Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Eve Ensler: Bald, Brave and Beautiful
Bald, brave and beautiful: Those words can't begin to capture the remarkable Eve Ensler. She sat down with me last week, in the midst of her battle with uterine cancer, to talk about New Orleans and the Democratic Republic of Congo. Eve, the author of the hit play "The Vagina Monologues" and the creator of V-Day, a global activist movement to stop violence against women and girls, told me how "cancer has been a huge gift."
Eve's moving essay "Congo Cancer" begins, "Some people may think that being diagnosed with uterine cancer, followed by extensive surgery that led to a month of debilitating infections, rounded off by months of chemotherapy, might get a girl down. But, in truth, this has not been my poison." The poison, she went on, was the epidemic of rape, torture and violence against women and girls in the eastern Democratic Republic of Congo.
Eve wrote "The Vagina Monologues" in 1996 as a celebration of women's bodies and women's empowerment. "When I did the play initially," she told me, "everywhere I went on the planet, women would literally line up after the show ... 90 to 95 percent of the women were lining up to tell me how they had been raped or battered or incested or abused. ... I had no idea that one out of three women on the planet will be raped or beaten in their lifetime. Suddenly this door opened for me."
Eve began producing the play to raise funds for rape crisis hot lines and women's organizations across the U.S. "We came up with this idea of V-Day," she told me, "which was Ending Violence Day, Vagina Day-reclaiming Valentine's Day as a day of kindness and good will to women. ... We are now in 130 countries. Last year, there were 5,000 events in 1,500 or 1,600 places. It's raised close to $80 million, that has all gone into local communities."
The V-Day movement brought Eve to some of the most desperate places on earth-Haiti, the Democratic Republic of Congo and post-Katrina New Orleans. She spent a year with women in New Orleans, compiling their descriptions of their lives and the impact of Hurricane Katrina into a series of monologues. It's called "Swimming Upstream." Unbelievably, in the middle of her chemotherapy, Eve is directing two special performances in mid-September, in New Orleans and at the Apollo Theater in Harlem,
Eastern Congo, a war-ravaged region of the world's most impoverished country, is where Eve and V-Day have been devoting most of their recent efforts. Since 1996, hundreds of thousands of women and girls have been raped in the eastern Democratic Republic of Congo, victims of what V-Day calls femicide. Last month, Rwandan and Congolese rebels took over villages in the eastern Democratic Republic of Congo and gang-raped almost 200 women and five young boys. The rapes occurred between July 30 and Aug. 3 within miles of a U.N. peacekeeping base, and went unreported for three weeks.
These rapes are brutal, leaving the victims with deep wounds and fistulae that require surgery. V-Day has been working with Panzi Hospital in Bukavu, the only facility in the region where the women can receive adequate treatment. V-Day is also building a woman-controlled safe zone attached to the hospital called "The City of Joy."
Eve said the women themselves developed the plans for the City of Joy, "a place where they could heal, where they could be trained, where they could become leaders, where they had time and a respite to rebuild themselves and redirect their energies towards their communities." If all goes well with her own treatment, she will be joining them to open the City of Joy in February.
The work, Eve told me, defines what she calls a "kind of three-way V between Haiti, the Congo and New Orleans."
With a scarf on her head, having lost her hair during cancer treatments, she was days away from starting her fourth round of chemotherapy. I asked her how she does it.
"The women of Congo saved my life," she said. "Every day I get up, and I think to myself, I can keep going. If a woman in Congo gets up this morning after she's had her insides eviscerated, what problem do I really have? And I think of how they dance. Every time I go to the Congo, they dance and they sing and they keep going, in spite of being forgotten and forsaken by the world. And I think to myself, I have to get better. I have to live to see the day when the women of Congo are free, because if those women are free, women throughout the world will be free and will get to continue."
Denis Moynihan contributed research to this column.
- Posted in
140 Comments so far
Show AllEve Ensler is serious and man better wake up to who is real and who will lead this sad planet out of chaos. Thank you Eve, and may your body, soul and heart continue to teach us...
Good on Eve Ensler--she's one brave woman!
Bravo!
A touching story of a very courageous and beautiful soul.This horrendous act is repeated in our own jungle in America. My own experience with a sociopath father and a modified dog submissive mother seem to pale in the horrors of these true life experiences. My compassion is to all.
It's always the women and children who suffer the bulk of harm in any war or disaster. Everytime one group goes to war against another, the attackers are saying "We want to kill your children" and "We want to rape - and kill - your women."
The chickenhawks like to talk about just wars. From the point of view of the most defenseless victims, no war can be just.
q
BTW, Goodman fails to explain how this issue relates to Building 7.
Rape and pillage accompany every war. War is the ultimate obscenity. What don't our 'leaders' understand about this? There is no such thing as a 'just' war. Those who are attacked are justified in resisting but those who start wars are inhuman monsters. Those who continue wars started by others are inhuman monsters. Do you hear me George? Do you hear me Barack? You are inhuman monsters.
She fails to explain how this issue relates to Building 7? Was she supposed to?
No.
This is a spike for all of the trolls who greet every Goodman column by deriding her for the fact that she's never investigated their pet theories about building 7 of the WTC.
q
Het quickstepper you are obiously a troll!
How's that feel.
The mystery of the collapse of WTC 7 is one of the important unexplained questyions surrounding the 9/11 attacks.
So you're on of those trolls that advocates the official 9/11 cover story.
Well that figures, anyway.
Actually it is the non-combatants of either gender who suffer the bulk of the harm of modern war.
Prior to the twentieth century, men sufferred the bulk of war casualties because casualties were skewed towards combat casualties.
I perceive your attitude to be in line with the sort of feminist thinking which systematically downplays male victims and suffering.
That's ok - they get the overwhelming attention anyway - somebody has to draw attention to the other side.
Men suffered the bulk of war casualties because the battlefields were set off. As in a naval battle - the toll on civilians is low. But in total war, as of WWI, everyone's a target.
"Feminist thinking" is not downplaying male victims, but merely reminding us that there are female victims also, and that the violence females suffer has different elements. Women tend to get ignored in history. Too subtle? could the fellas share the spotlight once in a while without feeling slighted?
It is incredibly rare to hear a feminist acknowledge victims of male violence.
Feminists are extremely reluctant to share the domestic violence "spotlight.
Male victims of domestic violence, for instance, are rarely acknowledged, and when they are it is portrayed as a joke.
In the mass media, images of women beating men are usaully presented in a comic light.
"It is incredibly rare to hear a feminist acknowledge victims of male violence." -- dreamjoehill
I don't agree with your statement -- violence hurts everyone, men, women and children of all ages. Many men who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan, and in other war ravaged countries, come home and commit violent acts against their family members, their wives and their children. Look at Colorado Springs and the uptick in violent acts by returning military members. Over the past few years, there was a string of murders committed at Fort Bragg -- including 3 female soldiers, who a person might think could defend themselves.
Certainly, I recognize the cycle of violence, but I also recognize the elements of patriarchy that are pervasive in our society here in the U.S. and how patriarchy supports submission of women and girls, etc. In fact, children, in general, are silenced through patriarchy.
Until the second wave of feminism, during the early 1970s, gained some control of the situation, women suffered brutal violence in complete silence. They were struck silent, and there was nowhere they could go -- certainly not to the police who, more often than not, further marginalized the women.
When I lived in Lincoln, NE, I worked at the Rape, Spouse Crisis Intervention Center as a volunteer. Working as a volunteer required me to take extensive training in order to work with mostly women and children who were violated. Broken minds and bodies are sometimes impossible to repair and make whole.
I never portray any violent behavior as a joke -- and I, personally, don't know any women who do. I grew up in an era -- in a very conservative and religious community in southwest Iowa during the 1960s, and even yet today, many of the churches continue to teach and instruct girls to be submissive. I still remember hearing boys say in school -- they must have been mimicking somebody they heard -- "I slapped her around to keep her in line." Then, the boys would laugh. And, the subject of rape was addressed, more often than not as a joke -- "She asked for it." Or, worse.
I'm NOT saying that violence against men, by women, doesn't take place, and I certainly would never condone the violence, but this new wave of feminism and the recognition of violence against women didn't even begin to take place until the early 1970s. And, by the early 1990s, Susan Faludi was already documenting the backlash in her landmark book, Backlash. For instance, Ms. Faludi talks about the response to the Jodie Foster film, The Accused, when the film was released in the theaters in 1988 -- with men jumping to their feet and applauding and cheering the rape scene. How do you think women feel when they see and read about this behavior?
Are you a victim of violence, yourself? Just curious.
Superlative: an exaggerated statement or excessive statement,comment, expression etc. of which we are all guilty at sometime . Some should submit to Club of Rome.com as their irrelevant critique is most excessive and boorish and in some cases without end.
Actually, your definition is much closer to that of the word 'hyperbolic' than to that of 'superlative.'
q
From the transcript of Amy Goodman's interview with Eve Ensler on August 26, 2010 about the violence against women in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and the massive rapes of the women of the Congo:
"The day is late. It is almost 13 years into this war. The Obama administration, as in most situations these days, refuses to take a real stand. Several months ago I visited the White House to meet a high official (Valerie Jarrett) to engage the first lady in our efforts to end sexual violence in the Congo, believing that her solidarity would galvanise attention and action. I was told, essentially, that femicide was not her 'brand'. Mrs Obama, I was told, was focusing on childhood obesity.
"It surprised me that a woman with her capabilities lacked ambidextrous skills (or was it simply interest and will that was absent?). Then we have Secretary Clinton, who at least after much pressure visited the DRC almost a year ago, and made promises that actually meant a huge deal to the people. They were excited that the US government might finally prioritise building the political will in the Great Lakes region to end the war. But, of course, they are still waiting. And then there is the UN. The anaemic and glacial pace and the death-like bureaucracy continue to allow and, in the case of Monuc and the security council, even help facilitate a deathly regional war." -- Eve Ensler from the Amy Goodman interview on August 26, 2010
So much for any help from the First Lady on the very real issue of violence against women.
Katrine: I agree with your concerns and the questions you raise in your post.
Michelle Obama worked as a corporate executive at a hospital -- she was paid a $271,618 salary as a vice-president of the University of Chicago Hospitals (UK Telegraph, May 13, 2007). She also sat on the board of TreeHouse Foods, Inc. (a food processing company in Illinois -- supplying pickles and peppers to Wal-Mart), and according to the the Obama tax returns, Michelle Obama earned $51,200 for her work as a non-executive director on TreeHouse's board in 2006. Her position on the board also entitled her to $72,000 in stock options. (from the same UK Telegraph article) In addition, Michelle Obama was voted a three-year extension on the Treehouse board position -- from which she resigned during mid-year 2007, maybe soon after this subject became public knowledge and a controversy as well.
Of course, hospitals, food-processing plants, drug companies, etc., are all profit-based and are also interconnected in various other ways, and therein lies the mindset -- and worldview, so to speak.
Being a skeptic, I can't help but wonder about the Michelle Obama connections to the health industries (and Barack's deals behind closed doors, dooming any chance for single-payer) and the issue of child obesity. When I connect the dots, I shudder -- will Michelle Obama's efforts to reduce child obesity benefit the children, and in turn, their families? OR, will her efforts benefit the health industries -- elevating profits to a new level?
Food processing and obesity are deeply connected. Where do her loyalties lie? And, President Obama just cut funds to Food Stamps. The dots connect so quickly I'm nearly blinded by the light.
Speaking of Home Depot -- I live in NYC, in East Harlem. Usually, I walk across either 118th Street, or across 116th Street. However, the other day, I wasn't paying attention, and ended up walking across on 117th Street. I noticed that a few empty lots had been cleaned up -- and these are now neighborhood gardens, but they are NOT gardening gardens, but are more aesthetic in nature, rather than useful, as in the gardening of vegetables and fruits. The so-called gardens look nice, though, and the signs say the spaces are supported by Home Depot -- which I think just moved into our neighborhood along with several other big box stores, like Costco, Best Buy, etc. BTW, the traffic in our neighborhood is out-of-control. Sometimes, I can't even walk across the streets and avenues, cars are bumper-to-bumper. Women with strollers sometimes have to wait through two or three green lights in order to cross.
Quite honestly, I would have preferred to see the entire spaces used to grow fruits and vegetables, etc., with neighbors pitching in to work together, but I don't think this is part of the deal. In addition, NO ONE asked me for my opinion. I have NO idea who actually owns the land. City? Home Depot? The other day, I even noticed a townhouse for sale by Trump Real Estate. I suppose the city is making deals with big business in order to "clean up" our area -- in other words, we are in for a serious "class cleansing."
Kay,
Thanks for another good post!
Chelsea
Kay,
Thank you for the quote.
Well stated.
Modern day militarist "feminists" don't care about Congo. They need those resource wars to glamourize themselves. Neither the men nor women of Congo could possibly be anywhere close to being as materialistic as western women in the US and EU. How come Eve didn't talk about the men in Congo other than a few rapists?
Why do you construe the description of a crime against mostly women (and a few boys) as an attack on men?
Buckley, you don't get it. This isn't your mother's feminism anymore. Today, if you're a feminist, the only way to make it to any media outlet is to just report it but not do anything about it. You know the difference between second and third wave feminism? Read up on it. In 1970, most anyone writing an article on oppression in another country wouldn't magnify rape cases while marginalizing abuse against guys. Now let me make myself clear. We all agree that these things shouldn't be happening in Congo. Don't get brainwashed by militarist "feminism" and if you have, snap out of it if you can.
Oh, yawn. Male whine is such an ugly thing.
In the example given: 200 women and girls vs. 5 boys - and you're complaining there's not enough sympathy for the poor "few rapists"? or that sexual violence against males is "marginalized"? The problem is that rape is part of the overall plan. Girls are also abucted to be abused and trained in the military - along with boys. But the abusers - far from a few, as it's universal policy and practice, part of the strategy of the wars - tend overwhelmingly to be male. Rape and sexual violence are always part of war. Women and children suffer twice - war and rape. These instances in the DRC are particularly heinous. Violence against women and children, most often female children vastly outweighs that against males. This article had a very light touch, not describing the worst of the brutalities inflicted on women (and girl children, and some boys).
It should be possible to discuss attacks on women without having the damned discussion hijacked again and again by whiners like you.
This is exactly what I mean by modern day feminists. 200 girls vs 5 boys looks too unbalanced and leaves room for suspicion that she left out plenty of boys.
> it's universal policy and practice, part of the strategy
> of the wars - tend overwhelmingly to be male.
Not if you consider that most women want their boyfriends and husbands serving. A woman is twice as likely to date a guy who serves than she is to date a peacenik guy. There was a poll on that a few years ago and I have the experience to prove it. Call it anecdotal if you wish but don't blame Mars or guys for it. Now that's this country. I don't know about Congo.
> Violence against women and children, most often female
> children vastly outweighs that against males.
Maybe so but why don't they see what makes the guys do it? Only someone ready to rant lazy idiotic accusations would blame a supernatural force for males showing aggression. You're looking at the symptom and not the problem. What does modern day "feminism" do about men who are economically insecure? Nothing but ignore until it's too late and then they need female victims to complain on the air so they can stay in business. No long term fixes are given. What a pity !
> It should be possible to discuss attacks on women
> without having the damned discussion hijacked again
> and again by whiners like you.
Translation, you want a monotone discussion about women being the sole victims and giving men the middle finger. Is that right? Classy !
I happen to dislike that silly book about Mars and Venus.
I also note that your injection of a hodge-podge of subjects unrelated to the article reveals a personal problem and not an interest in the issues of war and sexual violence in the DRC.
Having had aunts whose husbands were in various wars, I can attest to the reality - they were not happy their men were sent into the jaws of death. I hope that at least my uncles behaved better than the brutes in the DRC.
What "makes" guys sexually brutalize women and children? How hard do you have to squeeze to come up with a good excuse?
> I also note that your injection of a hodge-podge
> of subjects unrelated to the article reveals a
> personal problem and not an interest in the issues
> of war and sexual violence in the DRC.
I'm sorry you're suffering the consequences of getting brainwashed by the militant "feminists".
> Having had aunts whose husbands were in various wars,
> I can attest to the reality - they were not happy
> their men were sent into the jaws of death. I hope
> that at least my uncles behaved better than the brutes in the DRC.
That is good to hear that your aunts were not like most women who get on my nerves when they brag about their boyfriends or husbands serving. My question is how do we get most women to be like your aunts?
> What "makes" guys sexually brutalize women and
> children? How hard do you have to squeeze to
> come up with a good excuse?
But if you can't stand up to the main cause, then complaining about the symptoms is pointless unless you're doing it to make money.
Yep, it's personal. Most women just plain get on your nerves.
No, there's no money in it for me, but if there were, it would be only 67% of what a man with the same education and experience would make.
"No, there's no money in it for me, but if there were, it would be only 67% of what a man with the same education and experience would make." -- redballoon
Thanks, redballoon for bringing this issue into the conversation.
Throughout my life, I have been paid less than men who did the same and similar jobs, with the same level of education. To put it in perspective -- I have read different numbers in different articles and studies -- but women are paid anywhere between 67-cents to about 76-cents less than a man, for every dollar a man earns. Let's use the number 75-cents, because the number is easy to divide out into what that means in a yearly salary -- meaning women are paid 1/4 less, and multiplying that number into reality means that when a man earns $40,000 per year, a woman will earn, instead, around $30,000 per year. Believe me, the difference in salaries certainly keeps us in our place -- stuck in poverty.
This fact effects our mothers, our sisters, our aunts, our daughters, etc.
Women usually get better benefits to make up for some of the gap. Are your numbers inclusive or exclusive of benefits?
Women receive better benefits? You must be joking!
I was referring to maternity benefits which I would never advocate denying. If one were to look at today's life expectancy of men vs women today vs 1900, it would be hard to say that women usually get better benefits than men.
RED BALLOON & LORD BUCKLEY: This misogynistic GOON shows up in EVERY thread that EVER deals with issues of relevance to women. His intent is to trivialize what's very serious and inordinately brutal. He consistently tries to "level" the playing field by insisting that we instead focus on violence towards men. His motives are suspect, his intellectual assets compromised (apparently someone else gave him the "talking point" about "first wave" feminists), and his shadowy presence on every thread resonant with the NEED for social justice for women as insidious as a virus.
He routinely tries to invert this important subject. Anyone who knows how to use the archive can find MANY examples.
I wish someone would drag this ape to a domestic abuse shelter so that he could get a REAL education. Maybe his Mommy didn't love him, or maybe the high school cheerleader told him to take a walk. Whatever his issues are, he cheapens and trivializes any article that has to do with women's rights.
Thanks, S-R. I suspect a child support order is causing resentment.
I agree, that diversionary tactic is a standard trick - mention the 3 cases in history where the opposite was true and then demand attention on that. Men get lots of attention. Lots and lots. They don't need to dismiss the realities women have to cope with. That playing field is buckled like cheap accordion.
My comments do not trash all men. There are many wonderful, brilliant, thoughtful men who comment on CD - gives me hope. And every once in a while we meet a reactionary with a grudge.
Ho hum.
(PS Look whose research contributed to the article.)
RED BALLOON: I agree with all the points you made. The thing is, Martian and his little troop of pals use the same M.O. EVERY TIME this subject, or that of rape, comes up. It's repugnant.
As for men who get it, a few that come to mind are: Two Americas, GW North, Justice Arcs, and JClientelle. I imagine a lot more intelligent, fair-minded males in this forum GET IT; but for some reason, they shy away from these threads.
As for the child support aspect, yeah, I recently had quite a bit of vicious taunts leveled at me/feminists by such a one. I would think the mark of an enlightened individual would be the capacity to not judge the world exclusively on the basis of limited personal experience.
No doubt, this is why the Masters all teach forgiveness. Until one can get rid of resentment for whatever slings and arrows came their way, they will never be able to take in the big, holistic picture.
Thanks for the back-up. I don't want these goons to intimidate women (or men) from posting on this issue. And equality has hardly been established, although a lot of males would like to push this issue to the proverbial back burner. Until a problem is honestly faced, it can never be healed. Nor will dishonesty suffice.
"...the mark of an enlightened individual would be the capacity to not judge the world exclusively on the basis of limited personal experience."
Indeed!
> As for the child support aspect, yeah,
> I recently had quite a bit of vicious taunts
> leveled at me/feminists by such a one.
I'm sorry to hear about it but getting angry here won't solve it.
> No doubt, this is why the Masters all teach forgiveness.
But you might have to learn from them.
> I don't want these goons to intimidate women
> (or men) from posting on this issue.
Who's stopping anyone? Without dissent, where would there be posts aside from your monotones?
> And equality has hardly been established,
> although a lot of males would like to push
> this issue to the proverbial back burner.
That would be incorrect. Some equality has been established and some inequality has also been established. Why do you use your bias to put resolved inequalities to the front burner but unresolved and newer inequalities on the back burner? Only a swindler wanting to make a fortune would do that.
> Until a problem is honestly faced,
> it can never be healed. Nor will dishonesty suffice.
That I can agree on.
"No doubt, this is why the Masters all teach forgiveness. Until one can get rid of resentment for whatever slings and arrows came their way, they will never be able to take in the big, holistic picture"
You are a complete hypocrite sickrose. Your constant barrages of personal insults and cheap psycho-babble is quite the opposite of spirtually advanced.
Try practicing what you preach and let go ofthe hatefulness.
I truly pity anyone who takes spiritual advice from you.
"I recently had quite a bit of vicious taunts leveled at me/feminists by such a one."
This is so hypocrtical as to be completely hilarious. You pick a fight by throwing around vile personal insults and then play the victim when you are called to task for your vindictiveness.
Keep yapping. You're doing a great job of hurting yourself and Rose. You have no arguments or evidence to back up your own allegations.
> I noticed you are an atheist with your other postings
What does being an atheist have to do with anything?
> Furthermore, you have repeatedly castigated Sioux Rose
> for writing about her belief system.
Prove it and show evidence. You're lying about other people if you're not backing it up with proof or evidence.
> Yet now you challenge SR on her spirituality,
> as if you adhere to a higher standard of spiritual principles.
She's only human. You don't have to write cartoonish books and fairy tales, fly around the world to meet shamons, or get cranky to be spiritual. I've never met a spiritual thinker who does yoga and meditation write like a cartoon character. I'm sorry you're jumping and foaming at the mouth that she is unable to respond to my reasonable arguments. You're not doing anything to help her by acting like another cartoon character other than giving me more laughs on this glorious Friday.
Who flagged your comment? There was nothing seriously wrong with it.
I'm not challenging sickrose's spiritual principles. I'm only saking her to live up to them.
To shine all peace and enlightenment one minute and then launch into vile personal invective the next is base hypocricy.
Good response Joe. I mistakenly replied to her on this longer than expected thread. My apologies.
Please do not call SR "sickrose"--that's just plain mean.
Joe Hill has had great conversations with SR in the past but he's not comfortable with the way SR goes violently against anyone disagreeing with her on feminism. Joe might have sounded harsh with SR a few times but SR is the one going too far. You can't keep playing double standards with behavior. If you want nobody to call SR names, then tell her to calm down on her disagreements and stop posting paranoia, hate, and violence against anyone who disagrees with her however strongly so. If I may ask, why aren't you equally calling out on SR for her obvious misbehavior? It's wrong to be blind like that.
To me, you often sound nothing much like Joe Hill, a brave guy and writer of the song "Rebel Girl".
Joe
I've fought many a union battle with women (some feminists)and men as my comrades.
As a counselor, I've encouraged many women and men to pursue their dreams.
Personal liberation and rebellion against capitalism and militarism can go hand in hand.
I take issue with waht I have decided to call "police state feminists", ie those feminists who endorse relying on our current police state to forward their agenda.
Nowhere can this be seen more clearly than in Family Court, the great enemy of working class men. Draconian child support and domsetic violence laws and policies have criminalized millions of working class American men.
My other problem with feminists is the unwillingness of most to let go of their self proclaimed victim status. Despite all of the indictors that showing that boys and men are falling far behind women in educational achievement, too many feminists cling to the idea that the educational system is biased against women. They think the problem is with men, who they label "education refusers" in a shameless attempt to blame the victims. When women were behind educationally it was the system's fault, according to feminists. But when men as a class fall behind, the men, and not the system, are to blame.
And as far as bravery is concerned, it takes a bit of that to post anything on CD that questions the resident feminist's neolithic rhetoric.
Family court can make stupid rulings, and often does. As you say, sometimes working class men who cannot pay are treated the same as those who will not pay. But just last week a young relative of mine was awarded $240 a month in child support from her ex-husband to care for a child with serious medical problems. The mom did not have the money or strength to fight that, so she accepted it. Her ex-husband, a kind of a stoner, who comes from a wealthy family, had quit his job to go to school full time. I would have told him to get a job and go to school at night. It is not so clear to me that the decisions always go against the men.
Joe
Thank you, Joe, for your comment about Joe Hill. And, the reminder that he wrote the song, "Rebel Girl."
A few years ago, I did a series of radio programs about protest music in the U.S. -- and of course, Joe Hill was featured as a songwriter, but also as a subject of songwriting, and if you've ever heard Joan Baez sing the song (recording or in person), "Joe Hill," it is an unforgettable experience. When I did the research for the segment, although I knew he had emigrated from Sweden, I did NOT know that his last name was Hagglund -- the same name, with the same spelling as used by my grandparents, whose parents emigrated to the United States from Sweden during the same era that brought us Joe Hill. A future project is to try to trace the Hagglund side of my family -- through genealogical research.
To see a photo with the more than 30,000 people who turned out in the streets of Chicago to pay tribute to him after his execution on November 19, 1915 in Utah -- "Don't mourn, ORGANIZE!" -- you can copy and paste the following link:
http://www.kued.org/productions/joehill/story/funeral.html
In addition, with my research, I learned that Edward R. Murrow's favorite song was "Joe Hill," and he often played and sang the song for friends.
"Male whine is such an ugly thing."
You are a hateful bigot.
Calling your political opponents "whiners" is a tactic developed by the Limabaugh Right.
Your in great company.
You couldn't just make your arguments without the invcetive. Sign of a weak mind.
Actually, the concept of "male whine" predates Limbaugh and criticizes the privileged group when it complains about attempts at creating policies that correct socio-economic and political imbalances.
Limbaugh is not worthy of any comment from me other than that he incorporates both male whine and White whine.
Your last sentence is rather amusing, considering what you wrote 3 lines up.
How adorable.
The attacks on feminist - usually trying to fly under radar by calling them radical or militant as this one did, are actually attacks on women. They're all over this site but only made by a handful of people. please flag them when you see them.
Feminism - the radical notion that women are people.