EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Women's Inequality Day
August 26th is Women's Equality Day. If we were being honest, we would call it Women's Inequality Day. Yes, indeed, we did win the right to vote 90 years ago, but that does not equal equality. In that regard, we've still got a long way to go. As Catalyst notes,
Women hold 16.8% of seats in the U.S. Congress, while less than 20 female world leaders are in power. Women hold only 3% of positions of clout in mainstream media. Less than 10% of TV sports coverage in the United States is devoted to female athletes. And of the 250 top-grossing movies produced last year, 7% were directed by women.
Hell, we're even discriminated against when it comes to naming streets--turns out that only 7% of the traffic circles in our nation's capitol are named after women and when it comes to economics, that the faces on our paper money are all male should tell you something.
While Women's Equality Day represents more of a wish than reality, I decided I wanted to learn more about it, and found this on Wikipedia,
Every president has published a proclamation for Women's Equality Day since 1971 when legislation was first introduced in Congress by Bella Abzug. This resolution was passed designating August 26 of each year as Women's Equality Day.
In a section on the modern observance of the event, there is also this informative tidbit:
GoTopless.org, a US organization, claims that women have the same constitutional right to be bare chested in public places as men. They further claim constitutional equality between men and women on being topless in public. In 2009, they used August 26, (Women's Equality Day) as a day of national protest.
That this is the best example the authors of this page could find to illustrate the impact of Women's Equality Day certainly lends credence to the fact that we're just not there yet.
But it isn't just Wikipedia that doesn't get it. Earlier this week, the New York Times ran a profile of political hopeful Reshma Saujani, or more accurately, they ran a profile about her shoes,
Finally, as we returned to her office, I asked: About those shoes?
"They're the Kate Spade wedges," she said, sagging slightly, as if she had only just then been reminded that she had feet. "They're these politician-woman shoes."
I'm not a big fan of high heels, so I might be inclined to vote against Ms. Saujani if such things mattered. But actually, I'd rather know where she stands on issues such as climate change, education and oh yeah, women's rights. Long time political activist and writer Jill Miller Zimon sums it up nicely,
Women politicians should be covered by the media for their issues and character and leadership abilities, based on their experiences, accomplishments and vision for how they'll fulfill expectations in public office should they win. Exactly as men politicians.
It's beyond the pale now: there is NO QUESTION that the NYT did this story to get up hackles and in the end, throw serious political reportage of women candidates under the bus. It's an inexcusable dog and pony show for readers and frankly, if I were that candidate, I would have demanded a different article.
Now -- lest I be picked on for saying that a woman politician should be able to choose being portrayed anyway she wants, fine.
BUT I would then ask: WAS SHE GIVEN A CHOICE? Did the Times say to her: we can either do a fashion piece on you and connect shoes to women running for office, or we can do a piece on how you and Maloney differ and what you bring to the table that she doesn't.
Let's celebrate all that we've accomplished, and honor our foremothers for all of their hard work. And then let's get back to work, because when it comes to equality for women, we're not there yet.
----
To learn more about Women's Equality Day, click here.
- Posted in
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
40 Comments so far
Show All"But actually, I'd rather know where [Ms. Saujani] stands on issues . . . ."
The quotation tells you where she stands: in her shoes! (Sorry. I couldn't resist.)
Seriously, while I understand Marshall's point, the argument about women having a choice in how they're covered leaves me baffled. Does anyone in public life, male or female, have such a choice?
One the best pieces of advice that anyone gave me early in my career was "Don't sweat the small stuff." Saujami should have ignored the reporter's question about her shoes. It will always be difficult for female public figures to rise above the demeaning and condescending coverage that they receive as long as they continue to acknowledge it.
q
Dear quickstepper:
Oh, a shoe joke. I love it, but then your name is "quickstepper!"
She should have corrected the interviewer. Instead, she caved and went along with the ridiculous question. The question itself was a way to reduce her importance, her "gravitas". And she went along.
Not a good sign.
Remember when Sarkozy walked out on an interviewer? Women (politicians also) need to learn how to reject the kind of demeaning crap that the interviewer offered.
Given that women in politics routinely get far less press coverage than men do, it puts them in a very difficult position in regard to whether to risk standing up to inappropriate questions. And one can only imagine the media ruckus that would have erupted from Limbaugh and Beck and their ilk had she walked out.
Good afternoon, Lucinda, and thank you for entering the forum.
As a mature feminist, one problem I run up against here on CD are some men (and a few women) who often argue that human nature is itself inherently violent.
I argue a number of counter-points, the chief one being that society itself has been structured along patriarchal parameters. Therefore persons of both genders are socialized to conform to the resulting asymmetric paradigm.
When I relate that the absence of women in positions of power leads to outcomes such as those presently faced in the form of the bankrupt, pro-war (I term it "Mars rules") American status quo, these posters tout out names like Hillary Clinton and Condi Rice to "prove" that women are just like men in their lust for empire.
Although I have gone to great lengths to explain the role of archetypes, and state further that any who rise in power tend to adapt to the power structure as is, they do not seem to get it at all.
In other words, they argue for the sexist status quo by insisting that gender is a meaningless way to gauge human behavior and priorities. Since rule by (white) males has been the norm for centuries, they don't understand what the elimination of the feminine perspective has meant... or cost. And they still don't get it.
HELP!
Excellent post, Sioux Rose!
Since I wrote, yesterday, extensively, on these issues, I won't repeat what I've already written. However, one comment I received yesterday from someone was to repeat what you mentioned in your comment -- " these posters tout out names like Hillary Clinton and Condi Rice to "prove" that women are just like men in their lust for empire." -- Sioux Rose
This time, I responded, because we do, now, have some good role models for women in politics, albeit the women live in South America -- Therefore, I will take the time to list the women here for everyone:
1) Michelle Bachelet, president of Chile from 2006-2010 -- she left office with approval ratings hovering around 80%, unable to run again due to laws passed about term limits
2) Cristina Elizabet Fernández de Kirchner, current president of Argentina
3) Dilma Rousseff, running for president in Brazil, and currently leading in the polls, supported by Lula and also Hugo Chavez
As far as a good U.S. role model, I would bring to the table the name -- Shirley Chisholm who ran for president of the U.S. in 1972, the first year I was able to vote. For me, she was and still is an inspiring role model. Shirley died on January 1, 2005.
Kay, I am always grateful for your support and erudition. You constantly improve the CD discourse by relating the content and titles of relevant films, TV documentaries, and books.
It's clear that those who attack posts specifically relating to issues of concern to women are not versed at all in an understanding of feminism, or what takes place when a society becomes organized chiefly around patriarchal presumptions.
I appreciate others taking the time to disabuse hostile posters of their misguided notions. Anyone can experience the growth of consciousness, or increase their understanding. Ideally a forum of this nature is designed for that very thing.
That's one reason why I don't give up in efforts to LIFT the bar. It's great when others assist!
>>As a mature feminist, one problem I run up against here on CD are some men (and a few women) who often argue that human nature is itself inherently violent
In virtually every case "Violence" is a learned behaviour. Studies with children demonstrate this clearly. At the earliest ages children gravitate towards persons/things etc that are seen as "helpful" As example shown images of an object "Helping another object" perform a task and an object "preventing" the same, infants universally will select an object most looking like the "helpful" one as a toy or playmate.
Again I feel the way out of this rut has to be reform of our Political system. Mandate half the seats in a Countries parliament for women and half for men. Woemn seeking Political office can then run on their terms.
This only the smallest of beginnings as a lot more needs to be down to break down the thousands of years of cultural indoctrination.
Again people should read the oft mentioned "The Chalice and the Blade".
GW NORTH: You must be an old soul because unlike a few in this forum, always ready to present "Backlash," you get it and you care. Your wife or significant other is lucky to have found you!
So many men don't really understand what partnership means. I have never advocated a position that attempts to smear males. What I have tried to relate is the need for more equal representation. There will always be some men who "get" the peace thing, like Kucinich, and some women, who want the approval of men, and identify with macho prowess or raw militaristic displays of power.
A lot of men give the topic of women's rights short shrift because they:
1. Are satisfied that women have made strides in modern times.
2. Prefer to talk in sports parlance which lends itself to intricate discussions of political races.
3. Want to see this pesky matter shoved aside so that the "real" issue of the class war and how capitalism makes serfs of us all, is given the spotlight it deserves.
4. They don't like women, are threatened by anything like genuine equality, or are so thick-headed as not to notice the impact of sexism (in themselves or on society) at all.
5. Other
Thank you, GW. You're one of my favorite male posters; and as I've shared before, it's notable that you can speak intelligently on a variety of issues. Quite a few are specialists in narrow areas, and I also appreciate their contributions to this forum. The manifold intellect, however, is a rarity... but of course, the Western trend towards "the separation of disciplines" makes that species of intellect the exception, doesn't it?
P.S. As to your point about violence being a learned thing, I could not agree more. The love of war in the U.S. is a product of a media awash in violence and images of the hero, always ready to use his firearm. It's heard in the National Anthem (the bombs bursting mid-air), and even in cartoons! The Mars ethic of competition, and me-first, and hostility is now out of control and moving through every "idiom" of this hostile nation's culture. It's barbaric to read about the wars, the treatment of "illegal aliens," the women left in tent cities in Haiti, the babies born with deformities in Iraq, and on and on, ad nauseum.
This is a worldview that is anathema to life itself, but quite suitable to the warrior. This is why I don't tire in stating, "Mars rules." And look where it's gotten us? ONLY a return to balance can right the wheel and take it out of the destroyer's hands... that task goes to the feminine co-pilot, or any who identify more with the (Venus) values of: peace, diplomacy, negotiation, art, culture, beauty, sensuality, fairness, compassion... than those which are a DIRECT product of the archetype of Mars, the One that's too much with us.
The queen of blackmagic bs and violence speaks again. Hey Rosie, what are you doing about it? You sound like a dirtbag soul bashing men like you do. Take your astro bs and stick it where the sun don't shine.
You ARE Shawn, also known as Kyle. If you understood my posts, but of course they are way above your reading level, you would realize that you mischaracterize them as much as you attempt to slander me.
You boys are really ridiculous. Please go back to playing with you GI Joe's.
Hey Shawn man, where are you? Rosie thinks I'm you. Man, she's tripping. If you got a chance man, stop by and give the poor chimp a banana. You still there Shawn and who's Kyle? Rosie wanna cookie ? HA HA !
Wazzup Pelican? Hey I'm still alive but good one man ! Don't worry about Rosie. She just a poor bedwetting chubby poochy sitting here and complaining with her tag team politically arrested infantiles. Give Rosie another latte to go with her cookie. High five dude ! I dont remember Kyle except that one who posted about her scam or was it getreal? Hey whatever dude, she don't know what she talking about. Her brain is filled with poopoo. I took away her one and only magic wand so she a sore loser. You right man. It ain't worth posting on this site unless youre a bedwetting politically arrested infantile purist.
Your obsession with poop suggests that your real job is that of a dog walker, poop scooper and all. Keep on posting, Shawn, there's not a soul in the forum that doesn't realize what a complete jackass you are, ignorance on such vivid display in post after senseless post.
This conversation is for intelligent adults and so far over your head, you would of course take it for a virtual UFO encounter.
The bedwetting element reminds those of us who have been in this forum for some time (and paying attention) of another one of your screen names: Nebraska Nathan. Of course there is also Encino M and/or Encino Man. And no doubt others... the idiocy and limited vocabulary give you away, whatever name-costume you wear.
Just as the Light beholdeth the darkness and understood it not, I really cannot conceive of the type of mind that tries to malign the sacred, or those who stand witness to it.
Rather convenient that "bro" was available to respond to your post so quickly. Did you call to him down the hallway?
You had best get new drinking buddies you are starting to sound alike.
Thanks, GW. More and more people in the forum are recognizing that there are a few who dominate the threads with nonsense, and make use of a number of screen names as well.
Rose,
Just ignore that guy.(And his multiple handles). He is attempting to entertain himself at the expense of others......He is aware that if he attacks you personally many of us (including you) will react. It is his way of getting attention. It is best that we simply allow him to talk to himself.........
Keep on writing Rose...
Thomas
Is that you Thomas More? Haha ! Not, Rosie's sock puppet. Haha ! Hey Shawn man, "dante" still think you're me. Slap him a mud pie, lol !
GW,
I think that it is best to simply ignore these posts altogether.....
You're pretty funny man. Rosie wants us to believe that GWNorth is a newbie. Who's that stardust lady anyway? It must be Rosie's aliases, lol.
Dear Pelican Beak:
Your personal attacks and rude language are only further proof that womens' INEQUALITY is a reality and clearly shown by some members of the male species Please take your pelican beak down to the Gulf, scoop up some COREXIT, and see if that will help to improve your posts.
Screw you crybabies. It's why I didn't bother marrying. Can't understand why Shawn bothered. I had to beat the shit outta my former girlfriends yaking and asking too much. Those damn whinies and their frivolous lawsuits ! Women want guys with more money, drive alot, and let them spend alot. My ma wanted me to be nice to them but I said screw that. Women can keep the corexits to themselves. They're a waste of money and I don't want noisy kids and as soon as my ma's gone, I can have more money to keep. I'm tired of paying for her life support.
Thanks for openly confessing that you beat up women. No woman with an ounce of self-respect would get near your worthless ass, much less *marry* you. But you've probably figured that out by now. Everything you've written here suggests you'll likely find yourself behind prison bars before long, where you can bellyache about women to fellow inmates, as they make you their bitch. You and Shawn Berry deserve each other. The two of you always bashing on Sioux Rose, with Berry constantly obsessed with smearing shit all over himself (his fixation with "poo poo"), is like a couple of mosquitoes buzzing around the head of . . . any intelligent person, which is obviously a creature so foreign to your stunted, infantile sensibilities that you can't resist publicly displaying your proud stupidity and bellowing ignorance, as if these are your only virtues. Which they are, for both of you jibbering fools. Let's hope one of the women you've been beating up on drags your ass to court real soon and puts you away.
So what if I confessed? I've been getting away with it for 40 years homey. Prison? In yo dreams, haha ! I used to have fun pulling women by their hair and skirts. Their yaking and crying can be fun at first and then annoying. Me and my boys love to punish bad girls. I don't do much on the streets anymore thanks to the Internet. I can now punish bad girls on progressive blogs for bashing Obama. Those damn Naderites and Greenies ! Shawn's a party friend of mine. I worked for Oregon progressives while Shawn works for Minnesota progressives. We're both registered independents but we believe in pushing the Democratic Party to the left while you still insist on loser cartoony strategies. Hey Shawn man, get over here. Hey maybe Encino too whoever he is.
Hey Mista Beak, easy on the ladies dude. Don't worry about Ephraim. He just another bedwetting politically arrested infantile purist who votes for lawbreakers like that green party fatso mcckinney.
Hey Rosie. I've been watching your posts and you lie. Shawn and others were right about you. You scream against the sexist status quo and then you support it.
Right on, bro !
SHAWN'S BEAK: This is such an absurd allegation as to not require a response.
"You scream against the sexist status quo and then you support it."
WOW..it would be interesting to see how you came to that conclusion!!! Forget it...I rather not read anymore of your garbage....
Rosie's sock puppet
As a mature feminist, it might benefit you to acquaint yourself with some of the more recent strands of feminist thought.
For example, yes, society has been structured along patriachal parameters. By adopting the opposite, by posing every gender issue along 1-0, Mars Venus divisions, masculine feminine, you are actually helping to perpetuate those (artificial) patriachal parameters. You are still viewing things framed from the patriachal perspective. Instead of simply adopting the opposite of those artificial patriachal perspectives, you should be rejecting them outright by ignoring them as irrelevant, irrelevant because they are artificial and do not reflect human nature. The opposite of artificial, wrong and stupid, isn't necessarily correct. Just because the thesis is wrong and incorrect, does not mean that the antithesis is correct. You should apply basic dialectics: thesis, antithesis AND synthesis.
"You are still viewing things framed from the patriachal perspective. Instead of simply adopting the opposite of those artificial patriachal perspectives, you should be rejecting them outright by ignoring them as irrelevant, irrelevant because they are artificial and do not reflect human nature." -- rflof
Patriarchy is not a perspective, patriarchy is a reality. Therefore, rejecting and ignoring the facts as if patriarchy is "artificial" or "irrelevant" would be delusional. The wage gap, among other issues are structured through our patriarchal system.
The solution would embrace a balance -- with women having a voice in restructuring the system.
Robert Jensen speaks eloquently about the deep roots of patriarchy:
http://nist.tv/video/17723/robert-jensen-talks-on-gender-
"And one can only imagine the media ruckus that would have erupted from Limbaugh and Beck and their ilk had she walked out."
So women in public life should live in fear of Fox News and their fans? You sound like the pathetic functionary who fired Shirley Sherrod.
Also, I simply recommended that she ignore the reporter and not that she flee the scene.
In my original response, I used the old saying "Don't sweat the small stuff." With regard to media clowns like Limbaugh and Beck, I could have said "small minds."
Women will prevail by appealing to the best in men and not by running from the worst.
q
Then change the subject, but don't cave. Grownups know how to do that. We don't need more sissies in politics.
Nothing to lose. Hillary came on all strong and feminist, back in the day, hey - first thing she did was cave, baking cookies for crikey's sake. Not a good sign. Even the terminally stupid and irritating Palin knows how to redirect an interview.
You can't be a good politician and worry about the Becks and Limbaughs. Some people can't be good politicians no matter what.
Take a lesson from Boudicca.
Missed.
q
Amen. Women have a long way to go for true gender equality. It's been 90 years since sufferage began. Women worked 50 or more years for that. We'll keep working too.
Thank you for the column.
The Seneca Falls Convention took place on July 19 & 20, 1848 -- in Seneca Falls, NY. 300 people attended the convention, with the Declaration of Sentiments evolving out of the various sessions that took place. 32 men and 68 women signed the Declaration, including Frederick Douglass.
The 19th Amendment was passed on August 26, 1920 -- 72 years later.
Today, is August 26, 2010 -- 90 years later -- and 162 years after the Seneca Falls Convention.
At the convention, in 1848, Lucretia Mott actually argued against including a provision to work for voting rights for women. Frederick Douglass argued to include the provision.
"Women have along way to go for true gender equality." -- wyckoffbr
I agree!
What is going on here at CD? This morning, I'm reading through the 31 posts on this thread, and I noticed that 7 of the posts are flagged! I have never flagged a post, and I certainly don't agree with every post I read, but, I do respect the right of a person to state their own views. The disrespect shown by some readers and writers is somewhat overwhelming to me. Is the flagging a tactic to distract from the issues and to break up a thread of discussion? Does this practice concern other readers and writers?
I didn't think that Sioux Rose's or GwNorth's posts deserved any flagging. The flag kiddies must be kicking and screaming just as school is starting. Let's hope their school teachers give them more homework to keep them busy every night.