The Light: Hillary

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.

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%:

Sunday and Monday are the 161st Anniversary of the Seneca Falls Convention, the first Women’s Rights Convention. As a refresher, here is a bit of history on that auspicious occasion:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

When Peter Daou writes, I read. As many of you know, Peter Daou headed Hillary Clinton’s campaign Web site and her site’s blog operations. I always admired Peter’s attempts to post at Daily Kos (one of his countless tasks), where he was cruelly torn apart for supporting Hillary. But he kept on, hoping that a few would read him and view Hillary in a new light. Formerly, Daou — an intellectual heavyweight — was Salon’s chief blog reporter and essayist. Like those of Glenn Greenwald, Daou’s essays on civil liberties are timeless. Here is Daou today, at Huffington Post, on Obama’s Cairo speech which, MSNBC claimed, is “historic”:

“Let Women Wear the Hijab: The Emptiness of Obama’s Cairo Speech“:

I know many will gush over President Obama’s Cairo speech and I’m likely swimming against the tide of the media and my fellow Democrats and progressives. But reading the transcript, I was struck by two things:

1. Aside from a few platitudes, it is disappointingly weak on human rights and specifically women’s rights.

2. It betrays a naiveté, perhaps feigned, about how the Arab world works. [Susan's Note: Here at NoQuarter, we're all familiar with Obama's inexperience and lack of knowledge that lead to his dangerous naivete.]

I sometimes preface my posts by explaining that my Mideast perspective is that of an American-Lebanese-Christian-Jew who grew up in Muslim West Beirut at the height (or should I say depth) of the Lebanese civil war. The tumultuous and bloody intersection of religions and geopolitical interests is painfully real to me.

Yes, Obama is targeting the Arab ’street’ and global public opinion - but to the corrupt regimes that dominate that region of the world, his oration means virtually nothing. Repression and suppression will go on uninterrupted. And to those whose abiding hatred of Israel (and thus America) is absolute, Obama’s words will be seen as empty and hypocritical.

Egyptian blogger Hossam el-Hamalawy explains:

Right before he took off from DC, on what the media has been depicting as some “odyssey,” to address the Muslim World from Cairo, President Obama had described the 81-year-old Egyptian President Mubarak as a “force for stability.” This week Cairo and its twin city Giza have been a showcase of what this “stability” cost.

The capital is under occupation. Security troops are deployed in the main public squares and metro stations. Citizens were detained en masse and shops were told to close down in Bein el-Sarayat area, neighboring Cairo University, where Obama will be speaking. In Al-Azhar University, the co-host of the “historical speech,” State Security police raided and detained at least 200 foreign students, held them without charges in unknown locations.

Is there an overarching purpose to Obama’s speech? Is it to repair our image after eight years of a radical rightwing administration? Of course. But if the goal is to repair our image, then how about shunning the barbaric concept of indefinite detention? How about heeding the increasingly distressed calls of those who view the new administration’s actions in the realm of civil liberties as a dangerous, disturbing, and precedent-setting affirmation of Bush’s worst excesses?

Glenn Greenwald writes:

The White House is actively supporting a new bill jointly sponsored by Sens. Lindsey Graham and Joe Lieberman — called The Detainee Photographic Records Protection Act of 2009 — that literally has no purpose other than to allow the government to suppress any “photograph taken between September 11, 2001 and January 22, 2009 relating to the treatment of individuals engaged, captured, or detained after September 11, 2001, by the Armed Forces of the United States in operations outside of the United States.”

What kind of a country passes a law that has no purpose other than to empower its leader to suppress evidence of the torture it inflicted on people? Read the language of the bill; it doesn’t even hide the fact that its only objective is to empower the President to conceal evidence of war crimes.

That this exact scenario is now happening in the U.S. is all the more remarkable given that the President who is demanding these new suppression powers is the same one who repeatedly vowed “to make his administration the most open and transparent in history.” After noting the tentative steps Obama has taken to increase transparency, the generally pro-Obama Washington Post Editorial Page today observed: “what makes the administration’s support for the photographic records act so regrettable” is that “Mr. Obama runs the risk of taking two steps back in his quest for more open government.”

What makes all of this even worse is that it is part of a broader trend whereby the Government simply retroactively changes the law whenever it decides it does not want to abide by it.

Glenn has been documenting - and railing against - dozens of similar instances. I echoed his concerns in a recent post:

[...]

I wish I could quote Peter’s essay in its entirety. I have written an e-mail to him, requesting just that.

In the meantime, read all of “Let Women Wear the Hijab: The Emptiness of Obama’s Cairo Speech.”

Here is the full text of Obama’s speech.

For more blog reactions, check Memeorandum.com.

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

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

CHORUS:
They’ll make a fool of you

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

CHORUS:
Men will just leave you blue

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

CHORUS:
He will hurt you
Then desert you

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

CHORUS:
They’re evil through and through

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

CHORUS:
That’s what a man will do

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

CHORUS:
Love is just a misconception

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

CHORUS:
Let’s wipe ‘em off the map!

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

CHORUS:
Then there’ll be none at large

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

CHORUS:
Then women can take charge

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

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

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

CHORUS:
That’s all a man is for

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

CHORUS:
Let’s show ‘em all the door

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

CHORUS:
We just can’t take no more

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

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

JUANITA:
We’ll have no more

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

JUANITA:
We’ll soldier on

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

This is a bit of a followup to my post, “Some Celebration,” on the issues women face here and abroad. Once again, H/T to cheneywatch.com for alerting me to this video.

Yesterday, I wrote of Afghanistan, Iraq, and the US. Today, it is India:

What courage, what strength, these women demonstrated. May their success be far and wide.

Speaking of courage and strength, here is a broader retrospective of Women Leaders in our history who helped get us where we are:

Here is one of my favorite athletes in one of my favorite sports (soccer), a woman who made history, Julie Foudy, in celebration of Women’s History Month:

Oh, and yes, Hillary should have been in the video of Women Leaders. So this one is for her, and for all of us:

Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Supreme Court Justice, “I think about how much we owe to the women who went before us - legions of women, some known but many more unknown. I applaud the bravery and resilience of those who helped all of us - you and me - to be here today.”

The Other Tea Party that Launched a Revolution

The Women’s Rights Movement had its start on a sweltering summer day in upstate New York, when a young housewife and mother, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, was invited to tea with four women friends. Their conversation turned to the limitations that still remained on women under America’s new democracy. While the American Revolution, fought just 70 years earlier, was waged to win freedom from tyranny, women had gained little if any freedoms. And the friends agreed, that women should play a more active role in this new republic.

Within two days of their afternoon tea together on July 13, 1848, this small group of women had picked a date for their convention, found a suitable location, and placed a small announcement in the Seneca County Courier. They called it “A convention to discuss the social, civil, and religious condition and rights of woman.” The gathering would take place at the Wesleyan Chapel in Seneca Falls on July 19 and 20, 1848.
(more...)

As you all may know, March is Women’s History Month, and Sunday, March 8th, is celebrated as International Women’s Day, first celebrated in 1911! I can think of no better way to celebrate it then by presenting the following video of one of the Top 100 Speeches of the Twentieth Century, First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton speaking in China (I recommend just listening - unfortunately, the actufal footage of her speech seems to have been taken down):

And this more recent speech from the 160th anniversary of Seneca Falls:

Wow. Someone please tell me how is it that Hillary Clinton was depicted as “uninspiring”??? Only by those who had never actually bothered to hear her SPEAK is all I can figure. Yet another one of those memes started by someone to demean her.

Oh, what should have been. Sure would have made Women’s History Month this year something special. Instead, we get to “celebrate” the return of blatant sexism and misogyny in our country after this past election. Woohoo - NOT. Sadly, we still have far, too far to go…

And on a MUCH lighter note, it is time for photos of the PUPPIES! They are one week old today! Here they are:

Their names are, starting from the one on the bottom left, the first born, Lucas; the brown one is Leo; moving clockwise, the brindle is Leila; the one at the very top is Lucky; next is Luna (the last born); under her is Loco, short for Locomotion (he is motoring around all over the place, even though he can’t see where he is going!). In the top photo, Loco is the one with the triangle of white on his neck, with his head on top of Lucas; and in the middle is Lani. Notice a pattern with the names? Since their mother is Lucy, we thought we should give them “L” names! They have doubled their weight in a week, and seem to be doing well. Their mom is taking a few more breaks from them, but continues to be an excellent mother!

Ed. Note: We are proud to announce that, starting this Monday night at 9:00 p.m. ET, Dr. Lynette Long will host a weekly call-in radio show, Sins of Omission. She wrote this description:

Join Dr. Lynette Long for her weekly call-in show, SINS OF OMISSION, where she unapologetically discusses sexism in our society. Dr. Long will use your examples to highlight both Sins of Commission (blatant sexist attacks) and Sins of Omission (the under-representation of women). In her direct no-holds-barred style, Dr. Long will offer listeners strategies to combat sexism in their lives and will solicit the help of the listening audience to eradicate sexism in our society. Get ready to roll up your sleeves and do some heavy lifting — something has got to give.

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

PARITY IN THE CABINET??

by Lynette Long

The current cabinet of the United States is attended by the President, fifteen Cabinet Members, and six cabinet level administrative offices that includes the Vice-President and the White House Chief of Staff for a total of 22 members. 

The Bush Cabinet has four women: Condoleezza Rice as Secretary of State, Elaine Chao as Secretary of Labor, Mary Peters as Secretary of Transportation, and Margaret Spellings as Secretary of Education. 

(more…)

Ed. Note: We are so very, very, very proud to announce that, starting this Monday night at 9:00 p.m. ET, Dr. Lynette Long will be hosting a weekly radio show that takes callers — like you! Dr. Long chose the name, Sins of Omission, and wrote this description of her plans for this NoQuarter Radio show that, as with all of our other radio shows, you can listen to at any time, starting right after the show is over at 10:00 p.m. ET:

Join Dr. Lynette Long for her weekly call-in show, SINS OF OMISSION, where she unapologetically discusses sexism in our society. Dr. Long will use your examples to highlight both Sins of Commission (blatant sexist attacks) and Sins of Omission (the under-representation of women). In her direct no-holds-barred style, Dr. Long will offer listeners strategies to combat sexism in their lives and will solicit the help of the listening audience to eradicate sexism in our society. Get ready to role up your sleeves and do some heavy lifting — something has got to give.

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

WOMEN PUSH FOR
INCREASED REPRESENTATION IN TURKEY
Reprinted from Dr. Long’s blog.

PARITY IN TURKEY

"Engin says the days of women having only five percent of the seats in parliament have to end.

"Once we are going to have more and more women in parliament, I believe the rights of the women have to be much more discussed in the parliament," siad Engin.

Kader, a non-partisan group, wants to put more women in parliament. Nuket Sirman is one of the founders of Kader. She says the members of the organization came up with what they think is a winning slogan to promote their cause.

(more…)