Komenizing – long overdue – but why NOW?

The original catalyst for Komenizing™ (Uppity Woman)

The second catalyst for Komenizing:

I’m so glad that women (and men) Komenized first Komen, and now Rush Limbaugh’s sponsors.  It does make me wonder, though – why NOW?

As you recall, this all started when Susan G. Komen for the Cure (for breast cancer), which organizes the yearly Race for the Cure, decided it was going to stop funding Planned Parenthood.  Komen’s donations to Planned Parenthood were for preventive screening and contraceptive services, but some people couldn’t handle that Planned Parenthood also provides abortions in some facilities.  Komen had even knowingly earlier hired a vice president who had a history of vocally calling for Planned Parenthood to be defunded.  Women and men all across the country pushed back, and Komen had to “cry uncle”.  (But dont forget, Avon also has a pink race for breast cancer – although it’s a walk – if you still want to participate in a breast cancer cure event.)

Then Rush Limbaugh called a “slut”, a woman (Sandra Fluke) who stood up to advocate for the need for contraception availability and coverage for women, since only MEN were allowed to testify to congress about WOMEN’S birth control needs.  As UW pointed out, Rush apparently knows ZERO about how birth control works for women, since he thinks the more sexually active they are, the more birth control they need.  Therefore, needing birth control = being a slut (but bringing back a big bottle of Viagra from the Dominican Republic doesn’t make one a slut).  Well, women and men again rose up, getting Rush’s sponsors to drop him for being such a misogynist.

And remember this?

Perhaps this event, which chronologically fell between the two previous examples, might even be considered Komenizing.  Remember when the women and men of Virginia marched on the state capitol to protest the legislation to require women to have an invasive vaginal ultrasound (state mandated rape) before they could have an abortion?  Laws prevented their making any sound or holding any signs, so over a thousand women and men joined hands along the path that legislators had to walk to get into the capitol.  Their unity and number prevented that legislation from becoming law – now women seeking an abortion will just need to have the usual abdominal ultrasound to make sure the age of the fetus isn’t over what is allowed.

Komenizing Komen had to do with birth control and abortion, and komenizing Rush Limbaugh’s sponsors had to do with birth control. Komenizing the Virginia legislators had to do with requiring invasive procedures before allowing an abortion. Are women finally rising up because most women use or have used birth control, so it’s very clear how the issue affects them?  That when Fluke is called a slut for using birth control, it became personal to these women, because they also use birth control, and were by extension also being called “sluts”?  That women understand that the ability to control their own body affects their entire lives?  That they understand that the limited steps we have taken towards equality are directly a result of not being tied to the home because of uncontrolled pregnancies?

Have some men become involved because some of them finally actually realize that they have something to do with women becoming pregnant?

As welcome as some changes can be, whenever I observe a change, I always wonder, “why now?”  This recent spate of Komenizing all has to do with women’s ability to control if and when they have babies.  Is that a coincidence?  Or will women and men start to stand up now for other women’s rights, other than the need for parity in medical issues?  (Of course, one of the reasons the media is playing this all up is because it’s election time, and both the parties have to energize their respective base.)

This Komenizing phenomenon seems to have somewhat crossed gender lines, and somewhat crossed partisan lines.  Perhaps it has also somewhat crossed feminist “wave” lines…?  But my gut feeling is that this uprising, while overdue and welcome, will be limited to abortion/woman’s control of her own body.  I’m afraid we’re not going to see huge numbers turn out to demand that the ERA finally be passed, or that the stronger companion bill to Lily Ledbetter be passed so that women are guaranteed equal pay for equal work.  I don’t anticipate that they will be out in force demanding that no one be given free rein to call women “c*unt”, or accuse an accomplished woman as only having a “history of having tea parties with foreign leaders’ wives”, or playing “99 problems but a b*tch ain’t one” at a campaign event – and these are just some things that were done by the LEFT, the “party of women”, in the last presidential election.

(After all, the “party of women” had two years of a democratic president and democratic majorities in both the house and senate, and they did bupkis for us.  So, sadly, I don’t soon envision a change in the unwritten law that you can demean female candidates as long as they’re not the person you want to win.  If the “party of women” has such a long way to go, how can we expect across-party lines support for women?).

So IF these 3 events were Komenized because people understood how women’s freedom to control their own bodies affected them personally, what will it take before they realize that other discrimination against women is ALSO personal?  That women making the same pay as men for the same job raises the income in ALL families?  That standing up against demoralizing verbal slings against women, whether or not you support them politically, increases the humanity in ALL of us, women AND men?

I’m energized by these Komenizing events, very energized- and yet - I fear it’s not a coincidence that they all had to do with contraception and abortion.  I fear this is simply the “wedge issue dance” we see every four years when there is a president to be elected.

And there’s another noteworthy observation – WE HAVE ALREADY WON THESE RIGHTS!!!

Yes, we’re re-fighting previously won battles and treading water, not moving ahead.  What has to happen for us to win NEW battles, not just hold our ground on the rights we already have?  I suspect the answer is for 3rd wave to open their eyes, get off their butts, and start identifying meaningful goals, involving rights we do not yet have, and start working for them.  THAT is where the fights should be!  THEN we will begin moving forward.  This is 2012!  We should not have to be defending what we already have!  The haters took this opportunity to attempt to take away our established rights, because we weren’t keeping them busy with fights for NEW rights!

So, what is it going to take?  Any other ideas?

What is it going to take?

 

EDIT:  some information on Avon Breast cancer walk’s financials – money coming in, money going out

http://www.avonfoundation.org/press-room/avon-foundation-for-women-announces-520-000-commitment-at-clinton-global-initiative-for-breast-cancer-early-detection-in-haiti.html

http://www.avonfoundation.org/assets/2011_avonfoundation_grants.pdf

5 Facts You Should Know

1. Since it was founded in 1955, the Avon Foundation for Women has been committed to the mission to improve the lives of women and their families. Now past the half century milestone, the Avon Foundation for Women brings this mission to life through two key areas of focus: breast cancer and domestic violence
2. The Avon Foundation for Women has grown into the largest corporate-affiliated foundation focused on causes that most impact women, and, through 2011, Avon global philanthropy has raised and donated more than $860 million dollars.
3. The Avon Breast Cancer Crusade launched in 1992 in the UK and now includes breast cancer programs in more than 50 countries focused on advancing access to care and finding a cure. Through 2011 the Avon Breast Cancer Crusade had raised and awarded more than $740 million worldwide to make a significant and lasting difference.
4. The Speak Out Against Domestic Violence program launched in 2004 to help end the cycle of domestic violence, and through 2011, in the US alone,we have provided more than $28 million for the domestic and gender violence cause, including support for awareness, education, direct services and prevention programs.
5. Since 2001 The Avon Foundation for Women and Avon Products, Inc. together have responded quickly to national and international emergencies, and nearly $23 million has been awarded for women and their families affected by natural disaster or crises.

To get stuck in intersections or to move forward and effect real change?

I’ve often heard that politicians will throw crumbs to the masses.  The masses then fight each other for the crumbs and have no time to see or fight what the politicians are doing.  Additionally, the various groups are so busy fighting each other for what they perceive to be their share of the crumbs, that it never occurs to them to band together to fight the politicians for MORE than crumbs.

In my opinion, this is what some recent start-up groups are trying to fight when they urge women to put party affiliation aside in order to fight together against the sexism and misoygny in our culture.  In other words, stop standing with the boys on your side of the aisle to fight for your particular political party (which doesn’t have your interests at heart in the first place), and instead become more woman-identified, stand with women regardless of party affiliation, and fight for your own rights – for women’s rights.  Joined together, we’re 52% of the population.  Separated by ideology, and in political parties run by men, we simply have to wait for men to decide to take up our cause.  Well, it’s been a loooooong wait.  The best we get are promises that don’t come to fruition.

Now, I realize that some ideas on the left and on the right aren’t shared by all.  But I’m certain there are enough shared beliefs to make coming together a worthwhile endeavor.  I haven’t done any research on the numbers, but I’m sure substantial numbers of women, across the aisle, believe in equal pay for equal work.  I also think that substantial numbers of women, across the aisle, believe in putting an end to misogynistic marketing, particularly advertisements which feature seductively dressed 5 year old girls.  In addition, I also imagine that most women support serious punishment for rapists.

Continuing with this topic of groups fighting amongst each other, rather than working together to effect real change, we come to 3rd wave feminism.  Now, many (not nice) things can be said about 3rd wave feminism – but I’d like to limit my focus to one:  intersectionality.

Many moons ago I was a women studies minor at a large, liberal university.  Sitting in classes of diverse women, we were united in our womanhood.  We learned about the rights women had fought for, and the rights still ahead to be claimed.  We learned different approaches to peacefully fight for our rights, to work towards the passage of laws.  Flash forward many years, five years ago from now, and I’m feeling nostalgic for the feminist movement of my youth, the sisterly solidarity, the feeling of working together to move us forward.  To get another taste of it, I took another women’s studies class. 

Or so I thought.

The “women’s studies” class was about everything BUT.  Yes, you guessed it.  It was all about intersectionality.  For those who may not yet be familiar with this third wave contribution, intersectionality focuses attention on all of the subgroups of women (race, class, religion, sexuality, culture, etc, etc, etc).  What’s more, it even included environmentalism and animal rights.  Because, you know, women must solve EVERY PROBLEM on earth for everyone else.  The h*ll with our own issues.  

It never occurs to them that the groups working on racism aren’t worried about women’s rights, that the groups working on the environment aren’t fighting for women’s rights, gay male groups aren’t fighting for women’s rights – hey, they’re all staying focused on their OWN issues.  So those groups are working on their own singularly-defined issues, and women’s groups are ALSO working on those other people’s issues (and as icing on the cake, many women’s studies programs are now turning into GENDER STUDIES programs).  Oy!  Who is focused on fighting for women in general? 

Now someone might say, but women are involved in those other categories!  Yes, that’s true.  But the splintering effect is in full force.  The advancement of women as its own category has been going nowhere, and to me, this is a big reason why.  These third wavers will fight for (or anyway, TALK about) racism or environmental rights or this or that, but when it comes to the subect of “women in general”, they just sit around and talk about their different experiences, and play “I can top your oppression”.   (Uh – hello?  Sitting around doing “consciousness raising” was supposed to be the FIRST step, not the GOAL, of activism!!!!)  Matter of fact, I wandered into a website I had never heard of before, and it was all about intersectionality.  Anyone who wanted to focus on women as a whole were racist oppressors, and weren’t admitting to their white privilege (even though some of them weren’t even white).  Well, IMO, they were all having a pity party, going in circles, and not advancing the cause of women at ALL.

To me, (one of the ways that) women will advance is when we work together to enact LAWS.  And guess what – this IS 2011 (although most of the women on that website were stuck in their ancestors’ time, perseverating about slavery or reservation life none of them have experienced themselves) and any laws we make for women will affect ALL women.  It’s NOT like they’re going to pass a law which says ONLY affluent white women are entitled to equal pay!  If we band together based on our SIMILARITIES, we will have power to effect change, to pass laws.  And those laws will affect ALL of us.  ALL women will rise.  And isn’t that what we WANT? 

So, to me, all this talk about intersectionality just amounts to a bunch of women sitting around trying to sound oh-so-academic, and getting nowhere.  Maybe they should go to the other groups they want to help.  Try going to a black power group and see how much they want to work for women’s rights.  Try going to a environmental group and see how much they want to work for women’s rights.  Try going to a gay male group, and see how much they want to work for women’s rights.  Try going to an animal rights group and see how much they want to work for women’s rights.  Try going to a la raza meeting and see how much they want to work for women’s rights. 

All of these groups undoubtedly have environmentalists in them, they have people of different classes in them, they have people of different races in them, etc., etc.  In other words, they are also diverse groups, but they focus on their shared cause, and work to get things done!

So, to me I see these three options: 

1. Get mired in intersectionality, have fun trying to one-up each other’s oppression, tak about fighting against racism, classism, etc., and get nothing done for women
2. Go to the singularly-focused groups which are accomplishing things, and beat your head against the wall getting them to adopt the cause of women, as well
3. Join together with other women, focus on your similarities instead of being distracted by more superficial differences, and use your combined power to effect real change for ALL women by passing laws which affect ALL women

I’d wager a bet that a huge percentage of these intersectionality third wave women voted for Barack “This is what a feminist looks like” Obama.  Seriously.  Because IMO their priority is not actually women.  We all have different parts of our identities.  Woman.  Older/younger.  White/black/ asian.  Rich/poor.  Gay/straight.  More education/less education.  Able-bodied/handicapped.  Environmentally friendly/unfriendly.  Animal rights/animal welfare/animal killer/animal eater.  Religion 1 or 2 or 3 or……    But if you’re ostensibly fighting for women’s rights, which part of your identity should take precedence in that fight?

Of course, everyone has different opinions.  As for me, I’d like to see CHANGE.  I want to see MOVEMENT.  I don’t want to sit around getting nothing done.  I want to see all women band together, to pass laws that benefit ALL women.  It’s so simple.  If other diverse groups can focus on their shared primary concern and make progress, why aren’t WE allowed to?  Why must our younger generation sit around, muddying the waters, and move us BACKWARDS?  Our rights as women are slipping away, and these intersectionalists want to put their identity as women as their lowest priority and get nothing done for women.

I think the women driving in circles around the “intersection”, getting nowhere, fighting for crumbs, talking just to themselves (and sounding oh-so-good as they do it ha!), accomplishing nothing, are in dire need of a map (and perhaps a suggestion to “get over yourself!”). 

I, myself, don’t want to be stuck driving in circles around the intersection.  I want to drive THROUGH the intersection, drive straight through, and move forward with ALL women to the goal!  THAT is progress!

(To our newby third wave intersectionalists:  do you have any idea how many gains we’ve lost since you’ve hatched?  Oh, and the right to be proud to be a pole dancer?  We could have done without that one.  Do you have ANY idea how far backwards you’ve taken us?  We worked SO hard to minimize how much women were objectified.  And the advertising ads out these days?  Pure objectification.  Don’t blame US when Obama and the other republicans take away your ability to do family planning. 

Maybe it’s time to stop the endless consciousness-raising and navel gazing and start taking action.  Think legislation.  Stop whining – we’re ALL oppressed.  Get over yourselves.  Start getting empowered by joining TOGETHER (you’re obviously doing this consciousness raising stuff WRONG!)  Stop yakking.  Start doing.  But…. you might want to get off that pole first.)

Geraldine Ferraro – RIP

Geraldine Ferraro - a heroine for us all

March 26, 2010.  Geraldine Ferraro, the first woman to run for vice-president on a major party ticket, has died.  A true heroine of our time is no longer with us.

Ms. Ferraro, or “Gerry” as she was known to many, accomplished many “firsts”.  Notably, Gerry had some “Uppity blood” in her:  she was also the first Italian-American to run on a major party ticket.  She led a full life of family and career, working tirelessly for women and other people whose voices were not being heard.  She started her career as a second grade teacher, but was pursuing her law degree at the same time.  Gerry married John Zaccaro soon after achieving her law degree, and while they were young, she stayed home to raise her children.  However, during this time, she performed pro-bono legal work for women and children.  Her next move was to become an assistant district attorney in New York.  While there, she continued her advocacy work for women and children, creating the Special Victims Unit.  She moved on to serve 3 terms in Congress before she became the vice-presidential democratic nominee. 

There is much, much more about Gerry’s life and career.  I think what is already clear is that she was a “workhorse”.  She was always moving forward, always looking for more opportunities to help others, especially women and children.  She encountered push-back throughout her career, as Uppity Women do, but it never daunted her.  Indeed, I think one of the things we all most admire about her was her ability to always speak clearly and forcefully; she did not suffer fools – or sexist pigs – gladly.

It’s no wonder that she and Hillary Clinton struck up such a strong friendship.  

I think there are many of us here “of a certain age”.  We were on the youngish side when Gerry ran for vice-president – full of hope for the future, fresh with energy from the power and sisterhood we experienced in the women’s movement.  We thought the passage of the ERA was surely just around the corner.  But we watched as journalists and newscasters seemed more interested in critiquing what Gerry wore than in discussing her qualifications or platform.  And we watched Reagan Reagan! win 49 of the states.  To many of us, the whole country regressed, and the gains we had tirelessly fought for as women were dealt a huge setback.  And then the “3^rd wave” of “feminism” came along – talk about a setback!

When Hillary reappeared on the scene, the clouds parted, the sky opened again.  And there, too, was Gerry, working tirelessly on behalf of her friend.  We felt the power of women again, and how wonderful it was to have such accomplished, strong, intelligent role models front and center again!  But it was more than that.  Both of these women were true public servants – they entered politics to help others, not to get rich with bribes, not to get some kind of fix from hearing the roar of the crowds.  So, yes, it was validating to have women to vote for.  But most importantly, they were people of substance!  And we could vote for them!  How refreshing in the world of politics!

Well, we here all know the rest of the story.  We know of the cheating employed against Hillary, the race-baiting, the sexism.  I’ll always be thankful that Gerry and her inimitable spirit were there during Hillary’s campaign to set the record straight in ways that Hillary, as the candidate, could not.  As imust reminded us in the previous comment section, Gerry got some zingers in:

“Every time that campaign is upset about something, they call it racist. I will not be discriminated against because I’m white. If they think they’re going to shut up Geraldine Ferraro with that kind of stuff, they don’t know me.”

“If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman of any color, he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept.”

Here I’m reminded of commenter Sophie’s wise observation:  “Gerry was many things but most of all, Gerry was right.”  And imustquoteimustagain – Uppity honors Geraldine every day by hosting a blog that fights for women’s voices.

While many things could be put in Gerry’s obit, here’s “the rest of the story” that the MSM would never deign to include:

“My name is Geraldine Ferraro,” she declared. “I stand before you to proclaim tonight: America is the land where dreams can come true for all of us.”

Her acceptance speech launched eight minutes of cheers, foot-stamping and tears. However, Ms. Ferraro’s declaration, which deeply resonated with so many women weary of second-class status, was premature. Even now, 27 years later, her proclamation is still a dream.

Just two years ago, Hillary Rodham Clinton ran for the office of the presidency.  The media, rather than being objective, was roundly against her, employing sexist language and race-baiting in their attempts to squash her momentum. In addition, her opponent’s forces conducted large scale cheating in the caucuses.  Though well documented, the story of the caucus fraud was not picked up by the mainstream media, whose favored candidate it would discredit.

Despite these attempts to subvert our nation’s first chance to have a leader from the ranks of our largest demographic, Ms. Clinton was still able to win the popular vote in the democratic primary; indeed, she won the most votes of any candidate in any party in history.   Undaunted in their quest to win at any cost, these un-democratic, misogynistic forces then literally stole delegates from Ms. Clinton, in order to cripple her win, then denied her the right to fight at the Democratic National Convention.

Geraldine Ferraro was, not surprisingly, a staunch advocate of Hillary Rodham Clinton’s candidacy. Predictably, the same misogynistic voices used to mischaracterize and demean Ms. Clinton, were also used against her supporter, Ms. Ferraro, during Ms. Clinton’s historic run for the presidency.

The public is ready for a female president and vice president, as seen by Ms. Clinton’s historic win of the popular vote in the primaries, and Ms. Palin’s popularity during the general election. We’ve come a long way since Ms. Ferraro’s groundbreaking run for the vice presidency. But we still await the day when an intelligent, competent public servant, who happens to be female, will be allowed by the media and the political parties to claim their place as the highest office holders in our nation.

So, as we mourn the passing of Geraldine Ferraro, we also mourn that her dream of women’s equality has still not yet been realized.

Calling All Girls Who Want to Be President

Cross-posted with permission of  Lady Boomer NYC. Do not copy this post without direct permission from the author.

© Copyright 2009 by Lady Boomer NYC, article and audio interview. All rights reserved.

maintrailer_3min

►

“What’s Your Point, Honey?” movie trailer

Filmmaker Out to Elect Women for President

Many feminists were disgusted this past year by the sexist, misogynistic treatment that former NY Senator Hillary Clinton received during her Presidential run, at the hands of the mainstream media, the fauxgressive blogosphere, stalwart feminist organizations, and members of her party. This time, Republicans didn’t seem to have quite as much to add, because Clinton’s own Democratic Party, we were shocked to observe, outperformed them in maltreating her.

Amy Sewell, award-winning filmmaker of the endearing 2005 documentary, Mad, Hot Ballroom, is doing her part to help elect a woman President of the United States. Her latest thought-provoking 2008 release, What’s Your Point, Honey?, is the first social justice cause film that’s being marketed on amazon.com and on itunes, too. I’d agree with her point that:

Feminism, gender inequality, is the longest revolution and the last social justice cause to have a great need to be brought to the surface and pushed out there.

Radio Interview Explores Feminism, Gender Equality, and Path to Politics

In January, 2009, I sat down with the dynamic and articulate filmmaker to record the audio interview from which this article is drawn. In the interview, Amy and I also discuss: women’s pay equality issues, the Lilli Ledbetter Act, gender inequality awakening of Baby Boomers as compared to the MTV generation. Plus, there’s an update about the lives of the seven diverse young women in her film, and their quest to run for political and organizational office.

Click arrow to play Lady Boomer’s interview with filmmaker Amy Sewell (1:41)

.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.

The Point of What’s Your Point, Honey?

The film’s title, What’s Your Point, Honey?, was inspired by a 2007 Jim Borgman cartoon in the Cincinnati Enquirer. The cartoon depicts Hillary Clinton standing, pointer in hand, appearing to school Uncle Sam in front of a chart entitled, “Countries That Have ALREADY HAD FEMALE Heads of State.”

Here’s the list: Haiti, Nicaragua, Panama, Ecuador, Argentina, Chile, Bolivia, Burundi, Liberia, Indonesia, Philippines, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Mongolia, India, Germany, Serbia, Israel, Switzerland, Finland, Norway, England, Latvia, Iceland, Ireland.

And in response, a schlumpy-looking Uncle Sam asks Hillary,

What’s your point, honey?

In our interview, Sewell expands on the cartoon’s irony: The US is 71st in the world in women’s representation in government — we’re laggin’. We’re behind the -stans and Cape Verde. . . . Despite often horrible treatment in some of the countries that have had women leaders, women are proportionally better represented and lead other countries in far greater numbers.

The filmmakers set out to influence the younger generations with their film, and to create an awareness of feminism in them, because many young women “do not believe that they’re not equal.” Additionally, Sewell says that she and the film’s director, Susan Toffler, decided to reclaim the term “honey,” in order to devalue it when used by the oppressor, so to speak.

Co-stars of the documentary, “What’s Your Point Honey?,” include Sewell’s twin daughters, the generation of girls “that doesn’t believe that they’re not equal.”

Hidden Inequality

They made a movie for an audience that doesn’t want to hear it, Sewell asserts, because they think they’ve got it all in the bag. They see their moms going to work and just think that everything is equal—after all, mom’s working. Girls don’t really know what their moms go through at work, regarding career advancement, pay differences, harassment, and what is expected of them as compared to men.

Girls don’t grasp that women, despite feminist gains of the last forty years, are largely responsible for taking care of: the house, the kids, doctors’ appointments, day care, child care, shopping for groceries, supplies, and clothing, cooking, cleaning up, housecleaning, laundry, and more. Additionally, their moms are often caregivers for their elderly parents or in-laws. Yet, girls of today think that life is, and will be, the same for them as it is for the boys they’re growing up with.

Forget about equal pay: Sewell says that women should actually get paid MORE than men. After all, the mom does everything, and the dad “just goes to work,” as a young boy observes in the film. Yes, we’re swimming in the patriarchy, so much so that many fish don’t know it, haven’t seen it. However, girls are beginning to see sexism and inequality at home, and more women saw it in the political atmosphere of the 2008 Presidential election.

Eyes Wide Open—Lessons from Sarah

Sewell claims Sarah Palin lit a fire under many liberal women who thought, “hey if she can do it, why can’t I?” We should be running for local offices and positions that grow us into more and higher national prominence. A way to begin is to step up and get active about the projects and issues you really care about in your local community, and just go ahead and start to run things.

She enumerates three lessons women learned from Palin’s Vice Presidential run:

1. Women can be raising a family and become a major player, with the right support systems.
2. If you multiply out all the ways you run your household, you can do it on a larger scale in your community, city, state, and nation.
3. If Sarah can do it, why are we liberal women still on the sidelines, waiting for men or somebody to hand this to us?

The White House Project: “Beyond Gender to Agenda”

The film is based on a “contest” co-sponsored by COSMOgirl and The White House Project (WHP), an organization founded and run by Marie Wilson. Wilson is past President of the Ms. Foundation and co-founder of Take our Daughters to Work Day©. Her “Vote, Run, Lead” training program at the WHP recruits women to run for office. Since its beginnings in Colorado four years ago, the program has expanded to ten states. They select young women who are definitely interested in running for any office and serious in their intentions, and equip them with the tools they will need.

Wilson believes strongly in having a nonpartisan organization, because her philosophy is that all women bring the same basic life issues to the table, such as: child rearing, child and elder care, the wage gap, working in male-dominated fields, and, of course, who owns their bodies. The goal is to get more women into office. Women are 51 percent of the population, and 80 percent of the purchasing power. Women decide how 80 cents of every dollar in American households will be spent.

I questioned Amy: If women treat each other so poorly when running for office—as they did with Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin last year—will women be discouraged from running in the future, expecting that they might face a similar fate? Introducing the pipeline theory, she said that “it’s not about one. As long as you have only one woman running, everyone will always rip her apart.”

Sewell contends that if you have just as many women running as men, you get “beyond gender to agenda,” to quote Marie Wilson. There are many amazing, accomplished, powerful women out there; we just haven’t seen it happen in enough numbers yet, so we have to make our own way! But the environment is changing: Initially, Wilson asked women to run for office, because she knew that women needed to be asked. However, there seems to be an attitude shift in that women are beginning to step up and run. There were 100 applicants for the program in NY State, and several women who were in the film announced their plans to run for office right after completing their training.

Winners of the 2024 Project, co-sponsored by The White House Project and COSMOgirl, gather in front of The White House during the making of the documentary

The Key to Success: Fill the Pipeline with Young Candidates

As a way to keep the ball rolling and get younger generations involved, What’s Your Point, Honey? shows inequalities in their world today “wrapped around the metaphor of a woman running for President.” The filmmaker sees that girls can look up to the current women in power, like Hillary and Sarah Palin, but they don’t relate to them as they do to twenty year-olds, like those in the film.

If we build the pipeline, the more women we have wanting to come into political power, the easier it will be for all male political figures in the future to have a pool of applicants to choose from [for cabinet and other appointments.] [. . . ]

Our hope is someday that it won’t even be a question. We’ll have so many women in politics that we’ll de-genderize it.

Sewell is passionate about carrying through her message and continuing to reach an audience of women that can begin to fill the pipeline of participation in government, beginning with reaching young girls. Her new book, SHE’S OUT THERE: The Next Generation of Presidential Candidates: 35 Women Under 35 Who Aspire to Lead, will be released in April, 2009.

Further, an educational pilot program is being rolled out by North Carolina Political Center for Women: the What’s Your Point, Honey? DVD and study guides will be used as part of high school programs in North Carolina. This will be followed by programs throughout the US in middle schools, high schools, and colleges, accompanied by study guides appropriate for each educational level. Amy has generously provided the Viewers’ Guide here for you to download FOR FREE, which you can use when you buy the DVD, or rent or buy the video-on-demand (VOD) download.

Women Have Power

Sewell sees little advantage in fighting with people who do not and will not ever agree fundamentally, and I agree! Women need to join together and get involved with whatever social justice causes that move them. Furthermore, WOMEN have the purchasing power. Money speaks, and we have power here. For example, ads and products that call for our attention to speak out against: Boycott! The PUMA and some of the feminist movement made a difference by boycotting MSNBC, CNN, PBS, NPR, and network television due to their commentators’ misogynistic and biased stances about then Presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton, and VP nominee, Sarah Palin.

The movie purposely uses a light touch to draw new people into wanting to be active, and has a carryover affect. Viewers report that they begin to notice more instances of inequality or sexism in their daily lives, whereas before they wouldn’t have seen it. I encourage everyone to see and discuss this film, especially families. Be sure to rate, comment, and see what others are saying.

This is such an enthusiastic, supportive article, you’d think I have an ulterior motive, or am receiving some kind of net gain. I hope I am and do. I believe passionately, based on my spiritual and community background, that the societal road forward, onward, and upward must be: positive, collective, supportive, have dignity—and—be ignited, and driven by and for women. We can accomplish this by expanding girls’ and young women’s horizons, education, and opportunities for governance, and yes, the Presidency. Elect a woman? . . . “It’s not about one.”

.-.

© Copyright 2009 by Lady Boomer NYC, article and audio interview. All rights reserved.

.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.

Resources

These are linked within the article and included here for your convenience:

DOC WEBSITE: http://www.whatsyourpointhoney.com/front/

THE WHITE HOUSE PROJECT: http://www.thewhitehouseproject.org/

AMAZON DOC VOD LINK: WHAT’S YOUR POINT, HONEY? ($2.99/week rental, $9.99/buy)

BOOK AMAZON LINK: SHE’S OUT THERE: The Next Generation of Presidential Candidates: 35 Women Under 35 Who Aspire to Lead

Lilly Ledbetter and the matter of Do As I Say Not As I Do

Today Barack Obama is applauding himself with great vigor. He did a good thing and he knows it. 

He gets one point.

Or I should say, he gets one point and loses one point for not Leading By Example.

Today Barack Obama signed the Lilly Ledbetter Act, which overturns the Supreme Court decision that rained down upon Lilly Ledbetter.

Lilly found out that her company was paying her less than they paid the boys–for the same work.   For decades. Any of us who has ever worked in Corporate America knows a story like hers, if not plenty of stories like hers.

Lilly got ticked off and she sued the Goodyear Corporation. The courts threw her case out because, even though she had plenty of proof that she had been financially discriminated against for no other reason than she didn’t own a penis, she filed her law suit past the 180 period which started with her last paycheck before retiring and discovering she had been pwned.

She took the case to the Supreme Court, which upheld the appellate court’s view in a 5 to 4 opinion written by its newest member, Justice Samuel A. Alito, a Bush appointee. At the time, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg gave a rare oral dissent, saying she hoped Congress would reverse what the court had done.

And so Lilly got screwed  twice and, I hate to carry tales, gentlemen, but this one thing pissed off plenty of women. They were doubly pissed off when Republicans blew their horns about it, calling it a big  Giveaway for trial lawyers. Well, you know what guys? It SHOULD be a big Giveaway for lawyers AND the women this has been done to since Time began.  This is downright  wrong and,  if most men  in power didn’t pull that shit so often for so long,  trial lawyers wouldn’t be gearing up for that Giveaway. What part of  This Is Wrong do members of the House and Senate not understand? Just wondering.

Republicans, I hope you don’t mind if I am candid today. Your history of  legally holding women down in the workplace is legendary.  I always got the feeling that if you were given the choice, plenty of your plastic representatives on Capitol Hill would reverse women’s right to vote.  Lilly Ledbetter’s law suit was a glaring example of this. Your pants were down that day your congressional members opposed Lilly Ledbetter the first time, and some of your Representatives and Senators are still blowing that opposition horn today. When will they ever learn? And exactly where is their sense of decency?

Congress passed the measure yesterday with a lopsided House vote,

Can any Republican reading this piece really sit there and tell me that it is perfectly fair  for a woman with the same education, experience, performance and position to be paid less than the man sitting next to her? Because that is the message your elected officials who are  still complaining are still sending to us today. I suggest you stuff a rag in your elected officials’ mouths if you ever hope to keep more women in your camp next time around.

You see, it was the  cheating, sexism, misogyny and deliberately horrible treatment of Hillary Clinton and  the women who supported her that drove many of us to the Republican camp during the last election. 

We recognized Obama from our Corporate jobs and bailed out.  As a matter of fact, if the Republicans’ own right wing religious social zealots didn’t sell the Centrist down the river out of spite, John McCain may have won.  During that time, Republicans embraced us disenfranchised women and talked at length with us about Fairness and how horrible all of that sexism and misogyny was towards us, Hillary, and then Sarah. But I can tell you that before The Obama Pig Machine sprung into action, the same things KEPT plenty of women from the Republican camp. Just so you know if you ever hope to recover some power.

During yesterday’s House debate, Rep. Howard P. “Buck” McKeon (Calif.), the ranking Republican on the Education and Labor Committee, predicted that the change would produce an outpouring of baseless litigation against employers, including complaints “decades after the alleged initial act occurred,” and that “trial lawyers, you can be sure, are salivating at this very prospect.”

Really “Buck”. You ignoramus. STFU you 19th Century throwback.  You are embarrassing yourself. Guys like you are the reason trial lawyers are gearing up.

To complain today about Lilly Ledbetter is to look like a hypocrite after embracing so many women who felt discrimination at its worst during the last Presidential campaign. I suggest that my Republican friends let your representatives know that women do read and have IQs and they do watch, and that they should stop behaving like hypocrites on this Good day for women, mmmmmmmkay? Just food for thought. Nothing more.

So, as you can see, I am jubilant over this Law. Except for one problem.

Barack Obama didn’t practice what he is preaching today with his own campaign employees.  So, really, the women who worked for him should start suing him right now. Let’s take a little trip down recent-memory lane to June, 2008.

Obama’s for Equal Pay,
Yet Pays Female Staffers Less Than Males data calculated from the Report of the Secretary of the Senate, which covered the six-month period ending Sept. 30, 2007. Of the five people in Obama’s Senate office who were paid $100,000 or more on an annual basis, only one — Obama’s administrative manager — was a woman.

By Fred Lucas

CNSNews.com Staff WriterJune 30, 2008

(CNSNews.com) – While Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama has vowed to make pay equity for women a top priority if elected president, an analysis of his Senate staff shows that women are outnumbered and out-paid by men.

That is in contrast to Republican presidential candidate John McCain’s Senate office, where women, for the most part, out-rank and are paid more than men.

Obama spoke in Albuquerque, N.M. last week about his commitment to the issue and his support of a Senate bill to make it easier to sue an employer for pay discrimination.

“Mr. McCain is an honorable man, we respect his service. But when you look at our records and our plans on issues that matter to working women, the choice could not be clearer,” Obama told the audience in New Mexico, a voter-swing state.

“It starts with equal pay. Sixty-two percent of working women in America earn half or more than of their family’s income. But women still earn 77 cents for every dollar earned by men in 2008. You’d think that Washington would be united it its determination to fight for equal pay.”

He continued, saying that he is proud to have supported the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Restoration Act, which would extend the limit on how long an employee can wait before suing an employer for pay discrimination.

The legislation was named after Lilly Ledbetter, who was a supervisor at Goodyear Tire & Rubber’s plant in Gadsden, Ala. She sued for pay discrimination before retiring after 19 years because she had made $6,500 less per year than the lowest paid male supervisor.

However, the U.S. Supreme Court threw out her case, saying she waited too long to file a complaint. The court said that under the 1964 Civil Rights Act, an employee must sue within 180 days of a decision regarding pay if alleged discrimination is involved. The bill sought to change the law, but Democrats could not muster the needed 60 votes to override a Republican filibuster.

Obama voted for the equal pay litigation bill in April. McCain was campaigning that day and did not vote. But he has expressed opposition to the legislation, fearing it would open the door to too much litigation.

On average, women working in Obama’s Senate office were paid at least $6,000 below the average man working for the Illinois senator. That’s according to

The average pay for the 33 men on Obama’s staff (who earned more than $23,000, the lowest annual salary paid for non-intern employees) was $59,207. The average pay for the 31 women on Obama’s staff who earned more than $23,000 per year was $48,729.91. (The average pay for all 36 male employees on Obama’s staff was $55,962; and the average pay for all 31 female employees was $48,729.The report indicated that Obama had only one paid intern during the period, who was a male.)

McCain, an Arizona senator, employed a total of 69 people during the reporting period ending in the fall of 2007, but 23 of them were interns. Of his non-intern employees, 30 were women and 16 were men. After excluding interns, the average pay for the 30 women on McCain’s staff was $59,104.51. The 16 non-intern males in McCain’s office, by comparison, were paid an average of $56,628.83.

The Obama campaign did not respond to written questions submitted on the matter Thursday by Cybercast News Service .

During his Albuquerque speech, Obama criticized McCain for supporting the Supreme Court ruling on the pay-equity issue.

“Sen. McCain thinks the Supreme Court got it right,” Obama said. “He opposed the Fair Pay Restoration Act. He suggested that the reason women don’t have equal pay isn’t discrimination on the job – it’s because they need more education and training. That’s just totally wrong.”

Obama continued, “Lilly Ledbetter’s problem was not that she was somehow unqualified or unprepared for higher-paying positions. She most certainly was and by all reports was an excellent employee. Her problem was that her employer paid her less than men doing the exact same work.”

If this isn’t a clear cut case of Do As I Say Not As I Do,  then I don’t know what is.

And this is just one  of several serious reasons I do not believe in Barack Obama’s sincerity-quotient when it comes to women.

“Fairness for thee, not for me”. 

Raise your hand if you have ever worked for a man who Talked the Talk but was full of shit when it came to Walking the Walk himself. There is a lot more he is going to have to prove to me about his attitude toward women than this. And he can start with the pig who writes his speeches. I’m still waiting for  President Barack Obama to even make a remark about that behavior. Nothing. Nada. Zilch. This equates to either a stamp of approval or a President who doesn’t see this kind of behavior as any bid deal. You pick.

Secondly, Barack Obama’s cabinet is reminiscent of the Good Ole Boys management organizational chart of the 1970s.  And some of those Good Ole boys are exceedingly  offensive to women–as in Larry Summers.

President Obama, you will get your point back from me when you start to practice what you preach–because the attitude of the President of the United States rolls downhill into the workplace,  Sweetie.

I’ll believe you are not full of misogyny crap  and have reformed on the day you start pushing the ERA. Vigorously. And successfully. Then you, your filthy sycophants and the MSM can be  rightfully cited for Hate Speech the next time you enable the crap you pulled during your campaign.

Copyright © 2009 Uppity Woman. All Rights Reserved.