Pussy Galore” video attacking Nancy Pelosi, the RNC had the good sense to pull it down. As one member wrote: “See how little it takes to get people to stop doing what they know is wrong? Too bad we weren’t properly mobilized in January of 2008. ” Too bad indeed! But we’re ready now (remember to donate if you can while we build out our national infrastructure!).

Thanks to all the members who took the time to send emails or call the RNC and Michael Steele. But for all the members that were outraged by the “Pussy Galore” video and took the time to write or call – for all those that stood up for a woman that they did or did not like because the video had crossed the line, there were some who looked at it differently. For others, Nancy Pelosi was on their “list” and therefore she was not worth defending.

And let me tell you this – having the back of Nancy Pelosi was not easy for me either. I have seen Nancy Pelosi attack the first viable women presidential candidate from her own party which to me is inexcusable. I’ve seen her vitriol towards a VP candidate from the Republican Party. I’ve also seen her turn on women in Congress at her own whim. Suffice it say, she ain’t my fav! But the role of The New Agenda is to expose all forms of unfair and discriminatory treatment against women – not just our favs – all women.

And sometimes that ain’t easy: to defend a woman who has hardly been a friend to other women. In fact, since we started The New Agenda, I’ve had to do quite a bit of soul searching myself. One habit that I am proactively moving away from is my old fallback of keeping “lists” of enemies. My natural instinct was that since Pelosi turned on Hillary, I should turn on Pelosi. You know, Pelosi was on my “list”.

And I, like many women, was used to keeping lists. In my career on Wall Street, keeping lists was a survival mechanism. I recall a conversation with a colleague, Tony Cline, who was a 6′6″, 250 lb former NFL tight-end. Tony was having an “issue” with a client, so I told Tony to have the client call me – to which Tony replied: “He’s not going to call you. He’s scared of you. We’re all scared of you.” See on Wall Street keeping a list works.

But in the world of women on women, keeping lists can be an unmitigated disaster. If we hope to make this world better for women and girls, we need to start by finding a better way to treat one another. As I wrote earlier this month in my piece Not too Hot, Not too Cold, women are so darn hard on other women. Give it a rest sisters. None of us are perfect – either individually or as an organization.

Sometimes it seems that if we don’t get it 100% right, it’s time for destruction. Some might call this the “Mean Girls” Syndrome. Here’s some of emails in my inbox about our decision to speak out on the “Pussy Galore” video:

• What’s APPALING is Botoxnan. She was horrid to Hillary and her supporters spreading untruths and sexism She is the biggest disappointment to millions of women, myself included.. She deserves what she is getting.

• I’m sorry but I hate Nancy Pelosi! After how she treated Hillary, she is on my shit list! I don’t care what the RNC or ANYBODY says about this bitch!!!

• IF YOUR ORGANIZATION HAD ANYTHING TO DO WITH PULLING THIS VIDEO OF A SHAMEFUL WOMAN WHO CARED NOTHING OF STABBING HILLARY CLINTON IN THE BACK, THEN I WANT NOTHING TO DO WITH YOU.

So let me get this straight – because Nancy Pelosi does not support women, we should vilify her? We should allow an open season on sexism against her? What good does that do? Cuz the next time the RNC does the video, having got away with it the first time, the video will feature Hillary Clinton or Sarah Palin or someone we like. Sexism left unchecked is like a weed that grows and flourishes. Well the good news is that it ain’t growing unchecked anymore. The New Agenda is whacking the weeds and now setting up a national infrastructure to get down at the roots and take those out too!

But if we are truly to succeed, we need to work together. When The New Agenda spoke out for Nancy Pelosi, we are modeling and rewarding the kind of behavior women need in order to move forward. Maybe Pelosi doesn’t get that now – maybe she never will. But we must remember this – that many women in this country have never been the beneficiary of having other women have their back, and so, they don’t know what it looks like. Well we know what it looks like, and TNA will walk the walk and talk the talk. Let’s hope Pelosi learns a lesson and next time thinks twice.

And as The New Agenda stood alone in defending and speaking out for Sarah Palin when it was unpopular to do so, so will we have the back of other women when they are victims of sexist treatment that crosses the line. A conservative women’s site called The Pink Flamingo wrote on their site:

There is a site called The New Agenda, that is “dedicated to improving the lives of women”. I did an archive search and have discovered that TNA did a very good job, and still does of supporting Sarah Palin because of the fact that she is a woman, not because of politics of political party. They are giving Sotomeyer the same treatment.

So for those of you that are disappointed with our decision to speak out about the “Pussy Galore” video, that is okay. Remember the old ad for Motel 6 about leaving the light on. The New Agenda is here, we’re moving forward and spreading our wings to fly. And we realize that some of you might not choose to be with us on every step of our journey. That’s fine too. But we’ll leave the light on and hope that you’ll come back to walk with us on this last mile to equality.

And as Cynthia Ruccia wrote in January that she was Eating Crow for Caroline Kennedy, well looks like I’ll be eating some crow for Nancy Pelosi.

During Women’s History Month, I saw many comments about school curricula being deficient regarding women in part because (with some note able exceptions like Mercy Otis Warren) traditional history books have been written mostly by men. Well, it’s happening again. Today, when our children need to research a topic, where do they turn? Wikipedia. And who is writing Wikipedia? Mostly men. Women make up only 13% of Wikipedia contributors, according to a new survey.

Commenting on the phenomenon to Reuters, Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Sue Gardner said:

I know that an editorial initiative is only as rich, and as thoughtful, and as intelligent as the people who contribute to it, right? Wikipedia currently is contributed to primarily by young, male geeks, right? Really, really smart, really earnest kids. I want to broaden that out a little bit. That’s my goal. I don’t worry about that, but I’d like to see more women contribute, I’d like to see more older people contribute. There are people who have spent their entire lives developing expertise and accruing knowledge. I want them to give it back.

Blogger Jen Nedeau

Blogger Jen Nedeau at change.org mused:

Hmm – it seems that we have yet another online example where women are not feeling very welcome to share their ideas, their voice and their intellect. Wikipedia is a naturally contentious site and while I’m sure not everyone – male or female – enjoys an online edit war, it is yet another example of how male dominated the internet space has become. I’m not suggesting there is anyone to blame for this gender discrepancy, but just as the Second Wavers fought for more voices on the Op-Ed pages of major newspapers – it is just as important to have the female perspective of history on sites like Wikipedia that inform millions of people everyday on history, pop culture, politics and geography.

Martha Saxton, associate professor at Amherst College, is one woman who is stepping into the breach, making writing or revising Wiki articles on women in history a requirement of her Women’s History courses.

So what do you think, readers? How important is it that history be written by a gender-balanced crew? How important is the Wikipedia medium as opposed to more academic publications and textbooks? Have you ever written for Wikipedia, and if not why not? What would make contributing more attractive to women?

Here’s one for the feminists. It’s another tongue-in-cheek song from my musical $ucce$$! (now seeking a Broadway home). The song is sung by an Irish-Latino character named Juanita Fitzgerald. The lyrics are as follows:

JUANITA:
Don’t trust a man or you’ll be sorry
Men just cause worry

CHORUS:
They’ll make a fool of you

JUANITA:
They only bring anxiety
Just take it from me!

CHORUS:
Men will just leave you blue

JUANITA:
Don’t trust a man
He’ll only hurt you
He’ll only make a fool of you
He’ll take what he can
And then desert you
That’s men for you
They’ll leave you blue
There’s nothing much a girl can do

CHORUS:
He will hurt you
Then desert you

JUANITA:
All men are swine as you’ll discover
You won’t recover

CHORUS:
They’re evil through and through

JUANITA:
They’ll promise you the earth and sky
Then leave you to cry

CHORUS:
That’s what a man will do

JUANITA:
You always hope there’s one exception
One who will make your dreams come true
But all you get is lies, deception
That’s men for you; I know it’s true
All men are rotten through and through

CHORUS:
Love is just a misconception

JUANITA:
Men have a single function, namely
They just exist to plug the gap
Most of them do it rather lamely

CHORUS:
Let’s wipe ‘em off the map!

JUANITA:
I think it’s clear that we don’t need ‘em
So we won’t breed ‘em

CHORUS:
Then there’ll be none at large

JUANITA:
We just won’t bear their progeny
That’s how it will be

CHORUS:
Then women can take charge

JUANITA:
We don’t need them as pollinators
Test tubes will do their work instead
Then they’ll have no chance to frustrate us
They’ve had their day; that’s what I say
I can’t see any other way

CHORUS:
We don’t need ‘em
We won’t breed ‘em

JUANITA:
A man was born to cause us sorrow
Sure as tomorrow

CHORUS:
That’s all a man is for

JUANITA:
All those I’ve known turned out to be
A burden to me

CHORUS:
Let’s show ‘em all the door

JUANITA:
A man will always try to use you
Then he’ll abuse you

CHORUS:
We just can’t take no more

JUANITA:
I think that we can do without it
No doubt about it
We’ll have no more

CHORUS:
Give ‘em what for
We’ll show ‘em all the door
Clear the floor
Clear them out
Till there’s no more

JUANITA:
We’ll have no more

CHORUS:
When there are none at large
We’ll take charge
When they’re gone
We’ll carry on

JUANITA:
We’ll soldier on

ALL:
And then we’ll all be free
Free to be anything we want to be