October 2004 Archives

Do you ever wonder what hate-monger evangelicals do on Halloween? Apparently, they have turned it into a tool for proselytizing…

This year, for the 33rd year, students at Jerry Falwell’s “Liberty” University (it is an accredited institution…but I think the quotation marks are appropriate) put on a show called “Scaremare”, an elaborate performance described by the Washington Post as part haunted house, part sermon. Visitors are led into an abandoned orphanage with graphic demonstrations of what hell is like and who "deserves" to be there. These interactive scenes include women who have had abortions and gay men who have died of AIDS. No, I'm not kidding. (I wonder if they've made room for the feminists yet).

Apparently this is but one of a growing number of staged performances in this vein throughout the country. This year, more than 20,000 visitors from around the country have come to Falwell-U for the event. Even scarier is the fact that “Scaremare” falls within the more “moderate” end of the evangelical haunted house spectrum. Two companies that sell "how-to" kits for these fucked up haunted houses include scripts, detailed suggestions on music, costumes and props -- including how to select the best cut of meat to depict an aborted fetus.

A professor at Falwell’s Liberty University explains the "philosophy" behind Scaremare: "There's no question that people need to fear what is their eternal destiny… So here's the objective truth about hell..." Oh yeah, this sounds *real* objective.

According to organizers, these events have been very effective in converting people. One estimated that he had converted over 13,000 people since 1996! While this is shocking on a certain level, it seems appropriate in some ways: fear is, after all, the preferred means of the Right.

For the record, not everyone is so enthusiastic about this fire and brimstone approach. Rev. Eileen Lindner of the National Council of Churches USA argues that: "Education doesn't take its best root through fear and intimidation… That's not only not the best way to teach the Gospel's lesson of love; it's incompatible with the Gospel's lesson of love."

Hmmmm...maybe I'll go out treak-or-treating as Jerry Fallwell tonight. Now THAT would be really scary.

--Contributed by Brendan Sweeney

In Ruth Rosen's latest piece for The Nation, she discusses Women Really On Their Own--i.e. single women voters. While it has effectively been drilled into our heads that 22 million single women didn't vote in the last election, Rosen explores the impact that "single" status is having on the vote. Her conclusion--"Memo to politicians and the political parties: The difference between married and unmarried women's political views is greater and more decisive than the gender gap." (sigh). It turns out that there is a *huge* difference in how the single gal and married gal votes.

Recent polling data from Democracy Corps, found that single women favor Kerry over Bush by almost 26%, while married women prefer Bush over Kerry by 2%. Ugh. And a National Annenberg Election Survey taken in July found that out of 1,641 adults polled, 55% of married women supported Bush's job in the White House, while only 43% of single women approved. The poll found a similar "marriage gap" among women on questions of Bush’s handling of the economy, the war on terrorism and the war in Iraq. When respondents were asked about abortion, 28% of married women said they strongly favor banning all abortion compared with 19% of single women. While both of those numbers scare me, that's a *big* gap.

Adam Clymer, political director of the survey, hypothesized that single respondents were more negative towards Bush because they tend to have lower incomes and be younger. Rosen also chalks up the gap to greater economic security among married women. Is it really that simple, though? If I slip on a wedding ring and become privy to an economic bump up, will I suddenly fall *that* out of touch? I'm sorry, but I don't understand how a walk down the aisle would suddenly land me in bed with the Bush regime. (sigh).

Rosen also notes that for all of the discussion of the Sex and the City voter at the start of the election season, neither candidate has really done much to reach out to single women. "Instead of addressing the everyday security needs of "women on their own," both candidates pandered to (largely married) "security moms" who were supposedly obsessed by the prospect of terrorist attacks...True, John Kerry and John Edwards went on talk shows popular with women, but they talked about how they would fight terrorism. And yes, Bush's website has a section called "W Stands for Women," but it does not address concerns these women view as critical to their lives. It was only during the last few weeks of the campaign that Kerry rolled out a new stump speech that directly addressed women's economic security."

Chris Desser, co-director of Women's Voices. Women Vote, notes that, "[N]early one-third of unmarried women polled said their main reason for not voting is that they believe their lives will not improve, no matter who is elected." While there are undoubtedly many *very* strong economic & reproductive rights arguments for how Kerry will substantially impact the lives of women if elected, it's a shame that we're nearing the eve of the election and finding that Kerry hasn't made a strong enough pitch to inspire the potential mass of young, single women voters.

Come on, I'm looking for your thoughts. Like, why do *you* think there is such a big "marriage gap" among the ladies? And how inspired do you feel about stepping into the voter's box on Tuesday? Other thoughts?

So in the spirit of the holiday, Feministing wants to see your best efforts at feminist and/or political costumes. Send your pics to me, and we’ll feature the best ones on the site on Monday.

Usually I go with a birthday-themed costume (I’ll be officially in my late 20s the day after Halloween…now that’s scary!), but this year I really had go with something election-inspired.

After some serious consideration, I’ve decided to go as a “swinger state” for a Saturday night soiree…So be prepared to see some trashy-ass pictures of me dressed as a 70s-style swinger (think The Ice Storm) with a Hello-My-Name-is-Pennsylvania sticker on. Can’t wait…

So what does everyone have planned?

Freaky shit. This past Tuesday, an 18 year-old Marine recruit in Florida threatened to stab his girlfriend because she was voting for John Kerry. Sounds like a reasonable guy.

Apparently Steven Scott Soper (maybe it was all the alliteration that put him over the edge…) went nutty when his girlfriend told him that not only was she breaking up with him, but she was –gasp!—voting for Kerry for president.

Soper, a strong Bush supporter, told his soon to be ex-girlfriend Stacey Silheira that she would “never live to see the election,” and held her captive with a screwdriver to her neck until police could subdue him.

I see a future with the RNC for this guy. Bringing voter intimidation to a new level…what a go-getter!

Was anyone in Pittsburgh on the 27th? Turns out Gloria Steinem introduced Le Tigre's show at Mr. Small's Theatre. Steinem discussed the political process, especially the importance of voting in the upcoming election. It's amazing that Steinem, second-wave extraordinaire, recognizes the influence music (Le Tigre, Ani Difranco, etc.) has on third wave women. "The ability of music groups of all kinds to go directly to the public without passing through the media is crucial," she recently told Billboard. "People know and trust musicians based on their records and their lyrics. In this age of pretty skewed media, that's precious." Right on.

Yesterday the UN Security Council heard from more than fifty speakers on the perpetuation of gender-based violence in war. Thoraya Obaid, head of the UN Population Fund, chastised the counsel for not implementing programs that would provide protection to women in conflict areas.

"From Afghanistan to Liberia, from Colombia to the Democratic Republic of the Congo, from Burundi to Darfur -- the list goes on and on -- women and girls, and even men and boys, are being subject to sexual violence, torture and slavery that defy the imagination and bring into sharp focus the cruelty that human beings can inflict on each other. It is truly sad, and terribly angering, to see the tremendous needs. But it is even more shocking to witness the response so far, which remains completely inadequate."

What actions could the UN take to provide a more adequate response? Well, I think Undersecretary-General for Peacekeeping Jean-Marie Guehenno was on the right track when he disparagingly noted that, "women constitute only 1 percent of military personnel in U.N. peacekeeping operations, and peace processes and negotiations remain overwhelmingly male-dominated arenas.'' In fact, out of the 27 U.N. special representatives in charge of U.N. peace operations, only two are women. While I don't believe that placing women in these positions of power would necessarily change the landscape of the problem, it *is* a step in the right direction.

Intensely disturbing is Guehenno's observation that *this year alone* in the Congolese city of Bunia, 70 allegations of sexual exploitation and abuse were made against U.N. peacekeeping personnel. Until the UN deals with the issue of sexual assault among its "peacekeepers", I'm hard-pressed to understand how it can "protect" women from more systemic forms sexual violence. (sigh). Thoughts?

Check out Jessica's piece on What's (not) being done in the Sudan for more discussion on violence against women as a war crime.

We may not all be big fans of Eminem, but I do think this is a pretty incredible video and would love to know what y’all think of it.

The question is: Clearly Eminem has been continually and unabashadly misogynist, and has promoted violence against women. Should feminists embrace this video, that I’m sure will be extremely popular in the days to come before the election because of its potential political power? Should we push aside our opinions about Eminem?

Before you get going, make sure to read Echidne's excellent take on the issue.

I’m open for comments...

Now was that so hard? I think not.

But the folks at the Chicago Tribune disagree. Because of a last-minute freak out over the contentious c-word, editors were running around like maniacs pulling out the Women’s News section from their Wednesday papers.

The Tribune had originally planned to run an article, “You c-nt say that (or can you?),” which discussed “cunt” and whether the word was becoming more acceptable.

Instead of the intended article, which was written by freelancer Lisa Bertagnoli, the Tribune ran a piece about military widows. This only reached readers in the city however; those in suburban areas didn’t get the Women’s News section at all.

The weirdest thing about this story (at least to me), is that Bertagnoli never even uses the word cunt! But apparently because she hints at it by “providing words it rhymes with and making its anatomical reference clear,” it was offending enough.

So it’s not just the word that the Tribune folks find offensive…even the idea of cunt is too much!

I know that people have pretty divergent thoughts on this, but how does removing an article that is simply attempting to open some dialogue serve anyone?

If you're a Teresa fan, you're going to seriously enjoy Nerve's Wife Swap (ignore the title, I beg of you), a love-letter of sorts to the "cheeky," "sexy" future first lady...

It looks like we have some voters for Bush outside of the U.S., and they seem to have the right idea. Readers of a British magazine have rated President Bush as thus year’s top screen villain for his appearance in Michael Moore’s documentary, “Fahrenheit 9/11.” So while Laura's winning votes for her cookies, her hubby's winning his own votes for being evil. I love it.

Bush beat a handful of other nominees, including Doctor Octopus in “Spiderman 2,” Leatherface in the “Texas Chainsaw Massacre,” Gollum from “Lord of the Rings” and Darryl Hannah’s character, Elle Driver, in “Kill Bill 2.”

Almost 10,000 people voted in the poll conducted by Total Film magazine. For this win, I would have to give Bush a standing ovation.

In an article in the Post-Standard yesterday titled, “Chocolate Chunks Sway Voters," you can only guess what that means. That’s right, it’s a Candidates' Wives Cookie Bake-Off! You have got to be shitting me.

No, unfortunately not. Apparently the newspaper took a poll of Central New Yorkers on their preference between Teresa Heinz Kerry’s pumpkin spice cookies and Laura Bush’s oatmeal chocolate chunk cookies.

“The cookies were educational projects for schools, classes and social agencies. The idea was to have fun and focus on the events of the presidential election. The cookie votes were cast strictly on taste. More than 400 people took the time to let us know what their taste buds selected.”

Wow. I’m all for getting involved in fun ways to “focus on the events of the presidential election," but then why, please, tell me why cookies?? Ugh. I can't think of a worse way to trivialize the two women. Yet I wouldn’t be surprised if Laura was thrilled, especially when she found out that her cookie won the poll. Should we be surprised she won in a bake-off anyway?

As we’ve reported before, there’s only one choice next Tuesday when it comes to equal pay for women.

Women’s Enews took a look at the candidates recently, showing how each one could potentially hurt—or help—their pocketbooks.

The article notes that working women represent almost 65 million votes, yet these women still earn less than men in every state.

The wage gap for women (contested by a freaky few) is still at the very sad 76 cents for every dollar earned by a man.

Women’s Enews author Robin Hindery makes the very good point that despite his W Stands for Women nonsense, Bush “makes no mention of the wage gap in his official platform.” Huh. Imagine that.

Hindery also notes that a raise in the minimum wage—which Kerry has vowed to bring up to $7 per hour—would disproportionately benefit single working mothers. That’s an advantage I could get behind…

What about Bush?

Bush opted not to address the minimum wage issue in the debate, and shifted the conversation instead to the importance of education. He also does not discuss the issue on his campaign Web site.

During his 2000 campaign, Bush told The Associated Press that he supported a $1 increase in the minimum wage, but only if states could opt out. However, he has rejected all wage-increase proposals since being elected.

So ladies, even if you’re not thinking about all the other reasons to vote for Kerry next week, don’t forget about your pocketbooks. Cause I know I can’t afford Bush for another four years.

Because this shit wouldn't even surprise me:

Republicans Urge Minorities To Get Out And Vote On Nov. 3

UPDATE: Check out GOP scared shitless of minority vote at Daily Kos to see why this headline isn't so far off from the truth...

New York mothers who are victims of intimate partner violence can rest a little easier—the state’s highest court ruled yesterday that women should not lose custody of their children because of their partner’s violence.

The Administration for Children’s Services (ACS) in New York City has had a policy of removing children from a home where domestic violence is occurring, even if the children aren’t being physically abused. Domestic Violence groups contend that this policy unfairly punishes the mother for a crime that her partner is committing.

But the Court of Appeals ruled unanimously yesterday that the policy violates state laws, after three abused women who had their children taken away from them under the accusation of neglect filed suit.

But this ruling does not mean that children will simply be left in a home that is potentially dangerous. From the NY Times:

The court formalized specific standards for removing children from homes where domestic abuse occurs, requiring that authorities exhaust alternatives and insisting that the possible threat to the child's health or welfare be imminent…

… the authorities would have to show that the mother was indifferent to the psychological harm that repeated exposure to beatings caused the child in order to justify asking the courts to consider a removal.

I know this is controversial, and that many will feel that children's safety needs to be put first in violent situations. Naturally I agree, but in my experience as an emergency room counselor for victims of domestic violence, I have to say that this is an extremely important ruling. Many women will not report violence for fear that their children will be taken from them. At least now, if a woman knows that her kids can't be automatically removed from the home, she's more likely to seek help—which will benefit her and her children.

From the Sun Sentinel in south Fla.—most disturbing opening paragraph of an article, ever:

First daughters Jenna and Barbara Bush came to Miami on Monday with a new twist on a familiar plea: vote for my dad because he has been good to women.

Yeah, Bush has been great for women. He takes those pesky reproductive rights off your hands, and makes sure that you’re not bothered by the annoyance of things like equal pay and affordable child care. Cause who needs those bothers?!

Jenna went on to say that her dad “is open-minded...He also listens to us and gives us room to develop our own ideas and opinions.” But not your own choices, Jenna. Those are for the men-folk to decide, silly!

Are we really supposed to buy this crap?

In an article in the Post-Standard yesterday titled, “Chocolate Chunks Sway Voters”, you can only guess what that means. That’s right, it’s a Candidate’s Wives Cookie Bake-Off! You have got to be shitting me.

No, unfortunately not. Apparently the newspaper took a poll of Central New Yorkers on their preference between Teresa Heinz Kerry’s pumpkin spice cookies and Laura Bush’s oatmeal chocolate chunk cookies.

“The cookies were educational projects for schools, classes and social agencies. The idea was to have fun and focus on the events of the presidential election. The cookie votes were cast strictly on taste. More than 400 people took the time to let us know what their taste buds selected.”

Wow. I’m all for getting involved in fun ways to “focus on the events of the presidential election”, but then why, please, tell me why cookies?? Ugh. I can't think of a worse way to trivialize the two women. Yet I wouldn’t be surprised if Laura was thrilled, especially when she found out that her cookie won the poll. Should we be surprised she won in a bake-off anyway?

So it looks like if you want to ever-so-gently let someone know that you may have given them a STD, you can now send them a card. Thoughts?

And they just keep coming…

A Japanese-designed condom soon to be on the market has a little added pleasure factor—it vibrates.

Apparently this pulsing prophylactic has a vibrating ring at the base, and is currently being tested before its release. I wonder how one goes about being in that focus group…I want in.

Make sure to check out the NY Times’ piece today on the horror that women in Darfur are going through right now, we well as the argument over whether violence against women is a war crime. Um…Yes. Discussion over.

Seriously though, it never ceases to amaze me how people cannot make the connection between the incredible increase of violence against women and war. How is systematic rape not a war crime?

Violence against women—which is most often, but not limited to, sexual assault—is par for the course when it comes to armed conflict:

Sexual violence has been a tried-and-true way for armed men to sow terror among civilians in wartime, from the Balkans to Colombia and Congo to the genocide in Rwanda. The latter offers a particularly trenchant lesson for Sudan: Ten years later only a handful of allegations of rape have been investigated and prosecuted, according to a recent report by the advocacy group Human Rights Watch.

So what’s being done right now?

UN secretary general Kofi Annan, has appointed a panel to determine “whether the violence in Darfur meets the international legal definition of genocide.” Huh. I’m sure that will be a speedy process.

Click here for a previous Feministing post on women in the Sudan and the semantic argument over “genocide.”

For a comprehensive look at genocide and the United States’ history of involvement (or lack thereof I should say), check out Samantha Power’s book, "A Problem from Hell" : America and the Age of Genocide.

Also, if you haven’t already read Against Our Will : Men, Women, and Rape by Susan Brownmiller, get to it. It’s a little outdated, but her chapters on war and rape are still relevant.

Talk amongst yourselves.

I'll give you a topic.

Is the following offensive, hysterical, effective, dangerous?

http://www.liegirls.com/quicktime.html

Discuss.

In a speech Kerry gave in Nevada this past Friday, he vowed to fight for equal pay for women:

"Today, for far too many women, the American dream seems a million miles away…[women are] working two jobs, three jobs, just to get by - and that's only counting the jobs they're paid for." Nice!

It’s great to see that Kerry is recognizing all of the unpaid labor that women do at home and elsewhere.

Kerry also said that he would raise the minimum wage (from $5.15 to $7 an hour), which would help nine million American women.

And please don’t forget how Kerry got shit about mentioning the wage gap in the last presidential debate. Apparently some people just don’t want to hear the truth…

Not exactly shocking, I know, but ridiculous just the same.

Beliefnet reported recently that the RNC has been employing a “Texas-based activist who believes the United States is a ‘Christian nation’ and the separation of church and state is ‘a myth.’”

Yikes! (Though it does sound right up Bush’s alley…)

David Barton, who founded Wallbuilders, an organization “dedicated to the restoration of the constitutional, moral, and religious foundation on which America was built,” has been speaking at RNC sponsored events for evangelical pastors across the country for about a year. At these events, Barton discusses “America’s Christian heritage,” and tells the pastors that they are allowed to endorse particular candidates from the pulpit. So far, Barton has pulled in $12,000 as a political consultant for the RNC.

Outside of Barton’s scary argument that the separation of church and state needs to go bye-bye, he also gets a little freaky with some education hypotheses:

Barton has said that God influenced his sense of mission. In America: To Pray Or Not To Pray? Barton writes: "In July 1987, God impressed me to do two things. First, I was to search the library and find the date that prayer had been prohibited in public schools. Second, I was to obtain a record of national SAT scores (the academic test given to prospective college-bound high school students) spanning several decades. I didn't know why, but I somehow knew that these two pieces of information would be very important."

As a result, Barton writes that he learned America has declined because of the 1962 and '63 Supreme Court rulings banning school-sponsored prayer. He believes God is angry at the country and has retaliated.

Huh. And to think all this time I thought that bad SAT scores were due to lack of education and resources. Turns out, all I had to do was pray for a high score. Silly me.

This just goes to show you how far the Bush campaign will go, and how they really feel about the separation of church and state. And if you need a friendly reminder of how Bush puts faith above reality, make sure to check out the NY Times Magazine article, Without a Doubt.

According to the Agence France Presse, more than a third of Turkish women think that they deserve to be “beaten if they argue with their husbands, deny them sex or burn the meal.” Holy fucking shit. That is a seriously scary statistic (assuming it’s correct.)

The survey, done by Ankara's Hacettepe University, also said that in rural areas, 57 percent of women said that their husbands had the right to commit violence against them.

At least the study was done because of the concern over domestic violence. The EU—which Turkey wants to join—funded the study along with the Turkish government to address women’s rights.

If you haven’t heard about the amazing movie Vera Drake yet, it’s about time you did. Coming from filmmaker Mike Leigh (who also did Secrets and Lies), Vera Drake is a seriously heart-wrenching movie about abortion in 1950s England. And I mean seriously—bring the tissue box.

I was lucky enough to catch a screening of the movie in New York a couple of weeks ago, where I met Mike Leigh and Imelda Staunton, who plays the title character.

Staunton plays Vera Drake as a kind, selfless, lower-middle-class mother who works as a domestic and in her spare time (for no money), “helps young girls.”

What I found most striking about this movie was its lack of in-your-face politics. It simply told the story of one woman, and through that story made the issue of choice profoundly clear.

Another incredible fact is that much of the movie was improvised:

On a Leigh set, no one knows what his or her character wouldn't know until absolutely necessary. Staunton called one seven-hour improvisation terrifying. She didn't know the police were coming for the character she had become until they arrived at the family's tiny, crowded apartment, where an engagement party for her daughter was underway.

Staunton, speaking about the movie’s political implications said, "I would hope it makes people go out and think about the moral dilemma we all face…There's no religion in the film. There's no politics in the film, per se. It just manages to look at this complex and personal and extremely difficult topic with compassion. . . . [But] the film is saying if it goes back to being illegal, this is what you'll be left with."

For reviews of Vera Drake, click here, here, and here.

The inspiring article in Women's eNews about Florida's Betty Castor and the fight of her political career.

While struggling to win the seat in the U.S. Senate as the first female Democrat and second women ever to be elected by Florida, she challenges her opponent as a supporter of choice and stem-cell research. This article is a must-read!

The BBC reported that British pharmacy Boots is teaming up with condom maker Durex to introduce a line of sex toys to the pharmacy. Women are the drug store's main customerbase, and analysts believe that providing sex toys will provide an additional incentive for women to choose Boots over another pharmacy.

Responding to criticism about the decision, Garry Watts, chief executive of Durex's parent company SSL, notes that: "People are becoming...more open-minded. Products to help people have a healthy and happy love life are much more normal. It is right and proper we should be bringing them to the market via those channels." Whoo-hoo!

While I'm not sure that I'd be willing to give up my selection at Toys in Babeland, it's awesome that the British ladies will get another option.

Boots hopes to have its sex toy line out in time for the winter holidays! Happy holidays ladies!

The Observer has a great story detailing how Bush's hard-line abortion stance is finally beginning to alienate women within his own party. And moderate Republicans are stepping up to discuss what we've known all along--if Bush is re-elected there is a very good chance we may lose our right to choose.

Arizona Republican State Senator, Linda Binder, claims that while she voted for Bush in 2000, she won't be casting a vote for him this time around. Why? "We don't want to go back to coathanger abortions... As legislators, my fellow moderates are feeling the push for more faith-based programs on sex education and contraception coming from the Bush administration." Amen, sister.

Exploring the explosion of government spending on abstinence-until-marriage education, Newsday documents that under the Clinton administration these programs received less than $60 million dollars. Under Bush the regime, abstinence spending has more than doubled to $138 million. Even scarier? He's trying to double *that* number. He recently put in a request for $272 million for abstinence initiatives in the new fiscal year.

The international community isn't immune from his sex education rollbacks either. In 2001, on the anniversary of Roe v Wade, President Bush signed the global gag rule, effectively prohibiting any U.S. money from going to organizations that perform abortions or provide post-abortion counseling. And, if Bush stays in office, "at least one-third of U.S. global AIDS prevention funds must be used for abstinence-until-marriage efforts beginning in 2006." Scary, huh?

I keep praying for more signs of resistance on the right. So far we have the Republicans for Choice and the Republicans for Kerry. How all these votes will add up on election day I'm not sure, but I'm definitely keeping my fingers crossed that this Republican rebellion will gain momentum...Any thoughts?

A new study by the NYC Health Department documents that women are more likely to be killed by an intimate partner than by a stranger. This is particularly true for immigrant women and women of color.

The study focused on the 1030 women killed in NYC between 1995 and 2002. Of those, only 12 were classified as homicides (i.e. committed by a stranger), while "339 were committed by intimate partners, 369 by others, and 322 were unknown." More than 60% were killed in their homes. Women in their 20's and 30's were likely to be killed by intimate partner, while women in their 50's were more likely to be killed by a stranger.

Particularly disturbing were the statistics on immigrant women and women of color in the study.
* 49% of the women killed were black, and they made up 46 percent of those killed by an intimate partner.
* More than a third of the women killed by an intimate partner were Hispanic.
* 50% of the women killed by intimate partners were immigrants.

What does it all mean? Well, the study's conclusion was simply that, "Intimate partner femicide remains a major public health issue in New York City." Yeah, I would say so. While all the post-Giuliania officials like to rattle on about how safe NYC is, this study is a reminder of how "crime-fighting" isn't addressing the needs of a large group of women--particularly women of color and immigrant women.

The Times also interviewed, Carolyn A. Kubitschek, an attorney specializing in domestic violence cases. Discussing a lack of shelter space for DV victims in the Manhattan area, Kubitschek notes that: "One of the big dilemmas is where can these women go. There are still battered women who need a place to go tonight and can't find it."

If you are victim of domestic violence in the NYC area in need of shelter, contact Safe Horizon at 1.800.621.HOPE. For more resources contact the New York State Coalition Against Domestic Violence and check out the Feministing Violence Against Women Resource Page.

Reuters reported yesterday on Kerry's attempts rile up women voters in Wisconsin. He promised to promote equal pay policies and increase the minimum wage ($7 from $5.15) and lashed out at the "false assurances'' of the Bush regime. My favorite quote:

"Before the president complains about his job, he ought to come here and spend the day with you. He might learn something about how, day after day, the women of this country juggle so much with such grace and strength."

While I don't think that Kerry can cure [all of] our economic ails, he will be a *big* improvement. Under the Bush administration the gender wage ratio fall from 76.6 cents to 75.5 cents (relative to a man's dollar earnings), poverty ratios steadily grew and the unemployment rate for women grew 37%. (sigh).

Not to mention that Bush doesn't even promote equal pay among his own staff. As Feministing reported back in July, leaked White House salary figures showed the rampant sex pay discrimination within the Bush administration. Bush women with similar titles and positions earn about 78 percent of what Bush men earn. Wow. Talk about a miserable job...

Kerry summed it up pretty well yesterday: "The women of America can write the future of America if they go to the polls and make their voices heard.'' Considering that more than a million women have lost their jobs under the Bush administration, I would say it's *definitely* in your economic interest to get busy at the poll.

Gloria Steinem, writer and feminist organizer, announced today that she will travel over 1,500 miles in an RV through Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin from October 25th through Election Day. Woohoo!

"I'm taking this action because I've lived through the election of every US President since Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and the fundamental differences in world view between Bush and Kerry make this the most crucial election in my lifetime." says Steinem.

What a kick-ass lady.

For up to the minute information on Gloria's whereabouts, call 1-877-GLO-TOUR (456-8687) or visit www.pfaw-votersalliance.org.

As part of an effort to lower intimate partner violence in the UK, doctors and midwives now must ask pregnant women if they are being abused by their partners during check-ups.

Understanding that violence increases (or begins) during pregnancy, the Department of Health is hoping to implement the policy by next year.

Public Health Minister Melanie Johnson said, “The fact that domestic violence often starts or escalates during pregnancy and is associated with increases in rates of miscarriage, low birth weight, premature birth, fetal injury and fetal death makes for stark reading.”

What Johnson doesn’t say, however, is that there is also a significant increase of risk for the pregnant woman, not just the fetus.

In the United States, pregnant women are more likely to be victims of homicide than to die of any other cause.

Perhaps we should take a policy cue from our British friends…

The Army is considering eliminating the women-in-combat ban as soon as January, The Washington Times reported today.

The Army is in negotiations with Rumsfeld’s staff to see if they can lift the ban—which has been in place for 10 years now. The ban won’t allow women in units that “collocate” with ground combatants.

Using Iraq as an example, Lt. Col. Chris Rodney says in the article that everyone faces similar threats in that all soldiers face attack "by rockets, mortars, roadside bombs and ambushes," and that “there is no front-line threat right now.”

For previous Feministing posts on women in the military, click here, here, and here.

The Associated Press reported yesterday that the same study that showed health risks for women on Hormone Replacement Therapy (HRT) now indicates that the birth control pill is not only safe, but actually cuts women’s risk for heart disease.

The study said that women on the Pill also showed lower risk of stroke, and no increased risk of breast cancer. Nice!

This is great news for the 16 million American women who take birth control pills! The lead researcher of the study, Dr. Rahi Victory, said that for women who have ever taken birth control pills, "there's an 8 percent risk reduction of ever having cardiovascular disease,” and that “if you use oral contraceptives early on, you're probably going to be protected later in life.” Women taking the Pill also had a 7 percent lower risk of getting any form of cancer.

This good news comes from the Women’s Health Initiative, the largest women’s health study ever conducted.

Gotta say, I was mighty pleased to read this. As someone who has been on the Pill for almost 10 years—and was always a little wary about long-term risks—these results put my mind at ease a bit. What is it about Fridays that seem to bring good news?

THE LOVE WIFE
by Gish Jen
(Knopf, September 2004)

If you are like me, one look at this title at your local Barnes & Noble store, and you will walk right by it. Who wants to read a novel titled "THE LOVE WIFE" anyway, as it sounds a little sappy, and not at all very feminist? But alas, this is simply not true. THE LOVE WIFE by Gish Jen is a beautifully written, uniquely told, touching, and oftentimes very funny portrait of a family of mixed American, European, and Chinese heritage. It is in the same vein as Ruth Ozeki's MY YEAR OF MEATS (and for those who haven't read this, I highly recommend it, too.)

The novel is told from the perspective of each of it's uniquely-minded characters. While other books change voices in chapters, THE LOVE WIFE changes voices on each page, so readers feel like they are reading a play and not a book at times. The only difference is that instead of dialogue, readers are getting the true emotions of each character, in addition to dialogue. This set-up is effective in understanding the many colorful characters that line Gish Jen's book. There is Carnegie, the man of the household, who is Chinese, and his predictably stern religious mother Mama Wong. Carnegie is married to the sharply-witted Janie, who everyone calls Blondie (a nickname that Mama Wong created, but this also stuck lovingly for the whole family). Carnegie and Blondie adopt two Asian girls of mixed Chinese ancestry, Wendy and Lizzy (Mama Wong annoyingly calls them 'mutts'), and then later in their life they have Bailey, who is their biological child.

The novel begins with the arrival of Lan, a distant Chinese relative whom Mama Wong has sent to live with the family as their nanny and housekeeper. From the moment Blondie meets her, she doesn't trust her. Lan herself is not sure why she is there, and misses her home and her Chinese culture. Sometimes, she tries to lecture Wendy and Lizzy on the importance of waiting to have sex before marriage, and other ideas about femininity that Blondie often challenges. The clash of cultures, dialogue, and situations feel very authentic, and the plot thickens when Carnegie begins to feel attracted to Lan. Blondie begins to feel that Lan has overstepped her boundaries, not only with her husband, but also with her children. She yearns for her family back, and begins to realize that it might have Mama Wong's intent to bring Lan here to give her grandchildren the Chinese upbringing she felt they needed. But did she also bring Lan there to be her son's other wife? And if that is so, who is the real LOVE WIFE?

Gish Jen is a novelist and short story writer. Her most recent publication is WHO'S IRISH?: And OTHER STORIES (1999, Knopf), which Kirkus Reviews describes as a "sharp-eyed debut collection of eight stories examining American life from a foreigner's perspective." Her first novel TYPICAL AMERICAN (1991, Houghton Mifflin), follows a trio of young Chinese immigrants who slowly transform into everything they once criticized in the "typical American," was a New York Times notable book of the year, and a finalist for the National Book Critics' Circle award.

Contributed by Allison

Or should this “good news” should have happened decades ago? Since women officially entered the U.S. Navy services in 1908, it is now optional for women to wear skirts and not required. Until this “21st century makeover” -- as ABCnews.com calls it -- was in put into effect this month, women were required to wear skirts in certain change-of-command and retirement ceremonies.

It’s obvious that wearing a skirt in the Navy is not really practical. For example, one of the skirts had a narrow cut with no kick pleat, which gave women no room to run. Yet the article seemed to focus more on the concern of fashion than anything. “They also noted that the skirts didn’t compliment many women’s shapes.”, like giving the women 'pouches' by their stomach "'even if you didn’t have one.'" They also are able to get rid of their miltary purses and get "more stylish replacements from department stores." Don’t get me wrong, I love purse-shopping myself, but I don’t really understand why there was more focus on the fashion change than the very late decision to allow women to wear pants! Argh.

Young women have been particularly active in mobilizing voters this election, from working with women’s organizations to creating political panties. But what about organizing for the election using just what women have traditionally been objectified for—our sexuality?

Several groups have cropped up recently that focus on getting out the vote by, well, putting out.

Votergasm.org, tells "young people everywhere to have sex with voters on Election Night, and to withhold sex from non-voters until the next presidential election," and hopes to "send 100,000 first-time 18 to 25 year old voters to polls for the 2004 elections, and to catalyze 250,000 orgasms by the morning of November 3." Way to aim high!

The group’s publicist, Michelle Collins, says in a Salon.com article today that young Americans aren’t voting enough, and aren’t fucking enough. “If there's anything that's really going to speak to America's youth, it's saying that voting is as important as sex, as fun, as American.”

Sounds sketchy as hell, but their strategy seems to be working pretty well. Since the site’s launch, they have received more than half million unique visitors, and more than 25,000 people have pledged to vote (and have sex) on election day.

Another site that is using sex as a means to political participation is FTheVote.com, a project of the Carbon Defense League (CDL), which Lauryn wrote about back in July. FTheVote’s theory is that liberals are simply hotter, and we should be using that to influence the election. Essentially, we should be having sex with conservatives in exchange for their vote:

Believe it or not, even the most seemingly deeply rooted right-wing ideologue can be manipulated by sex. As we all know, the sex drive is a powerful beast that has the potential to change people. People lie for sex, they cheat for sex, they even kill for sex - and you can be sure that they will change the way they think (and therefore vote) for sex. All you need to be armed with are your sexy progressive values, a razor-sharp wit, your genitalia, and a mindset that doesn't mind taking one for the team.

Unlike Votergasm—which actually is planning an election night party and looking for bar where people can easily have sex—FTheVote is just a joke:

The goal of the CDL is to present information and content normally filtered from a general audience's view through satire, humor, and trickery.

Another joke site that I found last month is little more vulgar (if you can imagine that), called Porn for Progress, which put out a Porn for Kerry DVD. I won’t even go into the actors’ fake names…

I’m at the point where I’ll take what I can get in terms of folks organizing against the current administration. And I’m all for fun, funny, types of activism. But I know that these actions also have the potential to piss people off and make a good majority of folks not take our voices seriously.

So do websites like these—jokes or not—reinforce the idea that the only thing women have to offer in politics (or in general) is their sexuality? Or is this just a fun, harmless way to get people involved in a process that they might not otherwise engage in?

Let’s hear it…

U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan said yesterday that despite some advancement, women are still largely underrepresented at the United Nations.

Women make up less than 40 percent of all "professional and higher level positions" at the UN, Annan's office said.

The good news? The UN does have a goal to achieve a 50-50 gender balance at all levels, and the percentage of women in the Secretariat has increased by almost 2% this year--which sounds paltry, but infact is the largest gain since 1998.

Check out Annan's full report: The Improvement of the Status of Women in the U.N. System.

On November 2nd, voters in 11 states will go to the polls and decide whether they approve of banning gay marriage. According to the Human Rights Campaign, the following states are up for decision making: Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, and Utah. Lousisiana and Missouri have already decided this year that a marriage is defined as between a man and woman. Sigh.

Supporters of the state amendments say that they are responding to the decision in Massachusetts last November that legalized gay marriage, as well as Oregon, Cali and New Jersey who issued marriage licenses to some couples this year. Yet people are saying that the amendments are more of a motivator to get conservatives to the polls in four presidential battleground states, reports the Feminist Majority.

Although it is unknown exactly how these amendments will affect the gay and lesbian population, it is suspected that some states could abolish private contracts like power or attorney or property-sharing agreements between gay couples. Domestic violence protection and hospital visitation rights could also be taken away.

There's your compassionate conservatism...

Yes, okay—everyone knows Bill O’Reilly is a big old perv. But what the recent sex harassment scandal has also brought to light is just how common this kind of behavior is in TV news.

The New York Observer—in an unfortunately titled article, Revolt of Fox’s Hens—covered just how unfriendly the TV news biz is to women.

Here are some snippets from The Observer’s interviews—and these are just from a few women. Apparently most young women weren’t willing to speak on the record about their experiences.

Lisa Bloom, Court TV anchor: “The television industry in general is rampant with sexual harassment, and it’s very difficult for women at a low level to complain or do anything about it…if you offend the top brass at one TV network, they’re very tight with top brass at other networks. Word will spread, and you’ll have a hard time getting a job."

A former Fox News staffer: “They love their women dolled up…It’s not saying they don’t like women who aren’t smart. But women at Fox were in trouble if they were on air and they weren’t dressed like a hooker. Everybody at Fox is painfully aware of that.”

A current female producer at CNN: “In the last 10 years or so, it seems there are more and more young, pretty women who are just dying to be on television… and they’ll do anything to get there—among those things, being treated poorly.”

And perhaps one of the more disturbing admissions from a “prominent and current male on-air host”:

At the producing level, it’s all young women, 99 percent of whom have no chance of being on TV. They like being in TV and they like powerful men. Each host has around him lots of good-looking, unmarried women. Women are excited by power, let’s be totally clear. The temptation to fuck your staff is overwhelming—literally, almost overwhelming. You just can’t imagine how sexually out of control it is. A quarter of the women are bisexual. They’re good-looking, they’re totally without restraint…

…All they do all day long, they’re job is to serve you…That’s explicitly their job. How you look, how you sound—everything is focused on you.

Ewwwww!

As the article points out, the TV news business sets up this kind of dynamic in a seriously freaky way. A bunch of old guys run the show on all levels, while having a bevy of young (underpaid) women to do their shit work and feed their egos. Sounds like a dream job. Ugh.

Clearly this kind of power imbalance sets the stage for harassment, but that doesn’t mean that we should simply dismiss it as an inevitable part of the business, which—from this article—it seems that many women do.

God, I love The Onion. Click HERE to laugh at something that's not otherwise funny.

Are you going to be in the NYC area the week of election day? Or do you feel like taking a celebratory trip to da big apple after Kerry is elected to be our next president? If so, you definitely want to check out the BUST Magazine Film Festival.

From November 4-7, BUST will be featuring documentaries, animations, full-length features and shorts in four nights o' fun.

Highlights include:

"YEAR OF THE WOMAN, the infamous 'lost' documentary about the women’s movement filmed during the 1972 Democratic National Convention; MARY JANE’S NOT A VIRGIN ANYMORE, a coming-of-age masterpiece by the late filmmaker Sarah Jacobson; a night of shorts about girlhood featuring the emotional sports documentary GIRL WRESTLER; the controversial strip club expose STRIPPED followed by a Q&A with filmmaker Jill Morley."

You can buy tickets for individual shows for only nine bucks each or get a festival pass that will give you access to all shows, including an invitation of the opening-night partay with the filmmakers, a one-year subscription to BUST magazine, and a VIP gift bag with lots o' goodies.

Click here for more info and to buy tickets!

It’s about time that the polls and the media caught up with um…oh yeah, the truth.

The NY Times reported today that as of Sunday, the NYT/CBS News poll puts Kerry ahead with women at 50 percent to Bush’s 40 percent. The article points out that the Kerry’s lead is smaller in other polls, but is ahead nonetheless.

This news comes after a whole bunch of bullshit about Bush doing well with women because of security moms—a demographic recently shown to be fictitious.

After an unsuccessful appeal, an anti-choice group was ordered to pay Planned Parenthood’s legal fees after suing the pro-choice organization to “require it to declare a link between abortion and breast cancer.” Ha! It’s good to know that cases without merit will at least have some consequences.

According to the San Francisco Chronicle, a CA judge dismissed the case in 2002 because of no scientific evidence linking abortion and breast cancer. The plaintiffs were ordered to pay Planned Parenthood $130,000 to cover the org’s legal fees. (This can happen under a CA law that gives lawyer’s fees to those who are targeted by “merit-less suits that seek to thwart free expression.”)

Obviously this is great news, but it’s also a reminder of the larger agenda that the anti-choice movement puts forth through any means they can—even through bad science.

Through preying on the fears of women (cause breast cancer is pretty frigging scary!), these groups are sinking to new lows by distorting scientific data to push an unproven link that is potentially dangerous for women’s health.

For accurate information (hard to come by these days...), check out NARAL Pro-Choice America’s fact sheet, Abortion, Breast Cancer and the Misuse of Science.

There was an interesting article yesterday by the Associated Press on the emergency contraception debate. Now that it is up to the FDA to decide whether EC should be available over-the-counter, many have been arguing over the decision of whether teens should be included or not.

Some who believe teens should not be allowed access to EC over-the-counter predict that it would cause more “risky sexual behavior” in teens (pulease), or skip regular visits to the gynecologist if they didn’t need to see a doctor to get it, which is ridiculous. These young women aren’t going to be popping the pills on a regular basis, that’s why it’s called “emergency contraception”. Why would they stop going to the gynecologist?

As far as the “risky behavior” EC would be encouraging, we can look at the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine in a study they conducted on the effects of EC. Published in the Journal of Pediatric and Adolescent Gynecology, the study concluded that teens who had emergency contraception available to them were NOT more likely to have unprotected sex. They were also more likely that they would use EC correctly and sooner after sex, which is when it’s most effective.

There are nonprofit, Washington, D.C.-based Advocates For Youth programs that support EC over-the-counter who bring light to the research of James Trussell, the director of Princeton University's Office of Population Research. Trussell has found that easier accessibility to emergency contraception could cut unintended pregnancies and abortions by half the number among U.S. women between the ages of 15 and 44.

According to the federal Centers for Disease Control, there are about 3 million unintended pregnancies annually. About 800,000 of those cases the parents are teenagers.

The thing that pisses me off is that these people are arguing over whether a teenage girl is old enough to have access to this contraception -- yet they are old enough to have sex and get pregnant! Opponents think that these girls are responsible enough to take care of a baby but not responsible enough to take a pill?? Ugh.

Bitch Magazine (via Alternet) has a really interesting—though upsetting—article on new trends in pornography and how it relates to reality versus fantasy.

Triple-X Offender, by Shauna Swartz, takes on what Swartz calls reality porn and “humilitainment,” which generally consists of young women “having sex with a complete stranger in a public setting – only to be kicked to the curb afterward with no pay and plenty of insult.” Yeah, that sounds real hot. Ugh.

Reality porn features some of the most violent and demeaning porno scenes to hit the mainstream, what some call "humilitainment." Tagging these disturbing spectacles of deception and abuse with the "reality" label enhances their allure, as it claims to offer consumers unstaged and authentic action. Where reality TV usually panders to the collective schadenfreude – that sordid side of human nature that finds us taking delight in others' misfortune – pornographic content sends already sleaze-bound reality entertainment into new and disquieting territory.

Here’s a snippet of the kind of porn (mostly internet, by the way) Swartz is talking about:

BangBus, which features two men roaming the streets, trolling for young women they can lure into their van to have sex with them on camera in exchange for a little cash. The bang squad searches out "every girl's inner slut," testing how far she'll go to sexually satisfy a stranger. BangBus's popularity led to other reality sites popping up overnight like silicone implants. The throng of high-profile sexploitation offerings now includes web sites like BangBoat, BaitBus, BackroomFacials, XratedGangBang, and Trunked ("It's simple. Throw the bitch in the trunk. If she doesn't like it, she can get out. Oh yeah. We're goin' 55 mph...").

Swartz notes that the common ending for this “porno verité” is “a facial (and not the spa treatment kind), and many topped off by the guy spitting on her face.”
That’s just lovely.

While, as the article points out, degradation as part of porn is certainly not new, the idea of it as reality rather than fantasy is. My question is—does it fucking matter whether it’s presented as reality or not? It’s degrading and humiliating in either case!

But Swartz makes a good case for why women should be paying attention to this recent trend:

The producers of these sites position their works as erotic documentaries that capture real encounters with eager women who are dumb or desperate enough to fall for their trickery. The people who have engineered these scenarios thereby downplay their own hand in the abuse in order to make viewers feel better about getting off on it…

And perhaps her most important point:

…The realest thing about humilitainment porn is the way it buttresses long-held assumptions of women's inherent inferiority, even if that's not foremost on the minds of those who get off on it. The question of authenticity overshadows the sexual politics of why a woman might be willing to play the dupe, and any law-enforcement fixation on its social demerit misses the point that pop culture reflects the popular imagination at least as much as it creates it.

I think articles like this are extremely important for women to talk about. So often the issue of porn in feminism is posited and examined as just pro- or anti-, rather than taking a comprehensive look at the issue which takes into account the different genres (though I cringe to call them that) of pornography and what they reveal.

Any thoughts?

Oh, how I love good news! According to a new report by the Institute for Women’s Policy Research (IWPR), women are more likely to vote than men in 9 out of 10 key swing states.

The report also says that the four key Midwest battleground states—Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, and Michigan—are among the top states in getting out the women’s vote.

The bad news? IWPR President Heidi Hartmann says that “women in Florida, Nevada, and Pennsylvania (are) ranked in the bottom third of the country for women’s voter turnout in 1998 and 2000. The eyes of the nation are now on them. They should get out to the polls on Election Day, just like women in top states like Minnesota and Wisconsin.”

The Status of Women in the States report—to be officially released after the election—ranks all of the states in women’s political activism.

So get to it, ladies! If you have any friends in the battleground states, send them a link to the report...

Reuters reported today that Guatemalan sex workers formed a soccer team--and played against a team of women police officers--to bring attention to poor working conditions. That's what I call some original organizing!

The women say that they are paid as little as $2.50 for sex and are often harassed by police, even though prostitution is legal in Guatemala.

"It's good to feel the power of being united," said one woman.

The bad news: the team lost 3-1. Well, maybe next time...

For more information, check out the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence and the Family Violence Prevention Fund.

Unless you’ve been living under a rock the last couple of days, I’m sure you’ve already heard a shit-load about the NY Times mag must-read, Without a Doubt.

But in case you haven’t, get to it…it’s pretty terrifying, but a great piece to pass on to those who are still undecided.

After this ludicrous “conscience clause” bill that has been passed to go to a House-Senate conference committee, we find that we are already currently facing this threat to reproductive rights. Last Monday a pharmacist in Madison, WI went to trial. What for, do you ask? He refused to fill a prescription for birth control to a young woman because he believed it was a sin. Sigh.

It was in July 2002 when Amanda Phiede went to the Kmart pharmacy to refill her prescription and Noesen was so conveniently filling in as an independent pharmacist. He refused to refill and when asked, transfer the prescription as well. His attorney states that as a devout Roman Catholic, Noesen was merely using his constitutional right to religious expression.

“I could have trouble sleeping at night. I could be suffering the worst kind of pain. Spiritual pain.” Noesen told a judge. Ouch, that spiritual pain can be a killer! Much worse by far than the consequences Amanda would have had to face if she became pregnant, I’m sure.

And as Jessica reported on BushvChoice last week, the most insane part of this was that "Phiede returned to the pharmacy the next day with police to get her pills. Nice work on her part, though you have to be pretty freaked out when the day comes along that you need a police escort just to get your birth control." Word.

The conclusion of the hearing is yet to be decided. Hopefully we won’t be seeing him at the local pharmacy no mo’.

According to the Women’s Law Center, three states -- Arkansas, Mississippi, and South Dakota -- have already passed laws allowing pharmacists to refuse drugs to customers if they have a religious or moral objection. Can someone please tell me when people’s personal beliefs began to control others’ basic rights?? Argh.

On Friday the AP reported on the frightening state of female inmates' access to reproductive rights. In particular, a case in Phoenix, Arizona has been drawing national attention.

Turns out that the anti-choice Sherriff of Maricopa County, Joe Arpaio, is refusing to transport pregnant inmates to abortion clinics unless they obtain a court order. He claims that he doesn't "run a taxi service from jail to an abortion clinic and back," and feels that he should have the right to stop these women from accessing abortions. (Did I also that this is the same asshole who gained notoriety a couple of years back "for putting inmates on chain gangs and issuing them striped uniforms and pink underwear." Ugggggh.)

Luckily, the ACLU of Arizona is fighting back, arguing simply that "abortion is a constitutional right that does not disappear when a woman is sent to jail." ACLU Attorney Angie Polizzi explains that they are challenging Arpaio's court order mandate, because, "This is a very unreasonable policy, and it's a burden." No shit.

The original case that sparked the ACLU's involvement was brought by an inmate who tried twice to get a court order for a ride to an abortion clinic. The inmate had prepaid for the service at a local clinic and only required transportation. Eight weeks of legal battle ensued before she was able to gain the right to transportation, placing her in her 14th week of pregnancy. After she finally obtained her abortion she filed this lawsuit.

To learn more about female inmates disturbing lack of reproductive rights in prison, click here.

Oh yeah, and check out Anyone BUT Joe Apairo to learn more about evil Sherriff Arpaio.

For those of you struggling to make sense out of Bush's abortion evasion during the presidential debate on Wednesday, check out Katha Pollitt's latest article, Roe=Dred.

"Many viewers were puzzled when, toward the end of the second debate, George W. Bush answered a question about Supreme Court nominees by referring to the Dred Scott case. Why bring up the infamous 1857 decision, which declared that blacks could not be citizens and, in the notorious words of Chief Justice Roger Taney, had "no rights a white man is bound to respect," and which barred Congress from outlawing slavery in the territories?"

"Anti-choicers, who often compare themselves to abolitionists, have referenced Dred Scott virtually since Roe was decided. A Google search of "Dred Scott abortion [minus] paperwight" turned up 3,960 hits. Both decisions, they argue, denied citizenship, human rights and legal protection to a class of human beings wrongly characterized as property; both forbade legislators from correcting this injustice; both show the need to overturn immoral precedents, stare decisis be damned. That he was thinking about Roe explains Bush's odd characterization of Dred Scott as "personal opinion," which got him tangled up when he belatedly realized that--whoops--the Constitution didn't grant "equality to all"; it permitted slavery. "Personal opinion" is what anti-choicers think Roe is. "Strict construction" means overturning it."

It's depressing, scary & informative--check it out!

NOW with Bill Moyers will cover single women and voting tonight:

As Election Day nears, Republicans and Democrats are in a heated battle for a group of voters that could swing the election - single women. In 2000, 22 million single women didn't show up at the polls, making them a prized target for both parties in the incredibly tight Presidential race. But when President Bush and Senator Kerry court women on daytime television, are they just paying lip service to their concerns without offering real solutions?

On Friday, October 15, 2004 at 9 PM on PBS (check local listings), NOW with Bill Moyers finds out what these women think about the candidates and what the Democrats and Republicans are doing to win them over. NOW's Michele Mitchell looks at the single-women vote through the eyes of a Nevada mom struggling to make ends meet.

Our favorite anti-feminists, the Independent Women’s Forum, issued a press release yesterday on Kerry’s “use of the misleading statistics about the wage gap” in the last presidential debate. Oh…I can’t wait to hear this one.

The “misleading” statistic the IWF release is referring to is the well established fact that women work for 76 cents to a man’s dollar.

Carrie Lukas, the Director of Policy at IWF says that this statistic—which in the release they don’t specify (fear of speaking any truth at all, maybe?)—doesn’t take into account the fact that “women are sometimes willing to trade dollars for flexibility and time off,” and says that Kerry is “trying to convince women they are victims in order to win votes.”

Obviously. Because women just go crazy over a man who makes them feel like a victim.

The IWF, who was recently awarded part of a $10 million grant to “train Iraqi women in the skills of democratic public life,” is the most backwards organization ever, as Hannah pointed out earlier this month. Nothing makes me crazier then women who are willing to benefit from feminism while bashing it. So fuck you, IWF; you suck! (Yes, I know. I’m very mature.)

Just a little something folks might be interested in—the release has some contact info, if anyone is interested in finding out more information about the IWF and it’s grave concern over wage gap “inaccuracies.”

CONTACT: Louise Filkins of the Independent Women's Forum, (202) 419-1820.

The Washington Post reported yesterday that a record number of women are running in U.S. House races this year.

According to the Center for American Women and Politics, there are 137 women on the ballot for November, up from 2002’s high of 124 women. Nice stuff!

During Wednesday's presidential debate when asked if he would overturn Roe v Wade, Bush tried to side-step the question and focus on judicial nominations: "What he's asking me is, will I have a litmus test for my judges? And the answer is, no, I will not have a litmus test. I will pick judges who will interpret the Constitution, but I'll have no litmus test."

And then it was Kerry's turn. "Well, again, the president didn't answer the question. I'll answer it straight to America. I'm not going to appoint a judge to the court who's going to undo a constitutional right whether it's the First Amendment or the Fifth Amendment or some other right that's given under our courts today under the Constitution." Hallelujah! A president willing to protect our reproductive rights! Imagine that!

Check out the Boston Globe's awesome editorial on Bush's Abortion Evasion critiquing his response.

"[Bush's] nonanswer is chilling. It raises the possibility of overturning Roe v. Wade and letting states decide what's legal. Women in 30 states would be at risk of losing their right to an abortion..."

"While Bush says he has no litmus test for judges, he praises Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, who opposes abortion rights. In a 1992 dissent in the case Planned Parenthood v. Casey, Scalia argued that abortion is not a right protected by the Constitution because "(1) the Constitution says absolutely nothing about it, and (2) the longstanding traditions of American society have permitted it to be legally proscribed."

"The court's ruling offered a wise rebuttal: 'It is a promise of the Constitution that there is a realm of personal liberty which the government may not enter.' The opinion added that marriage is not mentioned in the Bill of Rights but that the court has correctly ruled that interracial marriage is 'an aspect of liberty protected against state interference" by the 14th Amendment's due process clause. The Constitution places no limit on the liberties that are protected, the opinion added.'

In last night’s debate, the final question asked what each candidate learned from the “strong women” in their lives. Bush’s response: “To listen to them.”

Ok, Bushie; then listen to your wife and mother.

Laura Bush on Roe v. Wade: "No, I don't think it should be overturned…"

Barbara Bush on abortion (from her autobiography): “For me, abortion is a personal issue — between the mother, father and doctor.”

But despite the fact that these “strong women” in the president’s life are pro-choice, he still won’t answer the question as to whether he’ll protect Roe v. Wade and the right to choose—cause he knows if he tells the truth, women won’t be having it.

Click here to sign NARAL Pro-Choice America’s petition urging Pres. Bush to come clean on choice and where he stands. And, or course, to listen to women!

According to a new report, women are 40 percent more likely to be poor than men. Gotta love good news…sigh.

Legal Momentum, a women’s legal rights organization, analyzed recent Census poverty data and found that almost one of every eight women is poor and that in 2003, 13.8 million women were poor.

"Clearly, to best fight poverty, we have to recognize that women are the majority of our nation's poor and tailor our solutions to women," said Legal Momentum President Kathy Rodgers, citing better access to child care, job training, education and domestic violence services.

Not likely to happen with Bushie still in office. What’s interesting is that given his repeated bullshit on education from last night’s debate, you would assume that Bush would push education as a solution to poverty (along with everything else under the sun…). But his record says otherwise; Bush thinks women need a man—not a job, education, or child care—to get out of poverty. His freaky-ass marriage promotion programs say it all.

It was reported by the Herald Tribune yesterday that Margaret Sloan-Hunter, former editor of Ms. Magazine, a leading black feminist, civil rights activist and poet, has died at the age of 57.

Her daughter, Kathleen Sloan, said she died on September 23 at Summit Medical Center in Oakland, CA, after a long illness.

Sloan-Hunter was an activist from the early age of 14, when she joined the Chicago chapter of the Congress of Racial Equality. Only three years later she founded the Junior Catholic Inter-Racial Council, a group of suburban and inner-city students who fought racism. She was an organizer for the Berkeley Women’s Center and the Feminist School for Girls, co-founded the Women’s Foundation and served on the board of directors of the Women’s Alcohol Center in San Francisco.

The renowned activist marched with Martin Luther King Jr. and was the first chairwoman of the National Black Feminist Organization. She was also a lecturer and writer, and published her book of poems, “Black & Lavender” in 1995.

It was reported by CBSnews.com yesterday that more than 250 world leaders have urged the United Nations to endorse a population agenda adopted a decade ago that seeks women’s health care, education and family planning. Can you guess who didn’t support the agenda? That’s right, our boy Bush!

Can you guess the reason behind why the Bush administration is failing to support this plan? Because the statement includes the term, “sexual rights”. Ooooh, they said seeexxx! U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Kelly Ryan stated that the concept of “sexual rights” has no definition that’s agreed on in the international community. Ten years after the landmark International Conference on Population and Development, the statement was given to Deputy Secretary-general Louise Frechette, who thought that it was “a brilliant idea”. The reference to “sexual rights” was included in this section of the statement:

"the world's governments and civil society committed to an action plan to ensure universal access to reproductive health information and services, uphold fundamental human rights including sexual and reproductive rights, alleviate poverty, secure gender equality, and protect the environment.”

A bit nit-picky, don’t ya think? The plan was signed by 85 prime ministers and presidents, which included the entire European Union, China, Indonesia, Japan, Pakistan and more than a dozen African countries. U.S. Presidents Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton and 47 nobel prize winners also signed the statement.

The concept of “sexual rights” was, in fact, addressed a year after the plan was adopted at the U.N. women’s conference in Beijing. They determined that “The human rights of women include their right to have control over and decide freely and responsibly on matters related to their sexuality, including sexual and reproductive health, free of coercion, discrimination and violence." That sounds like a pretty clear-cut definition to me, don’t you think? But can we expect much more from this administration? Me thinks not.

Since Bush took office in 2000, $34 million in annual funds for the U.N. Population Fund (UNFPA) have been withheld on grounds that it supports forced abortions in China, which Washington never proved. It’s obvious that the only way to get our country to support international women’s rights again is to get us a new president.

Japan just doesn’t stop coming out with female-friendly products!

The “Sound Princess,” installed in Japan’s public toilets, makes it possible for women to take a noise-free pee.

When Naoko Ito uses a public bathroom, she cringes in embarrassment at the thought that other patrons can hear the sounds coming from her stall. That's when she turns to the "Sound Princess."

Ito, like a rapidly growing number of Japanese women, presses a device installed in public toilets to simulate the sound of water flushing - and mask the cruder noises of nature.

Apparently the leading toilet producer Toto Ltd. has sold 500,000 of the “Sound Princess." A spokesperson for the company said, "Japanese women are very embarrassed by the sounds they make in a toilet."

And I’m embarrassed by the sounds the American president makes. I wonder if we could rig up a Sound Princess for the debate tonight…I think the sound of flushing water would be strangely appropriate.

I always thought reason women weren’t as well paid or well-represented in the workforce was because of the glass ceiling, the wage gap, and other sexism-related obstacles. Turns out, women are actually holding themselves back. Silly me! And here I’ve been, wasting all my time with this feminism nonsense.

According to a Capital News 9 segment out of Albany, NY, while most women want to succeed at work, we’re just not speaking up enough to get the raises and promotions that our male counterparts receive.

Business owner Marlene Waldock said, “Too many women don’t take themselves seriously and don’t’ have that inner strength to say ‘I’m really good at this, and I’m going to show you how good I am.’”

Hear that ladies—get that inner strength revved up! Cause if you believe in yourself enough, it won’t matter that your boss keeps grabbing your ass and you can get a raise.

Another business owner in the piece said that women “have to walk this very fine line between fitting traditional feminine roles that do seem softer, more supportive, more intuitive, and being assertive on the job.” Um, ok…but trying to be successful without being perceived as a “bitch” is an unfortunate result of stereotypical gender norms, not women holding themselves back.

Sigh. Just another jab in the tradition of “women aren’t running the world because they don't want to” bullshit.

Check out Susan's awesome and candid post at Suburban Guerrilla--For the Undecided.

Well said!

Check out Ellen Goodman’s column from this past Sunday, Outsourcing Bush’s heart, which addresses the unsettling role the first lady has taken in the campaign.

Goodman says that instead of being the “compassionate conservative” the President claims he is, Bush outsourced his compassion to his wife—though pretty unsuccessfully.
Trying to show the “softer side” of Bushie, the campaign has paraded out Laura incessantly these last few months trying to woo women voters. But as Goodman rightly points out, she isn’t exactly convincing.

Every day in her stump speech, Laura describes Afghanistan as a women's lib success story rather than a very shaky work in progress. When the Democrats promote embryonic stem cell research, she chides them with "compassionate" criticism for raising false hopes. When asked about the constitutional amendment against same-sex marriage, the first lady wished away conflict by declaring that the proposal "opens up the debate."

At the end of the day, these aren’t issues you can try to sugar-coat or avoid. The Bush campaign wants to “humanize” the President and make him all woman-friendly, but it’s going to take a lot more than Laura to make us forget about, um…oh yeah—his insane policies toward women! Sheesh.

Do they really think a come-see-the-softer-side-of-Sears campaign is really going to be effective?

A different look at the VP debate...

Make sure to check out The Village Voice’s article The President vs. the Pill, which takes on the very real and imminent threat to not just abortion, but to contraception as well.

Author Sharon Lerner points out that contraception—which 95 percent of American women will use at some point—is up shit’s creek because of our current Pres.

Through discussing issues such as Bush’s “faith-based” health plan (which we covered last month), stacking the FDA with anti-choice appointees, and recent inflammatory campaign ads, Lerner paints a frightening portrait of what another four years of a Bush presidency would mean for women.

NARAL Pro-Choice America interim president Elizabeth Cavendish in speaking on Bush’s incessant attack on contraception, said in the article, "When people hear about it, they really feel convinced that Bush is a menace to our rights…If they understand that their most intimate liberties are at stake, they'll vote for John Kerry." I couldn't agree more.

Women in Saudi Arabia cannot run or vote in the country’s first nationwide elections, the AP reported today in a not-so-shocking article.

Outside of the obvious craziness of this news, what really kills me is the supposed reasoning behind the decision:

An electoral official cited administrative and logistical reasons Monday for the decision to ban women from the municipal elections…

Administrative and logistical reasons? You gotta love being told you can’t have equal participation because of paperwork.

Can you spare a minute in your life to help save another woman's life?

That’s what organizations such as Planned Parenthood and the Women’s Environment and Development Organization (WEDO) are asking women to do this Thursday at 6pm in New York City and Washington, DC:

Light a candle as a symbol representing one woman…of the 530,000 around the world who die unnecessarily every year…one woman every minute of every day…

Let's join together and light a candle to TELL THE NEXT PRESIDENT: WOMEN'S LIVES MATTER!

For more information on the Washington DC and New York City vigils and how you can organize a Countdown 2015 Saving Women's Lives event in your area, go to www.SavingWomensLives.org It includes organizing kits, sample press releases and more.

Go to www.34millionfriends.org to see what you can do to help fund UNFPA, the United Nations Population Fund.

And for more information about the Cairo Consensus and global Countdown 2015, go to www.Countdown2015.org

This week's Sunday Styles section exposed a bizarre and potentially icky new business: the New York web service by Wingwomen.com.

As the article reports, the employees of wingwomen.com earn "up to $30 an hour to accompany single men to bars and help them chat up other women. The Web site's founder, Shane Forbes, a computer programmer, started it in December after realizing he had more success with women when he went to clubs with female friends....The wingwoman is the latest twist on the wingman, that devoted male sidekick who helps a buddy pick up women at bars and clubs."

Ok- this makes me uncomfortable. Is that wrong? Somehow this seems just a step below escorting. Why do women have to sell these services? Don't any of these people have real friends? Friends will also introduce men to women, without the exchange of money or the promise of sex. Right? Thoughts?

Perhaps California’s unexpected yet awesome new Battered-Partner Bill has begun to raise awareness and stimulate mobilization in other states. In the most recently reported story, it looks like Michigan is taking some action.

The Michigan Battered Women’s Clemency Project rallied outside at the steps of the Capital on Friday for imprisoned victims of domestic violence. The Ann Arbor-based group’s goal is to convince Governor Jennifer Granholm to grant clemency to 21 women who say they have been falsely convicted to prison to life or long-term sentences for killing or harming their abusers in self-defense. The rally included speeches, stories, and poetry by various friends, family and even strangers of the imprisoned women, then lead a chant saying, “Defense is not a crime.”

Before cases can be referred to the governor’s office, they must be recommended (or not) by the 10-member Michigan Parole Board. Although the petitions for the women are currently being reviewed by Governor Granholm, seven of the clemency project’s cases have already been negatively recommended by the board.

Ann Arbor Resident Cassie Desir stated that she wasn’t even sure if the Governor would respond to the rally, but “It’s better than nothing. All we can do is keep trying.”

If you’re from the area (or not!) and want to contribute to the project, click here.

Feministing is experiencing some technical difficulties, we'll be back as soon as we can...Thanks!

Even though last week Nader conceded that he can't win a single state, he's still not willing to drop out of the presidential race. (sigh). While I believe he has the right to be on the ballot, I think that his continued campaigning is undercutting everything he has spent his career fighting for. And clearly, so do *a lot* of other progressives.

On Thursday, Gloria Steinem signed an open letter encouraging women not to vote for Nader. She writes that: "This election is about ending the reign of George Bush who is intent on dismantling and destroying all that we have worked for years to achieve. In his current candidacy, Nader seems prepared to sacrifice progress on the issues that women care about -- privacy, education, child care, health care, workplace equity and nonviolence at home and abroad.''

The best articulation I've read critiquing Nader's campaign is courtesy of David Segal and Austin King of the Greens for Impact. It is definitely Sunday's must read. Here are some highlights:

[W]e cannot support the approach you take today, as you vie for the presidency in a manner that demonstrates little concern for the election's outcome or for the betterment of progressive causes.

Ralph, by beseeching progressives to 'relax and rejoice' and assuring them that your campaign will help defeat Bush, you indicate a tacit recognition of the importance of ousting the current administration - even if it is to be replaced by a Kerry administration with significant failings. We wish you luck in convincing conservatives to vote for you - and you will probably find some success in that endeavour. So though we do not oppose your running or begrudge you your right to run, we will do all we can to make sure that swing-state voters who would otherwise vote for Kerry do not vote for you on Election Day.

Debra Pickett wrote a great column for the Chicago Sun-Times yesterday about how the Bush administration's "compassionate conservatism" is, quite literally, killing women.

The article opened with a critique of Tuesday's Vice Presidential debate and the candidates' amazing display of ignorance regarding the surging rates of HIV infection among African-American women. When asked how they would address the issue, Dick Cheney conceded that he was unaware of the issue and Edwards side-stepped the question by referencing the global AIDS pandemic. WOW. Can you say depressing?

(Also, as a sidenote, the National Association of People With AIDS wrote to both Cheney and Edwards to register their dismay at their inadequate responses. In their letter to Cheney, NAPWA noted their shock at his ignorance, and explained that, "The incidence of HIV infection among African-American women has far exceeded HIV cases among white women for at least a decade." They also rightly chastised Edwards because he "missed an important opportunity, with millions of Americans watching, to talk about HIV incidence in African-American women." No shit. While I know that both Kerry & Edwards have great records HIV/AIDS issues, I was still disappointed at his relative silence.)

Back to Pickett and her analysis of how the White House Puts Politics Above Women's Health Care:

"Even as AIDS rates among African-American women have skyrocketed, the administration has moved away from the very strategies proven to reduce transmission. Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson appointed Thomas Coburn, a family doctor and former Oklahoma congressman who first made a name for himself by opposing the use of condoms, sex education and anonymous HIV testing to prevent AIDS, to co-chair the Presidential Advisory Council on HIV/AIDS."

"[T]hompson's increasingly politicized department began, in 2002, to penalize long-established, community-based AIDS prevention programs, saying they violate rules governing use of U.S. Centers for Disease Control dollars by 'promoting" sex in workshops that discuss condom use.'" Wow. Only a Bush administration appointee could exercise such wonderful "logic."

And while Coburn recently resigned from the Commission to run for a U.S. Senate seat in Oklahoma, it turns out that the next appointee will hold the position for four years (irregardless of who is elected in November). And can I also mention that Coburn is the same asshole who sterilized women without their consent??? (sigh).

Any thoughts?

For any ladies in Cali, the 10th annual Young Queer Women's Health Conference is set for October 16th in San Francisco. The conference's theme is "Easy Access" and will include workshops on sexual health, political health, and physical health. Scheduled workshops include Vagina 101, Safer Sex and Alternative Healthcare.

The conference will be held from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. at the San Francisco Women's Building, 3543 18th St. Admission is free and open to all self-identified lesbian, bisexual, transgendered, queer, and questioning women ages 25 and under.

For more information, to register, or to volunteer click here.

Yesterday the NY Times reported on a new rule developed by the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) requiring reporting of detailed information on domestic violence victims who seek HUD-funded services. The new rule took effect on October 1, and applies to more than 300 domestic violence programs and the "more than 40,000 women seek shelter from those HUD-financed programs each year."

In the past, agencies that work with victims of domestic violence were exempted from reporting personal client information in order to protect the safety and confidentiality of the victim. Now all of the reported information (including name, contact information, birth date & social security number) will be placed in a central computer system, which domestic violence victim advocates claim could be used by abusers to gain access to the victim.

Nancy Neylon of the Ohio Domestic Violence Network clearly points out that, "I don't know that any head count is worth a life." Obviously it isn't. The data is being used by HUD "to provide more detailed information about the homeless." The value of including domestic violence victims in a sample statistical pool isn't worth the cost of putting these victims at increased risk. (Not to mention that HUD could allow agencies to report victims' information anonymously).

While Congress encouraged HUD to catalogue client information in order to avoid double counting homeless individuals seeking resources from different agencies, I highly doubt they considered how the information collection could lead to an increased risk of stalking and death for victims of domestic violence or the HUGE disincentive it imposes on victims in need of shelter and services.

Take this example from the NY Times: "One volunteer for a Chicago domestic violence program, Tamme Price, 28, said her former boyfriend repeatedly beat her several years ago, sending her to the hospital twice. He worked for a law enforcement agency and might have had access to the new computerized data base if it had existed then...'I can assure you I would have been much more reluctant to seek the help had this been in place,' Ms. Price said."
I don't blame her. I would be too. Scary, huh?

Click here to write HUD and ask them to stop putting the lives of victims of domestic violence at risk. For more information on this issue check out the amazing fact sheet from the National Network to End Domestic Violence.

Looks like 60 Minutes is planning a segment on “women who crashed through the glass ceiling and became successful in the workplace, but who then choose to go home and raise children.”

Uh-oh. Now obviously I don’t have any idea what their angle will be, but it’s not looking too positive from their description:

Look around these days, and you'll find women in positions of real power: a woman at the helm of the National Security Council, two Supreme Court justices, female board members of every Fortune 100 company. Just as it was supposed to be 40 years after women got in the front door. But look for the women of the next generation -- who everyone assumed would follow in droves behind them -- and you're likely to find many of them walking right back out ... and staying at home. So what’s going on? Lesley Stahl takes a look at this phenomenon this Sunday, October 10, on 60 Minutes (CBS, 7PM EST/PT).

First of all, the idea that women are just brimming over in the halls of power is pretty naïve. But that’s for another day…

This blurb sounds like a throw-back to the elitist crap article the NY Times magazine ran about a year ago, The Opt-Out Revolution (10/26/03), by Lisa Belkin. The article took on the “phenomenon” of women who chose to forgo their high-powered careers and put aside their MBAs to take on full time motherhood.

What Belkin glossed over was the fact that most American women don’t have the financial capability to make that kind of choice—even if they want to. The piece also assumed that these “women at the top” were worthy of examination because they would determine social trends for the rest of us. A side note: this article contained what I think is the most cringe-inducing quote ever: “Why don't women run the world? Maybe it's because they don't want to.” Sigh. (Not to mention that recent reports say differently.)

Again, I don’t know how in-depth CBS plans to get on Sunday, but I’m willing to bet that it will assume all working women really want to trade the office for home.

Now let me be clear here—I believe feminism is about choices, and that women’s work at home is equally as important as work in the formal economy. But a “choice” that is only available to a privileged few does not make for a serious social trend.

If you feel the need, you can call or email CBS News and urge them to take a fair look at women and work on Sunday's show:

EMAIL: 60m@cbsnews.com

PHONE: (212) 975-3247

It was reported today that Wangari Maathai, a Kenyan environmental and women’s rights activist, has just won the 2004 Nobel Peace Prize. She is the first African woman in history to win this prestigious award.

Maathai, 64, founded the Green Belt movement in 1977, which organized poor women in rural Kenya to battle deforestization by planting millions of trees and renew the source of fuel for cooking fires in villages. She was also beaten and jailed when she opposed state policies that endangered wildlife, forests and parks during the rule of Kenyan President Daniel Marap Moi. The Nobel committee stated, "Maathai stood up courageously against the former oppressive regime in Kenya...Her unique forms of action have contributed to drawing attention to political oppression.”

She has also traveled the world to support women’s right movements. For one, she attended the Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing in 1995, joining her friend and activist, the late Bella Abzug, as well as a thousand other women in a march regarding the global problem of violence against women.

Maathai has received degrees in science from Mount. St. Scholastica College in Kansas, The University of Pittsburgh and the University of Nairobi, where she was awarded a doctorate before directing the veterinary medicine faculty there.

Not only is this a historical day for African women, but this winner, this woman, has done quite an amazing job so far! And I don’t doubt she will continue to accomplish exceptional feats and inspire millions of people. At the conference in Beijing she told a reporter, “No matter how much we fail, we must recognize that there is hope. Especially in my region, with all the recent slaughter in Rwanda, for even there, the sun will rise, and we continue to hope that we can overcome our suffering." And Maathai is certainly one who will help that sun peek out over the horizon.

So it's always nice to start your Friday with a bit of good news. Try this--the latest AP poll has Kerry leading Bush. The AP Poll found that among likely voters, the Kerry leads Bush-50% to 46%. In fact, Bush's overall approval rating is at its lowest level since June. Yeah!!! Finally!!!

It's exciting to see the inroads that Kerry is carving with undecided voters through the debates. The AP poll found that among likely voters that had watched last week's presidential debate, "39 percent said they came away with a more favorable view of Kerry, while just 8 percent felt better about Bush." It seems like all Kerry needed was a national forum to discuss his policy. While I'm all for the "ANYBODY BUT BUSH" ticket, it's exciting to see Kerry elaborating his platform more clearly.

Some other interesting poll findings:
* On who would better protect the country, Bush lost a 20% lead that he held a month ago. The last numbers show Bush barely ahead of Kerry, at 51% to 45%.
* Only 47% of likely voters approve of Bush's handling of the economy and 43% give Bush positive ratings on his domestic policy.
* Bush and Kerry are considered equally likable and more voters believe Kerry is honest.
* In terms of job creation, Kerry smashed Bush, leading him 54% to 40%.

All in all, I'm feeling confident that Kerry will shine tonight. What about you?

Some guy in Dallas was arrested for running a fake gyno office...from a storage unit. Now wouldn't that tip you off? Just a little bit?

Sketchy office space aside, nasty-ass perv Thomas Remo offered free services from his fake clinic, including pap smears and "vaginal irrigation." Yes, that's right--vaginal irrigation. I don't even want to know.

Remo is now facing felony charges for posing as a doctor after being busted in an undercover sting. I have to say, despite all my 21 Jump Street daydreams, I definitely would not be itching for that that assignment.

Make sure to check out Katha Pollitt's latest article in The Nation, Bush's Court Picks: Be Afraid. Very Afraid.

You absolutely MUST check out Guerilla Girls’ very own "Women’s Homeland Terror Alert System", it’s fucking awesome. The five levels of “terror” are as follows (since I don't think it's clear in the above pic...):

SEVERE: President claims women DO have rights: can join army, fight in unprovoked war, kill innocent people.

LOW: President rides around on horse clears bush on ranch.

I highly recommend you print the poster out immediately. Rock on, girls!

As this month is what we call Breast Cancer Awareness Month, others have a different name for it -- Breast Cancer Industry Month. Breast Cancer Action (BCA), a grassroots organization of breast cancer survivors and their supporters, thought this particular title was more appropriate for the month of October.

In recognition of this month, BCA has also recently released (with author Barbara Ehrenreich) an online flash movie and email campaign exposing the extreme lack of organization amidst 30 federal agencies and dozens of private foundations and pharmaceutical companies funding research on breast cancer. This campaign is coming from BCA’s Breast Cancer Puzzle Project, which is pushing for more coordination of research funding.

In the flash movie, BCA points out that despite the estimated millions of dollars raised into breast cancer research, it is unknown how much dough is actually being raised and where it’s all going. Since these various corporations created Breast Cancer Awareness Month 18 years ago, breast cancer rates continue to rise. Every 2.5 minutes a woman is diagnosed. Every 13 minutes a woman dies from breast cancer.

The email campaign urges women and men to question how the funding is being used by these companies and agencies, and to mobilize and help them ask research funders to coordinate their undertaking in finding the environmental causes of, and more efficient and less toxic treatments for breast cancer.

Think Before You Pink, another project of BCA, encourages consumers to be smart about who they give their money to in the breast cancer field. The project features the movie on its website. So if you have flash, definitely check it out!

Special thanks to Rebecca for the info.

Today’s Chicago Tribune reported on a new voter bloc that politicians are starting to take notice of (finally)—women entrepreneurs.

Women own an estimated 10.6 million--or 47.7 percent--of the privately held U.S. companies, generating more than $2.4 trillion in sales and employing 19 million people, according to the Center for Women's Business Research. Since 1997, the growth of women-owned firms has outpaced the growth of businesses run by men by 14 percent, the center's data show.

Women entrepreneurs turn out in big numbers on Election Day. Nearly 90 percent vote in local, state and national elections, a study conducted last fall by Women Impacting Public Policy, a bipartisan group that represents women in business and women business owners, showed. In 2000, 61 percent of all women voted in the general election, according to the Census Bureau.

Sounds good, right? Well, maybe… Even as near to the election as we are, the women’s “business vote” is still too close to call. Though a Fortune Small Business magazine poll puts Kerry at 50 percent and Bush at 44 percent—thank goodness for some good news.

A bunch of parliamentarians in Sweden have just proposed a “man tax” to cover the costs of violence against women. Whoa!

"It must be obvious to all of us that society has a huge problem with male violence against women and that has a cost," Left Party deputy Gudrun Schyman told Swedish radio on Monday.

"We must have a discussion where men understand they as a group have a responsibility," said Schyman, one of the party members to sign the motion for debate on the new tax.

Any thoughts?

If you're interested in learning about a feminist perspective on the war in Iraq, check out Cynthia Enloe's work. I was lucky enough to see her speak at the Institute for Research and Women's annual conference at University at Albany last week titled, "Making Feminist Sense in the War in Iraq".

One part of Enloe's discussion was identifying "militarization", and how during this time of war we are vulnerable to be militarized ourselves -- to believe that not only that we are constantly threatened by certain "enemies" in the world, but that violence and war is usually the only way to solve this problem.

Enloe is chair of the Government Department and director of the Women's Studies department at Clark University. She is renowned for her famous books on globalization, militarization of gender, sexual politics in war, and feminist perspectives of international policies. To check out some of her books, click here.

The Associated Press reported on a new study today that shows thirty states are ready to make abortion illegal within a year if the Supreme Court reverses Roe v. Wade—a given if Bushie is elected next month.

18 states already have laws in place from before the 1973 Roe v. Wade case that either partially or totally ban abortion—laws that could easily be brought back.

… 21 states are at high risk, and nine states at middle risk, of banning abortion within a year of Roe being overturned. More than 70 million women of childbearing age would be affected…

Representative Louise Slaughter (D-NY) said in the piece, ''We are really, I think, in some peril now.” I would say so!

Not that we didn’t know how badly women’s reproductive rights were in jeopardy, but studies like this certainly serve to remind us how close we are to having no choices at all.

Check out NARAL Pro-Choice America’s report, The Price of Four More Years for more information on how another Bush administration would affect women’s lives and choices.

Check out our new and improved Shop Feministing page! (also on our side bar...)

You can get all sorts of fun feminist gear, including our magnetic poetry that sold so well last week...

Thanks to all for your support!

Good stuff! My boy Kerry has seriously called out Bush the last couple of days on his nonsensical stem cell stance, saying that he has “turned his back on science.”

Joined by Michael J. Fox in New Hampshire yesterday, Kerry unveiled a new TV ad on stem cells that calls for the end of “political barriers blocking the stem cell research that could treat or cure diseases like Parkinson's.”

“The hard truth is that when it comes to stem cell research, our president is sacrificing science for ideology and playing politics with people who need cures,” Kerry said at the meeting.

Bush’s limit on federal funding for stem cell research has been completely ridiculous and misleading. While claiming that his policy made more than 60 lines of stem cells available to researchers, only 19 have actually been funded under Bush’s ban. And Laura Bush has been pretty clear on what the administration thinks of this potentially life-saving research: "We don't even know that stem cell research will provide cures for anything — much less that it's very close." Oh, ok; well let’s just ignore it then. Forget about all the Americans with deadly diseases that could prove curable one day!

The fact is, most people support stem cell research. The Washington Post reported that pollster Mark Mellman found that 69 percent of those questioned favored stem cell research.

The support cut across party lines, with 77 percent of Democrats, 67 percent of independents and 60 percent of Republicans in favor of using discarded embryos for the research.

So what’s the deal, Bushie? Seems to me, Kerry has it right on:

“Our president just doesn’t get it…Faced with the facts, he just turns away. Time and time again, he’s proven that he’s stubborn, out of touch and unwilling to change course. But the fact is, this isn’t about politics or ideology – it’s about how science can save lives.”

The Feminist Majority Foundation reported today that the Independent Women’s Forum (IWF) was "one of the recipients awarded part of a $10 million grant to train Iraqi women in the skills of democratic public life." According to IWF's site, they "will...implement a 12-month Women Leaders Program and Democracy Network Information and Coordination Center....The Center will be a key source of information and educational materials on democracy, campaigning, and governance for a variety of Iraqi democracy and women's rights advocacy organizations."

YIKES! If you aren't familiar with IWF, they're one of the most infuriating and scary groups out there. Check out the following statement from their website:

IWF provides a voice for...mainstream women. We...[c]ounter the dangerous influence of radical feminism in the courts; [c]ombat corrosive feminist ideology on campus; [c]hange the terms of the debate on quality of life issues affecting American women... [c]hallenge conventional feminist myths with accurate information and lively debate; [p]rovide a forum for women who are not represented by radical feminist groups.

Whaaaaaa?! Do these women realize where they'd be without the feminist movement?

My own anger aside, this is really significant. Think how awful it is that these women will be shaping a budding women's network.

Though there's not much we can do now, write Colin Powell to express your disgust:

United States Department of State
Under Secretary of State for Global Affairs
Washington, D.C. 20520-7250

Also, check out Echidne's great post on the same subject...

If you didn’t catch this article in yesterday’s NY Times’ Arts section, go read it immediately.

A new DVD, “George W. Bush: Faith in the White House,” has been making the rounds, and holy shit is it ever terrifying!

The movie—meant to be marketed as a kind of response to Michael Moore’s “Fahrenheit 9/11”—was first previewed around the super-secret Christian conservative RNC meeting that we reported on in September.

In the article, Frank Rich puts forth the bizarre details:

It transforms the president that the Democrats deride as a "fortunate son" of privilege into a prodigal son with the "moral clarity of an old-fashioned biblical prophet." Its Bush is not merely a sincere man of faith but God's essential and irreplaceable warrior on Earth…

In this pious but not humble worldview, faith, or at least a certain brand of it, counts more than competence, and a biblical mission, or at least a simplistic, blunderbuss facsimile of one, counts more than the secular goal of waging an effective, focused battle against an enemy as elusive and cunning as terrorists. That no one in this documentary, including its hero, acknowledges any constitutional boundaries between church and state is hardly a surprise. To them, America is a "Christian nation," period, with no need even for the fig-leaf prefix of "Judeo-."

Nuff said.

The Associated Press wrote yesterday about the discrimination women face when buying a car. Apparently almost 40% of women say that they’ve been treated unfairly when in the showroom; one in four women surveyed say they plan on bringing a man along the next time they buy a car to avoid such discrimination. God, that’s depressing.

Joni Gray, an editor at car-buying resource Kelley Blue Book, had some tips in the article for women:

The Internet is the great equalizer. Do your research on new and used-car prices, not to mention dealer costs, incentives, rebates and trade-in value from the comfort of your home. It's easy and free on a variety of sites, including Edmunds.com, Autoadvice.com and Kelley Blue Book (www.kbb.com).

It's OK to walk away. Unhappy with the experience? "You hold the purse strings. You can always walk away from the deal, no matter how much time you've spent with them," Gray says.

If y'all didn't know, October is our nation's breast cancer awareness month. The National Breast Cancer Awareness Month campaign was formed 19 years ago, and since has been educating women about breast cancer and the importance of mammography screening, clinical breast examinations as well as self-breast examinations. They also inform women of early detection and the necessity of early treatment, if diagnosed.

'Tis a time to remember the importance of our health, as well as spread the word to others. This is the kind of activism that can save people's lives.

While Fox news has clearly never been known on the Left for its "fair & balanced" reporting, they've *really* been pushing the envelope lately.

First, there was the Fox news affiliate that tried to intimidate University of Arizona's Network of Feminist Student Activists from registering students to vote. The Fox reporter tried to convince the students that by registering out-of-state students to vote in Arizona, the students were potentially committing a felony. Luckily the activist students knew that Arizona state law requires only that registering voters be in the state 29 days before the election. However, the Fox reporter continued to insist that their registering students was illegal, and ran a segment on the issue that evening. Can you say fucked up?

Then, today, the NY Times reported that Friday on foxnews.com, Carl Cameron, the chief political correspondent for Fox News, wrote an entirely fabricated article about Kerry complete with made-up quotes.

The article quoted Kerry supposedly telling his Florida supporters: "Didn't my nails and cuticles look great? What a good debate!"--"Women should like me! I do manicures." It also had Kerry contrasting himself with Bush and explaining that, "I'm metrosexual - he's a cowboy." (To provide a bit of context the NY Times reports that, "Before the debate, several Fox News commentators remarked on the air about how Mr. Kerry had reportedly gotten a manicure that day." Oh no--the horror!)

ARE YOU KIDDING ME? While Kerry clearly outshined President Bush in Thursday's debate, I'm still shocked that Fox was such a sore loser that they that their chief political correspondent felt compelled to just *make up* ridiculously belittling quotes and post it as a news story.

A spokesman for Fox News explained that, "This was a stupid mistake and a lapse in judgment, and Carl regrets it." Ummm, yeah. The Network also claimed that he's been reprimanded--though he is continuing to report directly from the campaign trail.

On the one hand, I think it's great that the Kerry campaign is able to laugh off Fox's fake reporting. Phil Singer of the Kerry campaign noted that: "Fox is doing the right thing by admitting its mistake and correcting the record. George Bush would be well served to heed the lesson and admit to his own mistakes." But on the other hand, I wish the Kerry contingent would make a bigger deal out of this. Thinking about the smear campaign that was launched by the right after Dan Rather relied on unsubstantiated documents for a report about Bush's National Guard service, I wish the left were a bit more pissed off about Fox's lying.

Check out Faux News for additional coverage.

Kudos to the Simpsons! The long running show had been dismissed by many as becoming over-the-hill and irrelevant in its fifteen years. But this season, its creators have two particularly interesting issues up their sleeves. IMDB reveals that an upcoming episode will advocate for gay marriage rights, as Marge’s chain-smoking twin Patty weds another woman. Homer, the icon of the lazy American heterosexual male, is ordained a minister and marries the couple.

According to this month’s issue of Bust, this season also includes an episode in which Lisa Simpson, the 8 year old girl genius, feels the sting of body-consciousness as one of her school-mates calls her fat. Lisa tries dieting unsuccessfully, and falls into traps of inadequacy. As Emily Rems of Bust observes, this episode is all the more poignant as Yeardley Smith, the voice of Lisa, has battled with bulimia for over 25 years.

As in most TV, these complex issues are invariably solved within the half-hour time format. Notwithstanding this simplification, I think it is really great that real-life issues continue to find a captive and subversive forum on corporate television. Given its widespread appeal across political and cultural lines, a major strength of the Simpsons’ has always been its capacity to play with, and occasionally directly confront, societal prejudices in a comedic forum. It’s exciting to see that they’re continuing to push the envelope.

For a candid discussion with Yeardley Smith about the physical and psychological effects of bulimia, check this out.

-- Contributed by Brendan Sweeney

For those you trying to cut through the polling data on the election, check out the partisan, but none-the-less interesting blog, Donkey Rising. If you're unfamiliar with its author, Ruy Teixeira, he's co-author of The Emerging Democratic Majority, which proposed the refreshing argument that the sea of red states in America may soon be transitioning to become democratic strongholds. He argues that states like Texas and Florida, due to the pressures of new immigration and other demographic transitions, will tip delicate contemporary balances between Republicans and Democrats.

God, we can only hope...

Teixeira has been doing great critical work on electoral polls--particularly since the debate on Thursday. Today, he discusses the outcome of Thursday's debate. "A new and methodologically innovative survey of 1318 likely voters who watched the first debate confirmed that John Kerry won a decisive victory in that encounter. In this sample, much larger and more statistically reliable then the smaller surveys...Kerry’s victory resulted in a significant tightening of the overall race. While George W. Bush’s support remained at 50% both before and after the debate, Kerry’s support rose from 46% to 48%, significantly closing the gap between him and the president."

And speaking of those smaller polls:
* CBS news found that Kerry beat Bush 43 - 28% uncommitted voters, with 29 percent choosing a tie.
* ABC News poll found that Kerry beat Bush 45 - 36% among debate viewers, with 17 for tie. Kerry won independents by 20-point margin.
* CNN/USA Today/Gallup found that Kerry beat Bush 53 - 37% of registered voters.

While I was impressed by Kerry (and his new coif), I'm a bit concerned about getting too optimistic over one debate. Any thoughts?

As Hannah posted last month, it seems that antiquated views of women is the new trend for television.

For a great analysis, check out the NY Times' Old-Time Sexism Suffuses New Season, which says that this season, "female empowerment is passé." Yikes, that doesn't sound too promising.

So it looks like sex education laws not only affect what kids learn about—but what they can talk about as well. The Associated Press reported today that a South Carolina high school removed gay marriage and stem cell research from a planned student debate list because a “concern that they might clash with a state law on sex education.” Ugh.

Principal David Damm of Fort Mill High School said that they “cannot discuss such controversial issues as stem cell research, abortion or homosexual marriages" because of the state’s law on health education which bans discussions of abortion and homosexual sex.

Nice to know that your kids are getting the best education possible, huh? Unbelievable.

Happy Birthday to an Aging Supreme Court...
While Kerry did an awesome job last night gaining ground against a rather flustered and inarticulate President Bush, I have to say that I'm still a bit concerned about the election...not to mention the Supreme Court.

Turns out that today is Chief Justice Rehnquist's 80th birthday. While Rehnquist has been no friend to women's rights, and I would be none-too-sad to see him retire, I was shocked to learn that reproductive rights supporters Justice Stevens and Justice O'Connor, are 84 and 74 respectively. In fact, Clarence Thomas is the *only* Supreme Court Justice under age 65. Scary, huh?

As Nan Aron of the Alliance for Justice explains that, "The next president will set the direction of the Supreme Court not for just four years, but for four decades."

So what does this mean exactly? Well, a great article in USA Today notes that, "If re-elected, Bush would seek a conservative high court nominee similar to Justice Antonin Scalia, an outspoken voice of the right on the current court." Now that is a *scary* thought.

While Scalia said earlier this week that he believes "abstract moralizing has led the American judicial system into a quagmire", and that "matters such as abortion are too fundamental to be resolved by judges", he clearly has no problem limiting reproductive rights when the issue makes it before the Court. Though he might be happier seeing women lose their right to choose via a Constitutional Amendment, he would no doubt love to join future Bush anti-choice appointees in overturning Roe v. Wade.

And what about Kerry? He has pledged that any of his Supreme Court nominees would have to support Roe v. Wade. Nice. In fact, Choose or Lose nicely sums up his platform nicely: "Kerry's judicial nominees are likely to support abortion rights, extended civil-rights protections, affirmative action and environmental regulation; they're also likely to safeguard rights for workers, the poor and criminal defendants."

I remember the 2000 elections and the incessant discussion of how the President would seat a new Court. Well, thank God, all the Justices held on for the last four years. But given the age of the bench I don't think we have four more years. So if we want to maintain our right to choose, we can't let Bush do the appointing. Do your part: thirty-two states have voter registration deadlines next week, so click here to register to vote NOW.

--By Lauryn