The Light: Hillary

Could be, according to the AFL-CIO president, Richard Trumka, if she doesn’t watch her words.

Okay – I have to stop right there. Can I just tell you how much I resent it when men tell women how they should talk? That would be a big pet peeve of mine. So, from the get-go, I am already irritated with this man. You might be, too, after you hear what he has to say:

Am I right? What a piece of work Trumka is. Never mind that Palin resigned her position because of the incessant, ceaseless hounding by Democratic operatives filing frivolous lawsuit after frivolous lawsuit, taking her time and money, as well as taking her attention away from the state for which she was supposed to be working. I imagine if someone hounded Trumka mercilessly for every word he had spoken, every deed he had ever committed, he, too, would have resigned his position, be it a mine worker or AFL-CIO president. But he has never experienced anything along those lines, not even close. Easy for him to pass judgment.

And passing judgment is exactly what he is doing. This seems to be the theme for the week with Vanity Fair publishing the worst kind of baseless smear masquerading as an article by Michael Gross on Sarah Palin, using anonymous sources, and operating from the most misogynistic point of view. Even her most outspoken detractors find this article sexist.

Just who is Richard Trumka that he feels he can arrogantly condescend to Sarah Palin and tell her to watch her mouth? Well, he’s an ally of Obama’s, for starters. I am sure that is not a surprise, is it? There is more to him, to be sure, as the following video highlights:

Yep – this frequent visitor to the White House also calls for a world-wide tax, and is a great “progressive” of the country. Great.

Well, as you can imagine, Gov. Palin didn’t exactly take his words lying down. As the Christian Science Monitor reported in its article by Dave Cook, “AFL-CIO President to Sarah Palin: “Change Or Be Linked With McCarthyism,” she had plenty to say back to Mr. Trumka:

[snip] Palin, Alaska’s former governor, responded to Trumka’s comments last week on her Facebook page. She noted that her husband is a proud former union member. Addressing his criticism of her language, Palin said, “It’s kind of ironic that a union boss has the gall to accuse anyone of threatening violence. After all, we remember the violent attempts by [the Service Employees International Union] to intimidate those who wanted to make their voices heard in last year’s town halls. And unlike Trumka, I never threatened that any effort to break a picket line would lead to violence.”

Palin added, “I never called union members ‘thugs.’ You lie. I called some union leaders ‘thugs.’ And I refuse to apologize for that because they have acted like thugs – at least in this day and age.” [snip] (Click HERE to read the rest.)

Oh, SNAP – I think Palin took this round, don’t you?

McCarthyism – good grief, how did Trumka possibly make THAT leap? No doubt, he expected a ratchet response from her, that she would tone down her rhetoric lest she be compared to someone of McCarthy’s reputation. She didn’t bite, and gave it right back to him.

Love her or hate her, that woman has more intestinal fortitude than most of her detractors could even imagine. What it really says to me is that they are afraid of her, hence the constant desire to tear her down, whether by the president of the AFL-CIO or some Vanity Fair writer.

We’ve seen this before. It is the MO of those who are threatened by powerful women. Hillary Clinton gets this a lot, too. Who can ever forget the treatment she received from her husband’s presidency through the 2008 election? Only now is she starting to get her due, after so many years of doing an incredible amount of work.

It begs the question: why? Why are these people so threatened by powerful women? Powerful men are treated like gods (just look at Obamessiah), even if they have done little or nothing to have that power. It often seems that powerful women must be torn down at all and any cost. If you can use their kids to do it, so much the better. It is a disturbing trend, one I cannot wait to see end. One day, some day…

Apparently a GOP district in Minnesota as evidenced by a video created by some knuckledragger who thought it would be, gosh, I don’t know – funny? membership recruitment? cool? – whatever this webmaster person thought he was doing when he created a video highlighting how much better looking Republican women are than Democratic women. Only he didn’t put it that nicely. And yes, he used the song, “Who Let The Dogs Out” in it to describe the Democratic women.

Well, one of the alleged Republican women depicted in the video, supermodel, CEO, and chief designer, Kathy Ireland, took exception to the depiction of women in this video in a BIG way. In this AOL News opinion piece, Ireland spoke out:

There are so many warning signs that negativity is devouring honest political discourse in our country, and one of these recently made me a very unwilling part of it. When misogyny becomes part of victory at any price, our democracy is embarrassed and endangered.

Here’s what happened, and here’s why I’m angry and why I feel any American of whatever party or gender should be furious too.

Suddenly it was widely reported on the Internet that a GOP political blog in Minnesota had posted a disgusting video that proclaimed Republican women — candidates and supporters — are attractive and that their Democratic counterparts are, in the most disturbing and distorted photo presentations in their video, just the opposite. This vulgarity and flat-out misrepresentation of all women identified as Democrats was to the accompaniment of the rock song “Who Let the Dogs Out?” That shows the level of maturity.

The more appropriate question is, “Who in the Minnesota Republican campaign let these people near a computer?” Everything about this sordid business was vile. But the most awful fact is that it is absolutely representative of the tastelessness and negativity that is now the American political landscape.

I had become personally involved in this low point of political conniving because these bloggers identified me by name and photo (in swimwear, of course) as one of the “Republican babes” about whom they were boasting. My assumption is that my open position on the life issue has caused the video makers to place me in a Republican box. I’m too odd-shaped to fit into any neat little box. I vote for integrity, character, leadership and policy, regardless of party label. [snip] (Click HERE to read the rest.)

Dang – you go, Ms. Ireland! You tell ‘em! And did she ever as she continued:

But my fury derives from the way these “leaders,” and a bipartisan collection of other political negativists on both sides of the aisle, are debasing our democracy and the essential exercise of our privilege to vote our leaders in or out. Political candidates of every stripe are responsible for holding their supporters and campaign teams to their own ethical standards, or else we have to assume that these excesses (whether their prejudices are misogyny or any other form of ignorance) represent what the candidates stand for. [snip]

Snap!!! You said it (and click here to read the rest). You betcha – this kind of thing is indicative of how a candidate, a politician, sees women. Like when Obama’s Chief Speechwriter, Jon Favreau, now his White House Chief speechwriter, had a photo taken of him groping the breast of a Hillary Clinton life-size cutout, which he put on his Facebook page, and was still able to keep his job, it told us EXACTLY what we needed to know about Obama. Not only did he keep someone who clearly had a disrespect for women, but disrespected his future Secretary of State, that said it all. Not that those of us paying attention needed any more proof. We had seen plenty enough misogyny spewed Clinton’s way from Obama, his team, and the DNC long before this disturbing incident.

Good for Kathy Ireland for calling this what it is – misogyny. I appreciate her speaking out in no uncertain terms about what this looked like, and felt like, to her. She really nailed it on the head, and was absolutely right to call people to account for this kind of video.

I should add, the Minnesota GOP was none too pleased with this video, as this Atlantic article acknowledges, “Minnesota GOP Not Pleased With Sexist Video”:

[snip]The video was released by a Republican Party unit, akin to a county committee, in Senate District 56, and the Minnesota Republican Party is quick to point out that this is NOT their doing. They are, in fact, none too pleased with it.

“It was down before we even knew it was up, and obviously it’s wrong and obviously it’s inappropriate,” Minnesota GOP spokesman Mark Drake said.

“I think some people from the party have been in touch with them,” Drake said when asked if the state party has called the Senate District 56 Republicans to scold them about the web ad. “I don’t think anyone’s pleased that it was up.” [snip] (Click HERE to read the rest.)

Good for them for making that clear. So did some of the Republican women candidates.

And how about the guy who made the video, Randy Brown? What does he have to say about it? I bet you know what’s coming. It was just humor, people.

Um, no. It wasn’t humor, and it wasn’t funny. Kathy Ireland said it all: it was sexist and misogynistic. Maybe Brown thinks that’s funny. I sure as hell do not.

One last note, and this is to John McEnroe, who felt compelled to demonstrate his sexism once again in this NY Post article, “Tennis Loudmouth John McEnroe Says Women Players More Fragile Than Men,” please stop talking now. Yes, he said it:

Tantrum-prone tennis bad boy John McEnroe hit a smash shot at the ladies Friday, saying women players aren’t tough enough to compete in as many tournaments as men.

“They should be required to be in less events. There should be less events for the women,” McEnroe said on a CBS Sports conference call about its coverage of the U.S. Open, which starts Monday in Flushing Meadows.

[snip]

“You shouldn’t push them to play more than they’re capable of,” McEnroe said of the female players.

“It seems it takes an actual meltdown on the court or women quitting the game altogether before they realize there’s a need to change the schedule.” [snip] (click here to read more.)

Do I even have to mention that former pro player, Mary Carillo, and current tennis announcer with McEnroe, was not amused? Especially since she won the 1977 French Open mixed doubles championship with him. I am sure, beside Carillo, most of the pro women weren’t either. I’d love to see him say that to Serena Williams face, wouldn’t you?

John, here’s a little tip for you – put a tennis ball in it, you sexist pig. Oh, and you have a call – it’s from Kathy Ireland.

Recently, the United States celebrated the 90th anniversary of women’s right to vote. That right was won by the significant efforts of a number of women, many of whom were jailed, beaten, and starved, fighting for this right. We honor them, and all that they have made possible for us 90 years later.

Now we have women governors, senators, representatives, and Secretaries of State. I can only imagine what out founding mothers would have thought of that, the joy, the excitement, the relief. No doubt, things have changed in this country for women. Not that women are treated as full equals yet in the United States. The sexism and misogyny evidenced by one of the two major political parties in 2008 made that abundantly clear. But things are better. We strive, still, for equal equal pay, for equal representation, for our first woman president, but there is no denying we are better off now than we were 90 years ago.

Indeed, our foremothers worked hard for this, as many of us have in the intervening years. But there are other countries, like Afghanistan, for example, where girls are in danger for merely trying to get an education. Yes, on Wednesday of this week, a girls’ school had poisonous gas spread throughout the school, sickening a number of the girls and teachers. Who would do such a thing? The Taliban would:

[snip] Wednesday’s incident follows a similar pattern seen in other recent attacks at girls’ schools involving an airborne substance which officials say could be some form of gas.

Those have raised fears that the Taliban and other allied groups who oppose female education are using a new method to scare them away from classes. [snip]

Wow. I scarcely know how to respond to this. It is despicable. And it is a pattern with the Taliban:

[snip] “This has happened a couple of times before, mainly in the northern province of Kunduz. At the time, it was also said, that these girls were poisoned and officials pointed the finger at the Taliban and rightly so,” she said.

“However, there is still no hard conclusion on who is behind this attack and what kind of poisoning is taking place.”

The Taliban banned education for girls during their Afghan rule from 1996-2001, but have condemned similar attacks in the past.

They have, however, set fire to dozens of schools, threatened teachers and even attacked schoolgirls in rural areas.

In one attack in Kandahar in 2008,around 15 girls and teachers were sprayed with acid by men on motorbikes.

In parts of southern and eastern Afghanistan, particularly in Taliban strongholds, schools for girls still remain closed. [snip] (Click HERE to read the rest.)

This attitude toward women and girls is a bitter pill to swallow. As is this headline from The Hill, “Sen. Kerry: ‘Very active’ efforts under way to reach settlement with Taliban.” What? How? Why? Kerry explains:

[snip]“I can report without being specific that there are efforts under way. They are serious, and I completely agree with that fundamental premise — and so does General [David] Petraeus and so does President Obama — there is no military solution,” he told NPR. “And there are very active efforts now to seek an appropriate kind of political settlement.”

U.S. officials have acknowledged that some sort of political settlement must be reached with the Taliban — a loosely affiliated group of Islamic insurgents that control large swaths of territory in Afghanistan — in order to bring an end to the almost nine-year-long U.S. war there.

The beginning of settlement negotiations represents a significant development in terms of Western involvement there…

Kerry said any “appropriate” settlement would have to include “a renunciation of al Qaeda,” a “reduction of violence,” a “recognition of the constitutional rights of both Pakistan and Afghanistan and greater efforts to reduce sanctuaries for insurgency.”[snip] (Click HERE to read the rest.)

And what about the women and girls, Senator Kerry? What about them, in your “negotiations” with terrorists? Yeah, I know – who gives a damn about them? They are just “casualties,” I suppose, necessary capitulations to this woman-hating group.

How it is Kerry, and Obama, think having active negotiations with the Taliban is a good thing? What are the chances, really, that, if they can even get some of these groups to come to the table, they will even keep their word should a compromise be reached?

And what about these women, these girls? The ones gassed by members of the Taliban to prevent them from learning? Or, the Taliban members who throw acid in the faces of these girls in an attempt to force them our of school? Oh, yeah – these sounds like just the kind of people with whom we should be engaging in “very active” negotiations. You know, since we are choosing to negotiate with terrorists in the first place.

I cannot help but be reminded of this powerful moment (again) of CJ Craig on “West Wing”:

Wow. Yep, that sounds a little too familiar…

Indeed, I am thankful, grateful, and humbled for the work our foremothers did to secure us the right to vote in this country. For the women who fought to make this possible: Susan B. Anthony, Alice Paul, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and all the other remarkable women who enabled for us to have this right, thank you.

May the young girls and women of Afghanistan one day be allowed to learn, to study, to be educated. And may they, one day, one day soon, be full participants in their country. Sadly, that day is not today.

One other note – almost 200 women and 4 boys were raped near a UN Peacekeepers camp in Congo. And what has the UN said about it? They’re looking into it. Well, it only happened three weeks ago, so you can see why it might take them a while to come out with any kind of statement. Right. Sec. Clinton spoke out about this atrocity, and you can read her remarks HERE, but this sums it up:

[snip]“Sexual violence harms more than its immediate victims. It denies and destroys our common dignity, it shreds the fabric that weaves us together as humans, it endangers families and communities, it erodes social and political stability, and it undermines economic progress. These travesties, committed with impunity against innocent civilians who play no role in armed conflict, hold us all back. [snip]

Amen to that.

That would be sending Imam Faisal Abdul Rauf to Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, to name two, on our dime, as a representative of the United States. And yes, he first began his work for the State Department in 2007. This will be his third trip. Given his claim in 2001 that the United States was an “accessory” to what happened on 9/11, it boggles the mind that our government would use him in ANY capacity, much less to travel as a representative of our country …

So, yes, Imam Rauf will be going on his third trip abroad. On our dime. In a program to “promote the role of religion in the US.” If his name sounds familiar, it should. He is the same one who wants to build the Cordoba Institute/Mosque near Ground Zero, in case you didn’t know that already.

Here to discuss the trip, is State Department Assistant Secretary of Public Affairs, PJ Crowley:

You’ll have noticed that this clip covers that Governor Patterson of New York offered Imam Rauk state property to build his mosque. That raises the separation of church and state issue. Did Patterson mean he would SELL the property to Rauk, and if so, for how much? Surely, he couldn’t have expected to just GIVE it to him, as a state sanctioned mosque would have been the end result. That is unacceptable. And it would be if it were a church or synagogue, or Buddhist temple or Pagan circle, or anything related. Just to be clear.

But here’s the thing that gets me about this interview. Crowley claims that, even though Imam Rauf is going on a program to discuss the role of religion in the US, he will not be discussing religion. Huh? So, um, why exactly is he going then? At our expense, I might add? That makes no sense to me, but that could just be me.

Or maybe not. Here is more on the separation of church and state from a more conservative position:

Watch the latest video at video.foxnews.com

And this “certain pile of cash”? I am pretty darn sure that is our money, too. Unless some wealthy benefactor gave it to the State Department to do as it damned well pleased, like sending an Imam who blames the US for 9/11.

But that is only part of the story with Imam Rauk. Here is the big question: why is the State Department, under Secretary Hillary Clinton, enlisting an imam who supports Sharia Law, despite the State Department claims that he is a “moderate”? Sharia Law is NOT a moderate position.

Never mind that Rauk claimed he does not believe in “religious dialogue,” according to this piece by Walid Shoebat of Pajamas Media in this post, “Ground Zero Imam: ‘I Don’t Believe In Religious Dialogue.’” So, that pretty much puts to a lie the whole meme that this imam wants to build “interfaith understanding,” or whatever is the catch phrase du jour to justify Rauk’s intention to build his mosque near Ground Zero.

But that’s not the end of the story, either. According to Madeline Brooks, also of Pajamas Media, “Terror Ties: Ground Zero Imam Attended Hizb-ut Tahrir Conference.” This was in 2007. And while many of us may not be aware of this group (I wasn’t), this should clear things up:

[snip] Hizb-ut Tahrir al Islami (Islamic Party of Liberation) has been banned in many countries — Germany, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, Tunisia, Turkey, Kazakhstan, and Saudi Arabia — but not in the United States or Britain. This is a dangerous group. It is alleged to have attempted coups in Jordan, Syria and Egypt, which were defeated, fortunately. As we see in these photos, Rauf looks quite relaxed and happy at the Hizb-ut Tahrir conference, as do the other participants with him. In fact, there is a feeling of celebration in these photos. The language in the text accompanying the photos is Malay. Although the conference was held in Indonesia, there were many Malaysians attending, including Rauf, who has lived for a great part of his life in Malaysia. An English language website promoting the caliphate states that 100,000 people attended the conference.

Hizb-ut Tahrir is similar ideologically to the Muslim Brotherhood. Both seek worldwide Islamic supremacy and the imposition of Islamic law to replace the Constitution and democracy. But Hizb-ut Tahrir differs by also espousing Marxist-Leninist methodology, and is entirely open about its ambition to dominate the world, unlike the more discreet Muslim Brotherhood.

On two occasions, Hizb-ut Tahrir in America called for terrorism recruitment conferences in Chicago to establish their long-awaited caliphate, which would knock down capitalism, democracy, and equal rights for non-Muslims and women, and institute a Muslim-run society under sharia law. One conference, called “The Fall of Capitalism and the Rise of Islam” and scheduled for July 2009 in Chicago, actually did occur. But a follow-up conference slated for July 2010 at the Chicago Marriott in Oak Brook, titled “Emerging World Order: How the Khilafah Will Shape the World,” was canceled by the hotel. [snip]

And the State Department considers this man a MODERATE? Well, maybe there is the big problem right there – they are operating under a very different dictionary than the majority of us. Sharia law, blaming the US for 9/11, and associating with this group do not constitute a “moderate,” at least not in my book.

After all is said an done, what I truly do not understand is this: How is it that Secretary Clinton, a champion of the rights of women and children for her entire adult life, can possibly give this man a thumbs up? I simply do not understand this. I cannot understand it at all.

Surely there is a Muslim cleric in this country who truly is a moderate, who does not support Sharia Law, or associate with an organization banned in a number of countries, isn’t there? And it begs the question, why is the organization not banned here and in Britain? I think I know, but I want to hear what you have to say. So, why this man? Why, Secretary Clinton?

The recent murder of UVA senior, Yeardley Love, a Lacrosse standout, by her ex-boyfriend, George Huguely,also a Lacrosse standout, just before graduation, has been traumatic for the UVA campus. But it has affected far more people than just that campus. This vicious act of domestic violence at an elite school has touched us all in one way or another.

Add to that the arrest of Lawrence Taylor for rape of a 16-year-old girl, and the allegations against Ben Roethlisberger of sexual assault, and these are but the tip of the iceberg when it comes to athletes committing crimes against women. Numerous professional athletes have been charged with domestic violence, including the manager of the Braves, Bobby Cox, Rockies pitcher Pedro Astacio, and too many to list here now.

And that is a sad commentary on our sports culture, our culture in general. It is that culture about which Sally Jenkins wrote recently in this Washington Post article, “George Huguely, Ben Roethlisberger, Lawrence Taylor: Male Athletes Encouraged To Do The Wrong Thing“:

George Huguely is said to have been a vicious drunk who menaced Yeardley Love, yet there has been no indication that any of his teammates said anything to police. Ben Roethlisberger seems to be a serial insulter of women, whose behavior is shielded by the off-duty cops he employs. And if the charges are true, Lawrence Taylor ignored the bruises on a 16-year-old girl’s face as he had sex with her, never thinking to ask who beat her.

It’s a bad stretch for women in the sports pages. After reading the news accounts and police reports, it’s reasonable to ask: Should women fear athletes? Is there something in our sports culture that condones these assaults? It’s a difficult, even upsetting question, because it risks demonizing scores of decent, guiltless men. But we’ve got to ask it, because something is going on here — there’s a disturbing association, and surely we’re just as obliged to address it as we are concussions.

“We can no longer dismiss these actions as representative of a few bad apples,” says Jay Coakley, author of “Sport in Society: Issues and Controversies,” and a professor of sociology at the University of Colorado. “The evidence suggests that they are connected to particular group cultures that are in need of critical assessment.”

Well, that’s putting it mildly, isn’t it? Women being murdered by someone they know, the ultimate act of domestic violence, is nothing new. That is disturbing enough. But there’s more:

What do we mean when we ask whether there was something in the lacrosse “culture” that led to the murder of Yeardley Love? The Latin root of the word “cultura” means “to grow.” It means the attitudes, practices, and values that are implanted and nourished in a group or society.

There’s a lot we still don’t know about Huguely and his “brothers,” but three attitudes and practices of at least some members of the Virginia lacrosse team seem obvious: physical swagger, heavy drinking and fraternal silence.

In 2008, a drunken Huguely was so brutally combative with a female cop that she felt she had to Taser him. Last year, he assaulted a sleeping teammate who he believed had kissed Love, several former players say, and this year, he had other violent confrontations with Love herself, witnesses say.

We can argue about gaps in the system, but one constituency very likely knew about Huguely’s behavior: his teammates and friends, the ones who watched him smash up windows and bottles and heard him rant about Love.

Why didn’t they tackle him? Why didn’t they turn him in?

Undoubtedly, many of the young men on the Virginia lacrosse team are fine human beings. I don’t mean to question their decency. I don’t mean to blame them.

But I do mean to ask those who knew of Huguely’s behavior an important question. Why did they not treat Yeardley Love as their teammate, too?

Where were her brothers?

Why was she not deserving of the same loyalty as George Huguely? She played lacrosse. She wore a Virginia uniform. She was equally a champion. And yet because she played on the women’s team, she seems not to have been accorded the same protection that Huguely was.

That doesn’t just break the heart. It shatters it into a thousand pieces.

Where were her brothers indeed. I can appreciate that Jenkins doesn’t want to paint the entire team with a broad brush, but in much the same way the Atlanta Falcons and Virginia Tech Hokies remained silent about Michael Vick’s dog fighting, these young men remained silent about Huguely’s violence toward Love (and their own teammate). Not to equate dog fighting to murder by any stretch, but to highlight the culture of tacit acceptance of bad behavior by athletes in general.

As noted above, it isn’t just Huguely:

The allegations against Huguely, Roethlisberger and Taylor share something in common. In all of these cases, the alleged female victims were treated as undeserving of inclusion in the protected circle. They were “others” rather than insiders.

Sports Illustrated’s profile of Roethlisberger and the men who look after him is utterly damning. According to the magazine story, on the night that he allegedly accosted an over-served undergrad in a Milledgeville, Ga., restroom, Roethlisberger held up a tray of tequila shots and hollered, “All my bitches, take some shots!” He exposed himself at the bar. He forced his hand up someone’s skirt. Yet police sergeant Jerry Blash described the alleged victim as “this drunken bitch,” and Roethlisberger’s bodyguards apparently blocked off the area. Protecting Roethlisberger, being “in” with him, took precedence over ethics.

“Who needs the bodyguard here?” Coakley asks incredulously. “What is the role of bodyguard? It’s not to maintain male hegemony and privilege. It’s to maintain order.”

The charge of third-degree rape against Taylor prompts another question. Police allege that a 16-year-old runaway was beaten by a sex trafficker and brought to Taylor’s hotel room, where, according to police report, instead of protecting her, he allegedly protected himself with a condom. If Taylor is guilty, how could he have acted in such a depersonalizing way — unless he viewed her as more object than person?

According to Coakley, the data is clear: Certain types of all-male groups generally have higher rates of assault against women than the average, and their profile is unmistakable. They tend to include sports teams, fraternities, and military units, and they stress the physical subordination of others — and exclusiveness.

Common sense tells me that “sport” in general is not the culprit in all of this so much as excessive celebration and rewarding of it: binge drinking, women-as-trophies, the hubris resulting from exaggerated entitlement and years of being let off the hook. We are hatching physically gifted young men in incubators of besotted excess and a vocabulary of “bitches and hos.”

What has happened to kindness, to the cordial pleasures of friendship between men and women in the sports world? Above all, what has happened to sexuality? When did the most sublime human exchange become more about power and status than romance? When did it become so pornographic and transactional, so implacably cold?

The truth is, women can’t do anything about this problem. Men are the only ones who can change it — by taking responsibility for their locker room culture, and the behavior and language of their teammates. Nothing will change until the biggest stars in the clubhouse are mortally offended, until their grief and remorse over an assault trumps their solidarity.

That bears repeating:

The truth is, women can’t do anything about this problem. Men are the only ones who can change it — by taking responsibility for their locker room culture, and the behavior and language of their teammates. Nothing will change until the biggest stars in the clubhouse are mortally offended, until their grief and remorse over an assault trumps their solidarity.

And it is far past time for them to do so. Athletes who have remained silent need to do so no longer. As long as they refuse to speak up, to speak out, they bear responsibility for the outcome as well.

Honestly, a lot of these athletes could learn a thing or two from people like Tim Tebow. While I may not agree with his stance on Choice, or even his brand of religion, at least he is a stand up guy. I cannot imagine someone like Tebow remaining silent if one of his teammates was acting in the same manner as Huguely, nor would he ever act toward women like Huguely did (threatening to kill a woman police officer because she was a woman?? Wow.).

Bottom line, we cannot, we MUST not, lose more young women like Yeardley Love to the unchecked violence of fellow athletes, athletes who have been protected from having to bear any responsibility for their violent tendencies, or any athletes at all. We cannot lose one more young woman this way, not one more.

But before it does, I have another video for you celebrating women from around the world:

Now, I admit, there were some women in there about whom I knew absolutely nothing. Some other names were familiar, but I could not remember why. So, I did a little digging, and wanted to share with you what I learned.

The first woman I looked up was:

Asma Khader, lawyer and human rights activist, is general coordinator of the Sisterhood Is Global Institute/Jordan (SIGI/J) and secretary-general of the Jordanian National Commission for Women. Asma has spent her career campaigning to combat violence against women and raise their awareness of their legal rights.

Asma was elected to the Permanent Arab Court as counsel on violence against women in 1996, and has served on judicial bodies and human rights fact-finding missions. Inspired by a client whose pregnant 15-year-old daughter was raped and killed by her father to preserve family honor, she says: “I realized I couldn’t be an effective lawyer if I did not do my best to change laws that cover up and even sanction crimes against women. This woman challenged me to address a problem that I could not ignore – crimes of honor.” Khader has subsequently become a leading campaigner to end honor crimes.

What an amazing, brave woman she is! But she is not the only one. Next is Malalai Kakar, the first woman police officer in Afghanistan, continuing the family tradition to serve. Her career was ended by the Taliban:

Taleban gunmen shot dead Afghanistan’s most high-profile policewoman yesterday as her teenage son prepared to drive her to work.

Malalai Kakar, the head of the city of Kandahar’s department for crimes against women, had been the subject of numerous media reports and was famous for her bravery throughout Afghanistan. She had survived several assassination attempts.

A spokesman for the Taleban said that the assassination was carried out by its gunmen. “We killed Malalai Kakar,” said Yousuf Ahmadi. “She was our target, and we successfully eliminated our target.”

Her death came as reports emerged of a Saudi-brokered initiative to negotiate between the Afghan Government and the Taleban.

How tragic that her life was cut short as a result of who she was, and the work she did. What a threat this one woman was to the misogynistic Taliban, the same one with whom Obama is thinking of playing nice. Words fail.

The next woman whose name was familiar, but whose story was forgotten to me is Jeanette Rankin:

a Representative from Montana; born near Missoula, Missoula County, Mont., June 11, 1880; attended the public schools, and was graduated from the University of Montana at Missoula in 1902; student at the School of Philanthropy, New York City in 1908 and 1909; social worker in Seattle, Wash., in 1909; engaged in promoting the cause of woman suffrage in the State of Washington in 1910, in California in 1911, and in Montana 1912-1914; visited New Zealand in 1915 and worked as a seamstress in order to gain personal knowledge of social conditions; elected as a Republican to the Sixty-fifth Congress (March 4, 1917-March 3, 1919); was the first woman to be elected to the United States House of Representatives; did not seek renomination in 1918, but was an unsuccessful candidate for the Republican nomination for Senator; was also an unsuccessful candidate on an independent ticket for election to the United States Senate; engaged in social work; elected to the Seventy-seventh Congress (January 3, 1941-January 3, 1943); was not a candidate for renomination in 1942 to the Seventy-eighth Congress; resumed lecturing and ranching; member, National Consumers League; field worker, Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom; member, National Council for Prevention of War; remained leader and lobbyist for peace and women’s rights until her death in Carmel, Calif., May 18, 1973; cremated; ashes scattered on ocean, Carmel-by-the-Sea, Calif.

What a wonderful forerunner for women in Congress. Her work on behalf of women’s rights is sorely needed in today’s Congress, too.

In the field of education, we have Martha Carey Thomas:

Thomas is perhaps best known for having facilitated the admission of women to the John Hopkins Medical School. With the help of four of her friends, a total of $500,000 was raised to aid the Medical School in its financial struggle. The funds raised were used as a leverage to get the University to accept women. Thus, thanks largely to the efforts of these five women, women were to be admitted on precisely the same basis as men. There were three women among the first class to enter the John Hopkins Medical School in 1893.

Thomas became president of Bryn Mawr College in 1894, serving until 1922.

What incredible tenacity and drive Ms. Thomas had, not to mention intelligence. She is definitely a woman to whom women in the medical field are indebted.

Another woman who fought for the rights of women was Mary Astell:

She is remembered now for her ability to debate freely with both contemporary men and women, and particularly her groundbreaking methods of negotiating the position of women in society by engaging in philosophical debate (Descartes was a particular influence) rather than basing her arguments in historical evidence as had previously been attempted. Descartes’ theory of dualism, a separate mind and body, allowed Astell to promote the idea that women as well as men were blessed with reason, and subsequently they should not be treated so poorly: “If all Men are born Free, why are all Women born Slaves?” (Emphasis mine.)

Indeed. I’d like to know the answer to that question myself since too many people still believe that to be the case.

Another modern day women’s rights activist is:

Parvin Ardalan, born 1967 in Tehran, is a leading Iranian women’s rights activist, writer and journalist.[1] She was awarded the Olof Palme Prize in 2007 for her struggle for equal rights for men and women in Iran.[2] In the 1990s Ardalan, along with e.g. Nooshin Ahmadi Khorasani, established the Women’s Cultural Centre (Markaz-e Farhangi-ye Zanan), which since then has been a center for forming opinions, analyzing and documenting the women’s issues in Iran.[3] Since 2005 the organization has published Iran’s first online magazine on women’s rights, Zanestan, with Ardalan as its editor. In its constant struggle against censorship – the magazine comes back with a new name all the time – the newspaper has dealt with marriage, prostitution, education, AIDS, and violence against women.

Ardalan is one of the founding members of the One Million Signatures Campaign[4], attempting to collect a million signatures for women’s equal rights. As a part of the campaign she has taken part in protests that have been violently silenced. In 2007 she, together with Nooshing Ahmadi, was sentenced to three years in prison for “threatening the national security” with his struggle for women’s rights. Four more women’s rights activists later received the same sentence.

Again, how threatened are these people that these women intimidate them so? We certainly saw our share of this kind of reaction during the 2008 Primaries and Election. While the actions of the intimidated were not quite so extreme as to imprison anyone, it was but a matter of degrees in the result of silencing so many women. That is to say, this sort of thing doesn’t just happen in other countries. Sadly.

Next on the list is a woman who was one of the original Americans:

Born the daughter of Chief Winnemucca of the Paiutes, a tribe in Nevada and California, Sarah Winnemucca lost family members in the Paiute War of 1860. She tried to operate as a peacemaker, using her language skills learned in convent school to work as an interpreter in an Army camp. She went with her tribe to the Malheur reservation in 1872, and when the Bannock War broke out in 1878 she offered her services to the Army. She volunteered to enter Bannock territory when she learned that her father and other tribesmen had been taken hostage by the Bannocks. She freed her father and other captives and served as an army scout in the war against the Bannocks. She spoke out, describing the plight of her people, exiled from their homelands, and the treachery of dishonest Indian agents. She drew much attention, and was able to speak with President Rutherford Hayes and Interior Secretary Carl Schurz; promises to return her tribe to the Malheur Reservation were never honored. She wrote Life Among the Piutes[sic]: Their Wrongs and Claims, published in 1883. Despite passage of Congressional legislation enabling the return of the Paiute land, the legislation was never enacted.

I wish I could say I was surprised by that outcome, or rather the lack thereof. But that does not minimize the work of Sarah Winnemuca.

Last, but most definitely not least, is:

Chien-Shiung Wu, a pioneering physicist, radically altered modern physical theory and changed our accepted view of the structure of the universe.

Wu’s experiments led physicists to discard the concept that parity was conserved. In recognition of her contributions to atomic research and the understanding of beta decay and the weak interactions, Wu became the first woman to receive the prestigious Research Corporation Award and the Comstock Prize from the National Academy of Sciences. The Comstock Prize is given only once every five years.

Wu’s distinguished career in the nation’s leading universities as a teacher and researcher in nuclear physics has been characterized by a string of firsts. She was the first woman to receive an honorary doctorate of science from Princeton University, to be elected president of the American Physical Society, and to receive the Wolf Prize from the State of Israel. She was also the first living scientist to have an asteroid named after her.

In 1972, Wu was appointed to an endowed professorship as the Pupin Professor of Physics at Columbia University.

Incredible. What an incredible history we have, past and present. How lucky we are to have such incredible role models to whom we can look. This is by far not close to exhaustive, but merely a small representation of women who have achieved greatness through sheer hard work, determination, and passion.

And while she is not in the above video, Roxana Saberi, the American journalist captured in Iran, discussed her experience this morning:

Watch the latest news video at video.foxnews.com

Wow. What an amazing woman.

Please feel free to share other women who inspire you, whose history has informed your own, a woman who is your hero.

(March 11, 2010 – Photo by Mario Tama/Getty Images North America)

I had planned on doing something else today, but when I was alerted that this video (and text) of Secretary of State Clinton was available, I postponed my other piece. It should be no surprise to anyone that anything like this from Hillary Clinton usurps other plans, right? Right. It is Women’s History Month after all, y’all.

Anyway, Secretary Hillary Clinton was speaking to the U.N. on the Fifteenth Anniversary of the U.N. Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing. As you may recall (because I mention it about every other day), Hillary Clinton gave a historic speech at that conference in Beijing, one of the Top 100 Speeches of the Twentieth Century.

Without further ado, here is Secretary Clinton:

I think this may just make Top 100 Speeches of the Twenty-first Century, too. What an amazing woman she is, what a tireless advocate on behalf of women and children. Even though we are over half of the population in the world, our equality is far from achieved even still. As Secretary Clinton pointed out, in too many places, we are seen as “lesser creatures,” still less educated, still receive less treat medical treatment, still on the receiving end of violence from those who are supposed to love them, or at the hands of those using violence as a means of war.

I imagine that while the need is still there, while women are still treated disparately compared to men, and as long as she is able, Secretary Clinton will be there fighting for us. Thank heavens for that, thank heavens for her. She is a priceless treasure to our country, and to the world. She is truly an inspiration.

I can’t resist – whenever I listen to her speak, see her passion, her compassion, her strength, her intelligence, her warmth, and her advocacy, I am reminded of this video:

Damn right.

If you don’t have time to watch the entire video, MAKE time! Ahem. I’m sorry. I meant to say, here’s a LINK to the text of her speech. Read it at your leisure.

Secretary Clinton, thank you. Thank you for your continued advocacy on behalf of women and children. Thank you for continuing to bring this critical issue to the fore. It is the twenty-first century, far too long for over half of the population to be treated as equals, as fully human. But with your leadership, hopefully, prayerfully, we will be successful at long, long last…

Today, March 8th, is the 99th celebration of International Women’s Day. The history of how this day came to be is interesting:

International Women’s Day has been observed since in the early 1900’s, a time of great expansion and turbulence in the industrialized world that saw booming population growth and the rise of radical ideologies.

1908
Great unrest and critical debate was occurring amongst women. Women’s oppression and inequality was spurring women to become more vocal and active in campaigning for change. Then in 1908, 15,000 women marched through New York City demanding shorter hours, better pay and voting rights.

1909
In accordance with a declaration by the Socialist Party of America, the first National Woman’s Day (NWD) was observed across the United States on 28 February. Women continued to celebrate NWD on the last Sunday of February until 1913.

1910
In 1910 a second International Conference of Working Women was held in Copenhagen. A woman named a Clara Zetkin (Leader of the ‘Women’s Office’ for the Social Democratic Party in Germany) tabled the idea of an International Women’s Day. She proposed that every year in every country there should be a celebration on the same day – a Women’s Day – to press for their demands. The conference of over 100 women from 17 countries, representing unions, socialist parties, working women’s clubs, and including the first three women elected to the Finnish parliament, greeted Zetkin’s suggestion with unanimous approval and thus International Women’s Day was the result.

1911
Following the decision agreed at Copenhagen in 1911, International Women’s Day (IWD) was honoured the first time in Austria, Denmark, Germany and Switzerland on 19 March. More than one million women and men attended IWD rallies campaigning for women’s rights to work, vote, be trained, to hold public office and end discrimination. However less than a week later on 25 March, the tragic ‘Triangle Fire’ in New York City took the lives of more than 140 working women, most of them Italian and Jewish immigrants. This disastrous event drew significant attention to working conditions and labour legislation in the United States that became a focus of subsequent International Women’s Day events. 1911 also saw women’s ‘Bread and Roses‘ campaign.

Fifteen thousand women marching in New York City over a hundred years ago – wow, that must have been some sight to see. To read the rest of the history about International Women’s Day, click HERE.

In honor of this day, the UN Secretary General, Ban Ki-moon, prepared this address:

No discussion of IWD would be complete, though, without one of the most powerful speeches about Women’s Rights and Human Rights. That would be Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s speech to the UN 4th World Conference on Women Plenary Session in Beijing:

Wow – moves me to tears every time I watch this speech for a number of reasons: to have such an amazing advocate for women’s rights, and human rights; the awe of her making this point to such a wide ranging audience, and grief that so much about which Clinton spoke – economic inequality, educational inequality, and the rampant rape of women around the globe, often as a tool of war. After all these years, it is not decreasing, but increasing.

And one area in our hemisphere where rape is on the rise is in Haiti after the earthquake:

Thank heavens some of these women will be safer due to the security patrol, but this is an aftershock of the earthquake about which we have heard nothing. What a grave disservice to women that it is not being reported, and that these women are in such fear. Sadly, that is the case for many women, here and abroad.

On this day, this 99th celebration of International Women’s Day, let us renew our resolve to make meaningful changes in the lives of women in the United States, Haiti, Sudan, Bosnia, England, all around the globe. Let us be mindful of what other women endure in other countries, as well as at home. Let us work for social justice, equality, and abolition of violence against women. And may we not falter, for our sake, for the sake of our children, for the sake of humanity.

The last word on this day may come from a surprising source – NATO. Yes, that NATO. They make a suggestion behind which I can get 1,000%:

During the Super Bowl, much of the hype, as always, was about the ads. Heck, that’s why some people watch the Super Bowl. But there was one ad that really didn’t sit well with me. It bothered me. It was supposed to be funny (most of those ads were), so I was willing to give it a chance. As it continued on, I stopped smiling. It wasn’t funny – it was downright sexist. It was the Dodge Charger Ad below:

Well gosh, to me, most of the things this man mentioned above can be reduced down to having MANNERS, and doing one’s fair share in a relationship. That is to say, what he described is a relationship of mutuality, yet it was depicted as being a terrible hardship on him. Poor thing. Ahem. It bugged me.

Apparently, I was not the only one disturbed by this ad. While at home for Mom’s funeral, one of my sisters-in-law asked if I had seen the response to that sexist ad, which is below. I had not, but I am glad I did. Check it out:

Oh, snap.

Yes, the 75% pay for the same work, male politicians deciding what women do with their own bodies (like the heavily male dominated “Healthcare Summit”), women treated as objects, and on and on. Yeah, I think the man having to take out the damn recycling pales in comparison, don’t you?

Please.

Welcome to Women’s History Month – seems we still have a lot of work to do.

A Republican political consultant and spin doctor once gave a young reporter a piece of advice. ”When dealing with a politician think like a lion tamer. Have you ever asked yourself why a lion tamer goes into the ring with a loaded gun at his side? That’s because he knows that even though he’s been around the same lion day after day – and may even have raised the creature since it was a cub – he realizes that at the end of the day the lion is still a lion.”

No doubt working with and around politicians is a risky business. Consider the tawdry, never-ending saga of John Edwards and his merry band of enablers, chief among whom is former Edwards aide Andrew Young, now out baying for blood.

Young and his wife appeared on ABC’s 20/20 recently to empty the X-rated clown car. To hear them tell the story, working for the Edwardses was a mixture of dark and light, Gaslight-meets-Almost Famous, a traveling ego and sex parade financed by eccentric heiress Bunny Mellon, who had held a grudge against Hillary Clinton ever since the then-First Lady allegedly refused to take Mellon’s advice pertaining to changes to a White House garden.

Given the fact that this story has been dragging its way in and out of the news for the better part of a year and a half, it’s fair to ask why it remains newsworthy. Why Young and his wife are so forthcoming now is no coincidence. As of this writing, the only people who will not have to worry about finances from now on are the Edwardses. Rielle Hunter and the Youngs will probably never be able to work again. Hunter will receive support payments from Edwards. The Youngs are finished in politics. All parties will rack up heavy legal bills while under investigation by the FEC and the IRS – but only the Edwardses can afford to shoulder this financial burden.

The issue is not how could John Edwards have been so reckless (because he thought he wouldn’t get caught) or whether it’s been decided who the victim is (hands down: the child. The rest of the adults, even the candidate’s cancer-stricken wife, all played along for the cameras. At least for a while).

The issue that continues to matter is image and illusion. Campaigns are like performances – how you interpret the action depends on whether you’re watching the actors on stage or backstage observing the crew frantically pulling the ropes and running around moving the backdrops. The repercussions of the great Shame of 2008 continues to play on the stage even though the Edwardses have been relegated to the sidelines for the most part.

Pulling off the John and Elizabeth 2008 Tour would have stretched the patience and imagination of even the most hardened rock and roll road manager. Imagine your boss ordering you and your spouse to make room for his pregnant mistress in your home. And then move you, your family and the woman from home to home. And expect you to claim paternity. And ask you to help fake a paternity test. And all during a presidential campaign, not while touring as the opening act for Van Halen. It would appear that Young finally decided to spill the beans because the job Edwards had promised him running a foundation for the poor (!) and financed by Mellon didn’t materialize.

While the Youngs justify their actions by saying they were caught up in the thrill of working for a man who could be president — you know, For The Good Of The Country — surely even they knew that Edwards’ candidacy was the proverbial pinless grenade. They also never articulate WHY they thought Edwards should be elected to the nation’s highest office – apart from their own person gain of course. Why else would two seemingly sane adults agree to have their lives taken over and turned upside down to benefit the career of a selfish, egotistical man?

The press is largely to blame for this fiasco. They missed a huge story that they chose to ignore despite the National Enquirer’s dogged coverage – including pictures – and the candidate’s grotesquely indiscreet behavior. They created the campaign’s archetypes – Son of a Mill Worker with Cancer-Stricken Wife Defying the Odds, First Lady-Turned-Senator Who Overcame Betrayal and Her Lothario Husband, Scrappy Surprise Pick Republican Vice Presidential Candidate and Her Colorfully-Named Family, Flinty Patriot and Vietnam War Hero Political Maverick (here’s an alternate view)….the problem was that once the script was written it didn’t change. The Clintons are racists? If you say so we’ll run with it. Elizabeth Edwards selflessly and bravely persuaded her husband to continue his campaign despite her grim cancer diagnosis? Great story. Let the presses role. Barack Obama’s value as a symbol of How Far We’ve Come is more important than determining whether he’s got what it takes to fix the wreckage left behind by 8 years of Bush-Cheney? Give that man a Nobel Prize. No wonder the media don’t know what to do now. The templates they created during the campaign are significantly at odds with the reality that played out afterwards. Crafting these narratives is easy and ultimately serves to drive conventional wisdom for good or ill. But if the traveling press corps – especially the media assigned to the Edwards campaign – could have missed a story so obvious that it may as well have jumped up and down waving its arms yelling “look over here! I’m a story!”, who knows what other facts the voters were kept in the dark about?

One inevitable result of press missteps of this nature is the creation of a ripe atmosphere for conspiracy theory, which only serves to disinform and encourage cynicism and irrational fear.

As the fallout resulting from the media’s carelessness is surveyed, here’s one thing you’re unlikely to see from the reporters and editors responsible for the coverage: An apology.

Back to the lion tamer. He managed to escape relatively unscathed. The lion is back in its cage and will probably be sent to the lion equivalent of the glue factory. The crowd watching the show narrowly avoided being eaten. And no refunds will be granted at the door.

–
Cross Post from The Pakistan Update