As Bronwyn reported yesterday, my governor, Nikki Haley, endorsed Romney on Friday. This is important since our primary is the third one in the New Year. Romney was glad for it, too, saying people were “lining up outside her door” to get this coveted endorsement. Below is a good interview with Gov. Haley, conducted by Greta van Susteren (h/t Bronwyn):

Nice, right? But then things went downhill pretty quickly. Check out this sexist description of Gov. Haley in WaPo. Apparently, for this writer, Ned Martel, a woman is either Church Lady” or a “Real Housewife”:

[snip] In person, she cuts an indefatigable and glamourous figure. She eschews a Church Lady mien for something more Real Housewife: fit, attractive and encased in suits that stop just below the elbow and just above the knee. And she says often how her job is sales, selling corporate chief executives on South Carolina with many lures. [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

Welcome to being a woman in politics in the United States.

The second story is bad (h/t to The New Agenda). It could easily be entitled, “Whistleblower Slamdunked,” but it’s headline is this: “Former N.B.A. Employee Says Sexual Harassment Concerns Were Ignored.” And why is he a “former employee”? Because he had the audacity to stand up for the women who were being sexually harassed, that’s why.

Now, I should say at the outset that I have very little respect for the N.B.A. I used to watch it, but over time, it seems to me that a number of players are just a bunch of thugs. Arrests have piled up, fights on court, all kinds of actions that have marred the game. Unfortunately, this attitude is now being evidenced in the college game, with the melee between Cincinnati and Xavier Universities recently. To label it as unsportsmanlike is a gross understatement. One of Xavier’s players, Tu Holloway, said in a press conference afterward that some Cincinnati player was calling them out before the game. He said, “We got disrespected a little bit before the game…We are grown men over there. we got a bunch of gangstas in the locker room, not thugs, but tough guys on the court…”

I beg to differ. You are a bunch of thugs, and the last ten seconds of the game showed that clearly.

Now, back to the N.B.A. Security official, Warren Glover. This is a long story, with one incident after another occurring to women who had the misfortune to work for this organization. I recommend you read the whole thing to get an idea of the depth of sexism, misogyny, and sexual harassment inherent in this organization. It is truly shocking, and appalling. Here is just the beginning of it:

A former N.B.A. security official says that he repeatedly warned his superiors that women in the office were being sexually harassed or discriminated against, but that his concerns were ignored and that he was ultimately fired for his actions on the women’s behalf. He is suing the league for lost wages and damages.

Warren Glover, 50, was fired as a security director in July, after 10 years with the N.B.A., despite a glowing performance record for most of his tenure, according to a lawsuit filed Thursday morning in New York State Supreme Court. In the suit, Glover accuses senior N.B.A. security officials of creating a “hostile work environment” in which he was “demeaned,” “treated differently from other employees” and denied promotions because of his willingness to speak out.

In one instance, Glover said a senior security official made sexual advances toward a female colleague, then demeaned her publicly when she rejected his advances. In another, a different security official proposed using sexually inappropriate material as part of a presentation to N.B.A. players. [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

It gets much, much worse when you read the extent of the sexual harassment women to which women have been subjected there. I would like to commend Mr. Glover for doing the right thing. He is truly a stand up guy.

And now for the ugly, though the story about the “student-athletes” brawling would qualify. But this is about the OWS “protesters,” and again, they, too could qualify as thugs. In Seattle recently, not only did they try to block the ports (and really, just what the hell were they trying to accomplish with impeding the rights of workers to work???). The “protesters” were throwing paint at the police, which isn’t the worst part, except they hit a police horse with it, and that pisses me off. In addition to paint, they threw BRICKS and REBAR. You know, rebar, “reinforced steel.” Yeah, I’d say the “thug” moniker is well deserved, not to mention CRIMINAL. Enough with this crap. Throw them all in the slammer, I say. They interrupt workers? Throw them in jail. Impede traffic intentionally? Throw them in the slammer. Hurl dangerous objects at police and others? Throw their asses in jail and charge them with assault with a deadly weapon, because bricks and rebar would certainly qualify. Enough with this crap already.

Yuck, blech. With the exception of the first story, I realize this might leave a bad taste in one’s mouth. Allow me to end, then, with a little holiday cheer. This combines one of my favorite songs, and my love for “Glee”:

Click here to view the embedded video.

Whew, I feel better. Hope you do, too. Have a good weekend, everyone.

For instance, there’s the story about the 85 year old grandmother who claims she was strip searched by the TSA. Now, many of you know that I routinely get the TSA pat down since I had a knee replacement. It is no fun. I mentally check out every time they do it because it is SO invasive that to be fully present just leaves me in tears. Thank heavens our little airport is finally getting a scanner in Feb. I will take the radiation any day of the week.

Though, it doesn’t help if the scanners aren’t actually working, like when I returned from Grand Cayman last week. When you come back into the country, you have to go back through security. Charlotte DOES have scanners, but they weren’t on. Great. Another pat down.

So, you know I can totally relate to this poor woman who endured a strip search. She plans to sue, and I support her in that 100%.

Then there is this bit of religious wisdom from a Saudi Arabian legal scholar (h/t Hokma). Did you know that women having the right to drive will only lead to pornography and prostitution, not to mention premarital sex? Apparently, according to Kamal Subhi. Evidently, Mr. Subhi has never heard that prostitution is the oldest profession, and I am pretty darn sure there weren’t cars around way back when. Ahem.

And of course, as many know, Herman Cain has suspended his campaign. The MSM got just what they wanted. Reminds me of how they went after Sarah Palin, too, except nothing they said about her was true, though that didn’t stop them. Every lawsuit was dismissed, the emails exonerated, but the damage was done. I am sure the JournoListers were dancing with glee.

Oh, and I cannot leave out this little story. I am sure you will all feel very sorry for these folks. Yes, some of the poor OWSers arrested in LAmight need therapy as a result. For real. I am not making this crap up:

Most of the roughly 300 Occupy L.A. protesters were released from jail by Friday evening, with some immediately speaking out on the police raid that cleared their camp.

One speaker suggested that some of those arrested might need therapy. Several said they felt traumatized after witnessing police use nonlethal force and being forced to wait for hours in zip-tie handcuffs. Some displayed cuts on their wrists from the handcuffs. Others complained that they were forced to urinate in bags on the bus as they were transported to jails. [snip] (Click here to read the rest of these whiny, entitled, lament about how mean the police are to people who break the law.)

Seriously? What the hell did they expect, rides in limos to the Ritz? Good grief.

Blech. This is but the tip of the iceberg for the weekend. But it’s Sunday, and time to take a bit of a break, don’t you think?

It’s a Celtic Woman kind of day for me, so first for your musical pleasure, this beautiful piece, “O, America”:

Click here to view the embedded video.

And now for this beautiful, and fun, piece from Celtic Woman:

Click here to view the embedded video.

In the midst of all of the political and economic craziness, I hope this brings a bit of a respite for you.

Oh, wait – I know. Obama was NOT great on women’s issues, he did not treat women well and his sexism was in evidence frequently on the campaign trail, his wife, too. Seriously, do I need to provide evidence to support that after all this time, and the numerous links/examples? Seriously? Okay – here is one more, with some bonus coverage of how misogynistic the media was:

Click here to view the embedded video.

And then comes this report from the Washington Post in a review of the new Ron Suskind book, Confidence Men: Wall Street, Washington and the Education of a President. To say it is not glowing about how women – upper level women – were treated in the Obama Administration is putting it mildly:

Friction about the roles of women in the Obama White House grew so intense during the first two years of the president’s tenure that he was forced to take steps to reassure senior women on his staff that he valued their presence and their input.

At a dinner in November 2009, several senior female aides complained directly to the president that men enjoyed greater access to him and often muscled them out of key policy discussions.

Those tensions prompted Obama, urged on by senior adviser Valerie Jarrett, to elevate more women into senior White House positions, recognize them more during staff meetings and increase the female presence in the upper ranks of the reelection campaign. “There were some issues early on with women feeling as though they hadn’t figured out what their role was going to be on the senior team at the White House,” Jarrett said in an interview Monday. “Most of the women hadn’t worked on the campaign, and so they didn’t have a personal relationship with the president.”

Uh huh. But that is not the full story. It wasn’t just that some of these women weren’t involved in the campaign. This isn’t about one group being outsiders trying to get into the inner circle, no, not at all. It was women-specific:

[snip] One of the most striking quotes in the book came from former White House communications director Anita Dunn, who was quoted as saying that, “this place would be in court for a hostile workplace. . . . Because it actually fit all of the classic legal requirements for a genuinely hostile workplace to women.”

Dunn says she was quoted out of context and told The Post on Friday that she told Suskind “point blank” that the White House was not a hostile work environment.

On Monday, Suskind allowed a Post reporter to review a recorded excerpt of the original interview, which took place over the telephone in April. In that conversation, Dunn is heard telling Suskind about a conversation she had with Jarrett.

“I remember once I told Valerie that, I said if it weren’t for the president, this place would be in court for a hostile workplace,” Dunn is heard telling Suskind. “Because it actually fit all of the classic legal requirements for a genuinely hostile workplace to women.” [snip]

So first, Dunn tells the truth, then tries to lie to cover up for Obama, but her own voice confirms this quote, “Because it actually fit all of the classic legal requirements for a genuinely hostile workplace to women.” That is mighty damning, indeed (and honestly, Anita, STOP COVERING FOR THIS MAN! Good grief. Have a little self-respect already.).

But Dunn was not the only one:

Other episodes were relayed to Suskind by Christina Romer, former chairwoman of the Council of Economic Advisers, whose disputes with Summers have been widely reported, including in an earlier book on Obama’s White House by journalist Jonathan Alter.

Romer is quoted by Suskind saying, after being excluded by Summers at a meeting, “I felt like a piece of meat.”

Holy smokes. These two women were not some underlings who resented not being higher up in the chain. No, these two women had pretty prominent positions. Wow. That is an incredible statement. And it goes on from there. Click here to read the rest of the article.

I might add, what makes that statement so striking is that most women know how incredibly difficult it is to prove that kind of “workplace” hostility. Too often, the perpetrators are defended, and circle the wagons to protect them. Heck, as noted, even Dunn tried to protect Obama from the charge. So it is telling indeed that she used that phrase in her conversation with Jarrett. Telling, indeed.

I wish I was surprised. I am not. When Obama made Jon Favreau the Head White House Speechwriter, and allowed him to retain that position even after the following photo came to light, I knew that was the kind of ship Obama would be running:

And that was AFTER then-Senator Clinton had been named as Obama’s Secretary of State choice.

Yeah. That sums up how things were going in the Obama Administration perfectly, don’t you think? Just how much do you think has changed now? Let’s hear it!

Here is the story, as detailed in Saunders’ piece, In This Brave New World, Girls Disappear:

The world is becoming unbalanced. In pockets across the globe, women are giving birth to too many boys. In China, the sex ratio is 121 boys to 100 girls. In India, it’s 112 to 100. Sex selection also is a force in the Balkans, Armenia and Georgia. In her eye-opening book, “Unnatural Selection: Choosing Boys Over Girls, and the Consequences of a World Full of Men,” journalist Mara Hvistendahl estimates that ultrasound and abortion have “claimed over 160 million potential women and girls – in Asia alone.” That’s more than the entire female population of the United States.

If you think that scarcity makes women more valuable, you are right – but that does not mean females benefit. As “surplus men” have trouble finding mates, young girls are forced into prostitution. Others are forced into arranged marriages. On Taiwan’s eBay, Hvistendahl finds three Vietnamese women for sale for $5,400.

Those women who do well economically in the new order sadly are more likely to abort daughters in favor of sons.

Is this not disconcerting? Not only are girls being aborted in greater numbers by choice, but the decreased numbers of girls does not translate to girls being treated better. Not even close, unfortunately. Most disturbing is that women are buying into this mindset, and how that is made manifest.

Saunders points out, though, that this isn’t just bad for women:

The results are equally bleak for men. Many boys grow up knowing they are unlikely to marry and start a family. In two years, 1 in 10 Chinese men will lack a female counterpart. The Chinese have a term – fenquing for “angry youth” – to describe the legions of young men likely to grow old alone. They find release in places like the Rising Sun Anger Release Bar, “where for the price of a few drinks, customers can pummel one of the bar’s hired hands.” In that equation, both men are losers.

In three decades, Vietnam – a poor country that provides brides and kidnapped prostitutes to affluent overly male nations – will have 4.3 million surplus men.

Holy cow. The difference the shortage of women will make in such a brief period of time is astonishing.

Saunders touches on the path of good intentions, whose result seem to fulfill the old adage paves the path to hell:

Hvistendahl finds no shortage of villains in this story. There’s China’s one-child policy, which resulted in untold forced abortions. Western governments and charities threw money at family-planning efforts to stem population growth in Asia, with little concern to the methods – forced sterilizations and abortions – employed. Then there are the willing participants – doctors, nurses and parents – who choose to engage in female feticide. French demographer Christophe Guilmoto recalls an Indian woman who was livid because she had aborted a boy after a doctor misdiagnosed the gender of her fetus.

I was struck at the distortion of good intentions. Family planning does promote prosperity, while overpopulation is unhealthy and destabilizing. Researchers develop technologies to help families. But in a world where technology moves faster than ethical thinking, giving would-be parents the gender they prefer is good business. So you get fertility clinics like the Los Angeles outfit that advertises, “Be certain your next child will be the gender you’re hoping for.”

Of course, sex-selection abortions happen in America, often among immigrant families. Hvistendahl reports that 35 percent of Asian American pregnancies result in abortion. [snip]

Oh, yes – definitely “good intentions” paved the way to this hell, which affects girls on a massive scale. And the numbers are just staggering.

Saunders concludes with the following:

[snip] Canadian sociologist Sharada Srinivasan has another suggestion. As she told Hvistendahl, at some point, feminists have to define sex selection as a human rights abuse. That would be a good start. (Click here to read the rest.)

Yes, it would be a good place to start – it is a human rights abuse, and the sooner we start dealing with it as such, the better.

I will leave you as Saunders did in her piece, with the following quotes. These should get your blood a-pumping: Thoughts On Parenthood

“You can choose whether to be a parent, but once you choose to be a parent, you cannot choose whether it’s a boy or girl, black or white, tall or short.”

- Delhi gynecologist Puneet Bedi

“Better 500 rupees now than 500,000 later.”

- Mumbai ultrasound ad

“Less than $5 invested in population control is worth $100 invested in economic growth.”

- President Lyndon B. Johnson, in a 1965 speech in San Francisco

Then there is political commentator Kirsten Power’s take on this situation from her revelatory account in The Daily Beast. She was most distressed by this scandal given her long friendship with and trust of, er, Mr. Weiner…Not only had she believed his endless lies and media manipulations, but the months of his “sexting” encounters that have now been uncovered reveal something to her about the man that is far more disturbing:

But even if I could see past the lying and extreme narcissism that is noteworthy even by Washington standards, there is the issue of his attitude toward women. What has emerged is a picture of a predator trolling the Internet for women—some half his age—with which to engage in cybersex. We know only about the women who were responsive to his overtures. The odds are very high that he struck out with many, and other women were victim to his unsolicited sex talk. Women should be able to “friend” a married—or unmarried—congressman on Facebook or follow him on Twitter without fear of being the recipient of lewd talk or behavior. Just because a woman “likes” your video on Facebook doesn’t mean you can send her a picture of your penis. This is textbook sexual harassment. It may not be illegal, but it’s definitely unethical. He is in a position of influence, and many women—especially a 21-year-old—would be afraid to report a congressman doing that to them because he holds so much power. Also, he claims none of the women he contacted were underage, but how could he possibly know that?

By far the most disturbing information that we have been privy to—there is, no doubt, more out there that we don’t know—is the transcript of a nine-month “sexting” relationship Weiner had with a Las Vegas blackjack dealer. Radar Online posted the transcript, and it is rife with misogyny and distorted views about women. In referring to oral sex, Wiener tells her, “You will gag on me before you c** with me in you” and “[I’m] thinking about gagging your hot mouth with my c***.” This is not about sex. It’s about dominating and inflicting physical pain on a woman, a fantasy the hard-core porn industry makes billions of dollars on selling to men. You don’t want to gag a woman with your penis unless you have some serious issues with the way you see women.

Ms. Powers is correct. The only people who wish to sublimate others, who can only feel bigger by making others feel smaller or powerless are those who feel small themselves. Double entendre notwithstanding.

But Ms. Power’s conclusion is most telling in that I fear her disillusionment with her own party will only grow over time:

Despite my disappointment in his behavior and my concerns about his capacity to be in a leadership position, my heart still aches for him and his family. We are all flawed human beings, and this is not about meting out judgment. It’s about having some sort of standard for what the Democratic Party stands for—especially regarding treating women with dignity and respect—and Congressman Weiner has fallen far short of even the low standard to which we generally hold our elected officials. It’s time for him to go.

The Democratic Party may say it stands for the respectful treatment of women, yet the 2008 and 2010 election cycles and the continued crude verbiage employed against women candidates — or any woman with whom they do not agree — leftie MSNBC host Ed Schultz calling Laura Ingraham a “slut” for example — show that Democrats only pretend to respect women for votes. Real respect is something they do not understand. Just ask Hillary Clinton, — that she-devil-Nurse-Ratched-vaginal-American-Tonya-Harding-tea-party-having-white-bitch, who according to Senator Leahy, Speaker Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader Reid et al, should have just shut up and sat down for the good of the party.

And just how much respect has Mr. Weiner shown for his wife, long time SoS Clinton aide, Huma Abedin. Powers points out there is already a whisper campaign underway to blame the now pregnant Ms. Abedin for Weiner’s behavor. This likewise follows a longtime pattern in American culture, regardless of party, to blame the woman for the man’s indiscretions. She travels a lot, they murmured…and what else are they trying to insinuate? Hillary was blamed for Bill. And in fact, even Michelle Obama was blamed for her husband sitting in the wrong church for twenty years.

Are men adults responsible for their own behavior? Or a bunch of overgrown Peter Pan’s singularly lacking in moral compass or common sense? We do both women and men a disservice by granting oxygen to these outworn stereotypes.

Several party leaders agree with Ms. Power’s assessment that eight term congressman Weiner should resign. I am sure he has become quite the inconvenience heading into an election year:

Pennsylvania Democratic Rep. Allyson Y. Schwartz, a leader of the party’s House campaign committee, called Wednesday for Rep. Anthony Weiner to resign after he admitted he sent lewd photos to women and talked dirty with them via Twitter and Facebook.

Weiner’s behavior was so offensive that he has lost the ability to command respect from his constituents and brought dishonor to the House, Schwartz said.

“As Americans we have the right to expect better behavior from members of Congress, leaders of our country,” Schwartz said in an interview. “I don’t think we should accept it.”

Lastly, we have the bread and circuses aspect of this entire episode. As blogger, dbsweden, pointed out in the New York Times today:

Here we go again! If it isn’t about celebrity nits like Paris Hilton or Charlie Sheen it’s about the inconsequential sexual activities of Vitter or Weiner or Spitzer. And now we focus on Weiner’s pregnant wife. For crying out loud, when are we going to get news of significant consequence like the amazing abilities of Senators and Congressmen to do seven to eleven percent better picking stock winners than even the experts on Wall Street? University researchers in Georgia and Florida have eye-opening figures on the! investments of Washington politicians that somehow haven’t managed to make the pages of the national press.

Fellow readers, do any of you wonder why Americans remain largely ignorant of genuine malfeasances in Congress by virtue of all the soporific sex scandals? Wake up, America! Demand honest investigative reporting on why Washington is dysfunctional and almost totally corrupt, on why the rich are being coddled while the remaining 98% of Americans are being shafted. Let’s get less news from the bedrooms and more from the boardrooms. The latter are where the scandals grow like mushrooms in a dark basement.

While I disagree with dbsweden’s attempts to diminish the ramifications of Mr. Weiner’s horrid conduct, the misogynist aspect of it and his feeble attempts at a cover-up, the blogger does raise an interesting point in that we are being bombarded and infested with this scandal while distracted from other important economic, legislative and foreign policy issues of the day. They are buried in the 24 hour news cycle when they should get our undivided attention. Do I think he should resign? Yes. But it is up to Mr. Weiner’s constituents to decide whether he stays or goes. Not him or his party. He should also get help from a psychotherapist. We should place the blame for his actions squarely where it belongs — on him. It also wouldn’t hurt to note how women were and are disrespected throughout this entire process.

And we should get back to other critical issues facing this nation.

What say you?

No, Anthony Weiner has no one but himself to blame for the mess he is in. His long time friend (and for a brief period, girlfriend), Kirsten Powers, came out with a scathing post about Weiner on Wednesday, June 7th. She has been friends with him for years, and unknowingly carried his water on “Hannity” in defense of Weiner. She is not carrying it any more, as this post highlights:

[snip] Narcissism doesn’t begin to describe this kind of behavior. It seems there was nobody he didn’t lie to. The New York Times reported this morning that he told donors a week ago that the scandal was the result of a “vast right-wing conspiracy” and that “everything [would] be fine.” We also learned after his press conference that he coached a former porn star with whom he had communicated online on how to lie to the media.

But even if I could see past the lying and extreme narcissism that is noteworthy even by Washington standards, there is the issue of his attitude toward women. What has emerged is a picture of a predator trolling the Internet for women—some half his age—with which to engage in cybersex. We know only about the women who were responsive to his overtures. The odds are very high that he struck out with many, and other women were victim to his unsolicited sex talk. Women should be able to “friend” a married—or unmarried—congressman on Facebook or follow him on Twitter without fear of being the recipient of lewd talk or behavior. Just because a woman “likes” your video on Facebook doesn’t mean you can send her a picture of your penis. This is textbook sexual harassment. It may not be illegal, but it’s definitely unethical. He is in a position of influence, and many women—especially a 21-year-old—would be afraid to report a congressman doing that to them because he holds so much power. Also, he claims none of the women he contacted were underage, but how could he possibly know that?

By far the most disturbing information that we have been privy to—there is, no doubt, more out there that we don’t know—is the transcript of a nine-month “sexting” relationship Weiner had with a Las Vegas blackjack dealer. Radar Online posted the transcript, and it is rife with misogyny and distorted views about women…

[...]

A whisper campaign has started in New York that Weiner’s wife was partly to blame for what happened. “You know, she does travel a lot” is what one New York political operative told me they have heard from multiple reporters. So now we have the “blame the woman” campaign even though what Weiner did had zero to do with sexual satisfaction and everything to do with his own mental issues and attitude toward women. And, by the way, plenty of men have wives who travel and they don’t start preying on women on the Internet and sending pictures of their private parts. [snip] (Click here to read the rest, and believe me, it is well worth your time.)

Again, Powers’ post is well worth your time – there are some things in there to support her charge of misogyny, and she is right on the money.

Unlike Chris Matthews, whose sexist, boorish behavior have been on display for a number of years. You may recall that even Media Matters took him to task for his sexism toward Hillary Clinton, though his expression of such seems to have only scratched the surface:

[snip] One young conservative female guest who appeared several times on Matthews’ show told TheDC that bizarre comments toward women were part of his off air banter as well.

“During one appearance, during the commercial break, Matthews informed me he loves it when women wear baby doll dresses,” she said. “It’s his favorite thing to see women wear.”

[...]

Liberal watchdog groups such as Media Matters and the Daily Kos have hit Matthews hard for his poorly chosen, even misogynistic words toward liberal women.

Media Matters noted Matthews’ poor math in trying to figure out how many women governors there were in 2008.

“Where are the big-state women governors? Where are they? Name one. They don’t exist,” Matthews said of the potential for a future female presidential candidate.

Media Matters subsequently pointed out that in 2008 there were in fact many female governors with populations comparable to the big name former governor presidential candidates, such as Washington Gov. Christine Gregoire, Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano, Connecticut Gov. M. Jodi Rell, and Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius.[snip]

Holy crappydoo. Seriously?? “Babydoll” clothes? Unaware that there are a number of women governors??

Yeah, this guy is a lunatic:

[snip] His emotional rants have become commonplace on “Hardball,” and made his show must-watch TV for the likes of Mediate, NewsBusters, Real Clear Politics and even The Daily Caller — all waiting with bated breath for Matthews to inevitably say something “insane.”

When asked by TheDC why he watches so religiously, Ian Schwartz, Real Clear Politics video editor, did not mince words.

“‘Hardball’ is a reminder that I am sane,” said Schwartz. “Chris Matthews is more of a gaffe machine than Joe Biden and the ignorance of his sexism and bigotry makes the show entertaining to watch.”

“He’s a freak show” said another media reporter. [snip]

You got that right, for so, so many reasons.

But you know who one of his favorite targets is:

[snip] Sarah Palin is another of Matthews’ punching bags. He has called the former Alaska governor and former vice presidential nominee “profoundly stupid,” “a dolt,” and an “empty head.”

“He’s a known sexist pig. It’s not misogyny based on political party,” Amy Siskind, president of the women’s advocacy group The New Agenda, wrote at TheDC. “No, Matthews has a familiar pattern: he purposefully strikes out at any woman who is rising in power.” [snip] (Click here to read the rest. I have just scratched the surface of this outstanding article.)

Matthews thinks Palin is “profoundly stupid” and a “dolt”? Wow. This is just yet another uninformed opinion put forth by this brain trust.

I will allow Gov. Palin herself to dispel the biased, sexist attack by Chris Matthews in this synopsis of her recent bus tour:

Just WHO is “profoundly stupid,” Mr. Matthews? I’ll give you a hint. It ain’t Gov. Palin.

Good grief.

Yes, that is the problem – that Weiner’s “privacy” has been violated, not that he has disgraced his office, his wife, and himself, with very little contrition for what he actually DID. No, his tears were over being CAUGHT, not that he is a freakin’ pervert, engaging in sexting with women around the country, and apparently, made phone calls to some of these women from his House office. There is no doubt that not only did he act unprofessionally, but unethically, compounded by his vast number of lies upon lies.

But as Jennifer Rubin pointed out in her Washington Post piece, “Anthony Weiner, Wronged Man? Not Quite,” some are taking the Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz approach, claiming this is a “private matter.” They are wrong. Rubin specifically mentions Ezra Klein and Richard Cohen:

I’ve been a bit amazed at the post-bizzaro press conference insistence by some on the left that Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.) is a wronged man. Ezra Klein via Twitter professes to be puzzled how this can be a big deal. Richard Cohen writes:

We are doing a terrible thing here — we hypocrites of the press, especially of the blogosphere. Every man lives a bit in a fantasy world, maybe women, too, but I know nothing of them. Every man is a boy, either in mind or in deed. Much of this is harmless. There are no bodies. There is no crime. This is the case with Weiner. No damsel was in distress, and no one was rescued.

This is the place for me to condemn Weiner. Consider it done. He’s a liar and a creep, although how one can be the latter without being the former is beyond me. (Still, lying is impermissible.) But I would also like to condemn those who made it their business to destroy him, who deputized themselves to invade someone’s private life, his fantasy life, and hold him up to ridicule.

Let me point out that Weiner went beyond fantasy. Or have we forgotten that these are real women with whom he was communicating? Women who, gosh, he thinks, are not underage. Women who he supposed would not blackmail him. Women whom he apparently told his wife about before their marriage but could not bring himself to give up. The press isn’t invading his mind or his bedroom; it’s looking at his Tweets and talking to the women on whose Timeline he was willing to risk his marriage, his career and his self-respect. [snip]

So let me make sure I understand Mr. Cohen’s point – he thinks the press is doing the wrong thing by REPORTING THE NEWS??? I am just shaking my head in disbelief at these men. Oh, no, check that – I am shaking my head in DISGUST at these men, and their willingness to use their professions as “journalists” to try and protect this pervert.

Jennifer Rubin’s response was very good, I thought:

[snip] Let me point out that Weiner went beyond fantasy. Or have we forgotten that these are real women with whom he was communicating? Women who, gosh, he thinks, are not underage. Women who he supposed would not blackmail him. Women whom he apparently told his wife about before their marriage but could not bring himself to give up. The press isn’t invading his mind or his bedroom; it’s looking at his Tweets and talking to the women on whose Timeline he was willing to risk his marriage, his career and his self-respect. (As for the comment, “Another Christian has been thrown to the lions. The ‘Christian in this case is a Jew,” I am dumbfounded and dismayed that Weiner’s religion should enter into the discussion.)

As for the “I just don’t get it” response of some young liberal men out there, I can only imagine that ideology so dominates their lives that they fail to see the harm in a public figure’s not-at-all-private conduct. Or perhaps they too see the Tweets as a harmless pastime. Maybe, for all the “sexual harassment” training we’ve gotten, we’ve forgotten some essential training in ethics. [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

I don’t get it, either, Ms. Rubin, except to say that this mindset is incredibly disturbing. (Ms. Rubin goes on to note that the Wall Street Journal has a very good editorial on Rep. Weiner’s behavior and judgment, and I encourage you to either finish reading her piece, or read the WSJ piece here.)

The next piece of news also deals with a Democratic Representative, Earl Blumenauer. Seems Rep. Blumenauer is upset at the effort put forth by the Parks Department for doing anything that might amount to educating Gov. Palin about American history. Yes, he is upset that money is being spent to give the governor an education at our historic sites and monuments, presumably because it is making her smarter than many in the press (I refer you to the ridiculous recent brouhaha over Paul Revere) in which journalists by and large failed to factcheck before jumping on their condescending “gotcha” bandwagon).

Yes, this representative, Earl Blumenenaur, has some “serious concerns” over the money spent thus far on Palin and her bus tour:

[snip] “Many of the press accounts of stops included in this tour, which provided personal and political benefits to former Gov. Palin, suggest that National Park Service resources were made available to an extent beyond that which an average American family would receive,” Blumenauer wrote.

He cited media reports of Palin and her family receiving a private guided tour of Mount Vernon, early admission to the National Archives and a 10-person escort involving park rangers and New York City police officers at the Statue of Liberty.

“For cases in which the Park Service did not have additional personnel on duty as a result of the tour, was manpower diverted from regularly-scheduled services to accommodate the Palin family’s visits and is this a routine practice for visiting celebrities?” Blumenauer added.

National Park Service spokesman Jeffrey Olson said his understanding is that Palin received customary treatment for a visiting celebrity and that the costs of her visits were nominal at best.

“We see celebrities on a regular basis, it’s something that we’re used to,” Olson said. “We give them a tour but we also try to not make it a bug hoo-ha for all the other visitors. So it’s kind of standard fare if there’s a celebrity or two that show up we do a special program for them.”

That usually involves rangers and interpreters that are on the job regardless. “That’s why it’s not an extra cost for us,” Olson said. “We just try to make sure everybody has a good experience at a national park.” [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

Maybe that’s what is getting Rep. Blumenaur’s goat – that Palin is seen as, and treated like, a celebrity. Oh, but the best part? Palin was not the one who requested the Park Police provide an escort while she was at the Statue of Liberty. Rather, it was one of the officers in charge who did that. Oops – so much for this little “gotcha” attempt by Rep. Blumenaur.

One of the commenters at this Politico.com article was kind enough to post a video of another “celebrity” getting a private tour at the Statue of Liberty. I wonder if Rep. Blumenaur was so quick to investigate the money spent on THIS tour:

I am going to guess, no, Rep. Blumenaur did NOT demand an accounting from the Parks Service for Rep. Weiner being able to go where people had not been able to go since 9/11. But, hey – that’s different, right? Yeah, sure, right.

And in an incredible twist of irony, Rep. Weiner called President Clinton to apologize to him for this whole sexting scandal. President Clinton officiated at Weiner and Huma Abedin’s wedding.

Gee, I wonder what the conversations are like between Hillary Clinton and Huma Abedin?

Blech. This whole thing is making me ill – support for this immoral, unethical piece of work (Weiner), and attempts to take down someone as a result of PDS. The hypocrisy is staggering, and I am just sick of it.

How about you? Feel free to talk about the issues above, or anything else on your mind today.

To celebrate Women in Sports, especially with the Women’s World Cup (soccer) coming up this summer, Secretary Clinton delivered the following remarks:

Now you know, I am a HUGE soccer fan. And I was able to attend the semifinals in DC of the World Cup of which Sec. Clinton spoke. In fact, President Clinton was at the stadium at the same time I was, watching the match. There was even a flyover with fighter jets – cool! Oh, and the US obviously won, since they went on to win the World Cup in the dramatic fashion Sec. Clinton mentioned.

This is a great time, this celebration. But wow, do we still have a long way to go.

While Secretary Clinton is reflecting on Women and Sports, a “Gay Girl in Damascus” was allegedly kidnapped in Syria. In Egypt, another woman journalist was almost killed in Tahrir Square last week, saved by a police officer, who was then beaten himself for rescuing her.

A Libyan student in Australia received only THREE YEARS in jail for sexually assaulting four women, and two girls, one of whom was only 13. Why? Well, you know, it is a whole cultural thing. The way these women dress, oh, my, it just upset him SO much, and made him excited, all at the same time. So he did what any man would do – he attacked them. Oh, wait – most men do NOT do that:

Libyan Almahde Ahmad Atagore, 28, was sentenced to three years behind bars yesterday for sexual assaulting a number of young women in Melbourne in August and September last year, the Herald Sun reports.

Atagore was shocked by the cultural differences and felt isolated and depressed, particularly as he did not have a mosque nearby, said County Court Judge Margaret Rizkalla.

He told a psychiatrist he did not like how Australian women dressed, leaving him angry but also aroused. [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

Women, and girls, participating in sports is important, there is no doubt about it. And it is very cool that the US does sports exchanges with other countries. The benefits to girls and women who participate in sports are numerous, with higher self esteem and better overall health at the fore.

But it is not enough when men still think they can overpower women, see women purely as sexual objects, or violate them in a sexual manner as a show of power (though it really highlights the man’s weakness, IMHO). It is not enough when they are seeing a very different message coming from the media, and from our political parties. When the Democratic elite are still supporting a complete sleazebag like Anthony Weiner, what kind of message does THAT send to our young women and girls? When judges in countries like Australia grant a short amount of jail time for a man who assaulted several women, and two girls, as a nod to his neanderthalic view of women based on his religion, how do the girls and women in Australia feel? What is the message being sent to them?

I am glad we still have Title IX in this country, and am happy to celebrate its 40th anniversary. Our girls and women deserve it. But all girls and women, here and around the world, deserve to be treated better than we are. We deserve to not have some slimeball US Representative texting a college woman with a photo of his private parts. We deserve for men to serve the time for the crimes committed against us, not some slap on the wrist. We deserve to be able to do our jobs without threat of DEATH because gangs of men descend upon us.

We deserve better. We deserve better from men, we deserve better from the women who support these sleazeballs, we deserve better from our elected officials.

To follow up on Sec. Clinton’s suggestion, and while I can still post videos from YouTube (our illustrious US Senators are threatening to make it a felony to embed videos), I want to honor the US Women’s Soccer Team. Below is look back at the ’99 World Cup win, and the iconic moment of Brandi Chastain scoring the winning goal for the US Women over China for the Gold:

May the US Women play hard, play clean, have no injuries, and bring back the Gold from Germany.

Debbie Wasserman Scultz, that is. Her twisting, looping, convoluted machinations to deflect for Re. Anthony Weiner should easily merit her the second spot with Obama on the ticket. I mean, really, someone who can stay the talking point repeatedly no matter how idiotic it sounds with a straight face surely does deserve a higher spot than just DNC Chair.

Don’t take my word for it. Watch her respond to Wolf Blitzer’s questions regarding Rep. Weiner (H/t to Le-gal In-sur-rec-tion):

Okay, we get it. You think it is a “personal matter” for a US Representative to be tweeting out photos of his, um, oh, hell – you know – to young women? Really? Well, at least you are consistent when it comes to matters of US Representatives engaging in some hinky behavior.

Oh, wait – no you’re not, as Michael Alan of Le-gal-In-sur-rec-tion highlights in this piece:

[snip]Well, that Debbie Wasserman-Schultz should really get acquainted with this Debbie Wasserman-Schultz:

This goes beyond Rep. Foley, it goes to the values of the Congressional leadership. These are not family values, these are not American values.

What was Wasserman-Schultz referring to in that 2006 quote? The behavior of Rep. Mark Foley (R-FL . . . are you watching those party labels?), who made advances towards 18 and 21 year old young men.

In fact, she went as far as to demand the resignation of then Speaker Denny Hastert for not addressing the Foley matter quickly enough:

[snip] What I’ve called for is an investigation to be completed within 10 days. And quite honestly, yes, I do think that Denny Hastert should resign . . . I‘d like to see the Republican caucus call upon their leadership, Speaker Hastert, Majority Leader Boehner, to get this resolved quickly. Do it before the election. And I haven‘t heard them say that. They‘re saying have the FBI investigate, have the House Ethics Committee investigate. They need to push their leadership to get this resolved so that they can move on, and we can make sure that we can restore the trust that they have shaken the public in Congress.

Now there are obviously some major differences between the two cases, but a big part of Wasserman-Schultz’s complaint in 2006 was that Foley had not been previously sanctioned, despite evidence of a proclivity for hitting on much younger men.

But TNR’s Jonathan Chait, who is one of the few lefty bloggers honestly covering this story, points out a Vanity Fair piece that suggests similar evidence of Weiner’s issues as far back as 2001. [snip] (Click here to read the rest, and that goes for TNR piece, “Anthony Weiner’s Skeeziness,” too.)

Just to be clear, then, when a Republican Representative was caught engaging in less than seemly behavior, Wasserman-Schultz wanted the TOP Republican to resign as a result. But with Democrat Anthony Weiner, it is simply a “personal matter,” and everyone should just leave him alone.

Is it just me, or is Wasserman Schultz digging a deeper and deeper hole since Obama wanted her to be the DNC Chair?

And WHAT is with these women defending men like this? Wasserman Schultz could not have deflected more to protect Weiner, and essentially declared this a hands-off matter. The National Enquirer has reported that Maria Shriver knew about Arnold’s love child back in 2006, but Uncle Teddy wanted her to keep quiet lest it affect the family. (I know, I know, about the National Enquirer, but after they broke the John Edwards story, one has to give them props for getting it right sometimes.) And the list goes on.

Meanwhile, some of the Democratic BigWigs are all upset that Re. Weiner didn’t show up for the Israel Day Parade in New York this past weekend. I am not kidding. These are some heavy hitters:

[snip] “I’d like to see him here,” Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) said at the parade, the New York CBS affiliate reported. “He cares about Israel, [is] very active in the Jewish community, and he ought to be here.”

Former New York City comptroller Bill Thompson, who’s seen as one of Weiner’s top potential rivals in the 2013 mayor’s race, said that the situation surrounding Weiner is “becoming a huge circus” and “it’s unfortunate that the congressman didn’t deal with this quickly.”

Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D-N.Y), also at the parade, noted Weiner’s absence but avoided criticism. “It’s going to be up to the congressman how he handles this and people will have their opinion when they actually have the facts,” he told the New York Post.

A handful of Weiner’s colleagues who represent New York City in the House refused to comment at the parade.

“I’m not here to pass judgment,” Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) told CBS. “I’m not trained in that area.”

“I know what you want to ask me, and I don’t want to answer,” Rep. Carolyn Maloney said. [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

Please tell me again how the DNC is the party for women? The one that stands up for women? Because I am not seeing it. When you have major Democrats like those mentioned above lamenting that Weiner isn’t in attendance at an event afte rall of this information is coming out about him, well, that is telling indeed. Heck, even as I type, more and more is coming out about Anthony Weiner and his Tweets to women – I’m sorry, I meant to say, INAPPROPRIATE tweets to women.

But Rep. Wasserman Schultz will keep trying her, “nothing to see here, move along, move along, this is a private matter,” and her colleagues will, apparently, act like his behavior is no big deal, so he should show up anyway, and on, and on, and on…

Yep – I think the DNC Chair is destined for bigger things the way she stands by her (Democratic) man when he treats women like crap. Don’t you?

UPDATE: I know this will come as a shock to you, but Rep. Weiner has FINALLY admitted that he has been sending these kinds of tweets before, and AFTER, he got married. AND, he admitted the underwear photo was indeed of him, and he indeed did send it to some young co-ed. What a charmer.

But you know he is not resigning over this.

There is so much more to the crapola he said, and you can read it all HERE.

But here’s the thing – this man apparently has a history of treating women horribly. From another maid in Mexico, to a reporter doing an interview, to prostitutes in New York City, he has a history of rape in the worst cases, and rough treatment in the cases of the prostitutes (provided by the same madam, Kristin Davis, who provided prostitutes to former NY Governor, Eliott Spitzer).n A recent book details the rape of the maid in Mexico (which went unreported), along with 14 other women who claim sexual assaults by this man.

Aforementioned madam, Ms. Davis, would not provide any more prostitutes to Strauss-Kahn due to his abusive behavior. The last time was when Strauss-Kahn was going to NYC for a conference with President Clinton:

[snip]Kristin Davis said she provided young women for the IMF chief in 2006, as he ran for the French Socialists’ presidential nomination, and that one complained about his “aggressive” behaviour.

“He was a client of my agency,” she told The Daily Telegraph. “When men abuse women I’m no longer going to protect their identities”.

[...]

Miss Davis, 35, who claims to have a long list of celebrity clients, said Mr Strauss-Kahn called her directly on her mobile phone and paid $1,200 cash for two-hour sessions in hotel rooms.

“He wanted an ‘All-American girl’, with a fresh face, from the mid-West,” she said. “A girl in January 2006 complained he was rough and angry, and said she didn’t want to see him again”.

In September 2006, Mr Strauss-Kahn travelled to New York for a conference hosted by Bill Clintonn September 2006, Mr Strauss-Kahn travelled to New York for a conference hosted by Bill Clinton. Miss Davis claims that month, she sent him a Brazilian-born prostitute who reported that “he was rough”, said Miss Davis, adding: “She told me not to send any new girls to him.” [snip]

Well, I would think not. Sheesh.

As to the other women, I do have a nagging question, which the author of this Telegraph article alluded to, as well:

A deluge of fresh allegations of sexual misbehaviour engulfed Dominique Strauss-Kahn yesterday.

The 62-year-old International Monetary Fund chief, who is accused of the attempted rape of a chambermaid, is said to have targeted young students, ‘behaved like a gorilla’ with an actress and had flings with the widow of an Italian academic.
As Strauss-Kahn languished on suicide watch in New York’s Rikers Island prison following the alleged sexual assault at a Manhattan hotel, the new claims sent further shockwaves reverberating through France and the financial world.

The revelations will trigger more questions about how the IMF’s managing director escaped censure during his rise to become one of the world’s most powerful money men and a potential president of France.[snip]

NO FREAKING KIDDING. That is what I would like to know. With all of these women, in a number of countries, being on the receiving end of, at best, inappropriate advances, and at worse, rape, how is it that NO ONE went after this man?? Go check out this article, and see the long list of women that we KNOW about who had dealings with Strauss-Kahn, just to give you an idea:

[snip]The mother of Tristane Banon, a Parisian novelist who claims to have been subjected to a frenzied sex attack by Strauss-Kahn nine years ago, used the Facebook website to deliver a scathing attack on her daughter’s alleged aggressor.

[...] French socialist politician Auriele Filippetti said the IMF chief had groped her in 2008 and from then on vowed to make sure she was never alone in a room with him.

Piroska Nagy, a Hungarian economist who had a brief affair with Strauss Kahn when both were married in 2008, told investigators that he had a problem and that she felt coerced into sleeping with him because of his senior position and aggressive advances. [snip]

Now that is a story we have heard all too often, isn’t it?

And what was the response to Strauss-Kahn’s arrest in France? Now, let me just say – I love France. I have had great interactions with the French when I have visited there, so this is disturbing to me:

[snip]President Sarkozy is said to have rolled his eyes and said ‘We did warn him’ after hearing of his arrest.

[...]

Most French people believe fallen Strauss-Kahn is the ‘victim of a plot’ over the charge that he tried to rape a hotel chambermaid.

A poll found that 57 per cent of French people think he was ‘framed’ in a bid to ruin him.

Among socialist voters, 70 per cent believe the Left-wing politician has been set up. (Click here to read the rest.)

I guess that answers my question as to why no one has censured this man, or brought charges against him before: because they will not be believed, and he will be held blameless, considered the “victim” of some nefarious plot, not as an (alleged) rapist/serial sexual abuser.

Though the President of France saying they “warned him” is telling – about just what DID they warn him? And was their concern for HIM, or for the WOMEN? I think we can guess the answer to that, can’t we?

Well, hopefully he will not get away with it this time, though. It is far past time, if these claims are accurate (and I have no reason to believe they aren’t, especially since they are coming from all different sectors from a number of different women in a number of different countries). I would not be at all surprised to see more women come forward to levy charges against Strauss-Kahn. Thank heavens for the courage of the maid in NYC, though had other women done so previously, perhaps she would have been spared this horrendous fate, at least at the hands of Strauss-Kahn (allegedly).

Perhaps now, he will get his comeuppance, not just a roll of the eyes and a “warning.” One can hope, anyway…

See, I ask because I remember not too long ago, your party, under your leadership, did a pretty fair job of warring on women, too. You, personally, supported a far, far less qualified, experienced man for the highest office in the land over the far, far more qualified, experienced, smarter woman.

Who could forget this exchange between then-Speaker Pelosi and Greta van Susteren after the Democrats, especially Pelosi, managed to drum Clinton right out of the race? I know I can’t forget it:

[snip] VAN SUSTEREN: Let me first focus for a second on Senator Clinton. She is back on the Hill today, and many people email me and say that she is the victim of sexism–not all, but many. Did sexism play a role in this election for her, number one? And number two, I know this morning you were quoting as saying that you, sometimes, have encountered sexism.

PELOSI: I think every woman who is making progress in gaining power is probably a victim of sexism. I can’t document what happened in the presidential campaign as I am too busy being Speaker of the House and running my own races for Congress to retain and grow our Democratic majority in the House.(Emphasis mine.)

But I do not think that there is any question that there is some evidence that there was sexism in the campaign, but I can’t tell you if that is the reason why Senator Clinton won or lost.

She made a great showing. She advanced to the cause of women enormously. We were thrilled with her candidacy, not just because she is a woman, but because she is a woman with great intellect, great dedication, great stamina, that she proved she could be president of the United States.

But there was an election, and I think that Senator Clinton benefited greatly by the enthusiasm of women, there is no question about that. And I do not know what the impact of the sexism and was. I know it is a sign of insecurity on those who exercise it. I do not know what the political impact of it was. [snip]

Well, former Speaker Pelosi, let me just remind you of the scope of sexism then-Senator Clinton received, and other women, as well:

So, yeah – there was just a bit of a war against women in 2008, one perpetrated by the very ones now decrying a “war against women.” Pelosi herself contributed to it by her very actions toward Hillary Clinton, and her very support for the man who ran a sexist campaign against Hillary Clinton.

Are the Republicans above being sexist? Of course not. But they should also not be singled out for a “war against women.” Democrats share plenty to blame in that regard. Using the whole issue of choice as a constant stick to keep women in line while the top Democrat, Obama, invites members of the then-outlawed, Sharia-law demanding, “Modesty police” directing Muslim Brotherhood, while attacking OTHERS is just a bit of a stretch. At least it is for me.

How about you?

And that would be this Bloomberg article, Saudi Women Inspired by Fall of Mubarak Step Up Equality Demand. Wow, right? Honestly, I did not see this as a potential change, primarily because of the influx of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, and the very likely scenario that women who enjoyed more freedoms in Egypt, will soon be losing them (if they haven’t already). Sill, this is exciting:

Activists among Saudi Arabia’s women, who can’t drive or vote and need male approval to work and travel, are turning to the type of online organizing that helped topple Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak to force change in a system they say treats them like children.

The “Baladi” or “My Country” campaign is focused on this year’s municipal elections, only the second nationwide ballot that the absolute monarchy has allowed. The election board yesterday said women will be excluded from the Sept. 22 vote. Another group, the Saudi Women’s Revolution, citing inspiration from the Arab activism that grew into revolts against Mubarak and Tunisia’s Zine El Abidine Ben Ali, is pressing for equal treatment and urging international support.

The wave of anti-regime protests that spread from Tunisia and Egypt into some of Saudi Arabia’s Persian Gulf neighbors, such as Bahrain and Oman, hasn’t translated into mass street demonstrations in the kingdom that holds the world’s biggest oil reserves. Saudi rulers have taken steps to ensure it won’t, pledging almost $100 billion of spending on homes, jobs and benefits. They also deployed thousands of police in Riyadh on March 11, when a protest was planned by Internet organizers — a group that increasingly includes Saudi women.

“Women are raised to fear men and to fear speaking out,” said Mona al-Ahmed, a 25-year-old in the coastal city of Jeddah. She said she joined the Women’s Revolution campaign after her brother refused to let her take her dream job, as a biochemist, because it would involve working in a mixed-gender environment. “I opened my eyes one day and said, ‘This is not the life I want’,” al-Ahmed said in a phone interview.

Well, I suppose that is one way of keeping the people in place, right? Ahem.

But this is telling indeed of how women in Saudi Arabia, our ally, live. We may hear bits and pieces about it, but at this point, it seems we just take for granted women are treated like shit there.

Think I am being hyperbolic? Think again:

[snip] Like other opposition and protest groups in Saudi Arabia, the women’s movement faces a tough task. The kingdom ranked as the least democratic state in the Middle East, according to the Economist Intelligence Unit’s 2010 Democracy Index.

“Women will not participate in this session,” Abdul- Rahman al-Dahmash, director of the kingdom’s electoral commission, said at a press conference yesterday, referring to the municipal balloting. “There is a plan, though not with a definite time, to put in place a framework so that women can participate in upcoming elections.”

Baladi said on its Facebook page that Saudi women “are like other women in the world who have hopes and ambitions” and must be allowed to vote.

While Saudi Arabia was placed in the top one-third of nations in the United Nations 2010 Human Development Report — higher than European Union member Bulgaria — its score for gender equality was much lower. On that UN measure, which includes assessments of reproductive health and participation in politics and the labor market, the country ranked 128th of 138 nations, below Iran and Pakistan. [snip]

You know it is bad when you rank BELOW Iran and Pakistan on the treatment of women. Seriously. How bad must you be to be WORSE than Iran and Pakistan??

Let’s just pause for a moment and see how women are treated in Iran (I warn you, this is a difficult video to watch, contains violent images):

Women are worth half as much as men. They are culpable at the age of 9 for “crimes,” while boys aren’t until they are 16. Women cannot divorce their husbands. Men can have many wives. And that is but a minute amount of with what these women live.

Well, how about Pakistan, then? This video gives a good overview (again, difficult to watch):

“Considered to be the property of men.” Uh, yeah. Not allowed to leave the house. Infant girls killed. Slave girls trapped from other countries and sold every day. Education morally corrupts girls, thus they should not have it.

And Saudi Arabia is farther down the list than Pakistan in its treatment of women.

I’m sorry, I need a moment to compose myself.

Back to the reality facing women in Saudi Arabia:

[snip] Saudi Arabia enforces the Wahhabi version of Sunni Islam and its clerics say that requires strict segregation of the sexes, including in government offices, workplaces and public spaces such as restaurants. Other areas of discontent highlighted by women writers and activists include family law. A Saudi man can end his marriage by telling his wife, “You are divorced,” while women must go to a court or an authorized cleric to get a dissolution. Custody of children above a certain age is usually granted to the father.

Saudi Arabia is also one of the few countries that has a high rate of executions for women, Amnesty International said in a 2008 report. (Emphasis mine.) Adultery is among the capital offenses.

[...]

Those are among the goals of the Women’s Revolution group, which began as an exchange of Twitter messages among likeminded women, and now has more than 2,000 Facebook supporters. “Women are treated like minors, except if they commit a crime,” the group said in a statement on Facebook. “Then they are equal.”

Alia al-Faqih, 19, said this year’s Arab revolts inspired her to join the group and demand change in her country.

“The protesters in Egypt and Tunisia did something that was almost impossible,” she said in a telephone interview from Jeddah. “If they could bring down two tough presidents, why can’t we demand our rights?”

Why, indeed? Women in Saudia Arabia, Iran, Pakistan, and many countries around the world must do just that – demand their rights. Though as noted above, with the increased presence of the Sharia Law-loving Muslim Brotherhood rising up in Egypt, simply getting a change at the top does not mean a change throughout the country. And in the case of Egypt, it is a change for the worse for women.

And speaking of change, there has been some lip service paid to changing the plight of women in Saudi Arabia, but it is largely window dressing:

[snip] Saudi Arabia’s ruler, King Abdullah, who turns 87 this year, has pledged to improve the status of women. He opened the kingdom’s first co-educational university in 2009, appointed its first female deputy minister, Nora bint Abdullah al-Fayez, the same year, and has promised steps to improve access to jobs for women, who make up about 15 percent of the workforce. That would help improve productivity in the kingdom’s oil-dominated economy, say analysts including John Sfakianakis, chief economist at Banque Saudi Fransi.

A change of policy in 2008 allowed women to stay in hotels without male guardians, and an amendment to the Labor Law allowed women to work in all fields “suitable to their nature.” Women can now study law at university, without being allowed to practice as lawyers in courts.

At some companies, such as billionaire investor Prince Alwaleed bin Talal’s Kingdom Holding Co. (KINGDOM), women are permitted to work alongside men. That isn’t typical, though. Most companies that hire women must provide a women-only section that is off- limits to the male staff.

Human Rights Watch concluded in January that “reforms to date have involved largely symbolic steps to improve the visibility of women.” [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

Yes, superficial reforms at best in Saudi Arabia, not the systemic changes in attitude and treatment of women that need to change.

I know I have asked this before, but how, how, in the Twenty-first century, are women around the globe still being treated as less than human, as chattel, as property, as worthless, as animals, as dirt? How do we, as a nation, not demand that the countries with whom we do business treat women as full human beings?

Lest anyone think this is a problem “over there,” I assure you, what happens to women there affects women here. When an 11 year old girl can be gang raped, by adult men, numerous times, right here in Texas, as well as California, we must acknowledge that what happens to women and girls here, in Saudi Arabia, around the world, matters.

It matters a lot. Just after I finished writing this, I received an email from MADRE about the kidnapping and torture of a youth activist in Iraq. This kind of treatment of women is happening day in and day out, sadly.

And so, for those women in Saudi Arabia, may the ripples continue to widen. May they change the way women are treated, at home and abroad, may the treatment of women matter as much as the oil beneath the sands, and may women be treated as fully human around the globe. That is my prayer…

At the age of 75, Geraldine Ferraro, the first woman to run as a Vice Presidential candidate in 1984, died today (h/t Sara in Italy):

[snip] Ferraro died at Massachusetts General Hospital, where she was being treated for blood cancer. She died just before 10 a.m., said Amanda Fuchs Miller, a family friend who worked for Ferraro in her 1998 Senate bid and was acting as a spokeswoman for the family.

A three-term congresswoman from the New York City borough of Queens, Ferraro catapulted to national prominence in 1984 when she was chosen by presidential nominee Walter Mondale to join his ticket against incumbents Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush.

[...]

Palin paid tribute to Ferraro on her Facebook page on Saturday.

“She broke one huge barrier and then went on to break many more,” Palin wrote. “May her example of hard work and dedication to America continue to inspire all women.”

For his part, Mondale remembered his former running mate as “a remarkable woman and a dear human being.”

“She was a pioneer in our country for justice for women and a more open society. She broke a lot of molds and it’s a better country for what she did,” Mondale told The Associated Press. [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

If you wish to read the entire statement from Sarah Palin, click here. You may recall that Sarah Palin and Geraldine Ferraro did appear together, the only two women to run as Vice Presidential candidates for the major parties. Here they are:

My thoughts and prayers go out to the Ferraro family. Ms. Ferraro broke a lot of barriers in this country, was an outspoken advocate for women, and she will have my undying gratitude. May she rest in peace.

Update: The Clintons issued a statement following the death of Ms. Ferraro, a staunch Hillary supporter:

[snip] “Gerry Ferraro was one of a kind — tough, brilliant, and never afraid to speak her mind or stand up for what she believed in — a New York icon and a true American original. She was a champion for women and children and for the idea that there should be no limits on what every American can achieve. The daughter of an Italian immigrant family, she rose to become the first woman ever nominated to the national ticket by a major political party. She paved the way for a generation of female leaders and put the first cracks in America’s political glass ceiling. She believed passionately that politics and public service was about making a difference for the people she represented as a congresswoman and Ambassador.

For us, Gerry was above all a friend and companion. From the rough-and-tumble of political campaigns to the important work of international diplomacy, we were honored to have her by our side. She was a tireless voice for human rights and helped lead the American delegation to the landmark Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing in 1995. Through it all, she was a loyal friend, trusted confidante, and valued colleague.

Our thoughts and prayers are with Gerry’s husband John, her children and grandchildren, and their entire family.”

Greta Van Susteran will be doing a tribute show to Geraldine Ferraro at 10:00pm Sunday night.

The above photograph was taken at the Diller-von Furstenberg 2nd Annual Awards, as Chelsea presented her mother, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, with the first Inspiration Award.

Some of the most poignant moments for me of the 2008 Campaign were to see Chelsea Clinton with her mother. The pride she felt, the love, the connection, was evident by the way Chelsea looked at her mother when she was speaking. This photo reminds me of those days when a woman garnered the most votes of any candidate during a primary ever.

Yes, it brought back some memories, like this one of Chelsea and her mother:

(Joe Raedle-Getty Images)

Ah, yes – those were the days. It seems appropriate during Women’s History Month to remember, to affirm, just how close we came to having a woman president for the first time in this country. And to recognize just how far we have to go to achieve true equality in this country. Sadly, more qualified, accomplished, women still have to take a back seat to younger, unqualified men. It is a sobering thought.

Given that Clinton was just awarded an Inspiration award, what should we make of it when the Secretary Clinton consistently highlights the importance of girls and women to be educated, that the very development of communities, and countries, depend on how women fare. Yet when discussing Afghanistan, women, and USAID, a senior official claims that:“Gender issues are going to have to take a back seat to other priorities. There’s no way we can be successful if we maintain every special interest and pet project. All those pet rocks in our rucksack were taking us down.” (H/t to Yttik.)

“Pet rocks”? That’s how this “senior official,” who would speak only under conditions of anonymity, describes over half the population in relation to a USAID contract in Afghanistan? And on the eve of International Women’s Day, no less?

I hope you appreciate my restraint in not writing what I really think of this man (but you can feel free to add your two cents worth about him).

Allow me to provide some context for his assholic remark, though it may make you even madder. The quote is from a Washington Post article entitled, “In Afghanistan, U.S. Shifts Strategy On Women’s Rights As It Eyes Wider Priorities.” Yes, the headline does provide a bit of a clue as to the intent, but this makes it crystal clear:

When the U.S. Agency for International Development sought bids last March for a $140 million land reform program in Afghanistan, it insisted that the winning contractor meet specific goals to promote women’s rights: The number of deeds granting women title had to increase by 50 percent; there would have to be regular media coverage on women’s land rights; and teaching materials for secondary schools and universities would have to include material on women’s rights.

Before the contract was awarded, USAID overhauled the initiative, stripping out those concrete targets. Now, the contractor only has to perform “a written evaluation of Afghan inheritance laws,” assemble “summaries of input from women’s groups” and draft amendments to the country’s civil code.

The removal of specific women’s rights requirements, which also took place in a $600 million municipal government program awarded last year, reflects a shift in USAID’s approach in Afghanistan. Instead of setting ambitious goals to improve the status of Afghan women, the agency is tilting toward more attainable measures. [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

Ah, yes, “attainable measures.” Right. Presumably that means turning the other way when girls get acid thrown in their faces by the Taliban. Or when women are killed through “honor” killings. I could go on, but I trust you get the idea.

So a senior official refers to women as “pet rocks” in a discussion of how USAID, which falls under the State Department, has thrown women under the bus in their contract requirements. Wow.

I remember well those days, just three short years ago, when Hillary Clinton was amassing the most votes of anyone ever in the history of the country. I remember well the excitement of women, children, and men alike that this incredible, capable, intelligent, qualified woman had surfaced in a run for the White House. And I remember well how the media, the DNC, and Obama himself, worked to destroy her by any means necessary, including massive misogyny at every turn.

And then she went to work for him.

The issues that affect women and girls has always been of the greatest importance to Hillary Clinton. Or at least they were until she became Secretary of State under the least qualified man ever to sit in the White House, pushed over the far more qualified woman. The issues that always meant so much to her, to us, now take a back seat as “special interests.” Over half the population in the world has been reduced to a “pet rock.” Holy moley.

I have never been inspired by a politician the way I was by Hillary Clinton. I have never donated so much time, money, or energy as I did for Hillary Clinton. Two years ago, I would have said, “hell to the yes” she deserves an Inspiration Award. But when her department fails to do what is right for women in Afghanistan, or Egypt, or Libya, or Iran, or anywhere else in the world, because women are seen as “special projects,” not worthy of full humanity, well, I find that less than inspiring.

Frankly, I find it disturbing. How about you?

Since we have been talking about our beloved Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, the one with the 70% approval rating, the one who was just honored as a Global Trailblazer and who received over 2 minutes of a standing ovation (MUST READ post by Ani: Hillary Receives Some Well Deserved Accolades), I wanted to share about another strong woman making a difference on an issue important to me: domestic violence. With Clinton’s commitment to women and children, this is an extension of the love-fest by broadening the circle to include another woman doing the work.

Thursday, I happened to catch Martina McBride, whom I love, talking about her work with teens and the issue of domestic violence. She is involved with an organization entitled, loveisrespect, the mission of which is to educate teens on this issue, an issue that affects 1 out of 4 teens (just like the adult population). This is a part of the Love Is Not Abuse site, sponsored by Liz Claiborne.

In terms of Martina McBride specifically, the site has this:

National Teen Dating Abuse Helpline have partnered in a new program called My Time to Shine, which has been announced in conjunction with the release of her new album, Shine.

As the mother of three daughters, four-time CMA Female Vocalist is passionate about the need to increase awareness for teens and parents about teen dating abuse, and about how to develop healthy relationships. Recent research has shown that one in three girls who have been in a serious relationship say they’ve been concerned about being physically hurt by their partner.

My Time to Shine was developed for Martina’s Shine CD and tour around the concept that the teen years should be a young person’s time to shine—the time in their lives when they discover who they are, what their talents are and how to have healthy relationships.

When the contemporary country singer released Independence Day in 1994*, she never dreamed that the song would resonate so powerfully with victims of family violence. It opened her eyes to the issue and changed her life. On concert tours, Martina began visiting high schools to talk to young women about self worth. Since then, she has been involved in fundraising for several programs that benefit women. My Time to Shine expands her work and is an opportunity for her to include her 14-year-old daughter, Delaney in a cause they can both relate to.

Starting with the morning TV shows this week, Martina will promote both the new CD and the awareness program. In addition Martina will
speak out in public service announcements which will be shown at her concert venues when her tour begins in October. My Time to Shine merchandise will be sold at Martina’s concerts to raise funds to benefit the teen helpline.

For more on the Shine album, visit www.martina-mcbride.com.

Heaven knows, we don’t talk enough about domestic violence in general, much less how it affects our young women. And now there is additional technology to assist those who would abuse our young women – texting, Twittering, facebook, Myspace, you name it. So many new ways to keep up with them, try to isolate them, have ammunition to use against them, and to terrorize them. The statistics on teen girls is sobering:

Nearly three in four tweens (72%) say boyfriend/girlfriend relationships usually begin at age 14 or younger. (Liz Claiborne Inc. study on teen dating abuse conducted by Teenage Research Unlimited, February 2008.)

62% of tweens (age 11-14) who have been in a relationship say they know friends who have been verbally abused (called stupid, worthless, ugly, etc) by a boyfriend/girlfriend. (Liz Claiborne Inc. study on teen dating abuse conducted by Teenage Research Unlimited, February 2008.)

Only half of all tweens (age 11-14) claim to know the warning signs of a bad/hurtful relationship. (Liz Claiborne Inc. study on teen dating abuse conducted by Teenage Research Unlimited, February 2008.)

More than three times as many tweens (20%) as parents (6%) admit that parents know little or nothing about the tweens dating relationships. (Liz Claiborne Inc. study on teen dating abuse conducted by Teenage Research Unlimited, February 2008.)

1 in 3 teenagers report knowing a friend or peer who has been hit, punched, kicked, slapped, choked or physically hurt by their partner. (Liz Claiborne Inc. study on teen dating abuse conducted by Teenage Research Unlimited, February 2005.)

Nearly 1 in 5 teenage girls who have been in a relationship said a boyfriend had threatened violence or self-harm if presented with a break-up. (Liz Claiborne Inc. study on teen dating abuse conducted by Teenage Research Unlimited, February 2005.)

13% of teenage girls who said they have been in a relationship report being physically hurt or hit. (Liz Claiborne Inc. study on teen dating abuse conducted by Teenage Research Unlimited, February 2005.)

1 in 4 teenage girls who have been in relationships reveal they have been pressured to perform oral sex or engage in intercourse. (Liz Claiborne Inc. study on teen dating abuse conducted by Teenage Research Unlimited, February 2005.)

More than 1 in 4 teenage girls in a relationship (26%) report enduring repeated verbal abuse. (Liz Claiborne Inc. study on teen dating abuse conducted by Teenage Research Unlimited, February 2005.)

80% of teens regard verbal abuse as a “serious issue” for their age group. (Liz Claiborne Inc. study on teen dating abuse conducted by Teenage Research Unlimited, February 2005.)

If trapped in an abusive relationship, 73% of teens said they would turn to a friend for help; but only 33% who have been in or known about an abusive relationship said they have told anyone about it. (Liz Claiborne Inc. study on teen dating abuse conducted by Teenage Research Unlimited, February 2005.)

Twenty-four percent of 14 to 17-year-olds know at least one student who has been the victim of dating violence, yet 81% of parents either believe teen dating violence is not an issue or admit they don’t know if it is an issue. (Survey commissioned by the Empower Program, sponsored by Liz Claiborne Inc. and conducted by Knowledge Networks, Social Control, Verbal Abuse, and Violence Among Teenagers, December 2000)

Less than 25% of teens say they have discussed dating violence with their parents. (Liz Claiborne Inc. study of teens 13-17 conducted by Applied Research and Consulting LLC, Spring 2000)

89% of teens between the ages of 13 and 18 say they have been in dating relationships; forty percent of teenage girls age 14 to 17 report knowing someone their age who has been hit or beaten by a boyfriend. (Children Now/Kaiser Permanente poll, December 1995)

Nearly 80% of girls who have been physically abused in their intimate relationships continue to date their abuser. (City of New York, Teen Relationship Abuse Fact Sheet, March 1998)

Of the women between the ages 15-19 murdered each year, 30% are killed by their husband or boyfriend. (City of New York, Teen Relationship Abuse Fact Sheet, March 1998)

Wowie freakin’ zowie. Sobering, indeed. Violence is so prevalent in our society, and the targets are far, far too often women. Systemic cultural violence needs to be addressed in general, but specifically as it relates to women and our teenage daughters, nieces, and grand-daughters.

Liz Claiborne and Martina McBride are doing just that, thank heavens, but we ALL need to be aware of this issue – educate ourselves and the young women in our lives, and work to end violence against women period. The time is now.

*This is “Independence Day,” referenced above:

So, “This one is for the girls”: