I thought the Wall-Street article was interesting. It is somewhat hope-inspiring that at least the issue of flexibility for employees who have families is being talked about in corporate circles.

I am upset by the fact that the article takes it for granted that women will always be the ones to handle responsibilities at home. At no point does it mention the idea that maybe the problem is that there is an unfair cultural expectation that the woman will do the lion's share of childrearing and housework when family life comes about. Perhaps if these women's husbands played a bigger part in their childrens' lives they (the women) would not have as much trouble mixing professional and family life, and perhaps they would not need to "miss" so much time away from their jobs.

Near the end the article very briefly mentions, without any further context, that men are starting to demand more flexible workplaces too, but I kind of feel that rather than a blurb near the end of the article, this should have been the central point -- after all, the very REASON why this is primarily a women's issue is that when a woman has a child, it is almost universally expected that it is up to her, and her alone, to be there for her baby, while her husband is free to continue pursuing his career guilt-free.

Senator Diana Bajoie, R–New Orleans, argued that Nevers' proposal was too lenient. She objected to the idea of a woman’s life being saved by sacrificing a child.

Wow.

Just... wow. I know intellectually that people like this can exist and even attain high positions, but it never stops making my heart shudder to see examples.

Read more about Ladies Rock Camp in the new issue of Ms.--the story is online now.

Zed,

This was actually discussed before. Sen. Bajoie has a perfect record on reproductive issues.

prairielily:

Can you clarify that, and provide a link to more information? The article makes her sound like a right-wing extremist.

Banning abortion even in case of rape or incest? I can't believe what's about to happen in Louisiana... This is insane.
And they're still using the same tired and stupid arguments. Fuckers.

"Anti-choicers plan to fly a giant banner picturing an aborted fetus in the air over Cleveland."

They already do that here in the Twin Cities. The asshats even flew it over Pride, for crying out loud. Do they really think that there's an epidemic of queer abortions? Or are they just hateful twerps?

You decide.

Zed,

Sorry, I didn't do it last night because I was exhausted.

It was discussed here: http://feministing.com/archives/004891.html

The post was called "Louisiana committee OKs sweeping abortion ban," from April 20, 2006.

If you check on votesmart.org, you can see for yourself.

prairielily:

Thanks. The most insightful speculation seemed to be that she is trying to poison-pill it by making it so extreme that it kills moderate right-wing support.

I'm very glad to be corrected in this case.

Sly Civilian writes:
They already do that here in the Twin Cities. The asshats even flew it over Pride, for crying out loud. Do they really think that there's an epidemic of queer abortions? Or are they just hateful twerps?

When I counterprotested Operation Save America (formerly Operation Rescue) a few weeks ago, they had a piture of the usual mangled 30-week-old fetus with "SODOMY" written under it. The "fetusmobile," a van covered in graphic fetus photographs, featured condemnations of gay marriage, including one that--charmingly--covered up half of its Ten Commandments display.

In other words: They're just hateful twerps. They got thrown out of their home base church down here for burning a Qur'an in its front yard. The local gay community was used to being targeted irrelevantly by these nutjobs, but the local Muslim community, which tends to be anti-abortion and anti-gay, was very confused.

Cheers,

TH